It's not all about qualification. I'm speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn't even qualify to be in the military if they didn't have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don't want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain't so. We're built differently, and it doesn't matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she'd be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.

Women are often great shooters but can't run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men.  Military training is hard enough on men's bodies; it's harder on women's.  And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times.  No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman's cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight?  Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there's a biological threat.

This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn't matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they'd have to change course to get them off ship.)

When I deployed, we'd hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she'd gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it). That's your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – "Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!"

Then there are relationships.  Whether it's a consensual relationship, unwanted advances, or sexual assault, they all destroy unit cohesion.  No one is talking about the physical and emotional stuff that goes along with men and women together.  A good relationship can foment jealousy and the perception of favoritism.  A relationship goes sour, and suddenly one loses faith in the very person who may need to drag one off the field of battle.  A sexual assault happens, and a woman not only loses faith in her fellows, but may fear them.  A vindictive man paints a woman as easy, and she loses the respect of her peers.  A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man's career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too); and it's poison to the unit.  All this happens before the fighting even begins.

Yet another little-discussed issue is that some female military members are leaving their kids behind to advance their careers by deploying. I know of one divorced Marine who left her two sons, one of them autistic, with their grandparents while she deployed.  She was wounded on base (not on the front lines) and is a purple heart recipient. What if she'd been killed, leaving behind her special needs child? Glory was more important than motherhood. Another case in my own unit was a married female who became angry when they wouldn't let both her and her husband deploy at the same time. Career advancement was the greater concern.

I understand the will to fight. I joined the Marines in the hopes of deploying because I believe that fighting jihadists is right. And I care about the women and children in Islamic countries where they are denied their rights, subjugated, mutilated, and murdered with impunity; and where children are molested and raped with impunity (not to mention defending our own freedom against these hate-filled terrorists who want to destroy freedom-loving countries like America.) Joining the Marines was one of the best things I've ever done in my life, and I'm glad I got to deploy.  It not only allowed me to witness the war, but to witness the problems with women in combat.

Women have many wonderful strengths, and there is certainly a lot of work for women to do in the military.  But all the problems that come with men and women working together are compounded in the war zone, destroying the cohesion necessary to fight bloody, hellish war.  We are at war; and if we want to win, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the top priority should be military readiness and WINNING wars, not political correctness and artificially imposed "equality" on the military.
Part Two...
http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-part-2/

Brave woman to tell the truth. 

Quote from: tac on February 08, 2016, 01:06:39 PM
Brave woman to tell the truth. 

But folks, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Nobody, even a conservative POTUS will touch this going forward.

There is one huge reason why Women should not be in direct combat roles.

They are the future of our species, our culture, our Republic.

That said though, heh heh, when I was in the Army, I knew a woman or two I wouldn't cross.

Especially in a dark alley!

So it's not because of some sort of performance issue which is why I say we should reject women in combat roles.

However, since women have insisted they be allowed access to those sorts of jobs.

I say fine, make the field truly equal.

Make every woman at the age of 18 sign up for selective service in case the need should ever arise for a draft again.

If not, then no, sorry, not every door, not every position and job should be open to these gals in the military.

Unit Cohesion glad she mentioned it. Because it's a serious issue we should be looking at as a nation.

Before we let women just go at it shooting up the place. 

It should be considered that we as a nation/society/culture have a real problem.

Here it is in a nutshell.

Contrary to popular belief, "chivalry" is not dead.

There are still many many many American men out there.

Who on the battlefield would walk right by a fallen fellow male soldier, recogizing they're bleeding out and nothing can be done for them.

BUT,,,take the guy out, put a woman in, the result is totally different.

Most men will stop, to "double check" and "try" to give the woman aid.

It has nothing to do with gender inequality and all that other p.c. bull crap too.

And everything to do with genetics, human evolution/creation, and oh yeah, the way in which we as a culture raise our young men to treat and respect women as adults.

It will take a really serious change of attitudes between the sex's in our nation, before that's ever going to stop.

And that won't happen for at least two or three generations...

From my perspective about having women serving in combat, I say if it's good enough for Israel, it's a good enough policy for Americans..!!

Quote from: TXborn on February 12, 2016, 04:35:13 PM
From my perspective about having women serving in combat, I say if it's good enough for Israel, it's a good enough policy for Americans..!!

Bull Shit! Women have absolutely no place on the front line with men. Men have more than enough to worry about, than dealing with carrying an extra burden.

Quote from: Solar on February 12, 2016, 06:41:14 PM
Bull Shit! Women have absolutely no place on the front line with men. Men have more than enough to worry about, than dealing with carrying an extra burden.

And that's the very real problem Solar. American men would bend over backwards trying to help a woman who became a burden such as that.

Where if it were say one of their male buddies, uh, lets just say, the same guy wouldn't be quite so "helpful" with a male compatriot who became the very same "burden".

Quote from: kalash on February 16, 2016, 08:31:03 AM

Guy next to me in the other bunker did the same thing.

Throws like Obozo. 

Solar I understand what you're saying and what she is saying.   These are problems indeed.   In a nutshell based upon what you say these are the main issues w women on the front lines w men.

a.  relationship dynamics - e.g. woman and man gets together makes baby, sexual harrassment, false charges, chivalry, etc.

b.  fitness -e.g strength(men have more potential physical strength due to testosterone), women's periods, endurance, etc.

I never thought of these things but you guys are right.   These are major problems.

Quote from: cubedemon on February 16, 2016, 08:53:34 PM
Solar I understand what you're saying and what she is saying.   These are problems indeed.   In a nutshell based upon what you say these are the main issues w women on the front lines w men.

a.  relationship dynamics - e.g. woman and man gets together makes baby, sexual harrassment, false charges, chivalry, etc.

b.  fitness -e.g strength(men have more potential physical strength due to testosterone), women's periods, endurance, etc.

I never thought of these things but you guys are right.   These are major problems.

However, if they must insist on women on the battlefield, then make it an all female battalion, no men in sight.
Muscum believe if they're killed by a female, they go straight to Hell.

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2016, 05:42:50 AM
However, if they must insist on women on the battlefield, then make it an all female battalion, no men in sight.
Muscum believe if they're killed by a female, they go straight to Hell.

Definitely agree!

I do think that technology could help with the strength and endurance problems.   I do believe that art reflects life and sometimes life can reflect art.   Why can't we use some of the ideas in games like the Deus Ex series?   In the future they used nano-technology which enhanced different characteristics like strength.   I think nano-technology is being developed today.   Maybe in the future we could use it as augmentations.   

For having to carry a lot in poundage what if there were ways to reduce that poundage and have the materials still be more durable.    Maybe we can start making things out of carbon nanotubes.   Who knows?

Another idea, what if we could develop robots or androids as soldiers and we can reduce the actual people in combat at all. 

Another idea, we could use nano or micro based machines that could go inside a human body and kill them on the inside.

You did speak about human nature in one of the posts.  Didn't you say that one of the things of human nature is that we as human kind can innovate things to over-come obstacles? Why can't we innovate with technologies to make the military more effective, efficient and more combat ready and reduce causalities on our side?

Why can't we all just get rid of the PC and politics, sit down, treat these issues as problems to overcome and use our human nature of innovation and overcome these obstacles?   

As an aside, what are women's strengths and could they be used to enrich and enhance the military's readiness somehow? 

Quote from: cubedemon on February 17, 2016, 06:25:55 AM
Definitely agree!

I do think that technology could help with the strength and endurance problems.   I do believe that art reflects life and sometimes life can reflect art.   Why can't we use some of the ideas in games like the Deus Ex series?   In the future they used nano-technology which enhanced different characteristics like strength.   I think nano-technology is being developed today.   Maybe in the future we could use it as augmentations.   

For having to carry a lot in poundage what if there were ways to reduce that poundage and have the materials still be more durable.    Maybe we can start making things out of carbon nanotubes.   Who knows?

Another idea, what if we could develop robots or androids as soldiers and we can reduce the actual people in combat at all. 

Another idea, we could use nano or micro based machines that could go inside a human body and kill them on the inside.

You did speak about human nature in one of the posts.  Didn't you say that one of the things of human nature is that we as human kind can innovate things to over-come obstacles? Why can't we innovate with technologies to make the military more effective, efficient and more combat ready and reduce causalities on our side?

Why can't we all just get rid of the PC and politics, sit down, treat these issues as problems to overcome and use our human nature of innovation and overcome these obstacles?   

As an aside, what are women's strengths and could they be used to enrich and enhance the military's readiness somehow?

In the future, man will not be doing the fighting, Bots will.

Women have no place whatsoever in a ground combat role, any more than in professional football.  The physical demands, routine as well as in actual combat, can be far beyond the capability of probably 99.5% of all women, and are extremely difficult for men involved.  Ground combat frequently requires performing at peak efficiency,  endurance and prolonged heavy lifting under incredibly difficult conditions.  I can't imagine having had a woman in my unit in the bush in Vietnam.

There's no reason women shouldn't be sent into combat zones however.  Simply being stationed in a country in which combat is occurring requires nothing that isn't required at any US military post.  And you get the same ribbon as those in combat.