Santorum questions women in frontline military roles because of 'other types of emotions are involved' | Pam's House Blend

That's what I always say. Men are just as emotional; it's just that they show a different set of emotions more easily and readily. Women show sadness very often and easily (crying), while men show anger or rage more readily and often. Now, which of those emotions is more likely to result in violence or harm? A sad woman rarely picks up a gun...

It's true, the fight or flight response we usually think is universal to all humans tends to be more prevalent in males. Women tend to display more of a "tend and befriend" response to stress. As such, women do tend to be less violent, which could be both a boon and a hinderance in a combat situation. However, women also tend to have higher pain tolerance than men. Honestly, when it comes to war, your gender really doesn't matter, and barring women from combat roles is silly and arbitrary.

When it comes to war, women can be far scarier.

boss rama if a man is about to kill a womans family and she has access to a gun, do you honestly want to be that man? How long do you think you will live if you are man involved.

You are right, Wade. My comment was about a woman's sadness. Now, in your scenario, she's likely going to be feeling fear and/or rage, and that's a totally different story.

Wade,

a man is about to kill a womans family

I totally agree with you, but that's not the situation in battle, nor is it when she's looking at someone else's family.

What makes you think you can reason with a Republican. Don't bother me with facts I know what to do about woman's rights. BULL

You're not considering one fact. If a woman is serving with men she trained with, she would consider the men she trained with to be brother's part of her extended family. Then rage and fear of the enemy would awaken her feminine instints to protect her extended family as well as her desire to die before she could be taken prisoner and possibly gang raped by the enemy. There would be plenty of motivation for the female soldier to turn into a human version of a pit bull.

Men and women have keen instincts and are very capable when threatened. Perhaps it comes from our primitive patterning for survival but both are very focused when the need arises. Men, like Santorum, know this and are very threatened by this so as long as they can pound away at women's abilities they'll feel safer.

Women tend to display more of a "tend and befriend" response to stress.

Yeah, have you threatened one? What kind of stress? Social stress, conflict with a coworker or boss? Or a physical threat to her life or those she cares about?

This male attitude bull@!$%# is unbelievable.

I'm 67 and have plenty of arrogant, egotistical men that bully in my life. I learned at a very early age that these types are wusses when challenged or confronted. They may be aggressive but that's all the strategy they've got and when put in their place they cry like babies. Thanks to men women have had to be stronger and more resilient. Women raised in the 50's and 60's know their lives were a continual battlefield. There are cowards on both sides, granted, but they are easy to take down.

He probably just thinks all the girls would be too distracting for the boys.

Yes, and that is probably one of the reasons that he doesn't want gays in the military. He doesn't realize how insulting that viewpoint is to all of the men and women in uniform.

He's pandering to the crowd that believes the biblical interpretation of subservent women, of women in "traditional" rolls. Santorum himself only believes in what will get him elected.

Santorum himself only believes in what will get him elected.

I don't know about that. As Robert mentioned in #1.2, he really appears to believe most of the @!$%# that he says.

Sunday school teacher it is: with his dorky haircut, his little sweater vests, his fake sincerity, and with this notion that his entire life is guided by the Bible he belongs in a Sunday School classroom. From the 60's. A POTUS of the US, however, needs to be guided by the US Consitution. So we know where little Ricky does not belong.

That's a good question. In COIN and asymmetrical warfare, it's really anywhere outside the FOB.

Both acronyms of which I for one wouldn't entrust to Santorum understanding or comprehending with my military in any way, shape, or form. Just this old vet's opinion....

I'm sure Rick know exactly where his fob is - he uses it to stir his Santorum.

I'm at work, stop it, Rotflmao

Yeah, a lot of guys can beat up a lot of girls. Try that if she thinks her children are threatened, that same girl you can normally take with ease will mess you up pretty bad.

Brawn is becoming less and less important for combat roles - thanks to modern technology. Even that sound logic is faded.

Exactly, Shulack. Today's military is looking for intelligent, educated people.

Brawn is becoming less and less important for combat roles - thanks to modern technology

Physical Fitness is one of the PRIMARY determining factors for entrance into the Service.

Mission: Readiness' report, "Too Fat to Fight," said that 75 percent of young Americans between the ages of 17 to 24 do not qualify for the military because of failure to graduate [from high school], criminal records or physical problems. The study cited Department of Defense and health data.

Read here

Pay close attention to the following -

It's not drug abuse, it's not asthma, it's not flat feet -- by far the leading medical reason is being overweight or obese," said retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Norman Seip at a news conference.

"The logic is pretty obvious," said retired Army Brig. Gen. Clara Adams-Ender. "The troops need to be in excellent physical condition because of the demands of the important jobs they do in
defense.

"The reality that so many youngsters are not fit for military service is indeed a wake-up call for this country," Vilsack said.

Physical Fitness ("brawn") is a requirement, not an "option".

Today's military is looking for intelligent, educated people

They are looking for PHYSICALLY FIT, intelligent, educated people.

From the same article -

We lose upwards to 12,000 young men and young women a year before they even finish up the first term of enlistment," Seip said. "That's another person, who has been recruited, trained and left because they're not able to maintain standards and can't pass the physical fitness test."

Fact is, America is getting too fat to fight.

brawn is not equatable to physical fitness. Someone can be small (ie not brawny) and still be incredibly fit.

tho I agree with you that the military wants physically fit, intelligent, educated people. The reason for the physical fitness is to cut down costs associated with diseases related to obesity, smoking, and other health issues associated with physical fitness or lack thereof.

brawn is not equatable to physical fitness. Someone can be small (ie not brawny) and still be incredibly fit.

I would put someone like Bruce Lee up against your biggest macho male. And that is hand to hand. As for squeezing a trigger...

what Tim said

I've got a female friend that is a Krav Maga instructor. I am a former active duty Marine that outweighs her 2-1. She would kick my ass in about 2 seconds.

would put someone like Bruce Lee up against your biggest macho male

Well, he's DEAD.

Next suggestion?

I didn't say anything about "macho male" - YOU did.

And that is hand to hand

We've got all degrees of martial arts throughout the ranks. Guess what? It doesn't mean dick when you're wearing 75+lbs of kit, carrying a weapon, wearing a headset and a helmet.

You can argue all you want about Bruce Lee being great when he was only wearing a pair of pants and barefoot.

Next time, add 100+lbs of gear and boots before making an assumption.

Next suggestion?

Not anyone famous that you would know. But that is beside the point. This isn't about famous people that we can all look at from a common knowledge perspective. It is an individual issue. The question should not be address by separating into large generalized groups, but should be made based on the characteristics and abilities of the individual. I would suspect that you would not automatically assume that every individual male is qualified for a combat position. Yet you are taking the position that no female is qualified based on their sex.

The problem with your assumption is that other countries have proven you wrong already. It is your unwillingness to look at reality and recognize your bigotry that is the problem.

The problem with your assumption...unwillingness to look at reality and recognize your bigotry

Okay, Tim, I served in ABN & SOF Units - what is YOUR "reality" based on?

Yet you are taking the position that no female is qualified based on their sex

No, those are your words.

I would suspect that you would not automatically assume that every individual male is qualified for a combat position

They are called United States Marines.

Loretta, the question was proposed as such -

I would suspect that you would not automatically assume that every individual male is qualified for a combat position

Those are Marines - Not "are there women Marines" - Males that become Marines are IN combat positions.

In the Navy, Air Force and Army, they have to specifically choose (or volunteer) to be in a Kinetic Operations specialty.

Marines? YES. That isn't an argument. That's a fact.

As I posted -

In the Navy, Air Force and Army, they have to specifically choose (or volunteer) to be in a Kinetic Operations specialty

Loretta -

Marines are exactly that!

I have answered your (and Tim's) question three times now.

In the Navy, Air Force and Army, they have to specifically choose (or volunteer) to be in a Kinetic Operations specialty

In order to ENLIST, you must score high enough on the tests, pass a medical & physical evaluation then pass a subsequent security background investigation.

For males that enlist in the Marines and complete Basic, they are FIT FOR COMBAT.

As I explained, with the other forces, you have the option to choose between Kinetic and Non-Kinetic specialties.

Kinetic Operations will continue to be restricted to Females. That's a DoD directive, not mine.

Loretta -

For males that enlist in the Marines and complete Basic, they are FIT FOR COMBAT.

Okay, Tim, I served in ABN & SOF Units - what is YOUR "reality" based on?

Military forces throughout history. That you can not look beyond your social conditioning is not my problem. Nor should your bigotry and sexism be a constraint on half the population. Especially when the world has proved your argument false. But this idea somehow threatens your manhood, as indicated by the difficulty you have in answering a simple question. It is sad.

It is the same argument used to deny blacks equality in the military and it is just as false.

Military forces throughout history

Tim, tim, tim...Reading about the Military doesn't make you a Soldier any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

Let me point out a rather obvious flaw in your "attack" by using a common scenario -

You're scheduled for a CABG.

Are you going to ask the Cardiologist with 25 years experience -

or -

Are you going to ask the "guy who read about it"?

Who's the one with the knowledge and first hand experience?

Especially when the world has proved your argument false.

Oh dear me, pardon me while I fall on the floor laughing.

Compare the other Armed Forces of the world with the OPTEMPO of the US Military - then ask yourself this:

When the world dials 911, WHO answers that phone?

But this idea somehow threatens your manhood, as indicated by the difficulty you have in answering a simple question

Now you resort to personal attacks?

It is the same argument used to deny blacks equality in the military and it is just as false

Straw man argument, Tim, try to stay focused on THIS discussion in 2012. That argument was resolved after WW2.

You just love false dichotomies to defend your sexist positions and brainwashing. The same arguments that were used for every change to a social institution in history. Yet each has fallen and its falsehood proven. This is the way it was for me so it is the only way it can ever be. Great argument. How is that working for you with gays?

Come on Loretta, do you really expect us to pay attention to generals from militaries around the world when we have a marine here on Newsvine giving us the facts? /sarc

Jon Stewart showed that clip on The Daily Show.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-14-2012/lady-and-the-troops

Yet each has fallen and its falsehood proven

This is why there are still NO women in Combat Arms, Tim. You seem to have overlooked that in your rush to be a smartass.

A combat-arms MOS, primarily infantry and artillery, is different than picking up a rifle and defending oneself in an ambush.

Try some light reading -

Women in Combat vs. Women in Combat Arms

There is no doubt that some women are motivated and capable of being an 0311 or an 0811, but clearly many more are not. "Moto" is good, but "Moto" doesn't change the physiology of women not having the same upper body strength as men...which leads to a bigger problem: once the Pentagon opens the door to women in combat arms, the standards of acceptable performance will drop in order to allow more women to participate. Combat efficiency must remain the goal of those in combat arms, rather than "inclusiveness" and "diversity." There are already women in the general and admiral ranks; surely these qualified women would not want the combat arms standards diluted on their account.

Loretta -

Let's use the NFL/MLB example here.

There are female Reporters. There are female Cheerleaders. There are female Agents. There are female Scouts. There are female Owners. There are female Managers. There are female VP's. There are female CEO's.

Yet there are NO female players on the field.

Now, look at the Armed Forces.

We have females in all branches, in all specialties, in all ranks -

But there are no females in Combat Arms.

Since the military has decided to change that classification, now they'll be officially acknowledged in these capacities.

No, they haven't.

Combat Arms are still restricted to females.

They lifted the restrictions on females in combat - NOT in Combat Arms.

The Pentagon will lift parts of its longtime ban on women serving in combat units, but only a small fraction of the force will be affected, officials announced Thursday.

LINK

Read the article.

The change will open up about 1% of military jobs to women, but about 20% of jobs across the active-duty force will remain restricted to men. The new rules, likely to take effect this spring, will continue to bar women, who make up about 15% of the active-duty force, from serving in most combat career fields.

Yup, right there in black and white -

will continue to bar women from serving in most combat career fields

Several restrictions will remain. The secretaries of each branch of service will retain authority to restrict women from jobs in the special operations units, jobs deemed physically demanding, and from assignment to units where privacy and separate sleeping accommodations are not feasible.

Further changes may be on the horizon but will require more study, the report said. Pentagon data show that women are now restricted from 33%, about 161,000, of active-duty jobs.

Now, going back to the very first paragraph of that article -

about 20% of jobs across the active-duty force will remain restricted to men

That would be Combat Arms.

Israel is the only nation to conscript women and assign some of them to infantry combatant service which places them directly in the line of enemy fire.^[16]

From Wiki with citation. Most people don't have a problem respecting Israels military abilities.

The point is no one is arguing that a woman that is not qualified should be in a combat position. But , then again no man that is not qualified should be in such a position either. If an individual is not capable of performing the physical or mental tasks necessary for the position they should not be in that position.

If they are capable: sex, color, creed, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc should not be a factor. Anything other than considering the individuals capabilities is just your bigotry.

Great reference Tim - do us a favor, and point out where Israel deployed those women.

Anything other than considering the individuals capabilities is just your bigotry.

Bigotry? Let me point out your inability to grasp common sense here.

Go back and read the link I posted.

Pay special attention to this part -

Several restrictions will remain. The secretaries of each branch of service will retain authority to restrict women from jobs in the special operations units, jobs deemed physically demanding, and from assignment to units where privacy and separate sleeping accommodations are not feasible.

Let me highlight that for you -

JOBS DEEMED PHYSICALLY DEMANDING...WHERE PRIVACY AND SEPARATE SLEEPING ACCOMODATIONS ARE NOT FEASIBLE

That is known as common sense, Tim.

NOT BIGOTRY.

tobiii

#8.26- That is not necessarily true about women serving in combat arms units. More precisely women are not serving in combat arms units in over whelming numbers. Currently we have women assigned to US Army Airborne units which are combat arms units. They represent a minority and serve in a support capacity, rear echelon however they do move forward as the battlefield moves forward. We also have women serving in Transportation Units which go directly to the front to service units at the front. And we have women serving as battlefield medics which can be summoned to the front from their parent unit to take care of casualties as a moments noticed \. At one point, there were no women in the military, black pilots and a segregated Army. All that has changed, that change represents progress and eventually women will be allowed to serve in combat arms units because women have proven themselves in combat. As it stands we do have female attack helicopter pilots serving at this very moment in our military.....

Politico -

as you and I have both served past our 20 year mark, we can go back and define female duty position in two of the three "old" areas - Combat Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS). There is no argument there - the third area is Combat - which, as we both know, remains restricted to females.

However -

Currently we have women assigned to US Army Airborne units which are combat arms units.

No. We had Signal, Medical, Logistical and Transportation Units that were Airborne, and they are NOT Combat Arms - they are Combat Support.

Being in a HQ Company (HHC/HHD/HHS/HSS) of a BCT is not a Combat Arms Unit.

This is why we adapted to the "Kinetic" Operations (Infantry, Artillery, etc..) and "Non-Kinetic" Operations (Signal, Medical, Trans, etc...)

Tobii you're right about the pure combat MOS. However women are serving at sea and in areas that could turn into combat zones. Are you disputing that point? If a woman is strong enough and tough enough to hold her own with a group of Navy S.E.A.L.S why should she be barred from that service?

Several restrictions will remain. The secretaries of each branch of service will retain authority to restrict women from jobs in the special operations units, jobs deemed physically demanding, and from assignment to units where privacy and separate sleeping accommodations are not feasible.

Same bull@!$%# bigotry arguments used every time change has occurred. From Blacks, to gays, to women, etc. Each time in the past it has been demonstrated to be false. Going by that record alone, your position loses all credibility.

Are you disputing that point?

Arguing the possibility of combat versus direct combat are completely different animals, Wade.

If a woman is strong enough and tough enough to hold her own with a group of Navy S.E.A.L.S why should she be barred from that service?

The Hollywood "GI Jane" scenario? The Pentagon established their decision as I noted in my earlier post -

Several restrictions will remain. The secretaries of each branch of service will retain authority to restrict women from jobs in the special operations units, jobs deemed physically demanding, and from assignment to units where privacy and separate sleeping accommodations are not feasible.

That eliminates any possibility of a female attending BUD/S, Wade - no matter how much of a "badass" she might be.

Tobii, lets set the governments position aside. Are you personally opposed to women in combat? I don't care about the governments position, just yours.

Combat experience unlocks some promotions that are otherwise unavailable in the armed forces. I want to see the day when the captain of the Enterprise, (the carrier) is a woman.

Combat experience and Combat Skills are not the same thing, wade.

Simply because a female survived an IED strike doesn't make her qualified (or capable) of leading a DA mission to eliminate a Tango.

Loretta -

Research Col Karpinski. You remember, the GENERAL that was demoted for Abu Ghraib?

Let's review her case, shall we?

14. (U) During the course of this investigation I conducted a lengthy interview with BG Karpinski that lasted over four hours, and is included verbatim in the investigation Annexes. BG Karpinski was extremely emotional during much of her testimony. What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers. (ANNEX 45 and the Personal Observations of the Interview Team).

And she still claims to this day that "she was set up" and it "wasn't her fault".

The title of this thread -

..questions women in frontline military roles because of 'other types of emotions are involved'

Shall we discuss Jessica Lynch's BRONZE STAR for being UNCONSCIOUS during a firefight where 11 of her fellow Soldiers DIED?

The BSM citation reads: "For exemplary courage under fire during combat operations to liberate Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Private First Class Lynch's bravery and heart persevered while surviving in the ambush and captivity in An Nasiriya."

Shall we discuss V Corps original attempt to award her a Silver Star - for doing NOTHING?

Dressing women in battle dress uniforms does not make them soldiers. Calling them soldiers does not mean they possess the requisite skills required of warriors.

No nation, in modern history, has advanced the cause of equality and women rights by sending women into combat.

Or, more appropriately -

No one seems to understand that it is not the primary purpose of our armed forces to provide employment opportunities for women and young men. Our armed forces exist for the single purpose of defending the nation by destroying any enemy that threatens our national security. Clearly, women can contribute to the nation's defense, but not as warriors.

COL(Ret) James W. Revels

As for women in the "combat zones" -

A DefenseWatch investigation has found strong circumstantial evidence that the number of female military personnel pulled out of the war zone or reassigned from predeploying units is likely far higher than even Pentagon critics say. Analysis of fragmentary information available on the DoD website DefenseLink and background data provided by DoD to a Pentagon advisory group last year suggests that at minimum, the number of pregnancies in the region has exceeded the number of combat injuries sustained in the two years since the invasion itself.

tobiii

#8.33- As a military man you also know, it doesn't make a difference if one is CS or CSS. In the theater of operations all may come under attack at any moment. Sure Combat Arms units are designed to directly engage the enemy (offensive operations) where CS and CSS units are designed to support Combat Arms and engage the enemy if necessary during ( defensive operations). It doesn't make a difference, as you may or may not know, in combat, the only thing that matters is to survive by doing your job and hoping your battle buddy does his/her's. Women have proven themselves in combat and Santorum has not. He is no expert on what anyone may or may not feel when confronted with that situation. He only knows he (Santorum) is to chicken to put himself on the front in defense of this country. Women will eventually be allowed to serve directly in Combat Arms ground units, I specify ground because there are presently Women Combat helicopter pilots serving in aviation units of our military...

Of course you would cite examples of women whose performance under fire was not stellar or were the victims of those in power Tobii. You didn't give me the answer I hoped for, but I can read between the lines. You think there is no place for women on the front line of combat. If women were expected to make the same sacrifices as men in war, I don't think the United States would have been in Korea or Vietnam.

I already understand you have a real grudge against women in the military.

No, They do not belong in Combat Arms. There is a difference.

You think there is no place for women on the front line of combat

There isn't. As the Secretaries of each branch of the Armed Forces have stated -

The secretaries of each branch of service will retain authority to restrict women from jobs in the special operations units, jobs deemed physically demanding, and from assignment to units where privacy and separate sleeping accommodations are not feasible.

How hard is that to understand?

I can buy a car. I can drive it 120MPH. That doesn't mean I'm qualified to race at in the Indianapolis 500, does it?

Because you are "in a combat zone" does not make you Combat Arms qualified anymore than standing in your garage makes you a car.

victims of those in power Tobii

Bull@!$%#. Had Abu Ghraib happened under a male General, NO ONE would be playing the bull@!$%# "victim" card for them. THAT is the flaw.

Shoshanna Johnson was a captured Soldier. What did the media report her as?

Single mom Shoshana Johnson was one of six U.S. soldiers captured

What do male Soldiers get reported as?

Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban

LCDR Scott Speicher was shot down over Iraq

Were they ever listed as "Single Father", "Father of two", "New Father" or "Expectant Father"?

Now, let's take a good, long look at the females who refused to deploy because they were "Single Mothers" -

About 1,500,000 results

You want "equality" in the ranks? Establish ONE Standard for ALL servicemembers.

Female Soldiers, Marines, and Airmen in theaters of combat already draw hazardous fire pay and family separation allowance (for those eligible), like everyone else there, even if they never leave the FOB.

By the way, here's a humorous picture one of my Soldiers has on his cubicle wall.

Thanks

even if they never leave the FOB.

I'm assuming that applies to everybody not just women.

I'm assuming that applies to everybody not just women.

It does.

reddirthippy

#9- In the military the pay structure is the same no matter what gender, It's about rank and years of service. A male and female enlisted, non commissioned officer or commissioned officer with the same rank and same time in service gets paid the same as base pay. The difference will be depending on if they are married or not, have dependents and live on or off the military facility... But their base pay is will be the same as long as the first criteria is met.. When you are in a hostile area,( war zone ) everyone qualifies for hazerdous duty pay....

My female cousin who has been in the Army for over five years now could very coolly, calmly and calculatingly kick the @!$%# out of him.

With both hands tied behind her back too no less.

Comments 10 & 10.1

I have a niece who has served in Afganistan and Iraq. Two tours in Iraq. She is a mother of two children and can handle herself in any situation. She is funloving, but when it comes to her experiences in those campaigns, she is reserved and will tell you that she joined after college because of 9/11 and love of country.

During the campaign of 2008, she voted as an Independent, and whether she voted for Obama, I can't say.

But let me tell you this......

since she has been exposed to the witless and inane campaigning of the Republicans, especially being able to hear their messages on what is politically important to women, she has begun to see the reality of their disrespect for the power and intelligence of women in this country.

She is stationed in South Carolina after a year of living in Hawaii. I wonder what she thinks of Santorum and Gingrich as contenders who have the aforementioned positions on the capabilities of women serving in the war zone.

Thanks for reminding me.....I need to call her or email her to get her opinions of the Republican campaigners. I'm not sure if she voted for Obama....though I suspect that she did not....... but we had some interesting conversations when she was in Iraq and she was not committed to any particular party at the time, though she did vote.

I really want to know what she thinks of whose running for the presidency at this time.

sunshine girl-685508

#10- Santorum is a jerk and in my view, to cowardly to join the military.... A President Santorum would put America back into the dark ages, but frankly, I hope he will be the republican conservative alternative to Romney and gets the nomination. If that happens, I think he (Santorum) will beat Barry Goldwaters record of 1964. In 1964 Goldwater lost to President Johnson and during the election Goldwater only won his home state of Arizona along with Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina. Johnson won the rest of the nation. I believe as Chris O'Donnell does on MSNBC Santorum will be the first candidate to lose all 50 states in an election because of his extreme views especially those regarding womenhood...and referring gays as man on dog relationships... Even people in the deep south repel that type of thinking. Mississippi recently rejected the personhood amendment on their ballot where republicans are trying to proclaim one is a person upon conception.... If that is true, then a fish is a fish upon conception and a dog is a dog upon conception. If it applies to humans, it must apply to animals and I don't think that is accurate.

daMamma

#10.1- As she should if she gets the chance.... Santorum is a punk.....

Agreed, Real Facts. I found that reference to cameraderie to be interesting. To me, it was a slam on homosexuals in the military. Ricky saying it would be bad to have women as Jezebels on the front line messing with the "real men" but hey, we already have pansies doing it, so... It would be so Ricky to find an opportunity to slam women AND homosexuals in one thought. Luckily, our US Military and its Commanders do not share Ricky's narrow minded screwd up view of the world.

The highlightd portion wasn't mine. It was done by the author of the article.

Which is why I said:

In my opinion the author of the seeded article emphasized the wrong portion of the quote.

We were built for the front line ! no man can take the pain that a women has to take mentally or physcially and that is a fact ! labor pain is hell before you get started, that prepares you for whatever else that will come along .

katt let me add that no man could endure the pain and suffering women have had to endure because of men.

I thought that they were looking to lock up female voters.

I stand corrected Carol - yes, locked up, barefoot, pregnant....

yes to all of you yes , I agree to what you said !

David, the physical requirement piece is one of the reasons women are prohibited from becoming Infantrymen. You can definietely find women who can meet those physical requiremnts, but they are a minority.

It's worth noting that the Army Physicial Fitness Test standards for women are significantly lower than that of men of the same age groups, as are those for body fat percentage.

You look at other posts and all they are thinking is Sexism when it comes to the point there are some things women cannot do that men can and they cant deal with it.

You know UN, I was active military for 24 years. The fitness standards for all military services work with the individual gender. Sure, body fat standards are different, but, men don't carry around a bust do they? Those aren't muscles and never will be. Men can do overhand pull ups, women can't, it just isn't physically possible which is why we use the underhand version instead of overhand. Pull ups aren't the only test to prove upper body strength. More than once I beat the "he-man" male in a bench press and in most cases could outrun them timewise in the run.

I will agree, some things women can't do just as there are some things a man can't do..that doens't mean it makes a woman less able to work in the same environments..we tend to adapt and learn to work around limitations in order to get things done. We get the exact same results but maybe in a different manner than maybe what the mainstream military "man" wants to see.

Women are in the military..get over it.

Lynn no one said that at all in any of the posts. I think women fighting is fine. Most are better shots then males and more patient.

If a woman cannot carry the same amount as an infantry soldier they shouldnt be there or are the males supposed to carry extra for them? That would nit give them equals in their units eyes. And they would be harassed.

Women Flying driving vehicles thats a no brainer. Of course its all equal there.

Good role for Women as well would be the sniper role.

Mechanics Medics Ect... No problem

But when the enemy starts putting up videos of American women being Raped over and over again by some smelly camel jockey's then the @!$%# will hit the fan. Men as well get tortured but not many Men rape other men. Does it happen of course but its gotta be extremely rare. And yes no one wants any one captured but the difference is big.

Women are in the military..get over it.

In case you were addressing me, I was never not over it - I have had under my command and supervision, been commanded and supervised by, and have worked with female Soldiers throughout my 20 plus year military career. My comments had to do with why women are not allowed to be assigned to the Infantry branch.

Out of curiosity, what was your branch/MOS?

Then comes the rape part... Though it could happen to a male soldier its probably gotta be 100% more likely to happen to a women US soldier. I think if were ever in another big war and that starts happening (WHich I hope Never happens) the tune will change back.

You do realize that rape is not about sex, don't you? Rape is an act of violence which happens to men as well as women.

http://rt.com/usa/news/women-military-rape-abortion-465/

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/

one-in-three women in the military saying they’ve been sexually assaulted while serving their country,

Evidently, it doesn't matter what branch women serve in. It's positively shameful.

You're right--it's about power and violence, not sex.

USCG - MST: Marine Science Technician but was mainly assigned to any one of MSST Teams(Maritime Security). Did some other rating assignments in the "M" side of the house as well working not only pollution and response but foreign vessel boardings and inspections. Spent 4 years on cutters as a boarding officer for drug interdiction boardings.

Cool! Was enlisted in the USCG for four years myself, prior to gaining a commission in the Army. Spent some time aboard the USCGC Courageous before she was decomissioned and sent to Sri Lanka. On what boats did you serve?

Semper Paratus!

1 in 3 military women are raped.....by their fellow soldiers and commanding officers....so much for the argument men will suddenly start being chivalrous on the front line...and so much for the argument women are in increased danger because enemy soldiers might rape them...

Yikes... That many? That's horrifying... maybe having more women in the military would be a good thing, safety in numbers and all that...

That's horrifying...

Even more horrifying, I heard on a news program that most woman who report rape are discharged.

http://mydutytospeak.com/2011/04/07/sexually-harassed-hazed-discriminated-against-and-discharged-for-reporting-it-united-states-coast-guard/

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47654

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html

It always bothers me when people seem to think being raped by the enemy is somehow worse than being raped by the men you know and trust.

Brings to mind the movie The General's Daughter.

Even more horrifying, I heard on a news program that most woman who report rape are discharged.

Actually, I had heard that before... I have no idea why, but for some bizarre reason, rapes in the military seem to be even more likely to be blamed on the woman rather than the actual rapist. it is really quite sickening. These people give us men a bad name...

Thanks for the link Loretta, that stuff sounds like nightmare fuel... It's horrifying that there are men out there who think like this, even more horrifying that these men are part of the military, and are therefore representing our country... It is really disgusting that they think this sort of thing is acceptable.

Men as well get tortured but not many Men rape other men. Does it happen of course but its gotta be extremely rare.

It's not so rare. It happens in the U.S. military.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/03/the-military-s-secret-shame.html

What happened to Jeloudov is a part of life in the armed forces that hardly anyone talks about: male-on-male sexual assault. In the staunchly traditional military culture, it’s an ugly secret, kept hidden by layers of personal shame and official denial. Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from just over 30,000 in 2003.

The TV show Private Practice did a show recently in which a former soldier had been raped by his sargent. When he told his wife, she said something like, "Why couldn't he have fought back?" I know that it's only a TV show, but that is probably how males are often treated if they report that they have been sexually assaulted.

http://abc.go.com/shows/private-practice/episode-detail/too-much/921732?page=2

The Handmaid's Tale isn't just a really good book for them, it is a how to manual.

Mr. Santorum, you really don't understand most Americans at all, do you?

Oh, and you being a strong Catholic and all, what are your views of the Catholic Church protecting priests who raped boys? Where do you stand on that, Mr. Santorum. Are you ok with the Catholic Church brushing this little "eye sore" under the rug and maybe hopes it just goes away? Men protecting other men, isn't that what this really is?

And, they really think they have the right over women's bodies?

"you really don't understand most Americans at all, do you"

Obviously, he only considers them nothing more than objects for mass production, like a brood sow.

How would our guys look in cami frock coats and tri-corner hats?

And those leggings!

Yours for a Sexier Military.

It's obvious from Santorum's statements that he doesn't believe women should have equal rights. He thinks it should be up to the states if women should be allowed to get birth control. Obviously, Santorum doesn't think women have enough sense to decide what to do with their own bodies.

The whole overtly hostile attitude that many men have had for millenia about women really perplexes me. I've often wondered what it was, if anything, that some woman did eons ago that started the hostility. One half of humanity doesn't think that the other half is deserving of respect? Just how did they come up with that? The "Eve" fable, and it is a fable, started somewhere. But where?

I may be a tiny woman, military wouldn't have me because of my height, but I am a hell of a good shot. I've even used military weapons. I can and will do what it takes to protect my country and fellow citizens should the need arise.

I'm also quite confident that even the most girly-girl can and will do the same. We aren't the little porcelain flowers without brains Santorum (and those like him) wish to believe we are.

Apparently in his world men don't raise kids, they just make kids. And this from the same guy that insists that a two parent home with one male and one female is the only home good enough for kids.

What a jerk.

SO McSpocky you dont think that men in a unit wouldn't want to protect a women more? Thats BS. They would and we both know it... Its in human nature Just like Lion Males protect a pride. And Im for women getting more roles as above.

Have you served David??

I have, and I would protect ANY of my brothers (or sisters) with everything I could muster.

I grew up military. Nearly everyone in my family, male and female, that the military would take have served. Most in a war zone at one time or another.

When the chips are down, gender (as well as gender preference) means absolutely nothing. You've got your buddy's back and you know with absolute certainty that he or she has yours.

In a firefight, survival is all that matters. Noone is thinking of anything but the job at hand.

Angry Left-532262

Nope Cant. Was shot in the knee when i was younger. Really of would of liked to fly but knee wont pass the rudder test not even in a Huey. But Everyone else in my family has. But no matter training or not human nature dictates. Im not saying women shouldnt serve. Just like I said when they are captured and the Rape videos come out Alot of people will reverse their stance period.

Like I said Gay's, Women ect when bullets fly it doesnt matter. But if they want equal in the Infantry they should have the same exact standards as the males.

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines see a person in uniform as a comrade-in-arms; someone who has trained, shot and bled for their country and unit, same as them. In combat, there is no gender under the Interceptor vest and kevlar helmet. There are no distinguishing gender patches; only branch of service, unit, and last name. No member is more important or more deserving of protection in combat than another. A military member will fight for the life of another regardless of race, creed or sex. Only someone who has never served would think otherwise.

-Z

Prior Active Duty U.S. Air Force Security Forces