POLL: Should Women be in Combat?
The announcement this week that women would no longer be banned from military combat was a big talking point for Patch Facebook fans.
An announcement this week that women would no longer be banned from military combat got a rise out of Patch readers who shared their sometimes surprising opinions on our Facebook pages.
"I think women should have the option. Not many will choose it, but I think saying that they couldn't isn't right."
"It is a bad idea. Women need to stop trying to be men and men stop trying to be women. We are made different for a reason. To deny reality is to deny the truth. Women carry children. Do they really think it is okay to put innocence in combat situations? I swear women have been brainwashed by the liberal news media and have no logical brains left."
"Absolutely a good step forward. The key here is everyone has to be trained and held to the same standards. If a woman can and wants to choose infantry in the military she should have the same opportunity as a man."
"How rational will they be during PMS? I know I wasn't rational during those times. To deny hormones, is to deny reality. I would be crying my eyes out if I had to shot someone during that time of month. Women are unreliable certain times of the month. This doesn't even consider cramps. What about yeast infections from wearing all the equipment necessary to fight? Feminists are ridiculous."
Ordered by outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the historic change is likely to put more women into direct combat in Afghanistan and in any future conflicts, reported the Huffington Post.
The military still has to determine whether all positions can be open to women. Armed services will be expected to submit plans and recommendations by May 15 in order for the changes to be in place by Jan. 1, 2016, reported NBC News.
Some jobs may be available as early as this year but others will take longer, reported the Associated Press.
Tell us what you think. Take the poll and post in the comments.
RonnieTheLimoDriver
6:26 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
If women are going to be in the military, then they must be allowed to be in combat. Denying them those positions automatically limits their ability to rise in the ranks. It’s a volunteer force and if women want to volunteer for combat, then they deserve the same rights as men.
You will notice they are going to be held to the same physical standards as men. The Israeli military has a fully integrated force and they seem to be pretty well regarded in military circles.
Finally, women already are in combat. As Tammy Duckworth said, she didn't lose her legs "in a bar fight." Over 200 women have been killed in "the war against terror".
Angela Sykora
6:28 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Well said Ronnie!
RB
6:33 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
I agree. They have been getting shot at and killed throughout these two wars. No combat pay either. It's about time.
Clay Trattner
11:40 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
As a combat veteran I will explain why women should not be in combat. Women are designed physically and emotionally to be mothers. Mothers by defination are nurturing and loving. This is the antithesis of being a combat veteran. Those qualities are soon lost in combat and are never fully recovered... ever. Secondly, women are not strong enough to withstand the physical demands. Can you imagine a women trying to hump a 75- 90 pound pack all day and then be ready to fight. This equality buzzword flies in the face of logic.
RonnieTheLimoDriver
9:16 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
First, thank you for your service, but I must respectfully disagree with you, sir. These woman will be held to the same physical standards as infantrymen. They will have to be able to carry the same amount of weight, etc.
The Israeli's have found that in fact women are more capable for certain combat roles. For example, the Israeli's use an all female force hidden in bunkers along the border with Sinai (Egypt). These women are essentially on sentry duty 24/7, and 99% of the time nothing happens. The Israeli's found the women can concentrate for a longer time, are not as easily distracted, and don't tend to go stir crazy as easily. When something does happen, these women go into action the same as men.
Not all women are nurturing, and not all women want to be mothers. You point about the psychological toll on women is of course spot on, but we are already dealing with that. Women have seen plenty of action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, as you know better than anybody, there are psychological costs for men as well.
I would not want my women family members in combat, but if that is the role they see for themselves, I would support them.
Most of the objections here are similar to what people said when the military integrated the races many years ago.
Charles
10:31 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
I think there is a lot more to think about in answering that question than thinking is a woman capable of the same physical requirements as men. The boat is still out on whether they would be required to meet the same standards as men do. I've already read where there is talk of dumbing down the standards.
As well there are moral implications with regards to how it effects the fellow males within a unit when one is severely wounded or captured. Like it or not, men in the U.S. still look at women as the weaker sex (and I don't mean that disrespectfully). I think it will have to be gradually implemented to avoid moral problems that could effect a front line combat unit's effectiveness. I know other countries have women in combat and that goes all the way back in history. Some of the best WWII snipers were women in Russia. Israel has had them for years, but Israel uses them in a far different capacity than how we use our military in the U.S. Israel does not take on a role of "World Policeman" like we seem to do these days.
I would want to hear more on what roles in combat they are talking about. This was just announced the other day and there are many different combat roles in the military.
Neil Leonardi
8:43 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
I couldn't agree with you more!!
Gary
1:51 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Everyone should answer this question AFTER they've taken their 18 year old daughters to sign up for selective service, making it possible that they will be drafted into the military and sent to the front lines against their will.
Carry on with the discussion.
Ratso
12:20 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
This discussion is ridiculous! Ron go back to sitting on your ass driving a limo. The purpose of the military is to destroy and kill the enemy. Until you understand this no one can have a rational discussion with your inane position. If the action doesn't further the goal, abandon the action. It is depressing that critical thought is no longer taught to students in American schools because it fosters stupidity like this.
Ratso
12:28 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Ron's Israeli argument is quaint but factually wrong. Women are used because they don't have enough men to guard against their enemies that surround them. They need and "require" everyone. Its purely a matter of necessity. We know, not all women are nurturing Ron, they have murdered over 50 million babies since Roe. Yea, we know...
Bruce Schwartz
9:39 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
I honestly didn't know they could even leave the kitchen
Ask again
9:13 am on Saturday, February 9, 2013
Only long enough to kick your ass and then go back to fixing the electric
in the kitchen