Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Band Of Sisters

February 6, 2013 by  

Band Of Sisters

“From this day to the ending of the World
… we in it shall be remembered
… we band of brothers
.” – A quote from William Shakespeare’s Henry V as it appears in Stephen Ambrose’s Band of Brothers

On Jan. 24, the Administration of President Barack Obama lifted the ban on allowing women in U.S. military combat positions, granting full equality in combat for women.

It is a reversal of more than a 200-year-old policy that kept women off the front line in a combat role. It is pure politics and has zero consideration of the inherent and real physical differentials that exist between the sexes.

This is just the latest step in which Obama is kowtowing to a special interest group — in this case, feminists.

There’s just one problem: Women and men should have equal rights, but please don’t tell me they have equal physical strength.

I have been involved in athletics all my life as a participant and as a coach. Since I was a teenager, I have read everything I could about warfare. And I sat through as many lectures on the subject as I could when I was in school.

What mesmerized me the most was not what I learned in class but a talk I heard 15 years ago in New Orleans at the MoneyShow. It so happened I was standing next to my old friend, Personal Liberty Digest™ contributor Chip Wood. We were listening to Stephen Ambrose speak about his book, Band of Brothers. (This was a couple of years before the book was made into a TV miniseries by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks.)

The focus of the book and the miniseries is on the 101st Airborne during World War II. I came to understand the physical hardships they endured from their first day at boot camp until the final defeat of Nazi Germany.

On D-Day the men of the 101st were dropped behind German enemy lines at night, spread apart because of heavy flack fire and carrying up to 120 pounds in gear. So heavy were their packs and weapons that they had to be pulled to their feet and assisted into transport planes and gliders. They parachuted into the night sky, striking the ground at more than 10 miles per hour. This is where their physical strength came in.

There are strong women, but my personal experience is that women are not nearly as strong as men.

In the 1990s, I did a few bench press competitions. To win, a man had to bench 1.5 times his body weight one time. A woman had a different test; she had to push a barbell weighing one time her body weight. I saw scores of men do it but I saw only one woman complete it.

It is not just strength but also speed and endurance that separate the sexes. I will give you another anecdotal example. My son and his wife run at least four marathon races each year. My son runs the race in less than 2 hours and 50 minutes. His wife has a personal best of just more than 3 hours and 15 minutes. Yet my daughter-in-law places slightly higher against women competitors than my son does against the men.

If you are not convinced this is an absolute truth across the board, you have to answer a question: Why is it that in every athletic endeavor men are matched against men while women compete against women?

I’m not the only one who thinks there are physical differences between men and women. Margaret Wente of The Global Mail wrote this in an opinion piece following the Pentagon’s announcement:

Let’s get real. Women cannot equal men in ground combat, the kind of dirty, brutal stuff that (fortunately) makes up a very minor part of modern military life, especially post-Afghanistan. It’s not that they can’t be trained to kill – they can. The issue is that the physical differences between men and women are very large, and on the battlefield, they really matter, and can’t be wished away. Men are better fighters because they are bigger and stronger and can endure far more physical punishment before they break down.

… The average female soldier is “about five inches shorter than the male soldier, has half the upper body strength, lower aerobic capacity and 37 per cent less muscle mass,” Stephanie Gutmann, author of The Kinder, Gentler Military, wrote in the New Republic.

What do America’s ground combat leaders think? They probably don’t want to get into trouble with their political bosses at the Pentagon, but a few have spoken out.

The head of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Amos, went on record declaring he is skeptical about how women will perform in infantry units. He added some combat positions may end up being closed again if not enough females meet the rigorous, physically demanding standards.

Some GIs are worried that in order to incorporate women into combat zones, training standards may have to be downgraded. That would make American infantry forces weaker and put the lives of those who fight on the front lines in greater jeopardy.

At least the feminists are not worried.

“There’s no denying that this decision is a victory for women’s rights, another landmark in women’s hard-fought battle for equality,” gushed the Journal Tribune. “… Full equality has been the goal since the women’s movement began to see success with suffrage in 1920, followed by wider respect with their work on the homefront during World War II, a full-steam approach in the 1960s with birth control and sexual liberation, and a move into the workforce in the 1970s and ’80s.”

While feminists might see it as a step in the right direction, I doubt that the men serving beside smaller and weaker soldiers in foxholes and on the front line will be as thrilled.

I began by mentioning Band of Brothers. I am going to leave you with a line from the blockbuster 1992 movie A Few Good Men, spoken at the end by Col. Nathan R. Jessep (played by Jack Nicholson): “You… people… you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today… That’s all you did. You put people’s lives in danger.”

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

John Myers

is editor of Myers’ Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world’s largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today’s energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Band Of Sisters”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at




    • FreedomFighter

      Some women make good snipers.

      Laus Deo
      Semper FI


        THAT WAS COOL!, “Freedom Fighter.”

      • momo

        The Soviet Union used women as snipers during World War II.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        momo, I have personally seen photographs of the Russian women soldiers in the photograph collections of the emigres from the Ukraine, Poland, etc., the emigres who escaped from Europe before WWII. But then the Russians were very “civilized”, their women worked hard in the fields and in construction and in factories, so they did all the things the New Women in America want.

      • Charles Johnson

        I was thinking Tunnel Rats, their smaller size would be perfect.

        • MD spouse

          I agree! Whatever fits, and whatever the individual woman is moved by and capable of doing. There aren’t likely to be many female Tunnel Rats, but ‘unusual’ isn’t the same as ‘incapable’.

          Any guy who would reject being helped by a qualified and willing woman, deserves be sent directly into the enemy foxhole sans a rife.

          Same for any woman who would complain about being helped by a capable and willing male colleague.

      • no kidding screwball

        I a woman knows how to bake the best place for her is in the kitchen. this is not a put down, it is quite honorable to be a good cook and usually women make better cooks than men.

        • pissed of & liberal

          Honey your not the better cook because your a WOMEN your the better cook because your man has no incentive to PRACTICE annonce your only cooking for yourself and watch him improve!

      • my 2¢ worth

        Question is.. “How much strength does it take to pull a trigger?..”

        • bandit

          It is to the point the guys are having a real hard time with the weight of equipment, so DARPA has an exo-skeleton and …


          The warfighter who carries up to 100 pounds of equipment on his back is expected to get relief from the cumbersome weight. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) semiautonomous Legged Squad Support System (LS3) robot will carry 400 pounds of warfighter equipment, walk 20 miles at a time, and act as an auxiliary power source for troops to recharge batteries for radios and handheld devices while on patrol.

          Now in trials, the “pack mule” robot might have numerous functions, but its primary responsibility is to support the warfighter. And as the weight of their equipment has increased, so have instances of fatigue, physical strain, and degraded performance. Reducing the load warfighters carry has become a major point for research and development because the increasing weight of equipment has a negative effect on warfighter readiness.


          This was developed at Boston Dynamics. Just search for that on Youtube for a couple-year-old video. They do have to make the thing quieter…

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Its a tough one. On the one hand I was raised with the view that man must protect woman. That a brother or father or husband must protect their sister or daughter or wife. On the other hand my mother and sister were both strong independent minded women. So I respect a womans ability to choose for herself. But if they are in trouble I still jump in to help. The best I figure is training. If anyone man or woman can with stand the physical training that is necessary to join any branch of the armed forces I figure they should have what it takes to be put into a fight. I don’t know anything about said training. But from what I hear from my marine and army and navy friends it doesn’t sound like something for the feint of heart.

    • TheTruthHurts

      So, just to get this straight,women cannot defend themselves or their loved ones? It was also popular thought back in the day that women weren’t smart enough to hold office or own land, or a high ranking job

      Keep pushing that ‘misogynist’ button

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Women cannot defend themselves and their offspring. It takes thinking and calculation to injure or kill a human predator. Only in rare cases have women done so and those are the case scenarios that are written and glorified in history. Reality has always been different.

      • WTHisgoingon

        Its true. Look at Hillary Clinton. As Head of State, she couldn’t even save our Abassodor + 3 at US Consulate in Benghazi. I still blame Obama, but he appointted Hillary.

      • TheTruthHurts

        Reality check: please bing/google “mother defends children with gun home invasion”, “decorated women veterans”… wow! You might want to recheck your pulse

      • WTHisgoingon

        yeah, but now your pres is going to take her gun away. oh no…….







      • TheTruthHurts

        WTH: he is not “my pres” any more or less than he is “our pres”…
        TTIM ALLEN WHOSIWHATSIT: nobody care “what you think”; you are clearly half-educated & certainly have little insight into any type of human praxeology/psychology, or anything else for that matter.. the fact that “men are still uncomfortable” proves the point that mysogeny is well & alive in America.. sorry to step on your little prick

      • Dorothy

        We know that women are smart enough to do a job as well as a man. The real problem is as large as the nose on their faces; women have a monthly cycle.What can they do in combat, when there is no place to change or deal with the events of menstration. Let’s get real here. At what point can a strong woman handle the hand to hand combat and the strength of any male on any continent. This was another idea that sits well with Obama’s plan to overthrow America. Kill off the population of women to decrease the numbers, kill as many babies in the womb to further decrease those numbers, and further devide the country with increasing decent on all issues that separate us. HE knows what he is doing, and Americans are dumb enough to believe it. Americans are under strong, Godless delusions. It won’t take long. Soon we will be looking at a world dictator. There is no where to run and no where to hide from the destruction of civilized, democratic existence. The Anti-Christ has appeared and is working full time to destroy freedom and launch terrany!!!

      • Average Joe

        To add to what Dorothy said… Women, High capacity weapons, PMS…What could possibly go wrong?


      • http://aol CommonSense4America

        @ average Joe: Just send in a platoon of women with PMS and the war is won.

        • MD spouse

          LOL! There can be some truth to that… Send the enemy a platoon composed entirely of crabby, angry, irritable, well-trained women together on a mission to protect the homefront, and watch the big boys try to figure out what just hit them!

          Seriously, there’s an old saying among hunters that it’s wiser and safer to chase male game because a wounded male will try to run away, whereas a wounded female will switch instantly into full bore kill mode and attack. And what’s that saying about never stepping between a sow and her cub? There’s no comparable warning about stepping between a boar and his offspring! The readers who comment that females ‘aren’t psychologically capable’ of fighting or killing are evidently not familiar with women. It depends upon the individual and the circumstance. Females, in general, are less easily aroused to kill – true – but more likely to kill once the threshold has been crossed.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Average Joe, I love your comment! Funny, but true! As to the real topic at hand, there ARE women who could and would do the job. However the vast majority could not and would not! The thing that I fear is that this is just part of a scheme to include women in the draft! Once you’ve set a precedent that women can do it, you’ve opened the door to the government requiring women to do it! Look at where feminism has gotten us. In the 70′s we fought for equal pay. All we accomplished was having most men’s pay lowered to the level we were at! The fact that some women wanted to succeed in business meant that women who wanted to stay home and nurture their children were despised and degraded. When I was in my 20′s, in thought feminism was right and that things should be “fair”. As I’ve grown in years and wisdom I have come to believe that the whole thing was a scam to tear apart families and wholesome traditions. I believe the the plot and plans of the globalists (the illuminati, the elite, the bankers, whatever you want to call them) is to destroy our country. The way they are doing this is by destroying the family, having government raise and teach our children, taking truth from the churches and removing GOD from our culture and by teaching everyone that human life has no value! In addition I believe that it is their intent to reduce the population! There is no better way to reduce population than by war!!! I was stupid and naive when I was in my 20′s and thought that women’s lib would bring us equal rights. All we’ve accomplished is the removal of rights for everyone! Be careful what you wish for!!!

        • MD spouse

          You can largely thank Phylis Schlaffley – a dumpy church marm with a huge chip on her shoulder – for gumming up the works for most of us. We were well on our way to an Equal Rights Amendment, greater respect and a well-enforced Equal Pay Act with the Republican party as the champions. Then she got involved and started jamming the gears into reverse by spreading fear and lies about how letting women out of the cave would lead to humanity’s downfall. Oh, and let’s also honor the Great Society ideals that started paying people (women AND men) to fail. Our problems have multiple causes.

          By the way, who is telling you that you have to work, you have to forego having a family, you have to give up religion, or you have to do (or not do) as you see fit? Is anyone forcing you to live a life that you reject? Or could you be confusing your dislike of the message, with someone holding a gun to your head?

          I think a common enemy are the meddlesome ‘do gooders’ of every stripe who tell us that those who work and support society, have to support those who aren’t willing to take care of their own. Perhaps if we tackled that monster, some of the other issues would resolve themselves and we could stop fighting each other.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The Truth Hurts: I never said women cannot defend themselves. I was just taught that a man should protect women in his life in the sense of a husband should protect his wife and an older brother should protect his younger sister. It wasn’t that I or my dad or the men in my family were trying to be misogynistic. Its just the ancient male instinct to protect. And like I said my mother and sister are strong women. They could protect themselves. I simply said if they ever need me I am there for them.

      • no kidding screwball

        there is nothing about the truth that needs to hurt. the same GOD that made men also made women and each is special its own way save for sin.
        Now the problem we have is to many people don’t accept themeselves for what they are so then they come out with all kinds of Idiocy.

      • APN

        Depends on what day of the monthly cycle. Most real women will agree that certain times of the month the brain just don’t function properly. Now, put that “unknown” factor in combat and see what results you get. Let’s see here, Susie is our our commanding officer in the heat of battle and she is suffering from PMS. I wonder if her brain will work quickly and efficiently to make SNAP decisions in the heat of battle?

        The stupidity of the “daycare mentality” in America boggles the adult mind.

        Bottom line, It’s the “progressive” stupid!

        PS> Don’t get me wrong, I think we MEN should DEMAND women in combat. NOW!!!!!!
        Suit’em up, train’em up and then kick their butts off the back of a C130 right in the
        middle of a firefight, just like we men……NOW THAT’S EQUALITY! But let’s get real
        here for a second, the progressive women just want to be in charge and tell us ole
        dumb stupid men how to fight and then she can get on NBC or some other
        government controlled network and get a BIG STAR pinned on her chest, for

    • Dan

      I agree with you, the only problem is will our leaders lower the training standards because women cant perform at that high of a capability… If they do then the training is null and void… If they don’t and only let the women that reach that mark fight on the front line then by all means i support it… However if i was sitting in a fox hole with a women, I have to wonder if i would be more concerned with her safety then i would be at fighting the “war”. The bigger question is can you train the men fighting beside these women to act the same way they would if it were a man next to them in a fox hole. As you said alot of men are raised as they should be the ones to protect women no matter how you know her…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        With enough will power and self discipline a woman could get through the training at the same level as a man. I am pretty sure will power and discipline is the key regardless of gender. And in the middle of a fire fight I am sure you would want to look out for any member of your team man or woman.

        • Tom

          Spoken with all of the confidence and wisdom of an armchair warrior. Willpower and determination are key elements in being successful in the military but strength and stamina are also fundamental. Equipment, ammunition, food and water weigh the same regardless of gender. However, women enjoy lower fitness requirements in all of the services. Women are granted this due to the fact that they don’t serve in ground force combat units. If women want equal opportunity then they must earn it the same way every male does; meet the male fitness standard. I will guarantee that the overwhelming majority of women, around 99%, do not want equality in the military.

      • CZANKA


      • Jeremy Leochner

        Tom I admit I am an arm chair warrior. I agree with you that women should have to meet the same physical requirements as men. But I believe that strength and stamina know no gender distinctions if the will and discipline is there. And men and women are equally capable of having will and discipline.

      • no kidding screwball

        Dan, the problem is not in the training. The problem is women have no place in combat.
        When God made women, God put some differences in them cause God wanted it that way.
        If the leaders will ever grow up they will let God be God, let men be men and let women be women and everything will fall into place so long as there is respect in out society

    • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Say what?

      I agree with Jeremy…

      • Dan

        Just to clarify… I honestly believe 100% that a or any women is capable of making it through the training and fighting (& kicking butt) on the front lines! I just don’t want to see the training “get easier” so more women can make it through… We all know how our government is, if the majority can’t pass the test then they usually make it easier….

    • pops

      Back when I was in basic we had to carry a sevety pound pack, as well as a weapon, steel pot and miscellaneous gear twenty miles. There was a guy in my unit who weighed 120lbs and he(somehow) was able to do it. I don’t think anyone with the heart to pass that and all the other neccessary physical teast should be ruled out because of their gender. Also, the author misses an important point completely. Infantryman is just one of the many combat roles that our military has. While it is important, and upper body strength is always an asset there are many roles that don’t require much. Smaller people are at an advatage in armor units a woman’s size and makeup make her a better able to handle g forces as a pilot. In my untimate role as a field artillery forward observer I was never expected to kill anyone with a rifle or hand to hand. In a stand-up fight we could rack up much higher casualties with a radio and the artillery behind us than any grunt on the ground. A woman could fufill that role. The reality is that in the 21st century you can cause more death and destruction with a rocket launcher, a helicopter, the controls of a drone, or yes with a radio and some howitzers then you can with a rifle and brute strength.

    • Lee

      Jeremy I hear what you are saying. I was in the Army and was in Iraq twice, and I believe that women for the most part are capable of serving side by side with a man. The reason I don’t think they should be on the front line is… Women physically have to be clean in certain areas or infections may occur(when I went to Iraq during the actual war I went atleast 30 days with out a shower, we went through alot of baby wipes though). And the other reason is just what you were saying about your mom or sister…… If a brother in arms went down in the battle field when you were under fire as hard as it would be you could leave him untill you could get to him with out being shot down yourself. But if a women got shot, for a man it would be (or should be) instinct to go and save her. Now you have 2 people shot and the enemy knows more will come.

  • Doc Sarvis

    Women have been preforming in combat for many years, they just have not been recognized for that fact. Now they can get the recognition, pay, and chance for advancement that designation brings.

    • rendarsmith

      Ok Doc. So the physical qualifications for promotions are going to be the same then? The women have to meet the same standards as the men to get the same promotions right? Equality right? Women can do anything men can do, right?

      By the way, if women have been in combat roles, why are 98% of war deaths men? Just curious….

      • Doc Sarvis

        If women are not qualified to be designated as combat troops then why are we putting them in combat roles?

        You ask; “why are 98% of war deaths men? Just curious….” Uh, because there are far more men in those roles than women. It is just math and a little statistics.

      • Hedgehog

        Rendarsmith; it is all the fault of the officers. I can see a sergeant talking to his men over the body of a dead comrade, saying: “I told you guys duck!, duck!, a soldier that won’t duck won’t fight for long!”.” Then you people listen to some 90 day wonder that can’t tell a D from an F and this is the result!”.

      • Capitalist at Birht

        My advice is not to waste your time discussing any thing with Doc. He is nothing but a closed mind Totalitarian. Ask the Israelis what their opinion is of women in combat. I believe they have the highest percentage of women in the military in the world. Are there that many on the front lines. Check it out. I doubt that most American women will be able to pass the physical rigors to qualify. If they do, how do you combat the sexual tension that will surely exist and interfere with mission goals? Hmm?

    • rendarsmith

      What about selective service? Are we going to implement that for women too?


        “rendarsmith” – FANTASTIC QUESTION.

      • Dorothy

        Let’s ask the larger question; what is the selective status of Barack Insame Obama?
        Why is it hidden? Why is his grandmother’s message about witnessing his birth, banned from Utube, and finally, why are the masses who voted to keep this lier in office so stupid? It is America’s funeral. The greatest nation on earth is the desire of every human, on every continent. WE are hated by the tyrrants who want the world to be in total discord against truth. Oh well, prepare to re -live the haulacaust!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        rendarsmith, I believe that is the purpose and intent of this whole thing!

    • Abinadi

      Then!!! Since this has passed, and has become an issue of “EQUALITY” then there should be the EXACT same Standards. Height, Weight, Strength, Endurance and Intelligence for Said Positions?!?!?! I have been military since the early 80′s, ALWAYS standards have been less for women. Lets Put EVERYBODY on the same “Level” playing field. NO more Complaining. If you can past the requirements you get the position, pay and treatment?
      As for ‘MY” opinion on the matter. This will Destroy the Military from within. Just as the Woeful One Wants!.

    • no kidding screwball

      Doc, pound by pound, training by training you put a man and a woman in a fight and the woman will loose everytime and that is just nature at work and none of us can ever change that. this does not mean that women are inferior, in facat they are superor in other ways where men would fail but not in combat. stop being stupid about it there is just no way and no lady would want to be in combat anyway.

  • http://none Susan

    God did not create women for combat situations.

    • rendarsmith

      Tell that to these feminists that pushed for women to be in combat roles (as long as it is OTHER women than themselves).

      • Nadzieja Batki

        rendarsmith, it does make sense when they look like men. Now gender is interchangeable, men can pass for females and females can pass for men.


        “Nadzieja Batki,”


    • Doc Sarvis

      If that is the case then why have we been putting them into combat for so many years?

      • momo

        Women have never been in combat units, Sarvis, only support units.

      • Doc Sarvis

        I NEVER said they were in combat units. They HAVE been in combat though (several killed or seriously wounded).
        I would rather they not be in those situations. BUT since we are putting them into combat situations they should get rewarded as such.

      • momo

        Doc Sarvis says: “I would rather they not be in those situations. BUT since we are putting them into combat situations they should get rewarded as such.”

        I doubt women will think its rewarding once they’re in combat.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Currently, though they are put in combat situations they do not recieve combat pay, they do not receive the same chance for promotion, and do not get the same chance for battle field decorations. Still they are putting their lives on the line in combat.

    • Hedgehog

      Susan; you say that God did not create women for combat situations. I say, God did not create men for childbirth! My point is, as a man, I think we got the better of the deal! What was your point? To put it another way; to each according to their ability, from each according to their ability! To expect men, women, pygmies, midgets, transsexuals etc. to all meet some arbitrary standard, before they can engage in combat is ludicrous. The military is perhaps the last bastion of the “one size fits all mentality”.

      • Charles Johnson

        That is because in combat a Team is only as good as it’s weakest member.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Oh, CHRISTOPHER! You are wrong! Hormones affect MUCH more than physical appearance! Hormones affect mood, emotions, stability, self control, you name it! I know this for a FACT!!! Ask any woman!!!


        “Nancy in Nebraska,”




        “Nancy in Nebraska,”


    • no kidding screwball

      Susan, your a lady that deserves appreciation!!

  • TheTruthHurts

    Ban all non-white men!! They’re not as smart! They’re not as strong! They don’t own land! They can’t vote! They can’t run for office!!

    What era are you living in?! How dense are you? What swamp rock are you living under?! Do you read any scientific literature? Have you ever seen women perform in competitive Jiu Jitsu, tae Kwon do, krav magna, Jeet kun do?! Take those gigantic horse blinders off your face! I know thousands of women that could wrap you up, choke you out, break your arm, rip your head off you scrawny neck.

    What a pathetic attempt… It’s articles like this that discredit your entire ‘libertarian’ movement. What a shame… Unless of course, this has been your goal all along…?

    • TheTruthHurts

      You quote Wente : “the average woman…” have you looked at population characteristics of Americans? 60%+ of Americans are overweight, that means the ‘average American”; but on the left hand end of the bell shaped curve there are people who are extremely fit, and on the right hand, people who are extremely fat… Same could be said about the ‘average woman’

      • ManUp

        Dillweed! We are talking about soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen. These people by definition are not physically average, at least not once they clear boot. As long as the same standards are set and those standards are not diminished to allow more gender diversity BS, I say let the women in those roles. BUT, politics being what it is, I suspect the standards will be quietly relaxed and that would be criminal due to the lives it will cost!

      • TheTruthHurts

        Thanks for proving my point.. perhaps instead of the name calling you should open a book & educate yourself… then you wont miss things that pass in front of that big fat nose of yours.
        If there is a physical fitness test, EVERYONE must pass it. Regardless of sex. The arguments on this sight are equivalent to people at Harvard complaining that intellectually handicapped people will start taking over the university as students/professors… They will NOT because there is a minimum “intellectual bar” set for Universities…




    • Don 2

      If I were an injured soldier inside of a tank, I’d sure hope that there were some men around with their superior upper body strength to lift me out.

      • Chester

        Don. if you are STUCK in that tank, you had best hope there is a skinny lady there who can get down in beside you and free up whatever is holding you. Oh, and by the way, there are women out there who can clean and jerk your weight or more, so lets not worry too much about upper body strength. It seems you don’t have to have bulging biceps to have a lot of strength in your upper body.

      • Don 2


        And how many of these women who can clean and jerk my weight and more, who are in the military, do you actually know? Names please.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Don 2,
        Irrelevant! In emergency situations when adrenaline has kicked in, woman have been able to lift cars to save their children. No one knows what any individual can do in any situation! There are strong heroic men and there are men who hide and cry. You cannot judge any individual based upon any other individual.


        “Nancy in Nebraska,”


      • Don 2

        Nancy in Nebraska,

        Wishful thinking dear.

      • Nancy in Nebraska
      • Nancy in Nebraska
      • Nancy in Nebraska
      • Nancy in Nebraska

        There are countless examples! Just google “woman lifts car off child”. These aren’t even the ones I’d heard of but I don’t want to spend any more time posting links. Look it up yourself if you don’t believe it!

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Interesting article in “Psychology Today”.

      • Nancy in Nebraska
      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Oh and Don 2, don’t call me dear! I’m NOT your “dear”!!!


        “Nancy in Nebraska,”


      • Don 2

        Nancy in Nebraska,

        I didn’t call you “my” dear.

        Let me elaborate. Wishful thinking, reality bites. Upper body strength is what it is. If some gal wants to be cannon fodder for our tyranical dictator, go for it.

    • Capitalist at Birht

      Can you supply any factual data to support your contentions? I didn’t think so. The failure to ignore factual evidence will get you into trouble. Keep it up, You are so good at proving your ignorance. Tod deny the differences between men and women biologically is sheer folly.

      • TheTruthHurts

        Everyone of your posts asks to ‘back it up’… Do your own homework & prove I’m wrong…
        I do not deny that there are ‘average’ differences between men & women, however there are outliers, as in any statistic, that some are greater than others… What else would you like me to write to shut you up?

    • Incredulous1

      NBA, NFL, MLB … I don’t believe there are any “rules” saying no women allowed. Truth does hurt.

      • TheTruthHurts

        InredulouslyIgnorant1: you’re assuming you know why every single woman is rejected from playing professional male dominated sports (assuming one applied to play), which, unless you are involved in recruiting or some other aspect of ‘the game’, you have no base to stand on or make these suppositions… Maybe its bc there is no female football played competitivly at the HS or collegiate level… Yet again proving my point that it is competency/ability rather than, the player doesn’t have a penis

    • no kidding screwball

      The truth is you don’t know a single thing about the truth. Have You seen the accomplishements of Obama. He has the republic party wrapped around his little finger. He screwd the country left and right and he was able to deceived them and get reelected again. He waisted money like its water. are you gone tell me he’s stupid? I don’t think so, evil yes, but not stupid.

    • John Drohan

      I have to ask a question. Have you been through boot or any form of military schooling? (ROTC included. I went through boot in ’03, and I can tell you from the point of view of a person that HAS been there, the standards are all different. Before you start spouting the ultra feminist hate trip at me, I have several female friends that I know for a fact can probably kick my ass, along with most of the guys posting here, but this is where TheTruth must really Hurt. During the Black Hawk Down incident of the 90′s, the soldiers involved (admittedly Special Forces) had to not only carry their own gear and weapons, they also wound up having to carry the wounded to shelter to avoid further casualties. That must have been a very strenuos trip. If the standards aren’t improved for a female soldier, there is no possible way that she could lug a 220 lb. man onto her back and carry him upward of a mile under heavy fire to safety. If there is a group of 10 Rangers sent in, (5 male and 5 female) and half of them are mown down, and lets say that leaves 2 females and 3 males, and those 2 females can’t carry 200 pounds of dead weight, does that mean that 1 or 2 people will be left behind? Ultimately, that changes the landscape of what it is to be a soldier on the lines.Likewise, it is known that a woman has a much harder time dealing with elevated stress. I’ve seen some of the toughest and strongest women in the world cave under pressure and break down into hysterics. Sorry to tell you this, but on the battlefield, hysterics can and will cause deaths. The stress of combat is far from as simple as hollywood makes it out to be. You don’t watch people die from a distanced position. On the field, under heavy fire, you’ll be lucky not to wear the brains of the man next to you. Can you personally handle wearing the excessive amount of gore that a gunshot wound leaves behind from a person that may have saved your life. If you say it wouldn’t affect you, either you’re heartless or lying. The standard deployment is 1-2 years. Over that course of time, these people that you fight along side of are no longer just people you met. They become your “brothers in arms”. As long as the woman in question can meet the male standards, I personally say go for it, and make them sign up for selective service and all. Equal rights for all need to be equal or not at all.

  • Warrior

    Why should males be the only participants on the battle field? In fact, I would think the u.n. should weigh in on this issue soon because the women of all countries should be allowed to kill not only men but their fellow female enemies as well. Now that’s “true” equality! FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Capitalist at Birht

      Surely you jest.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        C a B, Warrior is being facetious.

      • Charles Johnson

        Don’t call him Shirley ;)

  • joszsrepublicanpage

    Women have no place in front line combat during a war ,, if liberals want women to be killers let them form an all woman unit of lesbians and send them into battle .

    • eddie47d

      Are you smugly enjoying your insult about woman who are willing to put themselves on the front line and who can defend America as lesbians? Typical low brow Conservative comment. Are Israeli woman who defend their nation trivialized too? Woman have proven themselves many times over in real life as with any service member If they can’t hack it they need to kindly remove themselves from whatever branch they are in. ( Same with a man). Some Special Forces units are especially gruelling and plenty of men drop out and I suspect even more women will do the same if they attempt.

      • OneGuess

        It appears you really don’t know much at all about the role of Israeli women in the IDF. Better to do some research before showing your ignorance. Just saying…

      • eddie47d

        I suppose you also want to trivialize Israeli women! They have mandatory service for all women there and 69% are allowed to be in any job available including combat positions. Although only 3% choose to be in the front lines(combat positions) a whopping 51% have officers rank. Which means if the country is attacked they will ALL have to equally defend their nation.

      • Capitalist at Birht

        Please present the facts of Israeli women in combat. Can you please reference your sources that support your contentions, regarding this subject? I have never seen photos of Israeli combat troops that contain women, and I have seen hundreds over the last 50 years. Yes there is a very high percentage of the Israeli military forces that are women. Can you state factually what that percentage is and what your sources are please? I doubt that you even know, much less supply evidence. You are a Totalitarian blow hard, pure and simple.

      • Abinadi

        You are lacking in one FACT! Women WILL be given Special Treatment to get into the position. They Will NOT be required to be EQUAL! You are right though. There are some Men who Should not be in the Front Line Positions as well as Women who Should! And the Men who can’t pass the physical qualifications wash out. As I am sure some Women WILL Pass the phusical qualifications because they are lowered. And then put their WHOLE Unit at Risk!!!

      • eddie47d

        Capitalist at Birht (Birth)?; “Totalitarian blowhard”? I gave you percentages so maybe you are the “blowhard”! Look on any Israel Defense Front site if it behooves you. There are plenty of them. Try,or in Israel, (this one even states that 93% of all military positions are open to women) or in Israel .

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        eddie47d(onkey), as always your link lead NOWHERE.

        Veritas vincit – Truth conquers

    • no kidding screwball

      Now here is an intellegent thinker!!!

  • Lawrence Brown

    I think the answer is America does not plan to fight any War Man to Man or Face to Face??? Computers/Drones is the future!!!


      “Lawrence Brown” – GREAT POINT.

    • nc

      Lawrence, If bush’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan did not show the folly of face to face combat I don’t what signs the military are looking for! WE killed them in the open field with our expensive technology and they killed us in the cities and mountains!
      Saddam remembered the long line of destroyed Iraqi equipment from the 1991 war fought in the open desert so when daddy’s boy bush came calling in 2003 and knowing he could not win in the desert Saddam lured him into house to house combat that negated 80%+ of our technological advantage!
      He fought the Crawford Cretin with the worlds greatest military times five to a stand still for the last 5 years of dumbbutts administration. with NO planes, NO tanks, No artillary , No helicopters, and No navy.

      bush, as chump-in-chief, could not win a war with all of that advantage in a country half the size of the state of Texas!! pitiful!! This is one half of the reason Obama is President! The other half was bush’s rotten economy!

      We paid dearly for our technology advantage! Let’s win with it and stay out of the streets!
      That’s also the best military for female “combatants”!

      • Capitalist at Birht

        i believe you are prejudicial in your analysis. How is it you know so much about what was in Sadam’s mind?

      • Hedgehog

        nc; if you “stay off the streets”, how do you obamanites expect to confiscate everybody’s guns? I’ll give you a hint, weapons of mass destruction (gas, radioactive dust, germs, viruses). Coming soon to a neighborhood near you. NOW go ahead and call me crazy, or a foreign troll, or whatever. Time will reveal who is the best guesser! Why do I post stuff like this? Because I’m a Canadian. Once Obama Augustus and the UN have finished you off, the border won’t stop him or them!

    • no kidding screwball

      Computers and drones can’t do it all. sooner of later you gota get your hands dirty Lawrence

  • jane

    women dont belong in the military,and im a woman ,i dont think these woman realize that if they get captured,they are going to go through hell,and why do women need more rights ?we have all the rights we need and then some,stay out of the military and stay home and take care of your kids,thats what you are meant to do,if you dont have kids get a job,but not in the military,you dont belong there

    • rendarsmith

      100% right. With affirmative action, quotas in the workplace, Title IX, the VAWA, women actually have more rights than men do.

    • TheTruthHurts

      …so if a man gets captured he won’t go thru torture? Wmen don’t ‘need more rights’… All humans have the same rights, remember that dusty parchment the Constitution, or Bill or Rights? What about women who don’t want a family? Or are infertile? Stay out of the military & wash dishes?

      • Capitalist at Birht

        Ignorance of biological facts is bliss. I guess?

      • TheTruthHurts

        Holy Hell! I just opened up a science book & there it is!! Bio 101! I just learned that every month a woman sloughs off the endothelial cells of her vag. Still doesn’t tell me that this should violate her inalienable right to self defense… Yet again, there are SOME men stronger than SOME woman, and there are SOME women stronger than SOME men… until you get this through your addled single track mind, you wont see the sun outside at noon on a clear summer day

        • Tom

          I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being obtuse. Combat has nothing to do with self defense. The infantry is about killing people and breaking things. You go into combat to kill the enemy not to defend yourself from the enemy. There is no right to serve but a privilege. The U.S. discriminates against the fat, the small, the stupid and the criminals; just to name a few. Women are unfit to serve in ground combat forces and anyone who is honest knows this. Women want special treatment not equality or they would demand the same fitness standards. They are asking for an unfair advantage for promotion and other advancement by demanding access to combat arms with their low fitness standards. Equality means that all women must meet all standards not just the ones who think combat would be a good career move.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      jane, they want what they want when they want it so they don’t look beyond the moment of their feelings. Besides there will be men to bail them out and patch them up and when they are beyond being put back to duty they will get disability. All America will shed tears and offer compassion and support them till it gets bored with them and forgets about them.

    • no kidding screwball

      Jane, you got a good head on your shoulders, don’t never allow anyone to change that.

  • dan

    The Spirit of Feminism is a large part of what has destroyed our country….
    but it’s been around since before Jezebel. I dare say it was around in the garden….

    • Charles Johnson


    • no kidding screwball

      Ah Dan, who made you the expert on spirits. don’t you know you deserve a big boo from all the ladies?

  • Tom Cook

    The innately inane feminazis won’t be on the front lines–typical of all liberals, they want some other woman doing the dirty work; they just want to set policy. Women are not evolved to be warriors. They are evolved to be nurturing. Men are evolved to fight. The feminazis have worked hard to sissify our society as Walter Williams has pointed out: “don’t hit.” I taught my four sons to give warnings and then not just to hit, but destroy. Bullies understand and hate pain. Feminazis are demented women. They wish to pretend that women have the equipment and hormones that men do. They do not.

  • Cribster

    Islamists around the world are rejoicing over this decision.

    • no kidding screwball

      Yah man!

  • Guest

    As a woman, I agree with the substance of this article.
    I am no feminist and regret the days of gentlemanly courtesies extended to women. And I bet many women feel that way.
    I also know that If I were in a fire I would prefer a man to carry me out than a woman.
    No matter what these feminists say, we are NOT equal, thank GOD!

    • Rachel Keeling-Nash

      You are absolutely right. I have been a lineman (person) in my lifetime. I am NOT a lesbian, and I too miss chivalry in men these days. I have many weapons & KNOW how to use & maintain them, however I do not believe women should be on the front lines. YES, we are different, but that doesn’t make us any less of a human being, just different. Think of it this way, ” Would you want your mother on the front lines?”

      • TheTruthHurts

        Thats an inane question… I would not like to see my father, brothers, sister, girlfriend, cousins, aunts or uncles on the front line if not necessary… But if we all have free will & are able to choose what we want (so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others), who are you (or anyone for that matter) to say who should defend themselves in combat? If my father were a doctor & my mother was a world class jiu jitsu champion, I wouldn’t want that woman to deliver medical care & I certainly would not want a doctor to be standing next to me when the choice is clear that a world class jiu jitsu champion could break bones left & right… The issue is not men vs women; its competency vs incompetency! There is not one person in the military (some officers excluded) who does not go through boot camp. My father, who pushed boot camp for 3 years in the Navy, saw many big, burly lumberjack type men cry & piss & moan, yet the scrawny, tenacious dude from Brooklyn smash through it,, laughing… so whats your point.

    • no kidding screwball

      to the lyiing guest, you are a faminist, thats why you rather be carried out by a man.

  • Charles D. Calhoun

    There is nothing to keep women from playing in the NFL. But you don’t see many playing.

  • Michael E. Stroup (GySgt., USMC, Ret.)

    I like women, very, very much. I also think most if them are smarter than most men, except the women who want to give up a position of superiority for a position of equality. Anyone who wants to be a combatant in a war zone is insane. I know because I have been and was (still am). Women in combat? Name one world record for strength, endurance and/or speed held by a woman. That is the same number of women who should be in combat. Put another way, the same number of women should be in combat as the number of men who want to be pregnant and give birth. The women in combat thing is just another in an endless list of examples where government tries and fails to do things that it should not, paid for with a lot of money we do not have.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      GySgt., you believe women are smart, well guess what they are not. They are more cunning, devious, malicious and they know how to get around men. They have no intention of being in combat, they will let you men do the dirty work. They want the authority, the prestige, the pay and power over men. Try to reread Genesis and after the fall what character traits would come out in women.
      One woman can see through another woman, men just see looks and their brains shut down.

      • TheTruthHurts

        I’m gonna have to go all ‘ad hominem’ here.. youre probably the most ignorant person alive. Not to mention a bigot. Women are not smart?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        the truth hurts, if you are a woman you either don’t know yourself or deny what you are. If you are a “man” you don’t know women.

      • TheTruthHurts

        Yes, because every man is banging down the door of Sandra Day Oconnor & Sotomayor… Those sexy foxes! Lookin all hot & voluptuous in their robes… Oh and what about that young girl in Pakistan or I dia that was shot in the head? She’s not exactly Miss (India/Pakistan) is she… My hormones go into overdrive whenever I see that goin on

      • eddie47d

        Yes Nadzieja there are manipulative women just as there are manipulative men. Prostitution is mostly a lucrative business for men and a losing proposition for women (at least overall). The pimps get the big bucks and the women get screwed; pun intended! If women are so cunning then why are they the ones who are trafficked against their will. Why are there thousands of whorehouses for men but trying to find even one for women is rare? I don’t appreciate cunning men anymore than I would a cunning woman.

  • TPS12

    I am not in favor of woman on the front line of combat but if that’s what woman want then for full equality they must sign up with the Selective Service at 18 just like men and meet all the physical requirements to be on the front line.

    Sometimes getting what you want may be more then you thought.

  • nobodysfool

    When a woman is captured by the wild-eyed, opiate-crazed Afghan soldiers, the first thing they will do is take turns raping her. If she is still alive after that, they will extract any information she has, just before they cut her throat and yell, “Allahu Akbar!!” I would hate to be the president that has to say “oops” to her family as they wait on the tarmac for the body pieces to be delivered in their flag-draped box. But this president won’t care. He has fulfilled his pledge to his fellow homosexual push groups, and he has no concern of the consequences. Monarch-wanna-be’s are just that way.

    • Chester

      It seems that women are already being placed in the line of fire, but not as an official type order. Consequently, it does not show on their records that they were ever in any sort of a combat related rating. No combat rating, far fewer chances at advancement. Oh, and the Muslims have captured and/or killed a number of women in combat, just that it was long enough ago everyone here seems to have forgotten them.

      • Don 2


        And here I was foolishly thinking that war was about attrition rates and winning battles. Thanks to you, I now know that it is really about female career advancement in the military.

    • no kidding screwball

      Nobodysfool, did you vote for Obama??

  • FreedomFighter

    At least this will give the She-He a Amazon role, killing men, should make a few She-He’s very happy

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

  • Corkey

    Wow, the right to get your ass shot off and die in combat. Sounds like Bizzarro World Superman to me.

    You’ve come a long way baby !!!

    • Don 2

      The Democrats ‘War on Women’ has just taken on a whole new meaning.

    • no kidding screwball

      corkey, the way to shoot a woman’s ass is not with a gun!

  • Di,Cerrillos, NM

    I see apples and oranges in this discussion. Smaller people would probably not be attracted to military or combat. Some folks just like to push on all doors that say ‘pull’. A person should evaluate their interests, strengths and weaknesses and choose a profession that matches and brings satisfaction. This should be the ‘right’, choice. There are tests that evaluate suitability. There are situations where distractions can result in danger to life, one in combat cannot allow distractions.
    Men and women exist, however, men have dominated this earth for generations based on faulty notions. We would not have combat if not for men and their faulty notions.
    Instead of trying to create a niche for women in combat, let’s END COMBAT!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are pretending to be a bright girl/woman. How do you end wars when wars have been here as long as humans have been here? There were smarter and brighter men in history who didn’t stop wars and in fact made them bigger and more deadlier.

    • eddie47d

      Then its time for you women to step up to the plate and make that difference. Change doesn’t come from accepting what was but what can be ! If women choose the wrong path in that endeavor God help us for we don’t need any more clones of the past warmongers.

    • Wellarmed

      Hello Neighbor, I agree that ending combat would be the ideal that humanity should strive for, but I also understand that the need to fight is embedded in our DNA as humans.

      Why man will always feel the need to dominate other men is one of the great unknowns that I doubt we as a species will ever take sufficient time to find the root cause of it’s necessity.

      As a VF in the district next to you, I have had the opportunity to enter burning structures along side women wearing the same bunker gear that I happen to be wearing. We practice techniques that allow for women to make up for the lack of upper body strength, but one should ultimately not discount the effects of adrenalin when one is faced with a life and death situation. I have seen men and women perform otherwise supper human feats that defy the physics of human anatomy when pushed into that corner of life and death survival. We DO NOT reduce our standards when training to meet anyone’s deficiencies. If they cannot perform their duty as needed they will be reclassified for different positions.

      I hope our U.S. Military takes the same path and recognizes that women who can meet the standard are given equal treatment and equal ability to die if they so wish.

  • Jim

    It,s time to make women subject to the Selective Service Act and watch them change their tune

  • Max

    The Israelis have been conscripting women for years! 51% of officers are women, they are sent into combat and such, and they have had no problems. Personally, I think it is ridiculous to have women in the military, train them for combat but not sending them to it. If they are not fit for combat, then they should be out of the military, not be freeriders

    • OneGuess

      Please do some research on the role of Israeli women in the IDF. You might be surprised…

      • Capitalist at Birht

        That is exactly what I have been trying to get these idiots to prove. What exactly the role of women is in the Israeli Defense Force. They haven’t answered my questions.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are comparing apples to oranges, Israel is Israel and has its own unique characteristics. On the other hand, America has its own characteristics and would not survive what Israel has to do for its survival.

    • eddie47d

      Okay One Guess what’s the SURPRISE?

      • Capitalist at Birht

        It is up to you to do your own research. Probably a new concept for someone who prefers to immerse himself in untruths and innuendo.

      • eddie47d

        The figures were posted above Capitalist so stop being the ignorant troll!

    • Jimmy the Greek

      The woman should be used for comfort girls , like the jap’s did LOL

    • no kidding screwball

      The military has many places for women and women can in fact be very helpfull to the military only keep them out of the front lines of combat. Israel has many women in the military but they are not in the combat zone with perhapps a few exceptions.


    Because of our culture I among many of the men in this country have been brought up to see the female as the weaker sex. Is it always true? NO for I dont think I know of one man that could stand childbirth. Nature has designed the human body to excel in different areas. The logic behind a one person proficient in everything is impractical. If you are generally proficient at everything you excel at nothing. Is there women who could be proficient at battle? YES. I have known tradesmen(women) who could out work most men. Are all suitable for combat ? NO this would be a choice of the individual. The problems arise when culture training comes into play. Even if the woman was proficient and capable the tendency to “protect the weaker sex” could provide the hesitation the enemy needs to win the battle. Until the mindset changes toward women we will always have that moment that will decide a battle. The politically correct will call it sexist but it comes directly from the survival instinct to protect the family. It has been this way for four million years, it wont change because a few want it to.
    God bless America

    • Capitalist at Birht

      Evidently senility has set in. I’m sorry for you. Suggesting that men and women would be suitable to serve on the front line in the same units is pure insanity. Do you not understand the biological differences between the sexes?

      • Jimmy the Greek

        Your right ! let’s use this as one of the reasons , let’s say things are not going good and no one had a shower in a week . woman need to wash more than men because they well get rank real quick and quicker at that time of month lol , hell if she jumped into the same fox hole with 3 men and stinking to high hell they would chuck her out or they would have to jump out and risk being killed themselves LOL

  • Sam Francisco

    This is great news. My nephew is 5’6″ and weighs 125lb. Since he cannot run as fast as a marathon winner, nor weightlift like a 250lb bodybuilder, I guess he doesn’t have to serve in frontline combat. Oops, he’s already done 4 tours. Small persons, big persons, all have the ability to contribute. The Myers commentary is just oldboy BS.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      San Francisco, the young man is your nephew and you don’t know him or what he went through to get where he is in the military. Frontline combat designation does not mean that they are fighting and sniping 24/7/365, most of the time it is BS busy work and absolutely going out of their goards in boredom and social work trying to win the hearts and minds of the tribal chieftains doing the work the chieftains and their followers wouldn’t do for themselves for millenia.

      • eddie47d

        He seems to know much more about his nephew than you do Nadzieja! I’m sure if he’s done 4 tours he knows about the boredom.

    • Capitalist at Birht

      90% of the time a 5’6″ 125 Lb. male will be stronger quicker and have more endurance than a female of the same stature. Your point is? If you want our military to be weakened, can you explain why?. I am 5’9″ 175 lbs. and would not be concerned about a woman of the same stature if she attacked me. My hand eye coordination is far superior to 90% of women. You are insane to ignore the proven factual biological differences between the sexes. You need to move to a Democracy and leave this country NOW.

  • The Christian American

    I have read that America and England are taking instructions from the Mossad. In Zionist Israel woman and homosexuals drafted into the IDF, Israeli defense / offense force. America’s military was structured like the early Romans or Swiss. Every man was going at his business and would put his plow up and take up his sword in time of need. There was a professional skeleton military who would organize the men in tme of need. The only time the military came together was for defensive purposes but, like America, that changed. Rome became a offensive force and died because of it. Men were suppose to be the protector of their women but today some women want to be equals to men. By nature a woman looks for security from men but to many men are more like buck deers. They use women to satisfy their own lusts and nothing more. This is causing women to take up a mans role. All the balances in nature are being destroyed. It’s interesting. At that point in time when we recognized how it was to be we were a happy people. Now? Fear and suspicion dominate our thinking to a point where we are ready to lash out at anything. The only solution, repent to god and start living life His way.

    • Wellarmed

      I agree with you Christian American that large standing armies do tend to be one of the indicators of a societies demise. One would think it would be the other way around.

      Not all women are wired the same, just as not all men are wired alike. I am pretty certain that the majority of women in our society would not wish to serve in a combat role, but I am amendable to women that are wired as alphas who wish to be on the front line so long as standards are not reduced to make that happen.

      I find it fascinating that you and many others are so concerned about shifting gender roles. I personally do not care if a person is male/female/black/white/tall/short/fat/purple etc…….. All I care is, can you do the job? Yes or No?

      That is freedom? No Blinders and eyes wide open. Anything less IS accepting defeat due to our inability to conform to changing circumstances on the ground.

      • The Christian American

        Freedom is a word denoting status, like serfdom, nothing more. There is a line in freedom, moral freedoms or liberty as a gift from God and immoral and amoral freedoms to perpetrate one self on anothers freedoms. We are free to decide how we will approach our freedom but they both have consequences. One Good, one bad. Nurses historically nurse men while men should be out in the field protecting their women. We’re both equipped to do our jobs. Of course we have to switch roles, but it should out of necessity, not as way of life.

    • Capitalist at Birht

      Your diatribe is difficult to understand. Your comparisons weak and without factual support.

  • Ralph

    Bottom line:
    They (those in government) don’t want to re-institute the draft?

    If they do, the country would soon become outraged, like it did in
    Vietnam, the people not wanting their children to die for the politicians’ war,
    and the country might again demand and end to the madness like it did with Vietnam.

    It seems the government has a real problem though. They are morally, spiritually and psychologically wearing out our present enlisted men. This is a policing action / undeclared war, it is a war, that has no end, at least none in sight anyway.

    After 9-11, now 12 years ago, what do they expect? In reality men aren’t machines.
    It isn’t natural for us to kill other human beings, let alone regularly; or live in constant fear that today may be your day to be seriously injured or die. Then your child, or children are growing up without you. And, your wife, now not only misses you, but perhaps resents you too, due to your protracted absence.

    Is it any wonder more of our men are now dying from suicide than on the battlefield.

    Oh wait, I got an idea, let’s put our young women into battle too. After all they are just as expendable to us as our young men, we can spread the war load over more bodies and postpone a little longer starting the draft, something that may be unpopular and counterproductive to our political goals.

    • Wellarmed

      I did not vote for our President now or at any time due to the understanding that he is but merely a puppet on a string. The only hope I had when he was first elected was that these unjust wars would come to and end, and that torture would have been recognized as something our country would not engage in regardless of the value that information gleamed.

      Instead we have a president who ramps up death by remote control, gives us debts and currency devaluation, hides behind his actions arming drug cartels, allows our banking institutions to wash these funds without but a slap on the wrist. May I add bankers robo signing documents and submitting them fraudulently into our courts as evidence to steal millions of our fellow Americans homes.

      Need I go on.

      Hope and Change. Yes we did get one of those and lost the other.

    • The Christian American

      The real problem is government. It’s gender confused, Morally confused and in every other way confused. It’s confused to the point it takes direction from Satan instead of God.

    • The Christian American

      The idea of endless war originated with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. America was still in a state of depression when he was throned and he knew the country never changed leaders in time of war. A false end to the depression came with WW11. Some went to war and got killed while others worked the Military Industrial Complex and their home life was much better. Medals were suppose to replace husbands and sons. Everybody was happy doing their victorious jobs to save America. Bush, the shrub, did the same thing that FDR did. Now Obama is doing the same thing. I work with many machine shops, casters. sheetmetal shops, MIM shops etc, Without exception, they all have work coming from the MIC. Do they know what their doing by providing the government with tools of war or do they simply have blinders on. Read: The War Prayer by Mark Twain, It’s on

  • Pairodocs

    Fine. Equal rights mean equal standards. Women that want to serve in combat units must pass all of the physical tests at the same level as the men. The only tests we will use, will be the current Male Standard tests. No more lower standards on the female tests. And another thing-it’s ANECDOTAL , not Antidotal. An antidote is a remedy that stops or controls the effects of a poison.

    • Capitalist at Birht

      90% of them cannot. They will probably lower the standards, as they have for Police and Fire departments across the country so as to have more women in those positions.

    • The Christian American

      Our equality comes from our Creator. We decide how lifes equity is divided up.

  • Rachelle

    I am a large and strong woman, but I know I have no where near the physical endurance men have. Sure I birthed my babies at home without drugs, and I know my husband could not endure that type of thing LOL…but my body was built to endure birthing babies not endure long term combat. I’m quite certain if someone seriously threatened myself, my home or my children, I would have a surge of superhuman strength and adrenaline and could inflict serious damage (especially if I got to my guns first), even on a male. However, that is still different than a female going out and impersonally killing strangers who have not personally threatened her children. To be a real feminist, ought we not to celebrate femininity, not deny it and try to be like men? Men and women each contribute something different to society and family, I don’t think it is a good idea for women to deny their femaleness and try to be mannish. Besides the fact, that it seems to me that with an enemy’s desire to demoralize us by raping our women, women in combat endanger themselves more than a man would…and they also endanger their compatriots who will (if they have any real manliness in them) be more worried about protecting the women and less focused on doing their own job.

    • Capitalist at Birht


    • Wellarmed

      Rachelle, I by and large agree with your comments, but please understand that there may be one woman out there that is our next Patton and we would be completely passing up on that individual if we strictly limit roles of combat to men.

      Only History will tell if this hypothesis is correct.

      As far as the issue of women being raped if captured; what makes anyone think that men are not subjected to the same treatment in that event.

      I agree with you that it is about demoralization more so than the act itself.

      Many of my friends that served in elite units know that the last round is for one’s self.

      Anyone who says something different is being less than honest about the realities of War.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      wellarmed, there was only one Deborah, and the men including the “general” were sissies.

      • Wellarmed

        Hello Nadzieja, I have had friends which have since passed, that served under Pattons Command. Never once did they refer to him as a panzi or coward so I beg to differ if that is your opinion of him.

    • The Christian American

      Rachelle, You give me hope that there still is American women and men . Your words speak volume to men and women that listen.

    • The Christian American

      Read “The war prayer” by Mark Twain. It’s on the net.

      • MD spouse

        Yes, Mr. Twain his the nail right on the head. But who really listens?

  • Raymond Carl Hardie

    It is evident from most of what has been posted that the opinions given are from those who have never experienced actual combat. I am a combat veteran from Vietnam and I am not proud of some of the things that I had to do for the sake of staying alive. I am 5′ 10″ and during my service I averaged between 145 to 165 lbs, the average North Vietnamese soldier was 5′ 4″ to 5′ 7″ and weighed about 116 lbs., to there credit it can be said that they were tough to take down in one on one fighting. Many people think there will never be another protracted war with hand to hand fighting, but I personally do not believe that is the case. Eventually we will be engaged in such fighting again because you cannot control and hold territory in a war without Infantry and their support. I said all that to make the point of this: The Israelis did use women in their field combat units for a period of almost six(6) years but it was discontinued and phased out between 1989 and 1991 because of difficulties in too many areas of operations necessities, such as the load bearing capabilities of women is less than a mans due to physical configuration differences, and the monthly cycling characteristics of their gender created psychological inhibitions when under extended field environment stress and it was noted that during these times the men also more susceptible to taking risks for protecting the females, including things such as carrying their packs and equipment along with making allowance for breaking with tactical defense training guidelines by giving the women less strenuous jobs at every opportunity while in the field. Women today in the Israeli Armed Forces have many numerous jobs but none in direct field combat Infantry units. The Chinese and Russian forces have huge numbers of women but they are in units which are entirely female similar to what we used to have as the Womens Army Corp ( WAC’s ). The Russians also once tried integrating their military and it was deemed inadequate for extended field combat environment so they also abandoned integrating women into direct combat units. In America it is easy for armchair debate to rationalize what seems relevant in promoting equality of some sort, but without a trully informed decision, should we do this and encounter a ground war where real hand to hand fighting takes place, we must honestly consider the consequences of possible failure which in combat means death for those involved and ultimate capitulation of our Government should our enemy win! This is not about politics, it is about national defense. I taught my daughters how to shoot before they were eight years old they were expert shots with both rifles and pistols, but I also know that a determined man in a physical confrontation can in a majority of situations ovepower them simply based on physical advantages of gender. These are facts we must face, and although there are exceptions to the rule, those exceptions cannot and must not be the factor by which we make a decision in such matters.

    • Capitalist at Birht

      Unfortunately, these sad but true facts will be totally ignored by the brain dead Totalitarian Socialists (Fascists) who seem to dominate conversations on this site any longer. Thank you for your contribution.

  • Tom

    Women are unsuitable for ground combat. They do not and never will possess the physical strength and stamina to do the job consistently. The author addressed this when he touched on male and female sports. The average women is physically inferior to the average man as evidenced by the fitness standards for the military. Women don’t want to be equal, they want special treatment. They want access to areas of military service without meeting the physical standards. I don’t want my son or son-in-law to die because a female and her special privileges couldn’t get the job done when the time came. This isn’t Call of Duty or some other game that you can delude yourself into thinking you are badass, there is no reset button when people get shot in combat.

    • Doc Sarvis

      I would rather they not be in combat situations also. BUT since we are putting them into combat situations they should get rewarded as such.

      • Tom

        I don’t want to have a folded flag so that some half stepper can feel good about herself. If women want equal access then they must meet equal standards. That means that every woman who is eligible to serve must immediately sign up for Selective Service; because that is equal. That means that all women in the military must immediately meet all male fitness standards or be punished/kicked out; because that is equal. The one percent of women who think they want equality don’t speak for the other ninety-nine percent who know that the last thing they want is equality. What most women want is fairness, where everyone gets a trophy for participating, not equality.

  • reelman1946

    This is easy…
    the dimdems seek social change via the military…
    promotions are much more/faster in combat…
    BUT all honest thinkers know WIC does not make an army better…

    when you or your son have to die or be a cripple or captured because Suzie does not have the natural strength to get a man to safety…where will the utopian socialists be then?

    Women can/should serve in all of the military except combat…due to natural differences…but I forget, the utopians live in a fantasy-based emotional world.
    They are a special sort of stupid.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Coffins are not that difficult to make and making them provides jobs for the coffin makers. To a Leftist who deals in Collectives what is one less body which they can replace. Taxpayers are bearing the cost of the training but more money can always be gotten.

  • Peapod

    The concern is not whether a woman is able to fight the enemy, history has proven they can. The reason that women and men do not share the front line, is because a man will naturally protect the woman or not advance if he feels the woman is not able to keep up. That puts the man in danger. The lift of this ban is a danger to all men. If they want to put women on the front lines, they should create an all female army.

    • eddie47d

      Would that be like the all negro army? Men also watch each others back and help each other pick up the slack when someone slows down. This doesn’t have to be a men/women issue but about Esprit de Corps and getting the mission accomplished . That is more important than gender.

      • Capitalist at Birht

        There were all Negro and all Japanese units in the U.S. Military during world war II. Oh, I’m sorry, you prefer not to discuss factual ideas.

      • eddie47d

        You’ve gone bonkers Capitalist? Why repeat what I already said? Stop making a fool of yourself!

      • daleh

        Eddie47d–espirit de corps?? have you been in a military unit in combat??/ Juts curious ,as you always eem to have an opinion on everything subject–

    • Capitalist at Birht

      Pray tell, of what history do you speak? Please enlighten us.

  • Jimmy the Greek

    When they get captured they well make great sex slaves.

  • Robert Pittman

    We need to clarify the “combat role”. Women don’t belong in the infantry. artillery, and tanks. however they can be very useful in “combat” roles such as pilots, or other positions where overall physical strength is not critical to their mission. Anyone who has been to war knows that many people go to war but only a few actually see combat eyeball to eyeball with the enemy. These few are infantry, artillery, tanks, and special ops. Let women do everything else.

  • Angel

    I am not one for women’s lib. I enjoy being a lady/woman. That is the role God gave me. That’s how He made me and I am happy with it. I enjoy being protected. I wish more men were chivalrous but because of women’s rights, they have gotten out of the habit.

    Now, I do believe in equal pay if a woman has to work, does a man’s job and can keep up as good as a man. Men are generally protective towards woman when it comes to dangerous situations and I for one, don’t want that to change. I guess if a woman thinks she can do the job…but if she costs just ONE LIFE because it was her fault, then bust them all back again!’

    I will do what I can is I am ever in a situation to have to defend my daughter or my grandchildren, but I won’t say I can do it better than or equal to a man. One just never knows. I can’t even say I would succeed. I just know that God made me a woman, He said that men were over women, and being a Christian, who am I to say God doesn’t know what He was doing?

    • Capitalist at Birht

      Chivalry is alive an well here with me.






  • jc goetz

    “Antidotal”?? You mean anecdotal? Are you really the right person to be writing on this topic…maybe you should figure out spell-check before you publish things. That being said I agree with the premise of your article.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      I am so sorry that we make spelling errors and you get so offended. How dare we be so careless.

  • MD spouse

    I see that we’re approaching this issue this incorrectly. Instead of lambasting the fact that some (SOME) women are moved to physically protect their homeland while many men are not, I would suggest that the self-righteous conservatives who appoint themselves to know and speak for everybody (how very Democrat of them), fall down on their knees, instead, and thank whatever powers they believe in that there are ladies out there willing to risk their lives to make sure that the men and women who don’t – and their families – never have to make the sacrifice. A little gratitude, please, instead of arrows of fire for those who wish to serve?

    I’ve never been in combat, and hope I never will be. Consequently, I’m as grateful as all get-out for those who DO serve and cover MY ass at THEIR expense! It’s no business of mine what race, ethnicity or gender they are, as long as they’re properly trained, qualified, and want to be there. My job is to help see to it that everyone has the opportunity to try out for this path if they are inherently moved to do so, and that they get the respect and support, both during and after, that they very richly deserve. That should be the job of the whole of society, in fact.

    In my opinion, the negative Conservative judgement heaped upon those who choose to even try out for service, is as demoralizing as the spit that the self-serving Liberals offered to returning Viet Nam vets. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Let’s turn this argument on its head and see the issue through the light of gratitude instead of anger, fear and negativity. We might then be able to see solutions and fresh ways of doing things that will make our military more able to meet the changing demands of new enemies and 21st century warfare.

    • Angel

      How dare you assume that just because of our opinions, we are not grateful for those who DO make the sacrifice and serve. My niece just retired as a Chief Master Sgt. USAF. My nephew is still in.

    • Capitalist at Birht

      So, let me get this straight. Acknowledging biological and historical facts is self righteous conservatism? I guess you studied biology and physiology from different books than I. Why, pray tell are there no women who can compete in professional Hockey, Basketball, Football, Baseball,etc. with men? Care to guess? You can call me names make wild accusations about my position, but you can never deny the truth. Incidentally, I am not a Democrat, never have been and never will be. If you were referring to Democracy, I suggest you find a Democracy an move there. This is a Constitutional Republic, and hopefully will remain one. The day it changes to a Democracy is the beginning of the end and time to leave for those of us who love freedom.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Pure Bull from you and PLD unfortunately is not handing out boots and shovels

      • MD spouse

        What is it about allowing each of us to decide what is best for ourselves, and allowing others their own perspectives and opinions,that so frightens and offends you?

        If the day ever came when you or a loved one needed help from a fellow woman who had to reach outside the bounds of the usual to assist you, and she volunteered her hand or her money or her time to your relief, would you say, “Thanks but no, that’s a man’s job, and we’d rather die than take aid from a feminist harlot”? Would you really be that ungrateful? If so, would you also impose your moral perspective on a female neighbor or her family in the same situation, and risk their suffering or death? If not, why not? Let’s apply that same reasoning to the women who are moved to choose a lifestyle that offers protection to yours, at their expense. Are they ‘bad’ because they would be willing to give of themselves to come (indirectly) to your aid, instead of standing on the sidelines keeping themselves nice and safe while hoping that a man will come along and decide to expend himself for you? That’s a strange concept of ‘bad’ in my book. Or am I not allowed to have a book if it’s not your book?

        Again, perhaps looking creatively at what we each have to offer, instead of rejecting each other out of hand, would put us ahead in terms of learning how to defend the common good. It’s as silly to say that NO woman can be allowed to choose to fight, as it is to say that NO man could be a chef, a teacher or a nurse because those jobs are ‘women’s work’!

  • kim Hobbs

    The women that want to be at the front lines feel they can hold their own. It will be so until a good number of them come home in the same shape or worse than their male counterparts except they will be more mutilated at the hands of the enemy to the absolute hue and cry of all.
    There are sort of successful women as fire fighters – except their male counterparts must watch them more closely than their male fire fighters.
    The reality check has not been reached yet.

  • ibcamn

    ah Christ were do i start!?!as for women in the Russian military,they were thrown into the position with little or no training(at that time it was if you got walk and hold a gun,you were a soldier for the mother land)and this is true of a lot of cases of women in war in other countries!
    from my personal experience,women are fine where their at,period!you can’t put them on the front line and in harms way!it’s just too many factors that make it wrong,too many!i could sit here and tell you a hundred reasons why not,and if i say yep,let them go if they want,they want to be there,let em,but then i would get slammed!can’t you almost have to take a side.
    i don’t think i could live with myself if i allowed a woman to go to the front lines,i watch my men’s back and take care of them,don’t get me wrong.but you can’t watch out just for that one(2,3)i know that if a woman was serving with me i would feel that urge to care and watch over her,i would take too much of my attention keeping an eye on her making sure she was in position,can she carry all that?,then you have to have separate bunk space,showers,bathrooms,etc..then i would do the big worry,if captured,,is she gonna get raped by the enemy!?! or one of my own men!??!is she going to be able to fight the enemy hand to hand if it comes to that!??!(i had to do that twice and i wouldn’t put that on anyone,ever!) and i can go on and on,this would mentally drain me alone!it would take a century of women in the combat position to get that “worry” factor out of the men in the military!and a lot of the women in the military are fit and in great shape and can kick a$$,but not to the same(mentally and physically)as a man,i’m sorry ladies,that’s my opinion,and i think it’s fine the way it is.and i don’t think there are too many women applying for the front line positions,and i think rebuilding camps bases and installations to acomidate the new position is a smart move for such a small amount of women who actually will apply to these position’s.i think this whole thing was some grumpy old lady sitting in a comfy office whining about women’s rights in the military and didn’t think this whole thing through(non military thinker)i’m sorry to say,but in this branch of the military,sexual harrasment(assault)is running rampant,and frequently,usually nothing is done about it,but i have to say that as of lately people are being held accountable for their actions!

  • Jeff Woodman (@masmpg)

    All you have to do is look at the olymic records. the difference between male and female records are quite different in EVERY category, Women have their betters, but when it somes to speed, endurance and strength women don’t come close to men’s records.

  • TML

    I am indifferent to this issue. I agree with most of the reasons why a woman should not be on the front lines, from menstruation cycles and physique to the effect (or distraction) it might have on the males soldiers, but ultimately, I say if they want to fight, let them fight… but no reductions should be made to the standards in which they must pass. The standards on the battlefield will not yield for a woman and neither should the training.


    The Truth About Women That Feminists Don’t Want You to Know
    -Posted By Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin on April 9, 2010

    The recent naming of Nancy Pelosi as the “most powerful woman in American history” has sparked national discussion on both the history of women in America and the nature of woman’s power. As Speaker of the House, Mrs. Pelosi holds the highest civic position any American woman has held to date, and her hand in putting through the recent Health Care Bill will have huge historic implications. Though we don’t see it as a great advance for women to finally be oppressed by one of our own, this is undeniably a kind of power.

    But behind this recent tribute to Mrs. Pelosi is this presupposition: “Women find their power in holding the positions of men – the traditional women’s role has no power. The power traditional women exercised in the past doesn’t count.”

    Americans are ready to believe this because they long ago adopted a feminist view of history. Before feminism led women from the kitchen to the boardroom, we are told, women’s minds withered in the confines of a “comfortable concentration camp,” their talents never developed or given room to benefit society. Before feminism bought women the positions of men, woman’s influence was hushed and smothered beneath the oppression of male dominance. Before feminism invented justice, equality, and rights for women, women were deprived of education, opportunities, property, and power.

    All thanks to feminism, we are now surely the strongest, smartest, most capable, most valued, best educated generation of women the West has ever seen. So we are to believe.

    But despite feminism’s revisions of history, the truth is impossible to fully conceal when the light of strong, brilliant women glimmers through from supposedly dark eras. The general response, when a particularly intelligent and spirited woman appears in a Christian, patriarchal society, is to quickly recruit her as a proto-feminist, an anomaly of her time. Consider this typical approach to Abigail Adams, from the feminist biography Dearest Friend: “Abigail Adams was, in many ways, a prisoner of the times in which she lived, and her views on women’s role in society and on politics reflect that fact.”

    Were the Abigail Adamses flukes of history, born out of a void? Or did they come out of societies that were all about producing women like Abigail Adams? In this article we would like to let the women and facts speak for themselves. We will see that the reason feminism must reinterpret the facts is because it cannot stand on the legs of real history.

    Full Article:

    • MD spouse

      You raise some good points about Ms. Pelosi and the manifestation of power. Unfortunately, women do have an excellent ability to act despotically, and power has historically been, and continues to be, judged according to male standards. I didn’t know, however, that Ms. Adams was counted as one of the Founding Fathers! Where is her name on our constitution? Oh, that’s right, there are no women in our Constitution. Even the word “woman’ itself is absent. Ben Franklin must have been behind the times when he advocated for equal rights for women. Apparently they were too busy amassing fortunes and running the colonies to notice anybody speaking out on their behalf.

      By using your argument that the occasional appearance of women here throughout history proves that women women in general were ‘free’ and powerful and respected, I point out that Muhammed’s favorite wife was a camel trader. Yes, women in the Muslim did sometimes had jobs and ran businesses, generally if their husbands died and there was nobody else to do it. Indeed, Muhammed himself was a generous man, taking care that his first wife, a bride six years old, reached the advanced age of nine before he had intercourse with her. Muhammed was a liberator of his day, not unlike Mao, and he decreed such tings as that husbands could no longer bury their wives alive in the desert sand as punishment or a means of divorce. The Quran itself says that a man is not allowed to use a large rod to beat his wife, and that he should beat her gently and infrequently as she is efectively a prisoner who has little control over what she is allowed to say, think and do. Does that mean that Muslim women have historically been the freest women in the world?

      • WTS/JAY

        Fourteen hundred years ago Islam gave women rights; rights that could not have been imagined by European counterparts. Bold words! Words that have been spoken repeatedly, especially in the last two or three decades by Muslim converts, and Islamic writers, academics and educators across the globe. Women’s rights, responsibilities, and choices have been the subject of books, articles, essays, and lectures. Sadly however, convincing the world that Muslim women are not oppressed by Islam is a message that is just not getting through. Media headlines scream oppression and the words Muslim, women, and oppression seem to have become inextricably linked.

        No matter what Muslim women do or say to try to convince the world otherwise, words like hijab, burka, polygamy, and Sharia seem to do little but convince people that Islam oppresses women. Even educated, articulate women fulfilling the modest conditions of hijab can do little to dispel the myths.

        Women who conduct themselves with decorum and grace and function effortlessly in the modern world have their achievements and successes celebrated. However, if a woman wears a scarf, covers her hair or puts her religion above worldly pursuits she is immediately labelled oppressed. One wonders if this is the case for women of other religious persuasions. Are modest religious women of all faiths labelled oppressed? Alternatively, is it just Islam?

        The most visible sign of a Muslim woman’s faith is the headscarf or hijab; it is also the garment that leads people to believe that Islam oppresses women. Although Islamic scholars unanimously agree that modest dress and head coverings are obligatory in Islam, for the majority of Muslim women around the world, to cover, or not to cover, is a freely made choice. The women who chose to wear hijab view it as a right, not a burden and many describe wearing hijab as liberation from the need to conform to unrealistic stereotypes and images dictated by the media.

        What exactly do Muslim women say about themselves in relation to the issue of oppression? In 2005, a World Gallup Poll entitled, What women Want: Listening to the voices of Muslim Woman, revealed that the majority of women polled, in predominantly Muslim countries resented lack of unity among Muslim nations, violent extremism, and political and economic corruption. The headscarf or hijab, or any garment covering the face and body, often depicted as a tool of oppression was not even mentioned.

        The report concluded that “…most women in the Muslim world are well aware that they have the same capabilities and deserve the same fundamental rights as men.

        Majorities of females in each of the eight countries surveyed said they believe women are able to make their own voting decisions, to work at any job for which they are qualified, and even to serve in the highest levels of government.”

        Islam raised the level of women, they were no longer chattels being passed from father to husband. They became equal to men, with rights and responsibilities that take into account the nature of humankind. Unfortunately across the globe, Muslim women are victims of cultural aberrations that have no place in Islam. Powerful individuals and groups claim to be Muslim yet fail to practice the true principles of Islam. Whenever the media reveals unconscionable stories about honour killings, genital mutilation, forced marriage, the punishment of rape victims, women being confined to their homes or women being denied education they are revealing a tale of men and women who are ignorant about the status of women in Islam.

        “O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the bridal money you have given them. And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and God brings a great deal of good through it.” (Quran 4:19)

        The religion of Islam demands that women be treated with respect, honour, and justice. It condemns oppression of any kind. In Islam women, like men, are commanded to believe in God and to worship Him. Women are equal to men in terms of reward in the Hereafter.

        “And whoever does righteous good deeds, male or female, and is a true believer in the Oneness of God, such will enter paradise; and not the least injustice, even to the size of a speck on the back of a date stone, will be done to them.” (Quran 4:124)

        Women in Islam have the right to own property, to control their own money to buy and sell, and to give gifts and charity. It is not permissible for anyone to take a woman’s wealth without her consent. Islam gave women formal rights of inheritance. Women in Islam have the right to an education; seeking and acquiring knowledge is an obligation on all Muslims, male or female.

        Muslim women have the right to accept or refuse marriage proposals as they see fit, and married women are completely free from the obligation of supporting and maintaining the family. Working married women are free to contribute to the household expenses, or not, as they see fit. Women have the right to seek divorce if it becomes necessary. -Aisha Stacey

        • MD spouse

          You bring up a great deal of information, and your argument is totally unconvincing. How many Muslims must be practicing Islam “incorrectly”, before we can conclude that perhaps the reality isn’t exactly what it’s said to be?

          Based on what I’ve seen of Muslim men to date, frankly, they’re objectionable, cocksure spoiled brats who believe that they’re Heaven’s gift to the world and who treat their wives/girlfriends in ways that we’ve learned to not treat domestic animals. The women who accept and justify the culture of degradation do so because they’ve been raised to be co-dependent and have no self-esteem. There’s no fundamental belief in the theory of individualism in Muslm society. Islam is based upon tribal constructs, and the theory that the person doesn’t exist except as a puppet behind the stereotyped mask that society forces upon him or her at birth. This is the theory upon which most of humanity has existed since humans first began to contemplate. It’s probably the result of neural and anatomical aspects of human evolution, and it’s still found to a certain degree within Western societies, as well. The tribal mindset is held to most strongly by individuals worldwide who are most psychologically compatible with an external locus of control. Religious dogma suits that control function perfectly. The great struggle of western society has been to develop and incorporate the theory of individuation and move members towards an interrnal locus of control. Individuation stresses the uniqueness and ‘authentic personhood’ of every individual, with the attendant opportunities and obligations to make decisions based upon discovery of one’s own ‘self’ that exists outside of the social stereotypes and obligations. In Islam, the ‘self’ is merely a distraction, a corruption of the flesh, so to speak, while the goal is to make oneself ‘good’ or ‘worthy’ by squeezing the corruption into the mold that society has prepared for you and thus purify it. Works perfectly to perpetuate the status quo, no matter how awful the status quo is to those living it. In the tribe, the group is everything and the individual has little value. The individual who doesn’t conform has no value, and is in fact considered dangerous and morally impure. This is the fundamental basis of why Islam sees the rest of the world as corrupt, dangerous and slated for destruction. It’s tribal mentality on steroids.

          Most religions illustrate the tribal mindset well. Hinduism offers some graphic examples. Moksha, or salvation, is every Hindu true believer’s ultimate goal. In order to achieve salvation, one must ‘go all the way’, or do whatever it takes, no matter how extreme, in order to fulfill the role that society expects of one. For example, a Hindu woman is supposed to worship her husband as a living god, to the point of burning on the pyre with him if she is alive after he dies. Her status as a woman – even the fate of her soul – hinges on whether she ‘gives it all’ to prove that her husband is her worth. If she’s not keen on voluntarily burning herself, she has not completed ‘sat’, or ‘going all the way’. She is a failure, driven to the outskilrts of society, and doomed to experience lifetime after lifetime of misery being reborn as a poor person in an abusive situation to atone. Extreme acts of deprivation and piety thus become her ‘freedom’. It’s a similar situation in Islam, where a woman must unquestioningly abide by a large set of very restrictive beliefs and behaviors if her status, her life and her soul are to be preserved (although most women aren’t going to get into the Muslim heaven anyway, I understand. How nice.) This is how women are seduced into believing that being controlled is being free. If ‘you’ don’t really exist except as an interchangeable cog in the tribal wheel that adheres to a strict double standard, then there’s no ‘you’ to be offended when you are locked inside a fabric prison, or raped by your husband, or killed to preserve your ‘honor’, is there? Neat trick, huh?

          If you really believe that muslim women are ‘free’, then ask the ones you know to perform the following experiment. Ask them when was the last time they actively questioned their religion? If they aren’t capable of meaningfully challenging their own belief systems or examining their own perspectives from an outside point of view and potentially changing their outlooks, ask them why they can’t do it? The vast majoriiy won’t be able to, and here’s why: It’s because they’ve been hypnotized by being immersed in an environment in which the very concept of asking questions is actively suppressed. Religious dogma is great at that. Hypnosis is a normal product of human culture – no a parlor trick – and is in fact the basis of culture. All cultures rely upon social hypnosis to a greater or lesser extent to sustain themselves, with tribalism being the most reliant. Human children learn through imitation, and repeated imitation without challenge creates hypnosis. That’s nature’s way of promoting human survival. It’s how people ‘know’ what’s right and wrong, but can’t explain why except to refer to cultural authority (because the leader, the religious book, or history says so, and that’s all the further I can think about it.) Oh, and don’t forget that Islam teaches that anybody who is born into the religion or who converts better not ask any questions, or they’re considered apostates and marked for death. Boy, if being told that I’ll be killed if I don’t believe isn’t freedom, then I don’t know what is!

      • WTS/JAY

        Just How Much are Muslim Women ‘really’ Oppressed?

        A “telling” trend I’ve noticed over recent years, as western feminist myths are regularly debunked with increased ease, and laid bare for all to see as the lies they are – is the premature reversion by fems within an argument to refer to the ‘supposed’ plight of women elsewhere in the world, particularly in the muslim world. You see, they haven’t a valid debate in their own backyard, so seek to import arguments to sustain a sense of credibility regarding the sustainability of their own floundering defunct ideology.

        But how true are the preconceptions of how muslim women live in the middle east, and what rights they do, and don’t have?

        Remember, feminists like Oprah Winfrey have been perpetuating lies about the rights and treatment of muslim women for several decades (mostly unopposed!). So much so, that thousands of professional Saudi women (doctors, lawyers, etc), many fans, who were tired of her constant portrayal of Saudi women as being oppressed, began a petition against her numbering in the thousands.

        After September 11, 2001, the Western media developed an intense obsession with pinpointing all the atrocities that the Arab world committed. Operation “Take down da Muzzlems” commenced. A favorite target of this grandiose scheme was the Muslim woman living in the Middle East. Depicted as downtrodden, oppressed and scarred for life, she was one step away from offing herself while riding a magic carpet. Her veil was her prison and the only way to properly “liberate” her was to send in American troops to save her honor. So I’m gonna step away from the West’s self-masturbatory, hero syndrome. Not to say that discrimination doesn’t exist elsewhere, but the stereotypes of Muslim women aren’t exactly the most realistic portrayals of real life that the American media would like you to believe. What’s even more annoying is that feminist thinkers and Western women use these stereotypes to feel better about living in the United States.

        Myth 1: All women in the Muslim world are oppressed.

        Truth: Oppression is a term that is too broad to use for every country that has Muslim women. Tunisia has some of the most liberal laws for women’s rights.

        Egypt has a mandated law that 64 seats must go to women, and over 50 of Iran’s university student population is female.

        Turkey was one of the first countries to give full political and rights to women in the world.

        In Syria and Lebanon, women are able to travel freely.

        Women in Kuwait are considered to be the most emancipated in the Gulf region, being able to travel, drive and work without male approval.

        Myth 2: Most Muslim women are passive and voiceless.

        Truth: Does anyone remember the little revolts that happened earlier this year in Tunisia and Egypt, where Muslim female students were a large part of demonstrations?

        Or how about Iranian women protesting against the government last summer?

        There are prominent women’s rights activists in the Muslim world, such as Egypt’s Nawal El Saadawi, Princess Aicha of Morocco, and Tawakkul Karman (creator of Women’s Journalists Without Chains and Nobel Peace Prize winner) from Yemen.

        Palestinian Muslim women have actively been involved in anti-Zionism, domestic violence, and environmental activism. There are also active women’s groups in Saudi Arabia who have protested honor killings and human rights abuses.

        Myth 3: Islam is responsible for women’s oppression.

        Truth: Yes, it’s well know that Muslim men are allowed to marry more than one woman. The Prophet Muhammad remained monogamous with his first wife Khadijah, only taking multiple wives until her death. Most of the reason he married many women was to help them economically and give them shelter. He didn’t take offense when his wives opposed him and allowed them to divorce him if he failed to take care of their needs. The Koran treats men and women as spiritual equals. Also, Muslim female scholars argue that most wrongs committed against women in the strictest countries of the Muslim world are not based on the Quran. It is based on local culture, traditions, political repression, illiteracy and poverty.

        Myth 4: Every Muslim woman hates wearing the hijab.

        Truth: Not every woman. Many feel that the hijab allows them to be taken seriously, not for their outer appearance. Some feel that the hijab provides safety that they would not have if they didn’t wear it. Also, the hijab and the veil are not enforced in every Muslim country.

        Some feminists like to insist that nurturing is what distinguishes women, even makes them superior to men. Congressman Barbara Jordan said, “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have. He’s just incapable of it.”

        Even anthropologist Margaret Mead, a staunch defender of fathers and fatherhood, considered nurturing by men socially induced, not natural nor instinctive. This perception is basic to our culture.

        What’s funny about it, certainly from feminists, is how they rely upon male nurturing for much of what they get. Women have always known that the surest way to get anything from a man is to play helpless and / or innocent. “I’m so sorry officer. This car is new and I didn’t know I was speeding.” What female cop would buy that? Most male cops do. It is an appeal to the male reflex to protect and assist the weak and innocent, as in raising children. (Many women are disgusted to see others play this game, unaware when they do it themselves.)

        You could say that the common female negotiation strategy of sweetness is a similar reliance upon male nurturing. There isn’t a six-year-old girl who can’t twist her daddy around her little finger. Playing child is part of female survival skills, but exploitive when taken beyond real needs and not part of equal exchange. (It’s not the only female strategy. For women who cannot bring themselves to bargain there is emotional and moral bullying. “I am deeply offended.” But that equally relies upon the male need to make women — by extension from children — happy.)

        Feminists quickly learned that crying, “Women have always been oppressed,” got men moving. It’s playing helpless, but now so over-played that Cathy Young, for one, believes feminists infantize women more than any man ever has. Women are not that blameless, incompetent, or stupid that they are always or inevitably oppressed. But, damn, the myth works well.

  • Karen E. Hetherington

    I agree with the author that this is pure politics. I am a woman and I like it alot when men treat me like a lady. And the more chivalrous, the better. And I don’t mean macho.
    Do women really want a man that cannot or will not protect her? I have always looked for that quality in a man when it came to offspring.

    Chivalry isn’t gone. But we must ask ourselves, “what IS the government trying to do here when they are attempting to put men and women down in the foxhole together? The worst possible situation for an Adam and an Eve! The Ubiquitous Paradise of the Horrors of War. Honey, wouldn’t you rather be sipping Tequilia Sunrise’s on the beach or fighting for some other country? The government has taken us so far off the path and we let them.

    Do all social customs between men and women not apply when a man and a woman are in an extrememly traumatizing war zone? As we can see with the total disrespect of the founding principles on which this country lies, seems to me that this federal government has as its mission our destruction.

    Is the federal government trying to hormonally rewire men and women and the instincts on which the basis of sexual attraction rests? Is the basis of sexual attraction and reproduction that different on the front lines than it is walking down Main street?

    Are Obama daughters to fight on the front lines? It’s a joke. The politicians who voted for this “divide and conquer” legislation (Now they are attempting to truly break all semblance of civilization and family) would NEVER let their daughters be soldiers.

    Wars are still fought by the same economic classes of people that have always fought them: the lower, lower-middle, and middle classes. It’s class warfare and now it is gender warfare; mind you, the same economic classes at the heart just one more dividing issue to deal with.
    What we have is a low- functioning, debased and decaying federal government. Time to cut them loose.

    I think we confuse government with our culture.
    It wasn’t the majority of women who voted for this parasitic noose on the American family.
    It was a small minority who will never see the front lines, nor their daughters or granddaughters. Like the attempt to create inter sex boxing in the early 90′s via Hollywood, this too will fall flat on its face.

  • joanio5

    To say that ALL women are incapable of combat is as silly as saying that ALL men are capable. If women are to be in combat units, they should be as physically/mentally/psychologically capable as the men in that unit. With equal rights also should come equal responsibility, so women should be required to register for the draft just as men do. Menstrual flows are a non-issue, since those can be stopped with a shot. Of my 2 biggest concerns, one is the instinct that men have to protect woman even at risk to themselves. There’s no thought involved in instinct. Why would having all-woman combat units be a problem? The second is that women as POWs would face the added danger of rape and the resulting demoralization of all of our soldiers as a result of that.

    • Tom

      Except that you aren’t talking about equality. All women should have to meet the same minimum standard if any woman wants to have access; that is equality. You are talking about special privileges where only the ones that want to participate have to perform. The female typing up orders in the admin section should now have to meet the male infantry fitness standards. We’re not talking about a special sub-class within a gender but equality.

  • USN retired

    Women have many a varied capabilities, any married man could attest to that. During my military career women were introduce into additional duties originally designated as jobs for men. In some area they performed quit well, but in areas requiring additional physical strength they were a load to the command. Although the law says that we are all equal, the truth is that we are not. It is not specifically the women’s fault but the general nature of most men to feel that they must protect women. The fact that male commanding officers are being relieved has become near daily event. This was not the case before women were allowed into jobs that put them in close physical contact throughout the day without separation.. Ships and forward deployment being my area of knowledge. Men have a natural tendency to seek out willing women and women have the natural tendency to use their charm, usually their physical being, to get what they want. This usually is special treatment by a superior if that is a man and could be used today also with other women considering today’s military environment. If women want to be equal militarily let them prove it within their own ranks (sex) by be forward deployed as a women’s unit. This will take the male factor (male/female relations) out of their success or failure in proving their equality.

    • MD spouse

      I agree with you, and it works just as much the other way, as well. It’s called the old boy’s network, and it’s still alive and well.

      Besides, men use charm on women, and even other men, all the time to advance their interests, climb the social or professional network and cover their true intentions Call it chivalry, call it ‘manliness’, call it posturing, call it what you will. Men trot out flattery and pretend to engage in social niceities to get what they want,just as women do. Why is that OK when done by the gander, but not by the goose? Either we’re honest and straightforward, or we’re not. Gender has nothing to do with this. I’m in favor of eliminating special treatment for women, blacks, gays, and whomever, and at the same time let’s get rid of the institutionalized privilege known as the “old boys’ so we’re all really on equal footing.

  • cawmun cents

    My position isnt that women are incapable,in fact I commend them on their service.
    My position is that I have seen how some of our troops have been treated in countries where they treat their women like farm animals.And I doubt whether they will respect our women any more than they repect their own.
    I know too that war means rape and torture for most captured female troops,because I sincerely doubt that their rules of engagement are as kind as ours(and by that I mean any enemy).
    Please dont cite me Abu Gahraib,because evidently power can go to anyones head,and apart from humiliation,the captured combatants there were not treated badly.
    To me it is humiliating enough to be captured,instead of fighting until you break free or die in the effort.The fact that our commanding officers do not make sure of the strategic superiority of our troops in every theatre,battle,and skirmish,via supply and overkill,shows me that their claim of full spectrum domination is patently false.
    But let me stick to the subject at hand.
    I do not believe for one minute that I would send women into front line combat,were I commander in chief.
    I am obviously not,however you know the man who is.
    So leave it to him and let their conditions be of his making,maybe somebody will eventually put a stop to this madness.

  • bandit

    My wife was a Marine – one of the things that attracted me to her. She goes after those who have tried to attack my son – mainly idiot school administrators.I have no doubt she would kill a physical attacker.

    the packs that troops carry now are becoming too heavy for the men. The military has prototype exoskeletons now. These would allow women to carry the same loads.

    The tests given to women squads to see how they would hold up for special forces (go from point A to B thru swamps and bad territory) show that women squads perform better than male squads because they cooperate better.

    And yes, Soviet and Israeli experiences show women can handle combat.

    A final test: go up to Tammy Duckworth and tell her she is a wimp and could not handle combat. She is likely to take off one of her legs and beat you with it. I double-dog-dare you.

    • MD spouse

      Indeed! And I’m going to guess that you’re not the wimpy, browbeaten, surly, stupid man who has given up on trying to make something of himself because his wife has chosen to live up to her own individual capacities – as many who are out to “protect” men and women from themselves would suggest?

      Neither is my husband.

      And your point about working around constraints to discover new and better ways of doing things is a great one. Our military will become incapable of engaging the enemy in any meaningful way if it doesn’t keep evolving. Just ask the Japanese when they discovered that the finest swords and ninja were virtually powerless against English cannons. We have figured out how to accommodate dogs on the front lines, for heaven’s sake! But we can’t figure out how to accommodate human females?

      • bandit

        We do not marry weak women into my family – they would not last. None of us are foolish enough also to hit their wives. The father of the groom gives his new daughter-in-law a set of cast-iron skillets at the reception for “any necessary purpose”.

        We *respect* our women.

        • MD spouse

          Thank you! Men and women NEVER hit each other – but they aren’t afraid to stand up to each other and growl when necessary, either :-)

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So what it comes down to, that your “wife” is the male in the family.

      • bandit

        You are *so* funny. Actually, it appears you cannot abide a strong man marrying a strong woman, and having a respectful, equal marriage. And yes, I would kill someone attacking my family, or die that they might live. Just part of the job, boy (because you obviously do not understand the concept of being a man).

        Do we need to ask how many times a week do you beat your wife?

  • Dennis ardell

    The U.S military is the worst place to find equality,the officers who do the least dying and fighting earn the most money.Physicl strength is overrated ,however I am 100 percent against combat. Nobody should be in combat in foreign lands,we should do all our combat on U.S . Soil and be friends to all democracies and allies with no-one .My son quit the Marines because he didnot want to put up with all the [expletive deleted] women brought with them.if females want to die in combat ,let them fight along side females not men,so if a man tells them they Suck in combat ,he will not be accused of sexual harassment! you will never get a straight answer from a prima Donna male officer ,they will do whatever the government tells them,because the paychecks and pensions are all they care about,since they are never in combat ,they could not care less if women cause a huge increase in male casualties because they want their “equal rights” to serve in combat next to men. I am a former Vietnam Vet who served in battles in central highlands ,including Dak To,in Nov 1967,and nobody in those firefights would want to see any female soldiers getting in our way!

  • Jill

    I guess I’m missing something here. Aren’t there some type of physical standards that have to be passed in order for you to be accepted into the military, and into combat? Is someone suggesting that women should not have to pass the same set of physical qualifications as men? I don’t understand why a woman would WANT to serve in combat, but I guess it would probably be for the same reason that some men do. To serve their country. And I’m all for allowing them in IF and ONLY if they are able to pass the same tests and qualifications that men do. There will probably be very few women that can pass, as men are physiologically different than women, having a higher percentage of muscle mass than women and more testosterone.
    I know of at least one man who did not make it through boot camp, so I know there are at least SOME type of standards So can someone explain what all the fuss here is about? Sure, if someone is trying to lower the standards so women can get in with a lower set of standards than men have that is WRONG,WRONG, WRONG. Otherwise, if a woman can run 10 miles with a 100 lb pack on her back or pass the same minimum strength qualifications that a man has to, then WHAT is the big deal here? I’m only 4’10 and weigh 90 Lbs Obviously I cannot do what almost all men can do no matter how much I might want to. But I guess it wouldn’t surprise me if one of these days I saw someone my size suing the military for discrimination for not allowing her into combat. THEN I would support every man who decided he had had enough of serving our country. But not just because you think women are too nurturing. It is possible to be nurturing and also have a survival instinct, which would include killing when necessary.

    • Tom

      There are base fitness standards for each service based on gender and age. Some of the jobs in the military have additional physical requirements that are deemed necessary for that particular career. Women are not able to serve in the infantry because they don’t meet the physical standards. If women want equality (which they don’t) they must all meet the same standard as men regardless of their desired job; that is equality.

  • Antonio

    If a woman wants to be a “dumb stupid animal” who serves her slave masters wishes for foreign policy, then let her be. When she comes home in a box just know that she didn’t die for your freedoms…

    • eddie47d

      I think you were trying to make a point but ended up making all men who served look like a “dumb stupid animal” too!

      • antonio

        Well yeah, that’s what they are. They are “dumb stupid animals” as stated by Kissinger and also just slaves to be used to fulfill their masters “foreign policy” for world globalization…

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    The muslim marxist problably had a severe bi–h slapping from his Belle, and his gong didn’t ring. Since the feminists have pusified the young males, and squeal like sows wanting to be feed equal rights, there is certain jobs women aren’t suited for. Check any hospital and medical care unit and women will give better care, and usually know what is better for the patient. Female PA, have way better attitude of listening to their pateints. As with all MDs, some are great, but some women MD’s not only become arrogrant, but iften turn out to become the modelof a raging sow if questioned. When I took over guardian ship on myDad, my Dad got way better treatment and care from females, than several obnoxious male care givers. If it was an mmediate needs , succh as surgrey, several female doctors had issues to act quickly and do something. As a percentage of women in the military, the facts are in combat sistituations, wheather as a medical staff or in area, women should be expected to last as well under take action.

  • Chuck S

    In the 1970s some women’s libbers wanted to send women into combat so that when people saw women get killed and maimed, they’re end the Viet Nam war.

    Rush LImbaugh suggested sending a regiment of women into combat when all have PMS.

    In the 2012 Boston Marathon, the top men’s time was 2:12:40 and the top women’s time was 2:31:50, both from Kenya.

    If the standards are the same in the military, there will probably be few women. Probably few want it. Women’s libbers will probably want to lower the standards to equalize the numbers.

    Will equality stop there? Will women be forced in to combat like I think anybody can be forced into any position? Will women have to register for selective service and get drafted?


    The left at present has the opportunity to drive wedges and weaken traditional foundations that prove effective in all areas, finanacials, debts, medical, energy, military all the areas they have not been able to make headway before because they have had a history of monumental failure, they are doing so again. This obsession to destroy is driven by the elites to bring on global government and of course they would be the puppet masters and the unseen wizards of Oz. There are ways to slow this power grab and that is to put a kink in their plans, Soros would not be missed, his money would, here in this country the removal of those like Holder and the Faker in the WH and in general a major moveto reform by repair and maintenace our entire government to return to traditions, culture and rule of law under a Constitution we trust and employ….we can do what Americans do, fix this mess or we can lose this Republic…


    BO is not Kowtowing to a special group, he is leading the way to the destruction of the USA on all fronts. Most think he is making mistakes in Economics and Social programs International relations and Gun Rights ans Constitutional matters. He is doing this to bring the USA down to level of his favorite people the mohommedist and the Muslim Brotherhood. Prove me wrong if you can.

    • Don 2

      Political Jihad, right before your very eyes, and most folks are just too blind to see.

  • Rikki

    Sorry ladies and Gentlemen…women in combat would always be a distraction, and put others in harm’s way by the ladies ever present need to be rescued by some “white Knight”.
    Gentlemen, your service makes you all our ” white knights”. (“white” simply refers to the color of their clothes under their mail) (I hate having to always be plitically correct.)
    I grew up an Army brat, but worked construction since 1979. Few women even belong there.

  • heather

    There are women every day in the military that do the same jobs as the males… you cant say that they werent on the front lines, i knew several women that were gunners when going out of the FOB and security teams, escorts what ever you want to call them… now with that said i have also seen females that are amazing and were able to do the same as the males or better any day of the week… so my solution to this would be ok they are allowed to but they should be able to prove that they are able to be held to the same exact standards as the males in front line jobs.. now would i ever want to be infantry heck no!

  • Cat

    Amen to all the people who see this for what it is, just another inlluminati population destruction tactic, that will incrimentally lead to selective service registration. We will no doupt have a war that requires it someday. It’s probably being brewed up right now. Just as the drone permission to kill Americans overseas who are pegged as “suspicious” for whatever reason, will incrimentally lead to it happening on our soil. Thanks ‘Bummer. And to all the jokers out there, so sure that PMS will add some kind of military advantage, all I ever got from it were cramps, that left me needing sedation & extended bedtime. Even if it were a surefire enrager, don’t we prefer soldiers using logical appropriation of force, as opposed to moody insanity? Besides men can get emotionally off too, but they’re usually just the troublemakers, not the heroes. Feminism was a contrived plan to destroy nature’s distinction between a man & a woman. It’s one thng to work if you want to & ask for fair compensation, it’s another to mandate blindness. We were created as opposites, like night & day. Most people enjoy those differences. But the population haters want less people to have to control, & that’s all there is to it.

  • Ron r

    John Myers ,this is about the stupidest arrival written to date,and surely from a chicken hawks view point. First off the U.S.has not fought a war with a so called front lone since world war 2. There are at present no front lines and woman MP’s are patrolling villages just like their male counter know MP,s infantrymen with badges.

    I am no fan of females on the front lines but as a former soldier I will support the force. And as a former Infantry Drill instructor I very well know the natural physical differences between the two sexes in tactical invitomemts. I also know that there are some women who can out shoot some men. If your aim is true the rest somehow may take care of itself. It is not an Obama agenda man it’s a sign of the times. So spare me the band of brothers crap unless you have fired a shot in anger . I assume this fits your agenda of an Obama Kenyan ,negro army take over of America . You and you reich Wing chair borne rangers .



      • Ron r

        John not front line troops but there have been few defined font lines since ww2 say for Korea there was no defined front line since. That is why you will find a great many combat as well as combat support soldiers operating forward . We are not traing to fight Russia at the moment. No more band of brothers. If conservatives do not want to see women in combat ,they should stop looking for wars to spill the blood of our youth in. Chicken hawks like limbaugh,and Cheney like war .

      • Ron r

        I do not know you nor do I care to.



    • John Myers

      Dear Ron,
      Do you really mean to says the U.S. has not had front-line combat forces since WW II? Have you failed to remember Korea and Vietnam?
      John Myers

      • antonio

        John Myers, have you failed you understand that Vietnam and Korea were NOT “wars”?? No one ever declared a war on those countries; so your argument is screwed. Those were nothing but invasions by imperialist…

      • Ron r

        John not front line troops but there have been few defined font lines since ww2 say for Korea there was no defined front line since. That is why you will find a great many combat as well as combat support soldiers operating forward . We are not traing to fight Russia at the moment. No more band of brothers. If conservatives do not want to see women in combat ,they should stop looking for wars to spill the blood of our youth in. Chicken hawks like limbaugh,and Cheney like war .

  • Fay Guht

    Hello. First the Homoz and now women? Here comes the draft, after, of course, another 9/11 type incident. This time it will be something like Kuwaities which will prompt an attack on Iran, instead of SAUDI ARABIANS on Irag. Fatten up your children.

  • Elton Robb

    I do believe that there will be maximum rapage on the frontlines, and many frontline women soldiers will be taken into captivity for use as slaves and concubines.

  • USMC1775

    Good points, but the bottom line is simple. Our elected leaders do not view this from a national security perspective. Their goal in this regard is not to provide America a better fighting force. Rather, they seek votes and fear being black-balled from those who see this from a female career and money vantage point. Their question is not how do we provide America a better force in readiness, but how can we attenuate the risk of having women in the military and still provide an able military force that provides career opportunities for half our eligible voters. That’s faulty rationale, politicos. Show some moral courage and do the right thing for the right reasons. At least our women in uniform show more courge than you.


    Plato argues in the Republic that in order to build a proper Utopia, it will be necessary to depict the gods as virtuous, regardless of what Homer and other authors may actually have written about them. Hence censorship and deception were seen as requisite for instilling virtue: “The lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful.”

    This has come to be known as Plato’s “Noble Lie”. In the present age, another would-be builder of Utopias has, almost unnoticed, adopted the Noble Lie in pursuit of its goals, utilizing censorship and deception while somehow yet retaining an aura of moral rectitude: the Politically Correct feminist movement, which reigns virtually unchallenged in academe and in government.

    The world as depicted by contemporary feminist scholarship is a peculiar one. It teaches a history that is at variance with that taught in history departments, a view of science incorporating only selectively that taught in science departments, and a paradoxical, illiberal approach to morality in which the correctness of an action depends to a large extent on who is performing it.

    The world-view created by contemporary feminism has much in common with that of the illusionist, who can conjure an impressive scenario, but only when viewed from a certain angle, and only when all attempts at critical scrutiny are muted. Indeed, it is difficult to quell the suspicion that the reason feminists have always insisted on a separate department for their “Womens Studies” program is because they require exemption from the peer review and critical scrutiny that their material would otherwise receive were it taught as history, philosophy, or science.

    Feminists have largely gotten away with these deceptions because the widespread and highly-successful inculcation of male guilt allows feminists to claim that any critical scrutiny of their dubious claims amounts to “blaming the victim.” Additionally, chivalrous feelings make most men feel it is somehow unfair to “attack women,” even if those same women are spouting bizarre nonsense in the process of vigorously attacking men. (The fallacy in this logic is, of course, the assumption that the agenda promoted by feminists is actually in the best interest of most women. A pro-woman agenda would promote harmonious relations between the sexes, and strengthen the family; the feminist agenda, doing the opposite, harms most women as much as it does men.)

    The result has been that a great deal of selective truth, half-truth, and even untruth has been unquestioningly accepted by a large portion of the educated public. In Plato’s Utopian state, the rulers would have a monopoly on the right to tell lies; through the enforcement of “hostile speech” codes on campus (and in some instances questioning feminist doctrine has been construed as “hostile speech”), modern day academic feminists seek the same privilege.

    One of the most obvious absurdities taught as women’s history concerns the supposed “Idyllic Goddess” era, whose best-known proponents are the late Marija Gimbutas and Riane Eisler and which has spawned a large number of uncritical, emotionally-charged articles and books. This is a new twist on the “ancient matriarchies” theme that has long been popular among Marxists and feminists.

    Feminists often speak derisively of the last few thousand years as the period since “the rise of patriarchy,” a statement intended to create the entirely spurious impression that things were once otherwise. Gimbutas, who was a professor of Indo-European Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, claims that Neolithic Europe enjoyed a peaceful, egalitarian, gender-equal but woman-centered society before its invasion by brutal, patriarchal Indo-European invaders more than four thousand years ago. She promoted this idea in several large, beautifully- illustrated books depicting the supposed universal goddess of this period.

    Virtually all of Gimbutas’ professional colleagues dismiss her ‘idyllic goddess’ visions, typically with comments like “Gimbutas has gone too far,” or “oh my God, here goes Marija again”. The proponents of the Idyllic Goddess theory of history teach a variant of the “lost Garden of Eden” myth.

    In this new version the human race was ejected from a paradise because of the sins of men, but not those of women; in the Genesis version, the woman may have sinned first but both committed the offense. Note that in the feminist fable, men alone are responsible for evil, and women represent everything good. This sentiment is encountered again and again in feminist thought, clearly implying the moral superiority of women.

    Other feminists claim to find gender-reversed or gender-equal societies in other always-inaccessible places. Alleged matriarchies., like alleged occurrences of psychic powers, exhibit a “shyness effect,” and can never be observed directly. Some claim the existence of actual contemporary “matriarchies.” in a remote place in Africa, Asia, Madagascar, or wherever, but when pressed for substantiation invariably there is none.

    The most recent sighting of a “nonpatriarchal society” was on remote Vanatinai Island near Papua New Guinea. However, on close inspection it turns out that, even though some women sometimes become very influential there, the great majority of the influential persons are men (exactly as in our society).


    • Karolyn

      Here is what is thought to be one of the last living matriarchal societies in existence in China. Sounds like a great place!

      In my last job I learned about several matriarchal societies in obscure areas around the world where women are revered, totally equal to men, and dwhere there is no such thing as rape.

      • WTS/JAY

        There is a society called the World Congresses on Matriarchal Studies. There are scholars and speakers who go around teaching the history of the Matriarchal society. The first lecture of this society was give in Luxembourg, Europe and the second lecture which took place in 2005 in San Marco, Texas. These lectures cover the origins and the history of the society and what having a Matriarchal Society means.

        There really is no known definition of the word Matriarchy except for literal meaning, so in the eyes of the people who are not quite sure if these societies existed because there is no true meaning of what it should be. But there are people who believe that these societies existed and say they can prove them. Even some female anthropologists do not believe that the matriarchal society ever existed either. So it is not just the men in the field trying to discourage the theory, even some women themselves do not believe such a society existed.

        Some believe that early China and early Japan had Matriarchal societies but there is no known proof. The only proof is that there were and still is (matrilineal) society and that it exists in the Minangkabau society located in the West Sumatra. There are about 4 million people in that section. They are the largest matrilineal society in the world. It is also believed that the Mosuo people who are located in Southwestern China. The Minicoy Islands also have an active community of matrilineal society.

      • http://midcontent ridge runner

        Hell yes women are rspected in woman have the say. All the men are whimps, and no hair on their chest, just mamaa’s boys.

      • Matrix


        [comment has been edited]

        This is the beginning of “no child left behind” for the military.

        By changing the standards of our education to make the inept minority child feel better, we have brought American education to its lowest level in history.

        Let’s do the same for our military and bring our physical standards to a level where women and gays are considered powerful, and we will all live in a perfect world of domination by China!

        This is what the communist have created for America, and now that we have the ultimate communist in office, all of Stalin’s and Mao’s dreams, including the “Dreams of my father” the creator of the obamanation, are now in progress to take America over!

        All I can say to you liberal idiots is good luck and can’t wait to meet you in battle!



  • John Myers

    I did not use the word “war”. I only referred to “front-line forces” so no, my “argument” is not “screwed”.
    John Myers

  • Marshal

    Alright everyone. Women are just as capable of serving in combat positions as men. Only a fool would think otherwise. And when your brother goes down in combat you stick your head out and grab the handle on the back of his IBA and pull him to safety just as you would do a woman. No one is left behind regardless of gender, so the whole men are raised to protect women thing is ridiculous. The only problem i see being a real issue is romantic relationships forming between soldier on the front lines and the man or woman freaking out and losing all military bearing when their lover goes down. The standard for combat units will most likely stay the same and while the usual pt standard for a woman is lower i’m sure it will be the same for women in combat situations. I have met a lot of complete morons in the army who i wouldn’t trust to watch my dog for a day. On the whole, women i have seen are more professional and intelligent than men. Oh and i haven’t read all the above posts but if anyone mentions feminine issues that is ridiculous as well, because guys don’t stand up to [expletive deleted].

    • Tom

      Only a fool would think that women are as physically capable as men. However, what we are talking about is equality and that means that all women in the service must meet the male fitness standard or there isn’t equality. Males don’t have one fitness standard for infantry and another for vehicle maintenance. Therefore all women wearing the uniform must meet the male fitness standard if any of them want to have access to the infantry. That is equality, anything else is special privilege. Women do serve in combat roles but they aren’t capable of consistently meeting the physical demands of ground combat arms. Women in the military don’t want equality; ask them.

    • Doug Rodrigues

      Marshal, have you ever been in the military? I think not, because your comment lacks the insight of what unit cohesion requires. I spent 5 years in the military. Political Correctness and social experimentation doesn’t belong in the military!

  • tom

    My only concern about women in combat is, how drugged are they to want a place in the front line.

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    Most are made at the world since the force feed BS in the schools, promote the whimpy pusified males, and unisexual crap. The Womens Lib along with Hag Hillary’s Wellsly College mind set of pacifist idoit girls can do everything and any activity.

  • Hopingforbetter

    If God had meant us to be equal he would have made us that way. We are not. The Bible says that man is stronger. Plain & simple. This is purely political & women will be the ones that suffer in long run.

  • pissed of & liberal

    Let’s talk facts here people. over 2,000 women serveed as snipers for the red army in world war two. fact.they usually outscored ther male counterparts. fact . women and girls made up a considarible amount of vietcong forces. fact women served in the cuban revolution. fact. during the revolution fidel castro choose to arm a allwomen unit over a male dominatedone the men asked ” why “? castro respond ” because they’re better soldiars than you ” fact. women make up a least a third of the strength in the revolutionary armend forces of columbia ( farc ) fact. colneal gaddafi trusted his life to a all women bodyguard unit . fact .the untied states marne corp has all women sqads called ” lionnessess ” . fact . women have a higher pain threshold then men. fact. the REAL reason Mr Myes does not want women in the foxholes is because when they prove they can handle it ( which they will ) it will finally prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sexes are equal and leave conservitive chuvanits without a leg to stand on. fact.

    • Tom

      Fact: women aren’t equal to men physically as evidenced by the, across all services, lower fitness standards that they cling to. Women aren’t able to consistently meet the physical demands of ground combat forces and are completely incapable of meeting the JSOC standards. They want access without meeting the standard which is special privilege not equality.

      • pissed of & liberal

        FACT women hear ther whole lives that it’s not ” attractive ” to be good at sports or school as such they dont try. FACT male chuvanism is a tool of the capitilist exployters. FACT men like you cling to any shortcomings any women have as ” proof ” because you deep down you fear losing your place in sociaty FACT my mother worked as a security guard then handling airplane equipment some of which was potentally explosive. FACT this crap is about 30 years out of date.

        • Tom

          Fact: you obviously were very attractive in school based on your written communication skills. As a retired Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician items are either explosive or not explosive. Bottom line is this: you don’t want equality, you want special privileges. You want to do a job that has real requirements and real consequences for failure but you want to do it half-assed. Less than 1% of males in this country are capable of doing the job required of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) members and that translates to no women. Females like you want to enjoy the benefit of the “fairer” sex, such as lower fitness standards, but demand to be given every opportunity. If an eighteen year old female wants the same opportunity as an eighteen year old male then earn it like he does. Sign up for the Selective Service and pass the male fitness test just like he does. In addition, all of the females must pass the male fitness test because the female who doesn’t meet the skill requirements for her chosen profession will be sent to the Infantry just as the male would. That is what equality looks like; you rant about how you want it because you like the idea but have no intention of availing yourself of it if the opportunity arose. You would drag every female, including those not interested, into a battle that you have no intent of participating in. Why don’t you play a video game like all of the other armchair warriors so that you can tell yourself you’re as skilled as Seal Team 6 and Delta Force combined. Leave the actual fighting to men like me, my son and my son-in-law and then maybe I won’t stand next to a flag draped coffin because of your supposed equality.

          • pissed of & liberal

            FACT your post is based on the assumption i’m a women.FACT when you assume you make an ass out of yourself. FACT i’m a guy. FACT the american constitution that EVERYONE who resides within these united states are to betreated EQUALLY.

          • Tom

            Congratulations, that would make you the only man in the world to know how a woman thinks and feels. However, you apparently never served in this countries armed forces. In fact, you have never been a first responder either or you would not be under the delusion that these organizations don’t discriminate on a daily basis. The military won’t permit you the privilege, not a right, of service if you are too fat or skinny, too short, ignorant, a criminal, can’t read, write and speak English or have any of a myriad of physical anomalies. Women don’t meet the physical requirements and have no desire to do so. Traditionally, a male who fails to meet the requirements for his job preference will be sent to the Infantry to serve out his enlistment. Therefore, equality demands that all women meet the male fitness standard for service since some might fail to meet standards in their chosen career and be diverted to the Infantry. None of the women in my life, personally or professionally, want that to be the standard. I am talking about women who either have served or serve currently. This tiny fraction of a percentage of women that you carry the standard for want to be considered equal without actually demonstrating equality as a group. That is unacceptable and hypocritical. They want equality from the men but don’t demand it from all of the women? I am grateful for those who honorably serve, male and female, and believe that some combat roles can be filled by women but they are not fit for ground combat.

          • pissed of & liberal

            Explain that to the Vietnamies women who as a teenage girl took a grown american male servicemen prisoneer. I DARE YOU.

          • Tom

            I must confess that I’m not surprised that you have resorted to inane examples but I had hope for you. I have tried to get you to deal with “facts” that you seem to hold so dear but here we are with an example that has nothing to do with the topic. Clandestine or surreptitious actions in no way compare to ground combat mission profiles. A 240 pound male with his pants around his ankles is likely to succumb to a 120 pound woman when taken unaware. In ground combat that same woman can’t drag that man to safety or assist him over a wall. In a stand up fight he will kill her 99 times out of 100. That being said, we were talking about U.S. women serving in ground combat units because they want equal access. They are unfit for this area since they lack the physical ability to meet the necessary standards. All women must meet the same standard required of men or we aren’t talking about equality. You can’t fly if you are too tall because there is an average height that they build for. Should we make different size modules to provide “equal access” for the tall people or should we continue to discriminate based on height? Women are necessary for our military and have a role in limited combat units but ground combat isn’t one. The overwhelming majority of women in the military don’t want true equality. They prefer fitness standards and body mass standards that recognize and allow for their difference.

          • pissed of & liberal

            I am refering to a picture i saw online taken during the war i stand by what i said. that girl was one of hundereds if not thousands to join the national liberation movemet. they just as much as ther male counterparts in the nlf and nva defeted the american army ad ther southern advice, if you ever met one of those women SHOW RESPECT

          • Wumingren

            Pissed on & Lib-prog, you sound happy to see the American military defeated. I guess I’m not particularly surprised by that.

            You do know, don’t you, that the when women are conscripted it is because the country is down to its last breath, fighting for survival and using all of their human resources, including men, women, and children?

            All your examples of the wonderful Amazons on the field of battle are of countries whose male warriors have been decimated and the enemy is at the gate. You didn’t mention all the children that also fought along alongside those women of whom you are so proud. From your argument, logic would lead one to believe that you would be happy to conscript children, too.

            It’s not supposed to get to the point where women and children have to fight to defend against foreign invaders, but it happens. When the Communist hoards are marching up my street with little resistance, I will be proud to have my wife and daughters standing beside me in defense, but until that day, they’re staying away from the war.

            Come to think of it, though, that day when Communists are marching up the streets could come any day now, with you and your ilk lurking in the rear.

          • pissed of & liberal

            Who says the women were consrcipted? why is it so impossible for a women to want to defend her countrey? are women incapable of patriotism and courage in your world? and for the record i was congradulating those women for defeating imperialism not america and i NEVER advocated child soldiers. and if you would quit worshipping at the alter of fox so called news andwould read actual modern marxist literiture you might realize you have NOTHING to fear.

          • Wumingren

            Pissed on Lib-prog, “conscripted” means compulsorily enrolled into service. I used the term loosely, not as in a peacetime draft, but in the sense that you pick up a rifle to join the fight against the total destruction of your way of life. The forced enrollment came from the need for self preservation. It is well known that the countries you mentioned had drafted their youth already. They had no choice. I’m not saying it wasn’t patriotic for the women to stand and fight, or even the children for that matter. They had no choice. What I’m saying is they were in extremis and had no choice. I’m sure that when wagon trains heading “out West” were attacked by indians, the men, women, and children all joined the battle. They had no choice.

            Defeating imperialism? You sure have been deluded by the leftmedia. The U.S. was not an imperialist, but was responding to the plea for help from South Vietnam in a post-imperialist period that had North Vietnam’s Communists engaging in civil war. All this nonsense about American imperialism you leftists keep pushing. Sigh.

            You’re wrong about my news sources. I have never watched FOX. I don’t watch TV and haven’t watched it since enrolling my kids in a school that has parents agree to limit “tube time” to no more than 30 minutes a day. I found it easier to dump satellite TV (when they switched over from analog to digital, making my TV obsolete) than to manage the kids’ TV schedule. I used to watch football, but now I don’t even know or care who won the Super Bowl.

            What the hell is “modern Marxist literature?” Are you kidding me?! Nothing to fear? Ha! Bill Ayers, who probably is a hero of yours, suggested that 25 million die-hard capitalists would need to be exterminated in America in order to secure the communist revolution. Don’t fool yourself with “modern Marxism” because the endgame for you is communism. I would counter your suggestion and ask you to go read up on the millions of lives lost due to socialism/communism, the totalitarianism that first disarms the citizens and then purges itself of any who criticize the state. You worship at the altar of the state, but don’t know that you may well end up sacrificed on that alter. Check out “Democide” or “Murder by Government” as described by R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii:

          • pissed of & liberal

            1.Bill Ayers means less then nothing to me. he speaks for himself and a handfull of delusional lunatics only.
            2. By modern marxist literiture i mean the writtings of the Party for Socialism and Liberation readable at
            3. South Vietnam was a puppet state created by the imperialist powers namely the U.S and France vietnams former colonial master.unforunatly for them the men they choose to lead the puppet goverment were not veterans of the indo-chinse independece struggle like the northen leadership they were criminals who would sell ther nations heratige, resources and people for ther own gain.american intervention succed ONLY in prolonging the war and causing MILLIONS of deaths.

          • Tom

            I show respect to everyone that warrants it. I have noticed a theme in your comments, you seem to hold communists in great esteem. Perhaps you embrace the ideal of communism, that all are equal, while ignoring the reality played out in countless countries? Additionally, you managed to glean an impressive amount of information from a photograph. I stand by all of my statements; women provide an integral service to the military but that does not mean that they meet the standards to serve in every capacity.

          • pissed of & liberal

            Yes i hold communsm in high esteem because i am a communist. and yes i belive all are equal because that is what the CONSTITUTION says. and for the record the picture was part of a article about the history of women in war. what i said was written in the article.

          • Tom

            Ahh, we have reached the point where it is clear that your opinion doesn’t matter. The United States is a Constitutional Republic not a Communist nation. You can’t hear the truth in my words because you are fundamentally at odds with the basic concept that this nation is built on. Now that I recognize the reason for your intransigence I’ll not waste anymore time for either of us. Good luck with your utopia.

          • Wumingren

            Tom, ditto! Unfortunately, we can’t simply ignore the communists, because the communist in the White House wants to fundamentally transform America. Their endgame is communism, regardless of what Marxist ribbons and socialist bows they attempt to disguise it with. Pissed on Lib-prog is no fellow citizen of mine, but she is instead a communist agent. I fought communists overseas for 20 years, and it looks like I’ll be fighting communists at home soon enough. If Obama and his minions want a civil war, I’m ready to bring it to them.

          • pissed of & liberal

            I know you wont listen but here goes. the real communists are in the street protesting this illegal and destructive system. the only communist in the whitehouse is the one you people imagine.

          • pissed of & liberal

            There is no truth to your words ther wreck only of ignorence,arrogance and fear. ” your opinion does not matter unless it’s the same as mine” typical hypocriticall cowardice. i relish the fact that i never ave to waste my time on you again good luck when capitilism destroys america

          • Tom

            I suppose your communist masters pay you in vodka too since your spelling and grammar have only gotten worse over the days. Either that, or the lack of capitalist funds prevent you from understanding or obtaining a spell check program. You are a credit to your ideals.

          • pissed of & liberal

            Yeah well you promised you would not respond to any more of my posts. shows how reliable you are and i have no master unlike you wage slave. but i,m glad you’re back cause i have something to say. i may suck at grammer and my spelling could no doubt be better but if the other option is to be a hypocrite like you i will gladly take my current shortcomings .in case you did not notice the name of this website is personalliberty and it is supposed to be a place where belevers in TRUE liberty can gather to discuss howto protect our few remaning rights. but unfortunatly it has attracted people like you. you do not beleve in TRUE liberty Tom you and those like you beleve in SELECTIVE liberty.a belever in TRUE liberty would NEVER tell someone that ther opinion dosen,t matter just because it differs from ther own. a belever in TRUE liberty would EMBRACE DIVERSITY. a belever in TRUE liberty would ACCEPT my right to follow whatever politicel ideaology that appeals to me. a belever in TRUE liberty would WELCOME the chance to exchange ideas in a logical and rational debate. BUT. a belever in SELECTIVE liberty like you beleves in liberty for yourself and those who agree with you ONLY. a belever in SELECTIVE liberty like you thinks that they have the right to choose who will be free or not, who will have control over ther bodies or not, who has the rght to worship or not , who can fall in love with who. it is YOU who do not understand this site and you sure as hell do NOT understand this countrey. GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDENCE

          • Tom

            Hard to be a wage slave when I don’t have an employer. Actually, I support my country, which is a Republic and governed by the rule of law and not subject to the fanciful whimsy (opinion) of the masses. You, being a communist, do not support this country. You have a right to belong to whatever party you choose but that doesn’t mean that you are an advocate for our way of life. This country is being reduced by those who want equality on their terms to pursue their own agenda. Women who want to serve in ground combat but don’t feel they need to demonstrate the same ability as those who currently perform the job. Welfare recipients who balk at drug testing while countless employees must comply as a condition of employment. Criminals who enjoy better standards of living than our service members. Anyone who thinks they deserve a preference in consideration based on something that they are instead of something they did; such as gender, race or sexual orientation. This country was established to protect the individual from the oppression of authority and the fickleness of other individuals. We all have the right to succeed or fail based on our own ability and effort. We are not all equal but have equal opportunity. Simply desiring something is not enough, you must expend an effort and on occasion you efforts will be insufficient. That doesn’t mean that we should lower the requirements so that someone can feel equal. The individual must either improve themselves or accept their inherent limitation and adjust their goal. You claim that this is a place to engage in logical debate and yet you fail to employ logic in your position regarding women in ground combat positions. Military service starts with a discriminatory selection process followed by a constant evaluation of adherence to specific standards. Women are permitted a lower fitness standard and BMI standard due to their gender and the fact that they don’t have to perform certain jobs. If they want unlimited access to jobs (equality) then they must surrender their gender normed standards (inequality). That is both logical and equal which should make you and the women happy.

          • pissed of & liberal

            Unce again you assume to know my motives and unce again you fail. you see dear boy i love my COUNTREY it’s the SYSTEM i despise. i am a marxist because marxism will lead america into the future and america must embrace the future to survive. capitilism is holding america back. capitilism is the cause of every social problem america has faced and is still facing. capitilism would and is destroying america and the world as a whole just to feed itself. capitilism must die so america may live.

          • Tom

            Ahhh, you’re a thief. You would take my business away from me and then tell me how many hours to work and how much I would earn. Your philosophy is antithetical to my countries basis. You can’t love what you want to disassemble; the Constitution says that I have a right to earn my living how I choose and keep those wages earned. I retired from the military and will no longer serve the wishes of others. I will do only what I want in the manner of my choosing and no man or government will tell me otherwise. That is liberty. As much as my fellow man permits me I will live in peace with him but I won’t be dictated too because I’m an American. That philosophy which you hold so dear has failed everywhere it has been tried. I spent the beginning of my military service preparing to fight your kind and I will raise my hand against any who threaten me and mine to my dying breath. Do your worst but you won’t be the first enemy I bring down.

          • pissed of & liberal

            If you were to read the comment policy you would notice it says ” make your case passionately but civily.please don’t stoop to name calling ” and i am 99% sure calling someone you don’t even know a ” thief ” is name calling. not to mention how cliche banding a socialist as a thief is. i mean really if you can’t think of a intelluctual responce to my post there isno shame in saying so in fact admitting your faults is a crutial part of being a adult.

    • Don 2

      Fact: If all of these Communist leaders and tyrants can use women as cannon fodder, why can’t our ‘Dear Leader’ use them also?

      • pissed of & liberal

        FACT those women were not ” used as fodder” they VOLUNTEERED because of ideals and patriotism which is i’m guessing more then YOU ever had the balls to do.

  • Geo2mqn

    When the Olympics and World athletic organizations elliminate the “men” and “women” categories for each sport ;only then will I recognize this as a valid decision.

  • JM A Kicker

    John Myers, maybe not the same strength, but more kahunas than John Myers. At least, women fight for the US.

  • Deerinwater

    John Meyers say, ” It is pure politics and has zero consideration of the inherent and real physical differentials that exist between the sexes.”

    I say, Well, perhaps John but I prefer to think of it as “stab” at equality requested from the top~down.

    Who likes to hear , “You can’t do this because you were born a particular gender?”

    Why an iron blanket restriction by gender alone?

    I personally do not believe that women are cut out for much of the activities that goes on in front line position but there are some task that lend themselves to women that I quite frankly never enjoyed doing.

    A lot about very little I think.

    It not so much that women will, but that women “can”, does that make any sense to anyone here?

    I would resist it as a mandated requirement to serve at such a capacity.

    Half of our population is women. Women need the training to know how to conduct warring activities if they wish to be seen as a equal part of the process.

    Let them get a “Dear Sally letter” ~ and see war from the inside out like the rest of us.

    • John Myers

      I cannot comprehend your argument when you admit in your own words: “I personally do not believe that women are cut out for much of the activities that goes on in front line position.”
      John Myers

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    pissed, is a liberial moron, these dicktator, used womenas body guards, and he guarded his body, with females used and abused them. The muslim customs. Of course the dumbocraps, beleive females are equipped with only certain operating systems,and smarts or common sence or strength isn’t in the facist/communist democratt lay book.

    • pissed of & liberal

      I would insult you back but you make it to easy.

  • Doug Rodrigues

    This subject reminds me of what a Navy guy once said: “Women in the Navy want full equality”…that is, until a really dirty job comes along, and then it’s just, “We’re only women, we can’t do that.” Without a doubt, mixing the sexes will cause demoralization and problems the social experimenters never dreamed about. OR…maybe they HAVE thought about it and are intentionally creating problems to destroy our military? With this subversive Socialists bunch in Washington now, absolutely nothing would surprise me.

  • APN

    Suit’em up, train’em up and drop’em right in the middle of a firefight. I’m sure they will put the fear of GOD in our enemies.

    The stupidity of the progressive mindset boggles the adult mind.


  • Sheeto bandeeto

    This is clear and simple: find enough bodies to fling at the Iranian troops for the next war. Most of the male volunteers have been exhausted and chewed up in multiple tours. Replenish with homoz and women by using the challenging ruse of equality. If volunteeriny fails, now everyone can be drafted. Notice how you are all fighting with each other to prove you can die for the Military Industrial Complex and another banker sponsored fake war. Read War is a Racket by General Smedley Butler. It’s on line. And rethink your position before youre so quick to THROW AWAY YOUR LIVES.

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    Put Women, Not Devoted, to their own Race on the Front Lines! They are winning any how!

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    The War was only won… When Lady Liberty Said: Make Love Not War… Go home to your Familys.. (While in the buff.)

    • Bert Cundle Sr.

      [ AND THEY DID SO.]

  • RandiG

    This is a typical stereotype. I believe there ARE women who are very capable of going toe to toe with men in combat.. Those misogynist men who think the woman’s place is in the kitchen – get a grip, this isn’t the 19th century where women were little more than chattel.

    I thought America had moved past the “little woman belongs in the kitchen” mentality but from some of the posts, obviously not.

    I would gladly have gone into combat in my younger years and I believe I would have been just as good as any man. Don’t mess with a farm girl!

    • Bert Cundle Sr.

      Or their Lawyer…

      • Bert Cundle Sr.

        NEXT: Childreen over 6 Years of age & Older Must Register for the DRAFT! R.O.T.C. Required in Public Schools K – 12…

    • Bert Cundle Sr.

      I would gladly have gone into combat in my younger years and I believe I would have been just as good as any man.
      And just as dead as many of them… For nothing!

    • Wumingren

      Randi, you’re making a strawwoman argument when you say men who don’t want women in combat are also saying they belong in the kitchen. Your emotional issue is not relevant to the physical issue of men’s and women’s strength and endurance in combat. This isn’t a contest for first or second place in a sports competition; it’s a struggle between life and death. There are a few men who might be a hindrance on the battlefield, but there are only a few women who might not be a hindrance on the battlefield.

    • pissed of & liberal

      Tell em sister!

  • Chester

    John, can YOU pass the mandatory physical necessary to be allowed to ENTER the Army? Unless you can, don’t deny those who can the right to at least attempt to be their best. I know many women who can do far more than I can now, or even when I was of an age to worry about such things, Oh, I volunteered, but that was in a time when I had two choices, either volunteer and pick which service got me, and what they gave me in return, or wait and be drafted and wind up a ground pounder in the Army. A few years later, all four services were taking draftees, but there again, that wasn’t when I joined up. I will say that a lot of the women i have known could easily have completed the boot camp I went through, and probably as many could have completed the Army’s camps. IF you are qualified to be in the service in the first place, why should you be denied the opportunities for advancement that go with being actually ASSIGNED to a combat unit, rather than being there while officially assigned to a non-combat unit. That is the problem a lot of the women in the military face now. They can be sent with a combat unit into a dangerous situation, but their official assignment has nothing to do with that unit.

    • Tom

      If, as you claim, they can do it then let them demonstrate it first by abolishing the female fitness standards and have a single fitness standard for service members. There are a tiny fraction of a percentage of women who don’t get what they want. Most of the women who want to serve in combat units have that option but there are limits. Women, by their own admission, can’t meet the fitness requirements to serve in ground combat forces. Some women say that all they want is equality but they don’t want to be treated equally; only thought of as such. Unless every female is prepared to meet every male requirement for military service than they aren’t equal and don’t deserve any more than they have. Mandatory Selective Service enrollment, “male” fitness standards, “male” body fat standards; these are only three of the things that the military uses to differentiate the genders. Women cling to these exceptions and yet claim their equality. The hypocrisy is distasteful to say the least.

    • John Myers

      I am 55 so my strength and stamina is a long ago memory. Yet at 35 I could and did run a sub 20 minute 5K and I was bench pressing over 300 lbs. Yet so many men younger and older than me at that time were far superior at both. There were some women that were faster runners than me back in the day (including my wife). While I knew many men who could bench-press more than 400 lbs, I never met a woman who could bench-press more than 150 lbs.
      John Myers

  • GerryC

    I was in the Navy during the 1980s. 3 times men from my ship had to go with our firefighting equipment to put out fires on board the tenders that were in our group. One time was in heavy seas with 40′ swells. Why? ecause the tenders were women heavy ships (most of the crew and all of the officers were women). There were way too few men on these “Love Boats” to handle any major problem. Minor fires required other ships to send men to do the firefighting since few women could handle the job.
    I always hated the fact that the physical requirements for women were far lower than for men, as well as the fact that they decline over a carreer with age so that 40 year old fat lazy CPOs don’t have to meet the same requirements as 18-24 yr old men. Further the physical requirements don’t have anything to do with the job, and the corrolary is also true the physical requirents actually needed to do the work are never “required” or tested. One of the requirements to pass bootcamp was a 2 1/2 mile run, it appears now it is only a 1 1/2 mile run. But this is inane. There are no ships that long. I never ever had to do anything in the navy that long distance running was a measure of effectiveness for. And when your on a sub there is no room to run to stay in shape for the PT, plus running makes noise (the enemy of every submariner). In fact every actual physical requirement could be summed up as follows in importance upperbody strength, lower body strengty, speed and dexterity. Hauling ropes, pulling shorepower, operating valves, resupplying food (hundreds of 80# bags of flour, sugar, etc.) all upper body workouts. (ever try pushing a 1 1/2″ diameter salinity detector against 400+ psi of hot water pressure, and then hold it with one hand in while tightening the lock nut, all two feet over your head?) Carrying and using firefighting gear (lots of lower body strength there as well as carrying heavy parts in a maintenance department).

  • Wumingren

    Women in combat? Okay, then let us now put women together with men on professional sports teams, like football, basketball, hockey, soccer, boxing, wrestling, etc. If you cannot imagine such a thing, then you cannot reasonably expect to put men and women side by side on the field of combat.

  • Linda Turner

    The regs do not require all women to have “equal” strength with all men. Both men and women will be held to the same standards and measures. Those who qualify, male or female, will be on the front lines.

  • Gary

    I totally agree with this article. And here are my reasons. As some comments have rightly pointed out yes Russia did use women as snipers and pilots. And the English and Germans did use women as spy’s. But the question is what happens to these women when they are caught by the enemy. History has shown that women aren’t treated like men but are in all cases have been not only tortured but rape REPEATEDLY!!, Do you honestly think a woman that is captured by a Muslim enemy will be treated humanely? If you any one does then your living in a fantasy world. Remember what happened to the CNN reporter? She was just in a crowd of Muslims and NOT one person helped her as she was being raped by countless men. So consider that when any of you think it’s a good idea to put a woman in the front lines. Theirs a reason why the American military never let women on the front lines. They had enough common sense to know what happens to a woman when the enemy gets a hold of them. Again we have a president has never ran a business and has ZERO military experience making inexperienced decisions and doesn’t know how to take advise from people with experience. So this is just one in a long line of bad decisions being made that will not hurt our military but bring down this country even faster.

  • Robbie Borot

    I’m sure that I’m not the only person that mentions exo skeliton technology that enhances the use of carrying heavy back packs and other military gear,and I would like to say as a male that when it comes to get something done right 90 percent of the time I would rather depend on a female than a male as a civilian so the same may also apply as a soldier

  • SGT Michael Moeini, USMC.

    Ok… I’m hearing a lot of guesswork from a lot of people, but there’s definitely one thing that is a fact: the average woman is not as strong as the average man.

    That being said: Not every man is the “average man”, and there’s no “strength requirement for males to join the military, only a physical fitness requirement. In a firefight, how often does the choice of the victor come down to who can benchpress more? Victories on the battlefield are decided by skill, training, mindset and conditioning. Gone are the days of fighting hand-to-hand on the battlefield. Every Marine knows that the riflemans creed clearly states that the goal is to shoot straight and shoot first. This has little to do with hormone levels, genitalia, gender, bodily strength, etc. The FACT is, thousands of women have been in combat situations over the course of the Global War on Terror, simply because their unit was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Opening up the right to train in a combat MOS doesnt “allow” women to be in harms way, IT GIVES THEM THE PROPER TRAINING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS BOUND TO HAPPEN ANYWAY!!

    As a 6′ tall, 245 pound US Marine, I know that if I was hit during a firefight, the chances of a female being able to carry me off of the battlefield with my weapon, helmet, and full gear are virtually nill, as I would be a dead weight of over 300 pounds. At the same time, I wouldnt place too much stock in many males being able to do the same, especially when they are loaded down with the same amount of gear. I knew the risks when I signed up, and it is my burden to bear. Subsequently, this brings us to the issue of possible rape….. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT ANY WOMAN WHO SIGNS UP FOR A COMBAT MOS HASNT CONSIDERED THAT??? The fact is, the majority of women in the military who are victims of sexual assault or rape are victimized by THEIR FELLOW SERVICEMEMBERS. If a woman, fully aware of the possibility of rape if captured, decides to sign up for a combat job anyway, who are you to tell her that she’s wrong? That’s a sacrifice she’s willing to make for her country, much in the same way that she’s risking death or dismemberment.

    In conclusion, the fact that we no longer utilize the draft will be our saving grace, as only women who truly want a combat position, and are fully aware of the dangers and physical demands will accept them. Not all women are physically or emotionally in the right mindset to be full blown infantry…. but neither are all men. There will not be a swarm of women running to sign up, but the fact that we open up the possibility will bring the United States into the next millenium.

    MR MYERS: Not only are you wrong, but you’ve no foot to stand on if the logic you’re writing your little rant with is based on your memories of a bench press competition that occurred over 20 years ago. Wake up, Sir. I’ll leave you with this question: If a physically fit female servicemember outscores an out of shape male on a PFT, but they both receive passing scores, does that mean that that male loses his right to serve his country?


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.