OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

The deadly consequences of sending servicewomen into the most dangerous of wartime situations.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/andrew-harrod/how-cowards-are-pushing-women-into-combat/

ExTex

Okay, so here we have a "news" article pushing quotes from old-school reactionary male-centric egos. "Women can't do this sort of thing because they're not strong enough: they shouldn't be subjected to the rigors and stresses of combat because they aren't made with the physical ability."

Hogwash.

With proper training, instillation of the correct mental attitude for combat personnel, and the support of their comrades in any given situation, how any one individual performs is more a matter of his/her individual response than any g****r-related issue.

Let me clarify something here. I am a 71-year-old veteran. I served in 'Nam, and I did see combat. I "earned" 2 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. My leanings are what I term "moderate conservative."

When I was a boy, I was raised to believe in women being ladies, all soft and delicate and frilly. I believed in that, but as I got older, I began to notice certain inconsistencies. To my surprise, I found that many women showed surprising strength, both physical and mental, in difficult situations. It seemed to be more a matter of the particular woman's own life experience instead of any inherent inborn trait.

Now, I think this "scream, shriek and flee" response we see in so many young girls is an educated response, not instinctive: they were raised to think it's expected of them so that's what they do. This can be changed in a proper training situation, the same as happens with inexperienced young men. The difference, of course, is that males usually go in to training with something of a "macho" attitude that is encouraged by our society, while young women have normally been raised to be what we view as feminine. This would call for a modified approach to the initial training; something I am not qualified to define, as I am not a combat trainer.

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

You're entitled to your opinion, but as a retired naval officer, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The problem is, with the liberals in charge, they will not get that proper training...period.

John Deere

Even though I'm conservative, on this I have to disagree with you, but you're right that if liberals run the military training system, woman in combat would then be a disaster. Look at history about woman fighters. One of Israel's leaders during the time of the judges was Deborah and this was during a time when Israel was at constant war with it's neighbors on all sides. A woman named Boudica, hope I spelled that right, led the British against the Roman Empire. I can't think of the woman's name right now, but France had a woman fighter leading armies against the British during the 100 years war. Go look at the Viet Nam war and you'd see that some of the VC fighters were women. And then there's my wife, part German and part Sioux. Boy is that a hell of a combination when she loses her temper.

lone_ghost Loc: Wisconsin

I really think that a woman's combat ability is not the issue. The only thing I have found that a man can do and a woman can not is produce sperm. Women were not allowed on navy ships until 1994 and look at how many problems have arisen from that that have nothing to do with their ability to serve. Rape, sexual harassment, law suits etc. The navy has been wracked with scandal.
As a combat veteran I know how stressful things get, and I know how men react to that stress. Suffice it to say that the enemy would not necessarily be a woman's only threat. I feel that they would also be a security risk in that a lot of men are going to be far more focused on them then doing their job. Finally there is of course capture. Rape and brutalization are almost a certainty at enemy hands. Do I think they could do the job? Absolutely, but I think it is a very bad idea.