ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Woman in Combat

Updated on April 9, 2019

Advocating Equality For Women in Combat Units

I will stand up and state right away, I am an avid advocate for women on the front line. Women in combat units, women in Marine Recon units, Seal units, other special forces and sniper units, and virtually in all areas and branches of the Armed Services. I have argued on the belief that a woman should be able to have the equality of a man when its concerning the military. I do also, however, believe that a woman needs to meet male physical, intellectual, and mental expectations and requirements. They can not have a separate set because they are female. I also understand that women play a psychological role in a man's ability to function to the level of their training. To make change though we have to combat problems in those areas and train from boot camp or basic training to achieve a level of psychological readiness that won't have them hovering longer over a dead woman's body then their male counterpart.

I have played devil's advocate on this issue as well and the "male" standpoint that women shouldn't be in the front line's so to speak. Most I would even agree with because I have run into so many military service member's that are women that I am shocked they are in the armed forces. I joined the military myself as that was the life I grew up in awe of and a part of as a Navy officer's kid. I am very adamant about "values" that are supposed to be part of the life in the military that I found myself by joining the Marine Corps in April of 1998.I learned values I have taken throughout my everyday civilian life and even lived them as an Army wife when no one else around me did.

I respect every service; especially woman that serve, don't get me wrong. I don't agree with separate standards and I fully believe that training begins psychologically in basic if we are to ever get over the product of having women in combat. I know several friends of mine are cringing if they read this: One a Marine that graduated basic the day I arrived, my son's godfather who argued with me for many years about woman not being in the Corps even. I would go toe to toe with him (though eventually he did tell me he agreed ONE woman should be allowed in the Corps and that was me and if I went back he would attend graduation in dress blue's no matter the SC heat.) One friend is in the Army and a previous friend and neighbor of mine that the military argument was one we often had fun over while drinking. I am pretty sure he would be shaking his head and have plenty of comments for me ( that is if he talks to me again, haven't heard from him since he left so cross fingers all is well ). The other another friend currently far away and just now argued with me about why woman shouldn't be in combat ( lots of love for that friend as well and no hard feelings we won't agree on that I hope because I am looking forward to having him home safe soon.)

I will say that it is feasible in my opinion to have the properly trained, meeting or exceeding men standards for woman to be allowed in combat. I do not think a majority of woman could make those demands even if they tried more than they had in them. I believe its something though that shouldn't be taken away from us just because we are female. Ten years ago I will stand up and say I could have done it. Yes I carried double my weight, I ran as fast if not faster, climbed higher, humped farther, carried more in my ruck if necessary because I felt I had something to prove to the men in the Marines. That I could be what we were trained for and that was a rifle man first. I laughed when other woman cried. I didn't cry until the day I was discharged; because I may be a Marine on paper, on my DD214, but I wasn't wearing the uniform and that killed me; so I cried. Sue me. However; I maintained the highest of standards I could possibly maintain and I believe females can do it and should be allowed to try.

Pentagon Commission Says...

A recommendation from the Pentagon commission has stated they want woman to be allowed to be in combat ground units. Woman have been serving in combat support units and are engaging in combat as it is; it is an unfair career disadvantage to not be allowed the ability to serve in ground combat units in terms of promotional opportunities.

In January it began to be expected that the Military Leadership Diversity Commission would be releasing a draft version of the recommendation. There were twenty other recommendations aside from the woman serving in ground combat units as well that are being considered.

The report also puts the pressure on about the demographics need to be more closely reflected to the United States in the military services.

The two services that would most be affected by the changes would be the United States Marine Corps and the U.S. Army branches. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos did not comment on the recommendation regarding woman serving in combat units. ( In my personal opinion I understand the position this leaves them in politically, militarily, and personal belief wise and I believe was probably a sound choice to remain non-committal. )

Chairperson of the commission was a retired Air Force General; Lester L. Lyles, that discussed the woman interviewed. They claim that woman were pulled from all ranks and all branches throughout military services and remained surprisingly neutral in neither "Gun ho" or "gun shy" status of their agreement or disagreement of woman being allowed to serve in ground combat nor about their own personal option to be able to do so. ( One that I would have been very "Gun ho" over I must say and hope that they realize the excessive change of psychological mindsets the country, the men who serve, the woman who serve and those that do and don't support the military will have to experience to ever accept the change if it goes into effect and how appreciative of the opportunity they should be. It reminds me of when black men began to be allowed to be integrated into service and how they began to be allowed to fight in the front lines and what a drastic change for humanity it really was. A change that I myself, never thought to see in a black man taking office or woman even being considered as it is to serve this way. The opportunity to be a part of this change is a huge step for humanity and one I don't think is being taken for truly what it means.)

"I didn't hear, 'Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,' " Lyles said, "but I also didn't hear, 'We don't want to be in combat.'
"What they want is an equal opportunity to serve where their skills allow them to serve," he said in a DoD release. "Removing the barriers for that, and removing the barriers to them getting credit for that, was our No. 1 focus."

Below Brigade level it is being recommended that implementation of new policies by the Pentagon; assign woman based on their qualifications to tactical units.


"The commission is not advocating lowering of standards with the elimination of the combat exclusion policy," the final report states. "Qualification standards for combat arms positions should remain in place."
The Combat Exclusion Policy was instituted in 1994 to Barr women from engaging in combat situations with weapons while having a the high probability of being in close proximity of a close combat situation. It was termed as "hostile force". This policy keeps woman from serving in units such as infantry units and artillery forces due to the high probability of hostile force proximity, hand to hand combat situations and also any special forces kind of MOS in the armed forces.

The Army and the Marines have the most restrictive in regards to the combat exclusion policies. That is if ground combat is the "principle role" of the mission and the units involved in the mission underway. The Army in a 2003 examination had nine percent of jobs unavailable to woman and the Marine Corps and eight percent unavailable to woman. The Navy in contrast held a percentage of only six percent unavailable to women and one we know is submarine jobs. In the Air Force only 1 percent of jobs were unattainable. The navy percentage may even be lower as they state that submarine jobs were opened early last year to woman.

15 percent of all service members are women in active duty and 18 percent are women in reservist units. 10 percent of our Iraqi and Afghanistan troops are women. With 80 percent of Army commissioned officers coming from fields restricted to woman; making promotion in higher ranks virtually impossible in some or most situations, 10 percent of those troops that are women have or are serving in what is termed "combat theater".

Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said officials "will thoroughly evaluate" the commission's recommendations as part of an ongoing review of diversity policies.

Even in earlier years of the Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts; women have served in what is stated as "kinetic" situations. These jobs women have been active in are including; but not limited to, military police, truck drivers ( transportation or 88M ), supply, security forces, and thus females have directly engaged in enemy hostile situations and combat.

The first woman since World War 2 to earn a Silver Star was in 2005.

Army Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester: On duty in Iraq from the 617th Military Police Company of the Kentucky National Guard, she and her fellow Soldiers engaged the enemy during a convoy ambush March 2005. The MP squad flanked the insurgents to cut off their escape route, and Hester led her team through the fire and attacked the enemy trench line with rifles and M203 grenades. Before it was over, 27 insurgents were dead and six wounded. "It really doesn't have anything to do with being a female," she said in June 2005, when the medal was pinned on her. "It's about the duties I performed that day as a Soldier."





Women In Combat

Now I find it really upsetting to a point that this is such a huge stretch into change not expected of the military to advocate; especially recommendations from the Pentagon itself, and women were so neutral in comparison to my own reaction and those I have spoken to in regards to the news release.  The women were so even keel; not very impressed with the level of change this would mean to not only the military, but to the whole country as a whole.  It would mean a whole new way of training you would think to better handle psychological issues of a women on the battlefield and ways that training could be better fitted to accommodate such a change in the way we see and do things from a technical and logistical as well as psychological standpoint.

Another aspect that intrigues me and those that have thoughts on any of this please comment for I am genuinely interested in the aspects I am going to lay out for you.  I think its interesting that the Marines and the Army; training very differently, having very different mentality and values even, the animosity they have towards the other even historically; yet they are the top two that have the hardest adjustment to the addition of women, both top brass are non-committal and make no comment either way and both have the highest percentage of jobs not accessible to women.  Yet even the Navy has made it possible for woman to serve on submarines.

I am also interested in the way the military intends to deal with this change if it does indeed go through; because the argument is very much valid as to the psychological ramifications of men and their reactions towards a female in their unit on the combat front.  It was proved that men will hover more over a dying female then male knowing they can't save them.  They will hesitate in actions needed; they will also have problems in the sexual arena with harassment and rape.  Especially with the enemy and hostage situations.  So, is training going to change throughout the services?  I tend to believe it should and right now the Marines are more equipped mentally and psychologically to handle such a change if it happened today; that their training is more effective to deal with issues such as this but to be honest they probably need to adjust as well.

How are changes going to effect the way the citizens of this country feel?  Are their opinions going to be put in front of the deciding commission that generates a yes or no in regards to women being in combat units?  Is it something that we are going to be able to vote for or is it being decided in the government and military levels and why or why not should we be able to have a say in such a choice?  Were women really that cavalier about the biggest change the military could see in having since I would say integration of blacks into fighting forces throughout the military or even Obama becoming president over a protestant white male.  Changes I didn't think I would see in my lifetime and one that I personally was fighting for in regular friendly debates with fellow Marines or even soldier's that disagree with me across the board. 

I would love anyone to comment and give me your honest and blunt opinion.  Just be considerate and give an educated viewpoint; not bias or sexist based.  For war is a serious thing obviously and I have many friends that served or still serve in the service.  My close friends are even in Iraq as we speak and in jobs that put them in harm's way daily and I would appreciate nothing but respect even in disagreeing banter.  Thank you for those that serve even if you are what we term a "pencil pusher" everyone in the service has important jobs and demands of their lives.

Comments

Submit a Comment
  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    6 years ago from Plymouth WI

    I respect your opinion

  • NC4Life078 profile image

    Nicoli Clause 

    6 years ago from United States of America

    Yes, there are women that can outperform men in all areas of life. But, again we need to look at the majority of women vs. men. It is a fact that men have a leaner body mass and more testosterone which in turn can generate more strength than that of an average female.

    Women have died in combat which I do not neglect. I respect my fallen brothers and sisters and often times wish it were me instead. But, the point I am making is just because they did lose their lives doesn't mean we should subject them to an environment.

    You are making it sound as if the men are to blame for what would happen in the barracks or in small facility. Things that happen in these places happen regardless of women being there. It is just from our experience with women that we know they couldn't handle our lifestyle emotionally. I truly hate using my experiences as proof that it would not work. The reason for this is that a lot of people want to see that empirical evidence, but, again as I had stated earlier, it is something you need to experience.

    Have you ever wanted something so bad and yet you were still unable to achieve it? You gave it your all and yet you just came up short. You thought you could do it, but, there was always that thing preventing you from getting it. I'm not saying "you" couldn't do it, you might be able to. But, if you are like most people, you might have had that experience I stated above. I'll admit that I too have had it. I like to imagine that I can do everything I set my heart to, but, I really have come to the realization that that isn't the case. I actually dislike responding to this line as it is really taking away from the debate.

    I stand by my statements directed towards these studies for they are comparing apples and oranges. Your next paragraph goes as follows;

    "This is what my professor was talking about when he said you can put the facts right in front of someone and no matter what they see and no matter what data is there they will find a way to support their claims no matter what it is because no one likes to listen to the data."

    This really just states what I have already said. Your professor is correct, but, I believe you are not using it appropriately. Essentially, you are using a transitive property. Your professor would most likely agree with me if I said you can't take a study of the ocean and use it to understand the moon. In other words using a study on a supporting unit can't be applied to an infantry unit.

    Furthermore, these claims have not been backed up with more empirical evidence, for all I know this is a pseudoscience. Yes, people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. But, this isn't appropriate at the time.

    Well, I suppose I am partially bias because I have endured what the majority hasn't. I would hate to leave you with such a blunt statement, but, for personal reasons I must leave it at that. Now, I am slightly appalled amongst the fact that you are claiming to know me at a personal level. I suppose in some sense you do, but, to state that I am sexist and claim that you know who I am enough to make such statements is the reason I will no longer partake in this discussion.

    If you put a women in front of me that could prove me wrong, I would give her a pat on the back and say good job. But, the problem is I have yet to see it. It might have to do with the fact that they have not been given the chance to prove it. Man or woman I could care less as long as he or she is the best person for the job and isn’t a risk to my platoon.

    With all things aside, is this really something every woman must have? I believe that many are taking the approach the wrong way and in turn making it about themselves (women's rights). This is about the welfare of the nation, as many others have stated. Whether these advocates want to believe it or not it will change a 236 year lifestyle. We are simply rolling dice as it may hurt the Marine Corps. From my experiences it will. Perhaps, if they stick through it, the issues may be resolved. But, we are not talking about a game, these are people’s lives. If I knew this notion would be enough to cost just one life be it male or female. It would be enough for me to be against it.

    Have you ever heard the saying "A law put into place is another freedom lost."? Well, this may be true, but these laws have been put in place to protect the people. If we allowed everyone to do what they wanted we would be nothing more than a pack of apes.

    The main argument stems from Women’s Rights; there is nothing wrong with this except for the fact that this issue isn't black and white for it is grey. I am all for women’s rights, but, the problem is that it opens up a can of worms. A lot of problems will arise and could cost the nation lives, hardships and a lot of money. It reminds me a lot of drunk driving. If someone told me that I have a choice to buy a car and have a great throughout my life, but, it would be at the cost of someone else’s life (let us say a car accident) I wouldn't drive. This to me is selfish, just like how politicians pass things for votes.

    Why does it matter who you die with and how you die? In the end dying is dying. Women are certainly not overlooked when it comes to mourning the deaths of Americans. Rifleman, Machine Gunners, Motor Transport, Reconnaissance, Intelligence and Lioness Teams and all the other military occupational services will never be taken for granted. Men, women, black or white it doesn't matter, death takes all. If it is ribbons you are chasing women are still capable of receiving a combat action ribbon, the issue isn't about taking away something from women or being "unequal", it is put in place to protect us.

    Now, you have come up with a list of events that lioness' have encountered. Although I have no doubt in my mind that these events did indeed take place and that it happened as stated. My problem with the entire thing is this; nowhere on that list does it show the remarks of any infantryman. I see high ranking officials (who I know did not partake in these missions themselves) declaring what had happened. The problem with this is that it doesn't give a picture of the whole story. I would be much more moved if I heard it from an Lcpl infantryman as they run the show. It would seem no one cares what they think, when they are the boots on deck, not an officer or a supporting unit, but a ground pounder.

    Their primary role isn't combat. It has nothing to do with "not being official" In these situations it isn't as if they are unable to violate the policy. The lioness program was created to effectively work and communicate with the females in the region. Not to play a combative role, again these things happen. But, it isn't like we are subjecting them to being directly in combat. It does happen, but, that is beside the point.

    No one said women were not needed, they play an important role in all areas of life and in many cases can accomplish things better than a man. But, since America’s existence we have not needed women in a direct combat role.

    As I stated earlier, I feel as if this discussion became too centered on emotions and I am choosing to discontinue my participation in the matter. It is a great article, despite what I believe. I thank you for your time and look forward to reading more of your hubs.

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    6 years ago from Plymouth WI

    Imagine that!!! Women were NEEDED because THEY COULD DO SOMETHING THE MAN COULDN'T CULTURALLY

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    6 years ago from Plymouth WI

    The rest of the myth busted women are in combat units

    Regardless of whether the soldiers on the ground correctly interpreted the

    Army's policy, the situation on the ground required them to adapt and find a way to

    get the job done despite Army's policy or soldiers' opinions of the existing policies.

    As one Lioness member who served in Iraq remarked, the Lionesses were needed

    so badly and in such great numbers, that while she hoped she would not be needed

    often she understood how important the job was and would never try to get out it.

    In October 2004, a reporter with the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the

    Army's 1st Infantry Division wrote the first news article about the Lioness program

    in Iraq." The reporter, Erin Solaro, stayed with the 1st Engineer Battalion and her

    roommate was Captain Anastasia Breslow, one of the Lionesses featured in the

    LIONESS documentary.'* The Lionesses talked to her about their missions." One

    Lioness, Private First Class Jennifer Acy, described her first mission where her

    team was supporting a Marine unit on duty at a traffic control point and how the

    team encountered fire while interacting with Iraqi women.'"" Acy explained how

    they came under fire but couldn't fire back for fear of hitting the Marines at the

    checkpoint.'"' The reporter accompanied the Lioness teams on several missions

    and later published a book describing these experiences.'"^

    One of the biggest challenges for the Lioness teams was the lack of training

    for the women prior to being "attached" to the all-male ground combat units;

    especially when supporting the Marine units.'"' The Army Lionesses quickly

    discovered that the Services train and function differently and have different

    techniques and terminology on the battlefield. As such, the Lionesses were often left

    trying to figure out the Marine vocabulary and procedures in the midst of difficult

    situations. One way to circumvent this issue was for the Marines to create their

    own, intemal Lioness teams, which they soon did.

    Given the Army's creative use of female soldiers in Iraq, the concem among

    ground froops was whether employing female soldiers as part of Team Lioness

    violated existing policies.'"" The common argument, heard during the interviews

    conducted for this project, was that using female soldiers in this way does not violate

    the Army's policy because all service members, including women, may be employed

    to support the mission as needed so long as women are not permanently "assigned"

    to the direct ground combat units.'"' The argument is that the Lioness program does

    not violate the Army's assignment policy or DOD's policy because the Lionesses

    were only temporarily "attached" or "in support of," and not permanently "assigned,"

    to the all-male ground combat units.'"* Furthermore, as some of the commanders

    of all-male units argued, the missions which the Lioness teams supported were not

    "intended" to be combat missions and the women were not intended to serve in

    direct ground combat."" .

    However, as explained by the female service members who have deployed

    to Iraq or Afghanistan, the problem with the current policy is that the battlefield

    has changed in today's contingency operations and the definition of "direct ground

    combat" outlined in the Aspin Memorandum no longer matches the reality on the

    ground. Female service members are confirming that the enemy is not staying neatly

    behind enemy lines that are "well-forward on the battlefield," nor is the enemy only

    engaging male service members. Further, comniianders in Iraq are using their female

    soldiers as they see fit in ground operations, including sending them weil forward

    on the "battlefield" to conduct missions for extended periods of time alongside the

    all-male combat units.'*"

    As the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) recently pointed

    out in its report to Congress, "Such concepts as 'enemy,', 'exposed to hostile fire,'

    'forward,' and 'well forward' are no longer useful when determining which units

    should be closed to women. The enemy is no longer clearly and consistently

    identifiable, and all units are exposed to hostile fire.""" Further, the MLDC explained:

    [O]nce a female servicemember has been assigned to a unit, the

    assignment policy prescribes neither what duties she can do nor

    with.which other units she may interact. As a result, women are

    performing in conibat roles. Indeed, local commanders have the

    authority to use their personnel as they see fit to fulfill the unit

    missions.""

    OH I GET IT!!! WE CAN BE IN ANY SITUATION IN COMBAT AS LONG AS ITS NOT AN OFFICIAL .... THEY DIDN'T MEAN FOR THEM TO BE THERE BUT YET THEY CAN USE THE WOMEN IN COMBAT AND THEY CAN VIOLATE THE POLICY IF THEY SEE FIT BUT AS LONG AS WE DON'T SAY THEY ARE ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO ITS OKAY...

    Its crap...

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    6 years ago from Plymouth WI

    This is verbatim in Myth Busted because Women are serving in Combat units and its an Academic Periodical

    A. The Army's Assignment Policy

    The Army's policy for women serving in their service is regulated by Army

    Regulation 600-13, Army Policy for the Assignment of Female Soldiers.*' This

    regulation, which became effective on April 27, 1992,™ was not impacted by the

    Aspin Memorandum in 1994, and states:

    The Army's assignment policy for female soldiers allows women

    to serve in any officer or enlisted specialty or position except those

    specialties, positions, or units (battalion size or smaller) which are

    assigned a routine mission to engage in direct combat, or which

    collocate routinely with units assigned a direct combat mission."

    Consequently, women in the Army are restricted from certain specialties, including

    infantry, armor, cannon field artillery, multiple rocket artillery, and special forces."

    The media reports that some senior Army leaders agree that it is time to

    reassess the Army's assignment policy." However, under the DOD policy outlined

    in the Aspin Memorandum, the Army can only remove the unit size restriction

    or the "collocation" restriction, as stated in Army Regulation 600-13.

    B. History of the Army's Lioness Program in Iraq

    Starting as early as 2003, Army service women were serving in a variety of

    roles beyond their assigned positions or specialties in Iraq in order to support the

    mission. The film documentary LIONESS highlights a group of female soldiers

    that went out on missions with all-male ground combat teams during the early

    days in Iraq." As Captain Lory Manning, United States Navy (Ret.), stated in

    the dociimentary,

    A lot of the general public knows that women are serving in Iraq

    and know that women have been killed over there; but they probably

    have no sense at all of the kinds of things that the women like the

    Lionesses are doing. The Lionesses did what had to be done even

    though they were sent with other occupations and skills.'*

    In September 2003, Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Richard Cabrey,

    Commander of the 1/5 Field Artillery, and Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) William

    Brinkley, Commander of thé 1st Engineer Battalion, were based in and operating

    around the town of Ramadi, in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq." As discussed in the

    documentary, this area was a hotbed of insurgent activity and the soldiers based

    there were conducting operations that required the local people, including women

    and children, be searched for weapons and evidence of insurgent activities. However,

    the male soldiers could not conduct physical searches of the local women, due to the

    cultural restraints preventing a male soldier from touching and conducting a physical

    search of an Iraqi woman. The commanders quickly realized they were in a new

    type of situation that required a special solution.'* Lt Col Cabrey recognized that

    he needed female soldiers on the missions so that the female soldiers could search

    and stay with the women and children that units encountered during the operations."

    He then asked Lt Col Brinkley of the 1st Engineer Battalion for female volunteers

    to support these missions.*" Brinkley started allowing teams of two female soldiers,

    later growing to larger groups, to go out with the all-male vmits of the 1/5 Field

    Artillery to help support their missions.*' He called the female soldiers on these

    particular missions "Team Lioness."^^

    According to Major Kate Guttormsen, Company Commander ofthe 1st

    Engineer Battalion, the battalion had approximately twenty-five women to select

    from, to leave their desk jobs for short periods of time and fulfill the Team Lioness

    requirements.*' These women covered the full specttiim of physical and mental

    capabilities and had little to no ttaining for the task at hand.'" Almost all ofthe

    twenty-five women available participated in the Team Lioness program during 2003-

    2004; some participated much more than others due to their own particular skills or

    abilities.*' As the artillery units realized the usefulness of having the Lionesses on

    their missions, they started requesting certain soldiers by name due to their particular

    skills, matching them for particular missions.**

    Team Lioness started by accompanying the all-male units into the local

    area on their missions to search local houses for weapons and information about

    the insurgent activities going on in and around Ramadi.*' In the documentary; the

    Lionesses described how these missions usually occurred at night. The all-male

    units would enter the houses first and gather the men found inside the house in

    one room and the women and children in another room. The male soldiers would

    then search the men, while the Lionesses would stay with and search the women

    and children. During the day, the teams would also go out to conduct civil affairs

    missions, such as visiting and providing supplies to local schools.

    The Lionesses also explained that they quickly realized it helped to calm

    the sittiation if the local women saw that they were also women. Thus, the female

    soldiers would take off their helmets to show the local women that they were

    women. The local women would then calm down and, as they waited, would start

    talking to them and sharing valuable information about suspected insurgents or

    insurgent activities;**

    However, the female soldiers involved in Team Lioness also quickly realized

    their lives were in danger during these missions because there were no "front" lines

    defining where or what the women were doing in Iraq.*' Several ofthe Lionesses

    were involved in the infamous firefight that broke out in Ramadi in the spring of

    2004.'° The documentary shows that, in April 2004, Team Lioness was tasked with

    supporting a Marine unit, the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines. This created some unique

    problems due to the differences in training and operating procedures between the

    Services." On that particular night in April 2004, Team Lioness was accompanying

    the Marine unit on a mission to arrest two known insurgent leaders in Ramadi.

    They were dismounted and doing foot patrols to search local homes, following

    their standard procedures of separating the men and women to conduct the searches.

    During the night, they successfully found and captured the two insurgent leaders

    as planned. However, early the next morning, their presence became known and a

    massive firefight erupted, ambushing the troops. The Team Lioness members that

    were involved in that mission described being engaged in firefights and attacks over

    a distance of approximately five to seven miles. It was not just the Marines and

    soldiers in the "fi-ont" engaged in fire fight, but everyone out on the mission that

    night.'^ They were attacked with small arms fire, grenades, rocket propelled grenades

    (RPGs), and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The Team Lioness members

    described in detail the intense firefight that lasted around four hours.'^ One of the

    Lionesses on this mission. Specialist Shannon Morgan, spoke in the documentary

    about her experience of having to return fire, including having to shoot and kill an

    Colonel Paul Kennedy, Commander of the 2/4 Marines, explained in the

    documentary that it was not an ideal situation to have the Lioness team out there

    because the situation transitioned from a search operation to semi-urban combat.'"

    Lt Col Brinkley went further and stated, "Did I have female soldiers in battle? Yes.

    Was the intent of those soldiers to be in battle when they went? Ah, well, I don't

    know—^probably not. But did battle come to them on occasion? Yeah, it did.'"^

    The Lioness program shows in stark reality that women are serving alongside

    all-male units engaged in direct ground combat, despite the Army's policy restricting

    women fi-om being assigned to positions or units, whose primary mission is to

    engage in direct combat or routinely collocates with units assigned a direct combat

    mission.'*

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    6 years ago from Plymouth WI

    Well, I stand by that if a woman can meet all criteria and standards of a man then she should be allowed to. One thing I have to say is that they said things like this when black men wanted to die for their country and not be cooks. They said things like this when women first wanted to join the military and my grandmother was in the Navy during WW2 . There are so many women that can out perform a man physically, mentally, and psychologically...that has nothing to do with one's gender. We heard things like this when gays wanted to be allowed to serve. Now we are back to women again. "The life and welfare of your friends and family, why would you mess around?" That is interesting because women have died in combat zones already for this country protecting your right to say that. They are good enough to already be in the combat zone, and they are already good enough to fire bullets and take rounds, and die...to serve our military. Yet you are saying they can't do that because of the welfare of the citizens of the U.S. Well, thank the female soldier that died so you could say that.

    I am not being nasty, I am being bluntly honest.

    As for the barracks issue, they are grown adults...have one barracks. If a women wants to do the job she takes what is already there. If that creates issues for the men that is the man's issue to deal with because they are the one with the personal issues. I wouldn't give a damn if I had to share facilities with a man. I don't care if I would have to sleep in a foxhole or a trench or barracks...I don't have a problem with man's stench. You actually habituate to it anyway and won't notice it. And as for sexual harrassment? We are talking elite units, so I am sure very few women would even make it through and by then, it would me one mentally and psychologically sound individual if the military is doing their job and won't randomly report bogus sexual harrassement claims. If the men sexually harass her AGAIN its the man's issue not hers. If he rapes her that is his problem, she didn't create it. If she is dying and she tells him move on and save PVT James because I won't make it and he lingers over her dying body, he is the one with the problem. None of this is the women's problem

    It comes down to the fact that no matter what you keep throwing at me I would be perfectly willing to adjust to so I could be in combat units if I was still in the military.

    The most of women DO NOT want to be in combat roles; but I did. I was mentally and psychologically able to do it and I was physically able to keep improving so I could at least try. I pushed my limits and I was better than 3/4 of males in events yet you are saying that I am the one that shouldn't be able to try. Its the ones that want to ...and yes I could carry more than my own weight and my rifle and my rucksack...so again...is that so unthinkable that it could happen???? You keep saying well in training but in real combat...okay I get the difference already, BUT you can't tell the whole women species that none of us, not one, could do it and be able to do it if we wanted to.

    We are not a free country and we are spreading a hypocritical philosophy of all men are created equal crap...men and WOMEN are dying for this country and the wars it wants to be involved in, even if the people don't want them too...believeing this country is free and they are proud of it...yet they are fighting for something we don't practice...we aren't all created equal...we all don't have the right to pursue life liberty and happiness because my life and my happiness was denied me when I knew I couldn't do what I was born into, what I was raised in, and what I would have died for.

    So those research studies...yes, they are correlational because it is unethical to create an experiment to prove causation. However, they are legitimate studies with legitimate results.

    This is what my professor was talking about when he said you can put the facts right in front of someone and no matter what they see and no matter what data is there they will find a way to support their claims no matter what it is because no one likes to listen to the data. That everyone has to train themselves to think scientifically or laterally. This is that moment.

    You may not think you are sexist or bias but you are. Because if I put a women in front of you that could meet and solve all of your points you wouldn't think she was good enough. I respect the fact you have an opinion and I respect the fact that you shared it but I will always support equality because that is what our country is supposed to be; A place we can pursue our dreams and be who we want to be and say what we want to say and we are supposed to be created equal and we are dying for a country....women are dying for a country that says they can shooot that rifle and they can be shot because they are already at the front on some support unit and they die anyway...but they aren't good enough to die there because the job was there...they can't die with a bunch of navy seals or recon or whatever it is...

    What I understand out of all of this is that its nothing but the mens issues that they are pushing onto women.

  • NC4Life078 profile image

    Nicoli Clause 

    6 years ago from United States of America

    I would like to quote the research conducted by the U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Services;

    "They were evaluating 40 combat support and combat service support units"

    Now, I'm not saying that they don't have to endure rigorous trials while being deployed, but, comparing any type of support unit to an infantry unit is like comparing night and day. The majority of those in any type of support role will generally have better access to facilities, but, more importantly the majority will not have to worry about encountering small arms fire as well as the chance that they, or their best friend, may not come home if the situation arises. I would now like to quote the study REFWAC.

    "The six battalions included four support battalions, a headquarters battalion, and a nuclear, biological, and chemical group"

    Now, I am aware that artillery and maybe even LAV falls into a support roll. But, it is clear that these MOS's that these studies follow were based on a more relaxed environment than one that an infantry unit must endure on a daily basis. I have no doubt in my mind that men and women can work effectively in a supporting unit (HQ). In fact, it feels like you are working an ordinary job at times. But, that is just it; an infantry roll doesn't fell "ordinary". You are not sitting behind a desk as you would at a command level.

    People look at this type of research and feel that one size fits all. But, the problem is that more often than not it doesn't. There are things that women are better at than men and vice versa. The rules were not put into place to be unfair; they were put into place because that is what works. Currently, the USMC is 236 years old it has obviously proven to the world that it is an effective military organization. Why force it to change when it is already the best?

    The Marine Corps biggest enemy is truly the people it protects in the sense that the only thing that is able to bring it down is the people and politics.

    As I said earlier, yes women see combat. This is a part of the risk of being deployed for any unit, infantry and support. But, the difference is that we are not directly placing them in harm’s way. Perhaps, if they conducted a study on women who have been subjected to combat (Fire Fight). How they performed against their mail counter parts and what were the side effects of war. Were the more likely to become a victim of PTSD? Now, I would like to turn the table towards military training.

    Now, I am not sure at how accurate some of what I am about to say may be as this is truly second hand knowledge in terms of German Military Training and practices. I have several friends who are from Germany and they have often told me that they subject their civilians to stand military service for 2 years (I was told this long ago, so specifics might be skewed). They have also told me that their training is nothing like a US Marine must endure physically and emotionally. My point goes along with my previous statement. One size does not fit all.

    Perhaps, if the German military had the same level of training and experiences, I would allow this article to be used in terms of allowing women to serve in combat rolls here in the US. But, the problem is that they might not be being "tested" enough as a unit (especially since they were still acting in support rolls). Furthermore, these studies don't say if these units were faced with conflicts such as IED's and SAF.

    Now, It would be good to find more empirical evidence to back these studies up as well. But, keep in mind all the points I have just made, for the fact is that these studies are simply not enough to allow women to be allowed into direct combat rolls.

    Let us keep in mind the previous points I have made about the financial expense as well. Will women have their own barracks or will they share a barracks with men? On a deployment they may be forced to share the same facilities with men while engaging in combative rolls. If they do choose to allow this, it will probably lead to an increase in sexual harassment among other things.

    Unfortunately, politics have seemed to have won and they are now integrating women into support rolls such as Artillery. Now, I personally believe that the majority of women do not want to engage in combative rolls, this means we are catering to a small percent. Furthermore, what percent of women will be capable to meet the rigorous demands physically and emotionally?

    It has been scientifically proven that women are unable to carry as much weight as men. Yes, in a training environment you may only have to carry a combat load of 65 lbs. But, outside of initial training I have carried packs of 11o+ Pounds. This being said, will women be able to fireman carry let’s say a 200 lbs. man with a combat load? As I said, there might be a few, but, that makes the percent even smaller.

    Essentially, we are catering to politicians and women’s rights advocates who don't have experience in an infantry unit. I would like to remind everyone that I have no problem with women’s rights. But, when it comes to the life and death and the general welfare of your friends and family, why would you want to mess around? All so these politicians can get re-elected and the advocates can feel as if they achieved something that was an "injustice" to women everywhere.

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    6 years ago from Plymouth WI

    According to this peer reviewed academic journal:

    Title:

    Cohesion and Readiness in Gender-Integrated Combat Service Support Units: The Impact of Acceptance of Women and Gender Ratio.

    By: Rosen, Leora N., Durand, Doris B., Bliese, Paul D., Halverson, Ronald R., Rothberg, Joseph M., Harrison, Nancy L., Armed Forces & Society (0095327X), 0095327X, Summer96, Vol. 22, Issue 4

    There were two studies done years ago by the U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Services that provided empircal (scientific) data on the affects of women in units in the field and the effect of women increasing in numbers. They were evaluating 40 combat support and combat service support units, for a year and a half. The proportion of women (up to 35%) had NO significant effect on the operational capabilities of said unit or readiness.

    The second study they discuss was REFWAC in extended field excercised in the Reteru of Forces to Germany excercises. Troops were away from home for 6 weeks and their was no effect in operational capability or operation readiness. Women consituted 10% of that population.

    More recently it explains that they have even looked at the training of men and women together in co-ed units and found that BOTH the morale and the self-confidence of men and women increased. They had hire physical training and markmenship scores than their same-sex units, so we find a correlational relationship of integration of women to BETTER performance.

    In respect to discrimatory practices, the increase in demand for certain skills leads to a decrease in discrimantory practices. Women were excluded from Grenada conflict but included and increased women's presence in Panama and the Persian Gluf that they couldn't have accomplished without the women

    The perception HAS actually changed and more positive among military personel at the inclusion of women in combat. Women already see combat. They are now seen as the service member and as they state, and I quote, "no gender tag".

    This is the information of who and where they studied for this research.

    The six battalions included four support battalions, a headquarters battalion, and a nuclear, biological, and chemical group. A total of 1,584 soldiers from 21 companies completed the questionnaire. Companies varied in size from 29 to 247 soldiers, and the number of soldiers from each participating company varied from 21 to 171. Separate analyses were conducted for junior enlisted males, junior enlisted females, and male noncommissioned officers (NCOs). The numbers of female NCOs and officers were too small to permit separate analyses: statistically, group level analysis requires that three or more soldiers in the relevant categories be present in the company. Two companies with fewer than 3 females in the ranks of E1 to E4 were eliminated, leaving 19 companies for group level analyses.

    That was just one article I have an appointment but will look up some of the other points everyone has made thus far so we can see if their is any scientific backing to the claims. When I am done than maybe I will be saying I am wrong, but I hope after I supply the necessary research that we are all opened minded to accept that there may be people like me are right:)

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    6 years ago from Plymouth WI

    Well, I appreciate your detailed response and I will definately be responding back this evening. I would like to have time to look into several of your points and I am about to start my Psych 211 class and have to pay attention since its Statistics lol...but I hear your points and don't want to respond strictly from that initial feministic emotion I initially felt:) Its important to be diplomatic about things like this as you do have excellent points. In fact, I have access to thousands and thousands of Academic Periodicals and Journals and Research, that is where I will check for some information that will back what you have stated.

  • NC4Life078 profile image

    Nicoli Clause 

    6 years ago from United States of America

    I'm glad to see comments regarding the nation’s security and how it is essentially being turned into a social experiment. I would like to quote your following line;

    Is it something that we are going to be able to vote for or is it being decided in the government and military levels and why or why not should we be able to have a say in such a choice?

    In my opinion, why should someone who has never served in the military be allowed to vote on something they don't know anything about. You may be able to educate them, but, for them they only get to hear about it second hand and that is enough to skew their opinion. Those in the military know what it is like and should make the decisions, not a bunch of politicians.

    I have met some "beastly" women Marines who -might- be able to make it through their male counterpart training. Even if they would be able to carry 2x their own weight, not break down when their friend gets shot, the problem is the environment. There is an incredible small percent of women that would be able to complete such endeavors. I believe I was once told that Marine Rifleman make up 5% of the Marine Corps (Might be 1%). First off, I would ask what they think. Next, this tells us that we would have to change something that isn't broken to cater to less than 1%.

    Which leads us to money, last I remember the USMC has roughly 200,000 active service members (might be more or less now). The funding isn't great and neither is America's financial situation. To change all these levels of training so that a small fraction may be able to fight on the front lines is slightly ridiculous. The money would be better invested into better equipment.

    Did you know they sell condoms at some of the larger bases in Afghanistan? You can only assume as to why this is, now, let us keep in mind that these men and women are not in the same proximity as they would be in combat. This would cause tremendous amounts of problems, from pregnancy, to sexual harassment and I can assure you that the males would not be all to blame. It could in turn into another "Lackland Scandal" and trust me that is the last thing the Marine Corps needs. This brings us to a transition of military service overseas.

    When deployed, there is a big difference between support units and infantry units. The average person does not realize this as they only see a deployment as a deployment. Whereas a deployment for a supporting role can mean a shower every night and chow hall three times a day. Yes, they do have their brushes with combat and might even see more action than that of an Infantry unit. But, it is the environment you are subjecting them into that makes the difference.

    I could write a novel on why I believe women should not be allowed in combat and it has nothing to do with women’s rights. I have nothing against women, but, it is about two things, military effectiveness and readiness.

    If it's not broken, why "fix" it?

    ~Semper Fi~

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    7 years ago from Plymouth WI

    Thank you, I try to make sure to put my own experiences as well as factual information into what I write. It has seemed to impact more people in the long run, or stir the pot enough to get different views. I will go read your hub right now.

  • Bob Zermop profile image

    Bob Zermop 

    7 years ago from California, USA

    Thank you for your well-written and (for lack of better word) deep response. I liked your hub a great deal, but I found the comment you just posted more personally touching. Thanks for both, and I hope I get the time soon to read more of your hubs. Hope to see you around Hubpages!

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    7 years ago from Plymouth WI

    It is so important to understand that women, in general, are feminist thinkers in today's times. I became painfully aware of the fact I was a feminist in Women's Lit class this semester. However, the stigma attached to our thinking is not how it should be in the future. Adapt and overcome as the Marine Corps would say. I think however, that it is important that when we think of equality for gender that we realize what we are asking for as a woman. I wouldn't expect to be treated as an equal if I walked in and demanded I be given the same opportunity but than had to turn around and request seperate living quarters, seperate bathrooms, a lighter set of physical standards, and if being a woman meant problems due to hygiene issues? Than if I wanted the job, I better find a doctor willing to take out all of my females organs and put me through menopause so I could do it. If I was able to meet and exceed women standards and than meet standards of males in boot camp. Than I met those standards. So, if I wanted to be a Navy SEAL for some reason. Then was able to get through SEAL training and meet their qualifications and standards, willing to accept the already set living situations...I should be able to try and make it through training. Mentally women can handle a whole lot more than men give us credit for sometimes. Grown men cave and break down in Marine Corps boot camp. The female drop out rate is higher than males at 50 or more percent (when I went through), I didn't break down. They didn't break me down from what I already was to build me back up as the common goal is. Instead, the shaped and formed the foundation of who I knew I already was. It was like a piece of art they created but couldn't start from scratch. I was stronger for that. Mentally and also physically. I live today with what they taught me as my morality and my values. I have changed minds of men thinking that women shouldn't be in the military at all let alone combat. If I would have been given the option for a combat MOS, I would have taken the chance to prove myself. Not to men, but prove myself to myself. I lived and breathed that life. I lived and was born and bred patriotic and born and bred military. I was upset that I was left behind when my husband deployed to Iraq and I wanted to be over there instead. I wanted to do what I joined up for. I would have proudly died for what I believed in. I didn't believe in the war necessarily. I did believe in things we have done in the past. The changes and good we have done and the country we had hoped to shape, despite the downside of our system. I would go tomorrow if you handed me boots, kevlar, and an M16. I could break down that weapon and put it together faster than half the men in our brother platoon.

    Saying this means that the issue isn't necessarily just with men. It is the women that think we should be equal and not truly live up to the equality and still want special treatment. When African Americans wanted to be equal and they wanted a right to die for their country and not remain a cook on a battle ship, they did just what their white counterparts had to do, and more so to prove their worthiness to be treated equal. We are doing the same with homosexuality and proving just because of our personal lifestyle choices it doesn't mean we aren't able to serve our country to the best of our ability. It is also the man's problem who will linger over a dying woman longer. I would look up and say, assuming I was able, get the F out of here and help so and so or save yourself. The Corps tried to teach us that women have to work harder, longer, and for less respect to prove they are worthy to be there. That we had to prove before we got into the fleet that we don't sleep our way to the top, we don't provide a room like the red light district does. That we are just the same as the males are. In fact we could be a bigger asset than they realized and that is IF we proved it. That we weren't women when we put on that uniform, when we shot that rifle, when we did PT in the sand pit and eaten by fleas...we were a Marine in training and we would be a Marine and there was no difference between anyone because in the end ....

    We all bleed green.

    Save me because I can be saved and take my dead body out instead because Marines don't leave a Marine behind (dead OR alive). You go into together so you leave together. Sensitivity training is BS. Mentally train your own self to not see I am a women. But that you know that I am someone who your life depends on in a trench, on a convoy or what have you. That your life may be saved because of me. That you know your wife and kids will get that last letter and your body will make it home for burial; because you are simply my brother, a Marine. Why is it any different to do it the other way around? And hygiene? Men have worse hygiene overall statistically, because women have to keep that up or it causes serious health consequences. I would wear a diaper on my period if that meant it wouldn't pose a risk. In the end, one day, women can prove themselves and men will learn that a lot of this issue is their problems with it. Not all of those reasons are practical anymore.

    I will look at your link right after I make my kids dinner.

  • Bob Zermop profile image

    Bob Zermop 

    7 years ago from California, USA

    A very interesting article. I completely agree on the point you're making, that being a woman is in no way a valid reason to be excluded, but being unable to perform to standard is a perfectly valid one. I think we're thinking on the same level. I don't want to link bomb you, but I wrote a hub a while back called "WHY sexism and racism are wrong" that details my thought process, and what you said seems to fit perfectly with my point of view. Good hub, voted up and interesting!

  • SemperFitness profile image

    Dan 

    7 years ago from California

    I think your Hub brings up a very good issue. I agree with a lot of the points already brought up. Number 1 being the physical differences between men and women. The current standards for physical fitness tests are adjusted for women. Start doing pull-ups instead of flex arm hangs just for starters. Many people argue that woman can perform just as good as men. For GI Jane that may be true but 95% of the women I've seen in the Marine Corps can't. My favorite story involves an old man hammering a nail. While he is working his daughter tells him she wants to join the infantry. He grabs his wrench and continues to pound in the nails jagged and bent. Why are you doing that? she asks. See he responds, just because you can do it doesn't mean your the best tool for the job.

    Other problems involved. Have you ever been inside a tank? How about an AAV, LAV or even MRAP. I've lived inside several of these vehicles for weeks on end, as in never got out. I can only imagine having women inside these vehicles. Hygiene is already a problem and if you've ever seen a group of females at boot camp, you'd agree that females are often worse then men.

    There will most likely also be an increase in sexual activity in manny of these units. This definitely decreases combat effectiveness and is not keeping in good order and discipline. Not too mention an increase in rape and sexual assault.

    I also think seeing women hurt is much harder for men to handle. I've seen men die, I didn't like it but I moved on. The instances where women and children are hurt is almost unbearable in my opinion.

    I fully agree with Allen who stated that the military shouldn't be a social experiment. There are too many politicians with no military experience not listening to their advisors. A better topic would be how do we win the current wars we are in, not how do we cause more problems for our leaders by trying out new social experiments like women in combat and the repeal of don't ask don't tell.

    Finally, since this comment is getting a little long, I'd just like to end with one more reason. I like to think that the value of women in this country is placed higher than that of men. What I mean by that is, aren't there enough men in this country to keep our wives, sisters, mothers and daughters from having to experience the daunting, extreme and horrific experiences that happen in war? I like to think so but I may be wrong.

    This comment is not meant to insult woman who serve, thank you very much for what you do.

  • profile image

    Allen 

    8 years ago

    I thought about my response for awhile and came to these conclusions. 1-men and women are different physically. Men are much stronger than women and believe it or not in combat that is important. Men simply can do more physical work and then fight. I too served in the Marines and in combat and all over the world, and what I saw and experienced leads me to my belief. 2-Israel did a study on this and found out the ladies couldn't handle the rigors of combat(physical not the mental). 3-I personally had to train female officers in infantry tactics. The male marines picked up on the training quickly, the females never really did get it. I spent more time trying to teach the basics to the females than the males. I was so happy when this job ended. I was tired of getting my ass kicked in training literally. 4-The military is not a social experiment, it is there to win wars-period. Equality is secondary. In the civilian world I totally agree in equality, but this is about our security in a world full of dangerous people. 5-I was a sniper in the marines and worked and trained all over the world-occasionally we talked about this subject and we always came to the same conclusion-should never happen. Being politically correct is bad idea on this, people could die from this. I have looked at what they have to say and all I see is politics and more BS.

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    8 years ago from Plymouth WI

    I actually have thought a lot about it as well and fully agree with you. I will read your hub about affirmative action; I actually find that topic quite interesting. I fully appreciate and respect what you have said and totally think that the issue is really important. No matter what the outcome is the very idea is what is the best outcome for war and combat servicemember's to not only accomplish the mission but also to come home safe while doing so without added hinderance.

  • darknezz111 profile image

    Daniel Durand 

    8 years ago from Southern Idaho

    Sorry it took me so long. I'm finally on spring break, so I gave it some thought and here's my final word.

    I think you're getting my point on this, but I'm not sure. Basically, what I've heard from more than one source is that the female soldiers (Army, to be specific. I don't know about other branches.) tend to think they should have it easier, or that they should receive special treatment because they have a vagina. Almost like they're taking advantage of the “let's put women in places where there aren't many women” idea. If you want more on my thinking about affirmative action, read my hub on it.

    As for women who go above and beyond the call of duty, I have no problem with them. They deserve everything they earn for being all they can be. The thing is, how do you differentiate between the two from a logistical perspective? It's not like certain people are genetically predisposed to being assholes, so you can't really filter out the under-performers.

    Men and women in the same service, with the same training, should be able to do the same job. It's as simple as that. If you need 300 light infantry soldiers, it shouldn't matter what gender they are. It doesn't matter what their races are, or where each soldier is from, etc., so why is gender important?

    If women for whatever reason pose a logistical problem, or hinder combat effectiveness, they shouldn't be in combat. I don't know for sure if that's been proven, and if the idea can be laid to rest, it should be.

    I don't think we need to dramatically restructure everything. If we can decide once and for all whether women can do the job, that will end the debate. I just don't want it to come down to positions in the top brass being given out based on what sex organs you have. Seriously, check out my hub on affirmative action. You'll understand what I'm talking about.

    The only valid reason to put female soldiers in combat is if they can do the job without fucking things up for everyone else in the foxhole. We do not (DO NOT) need some groundbreaking bit of legal work, and women in combat should not be considered on par with feats such as the “first female president”. If genders are truly equal, what's so special about, say, a female soldier who does something on par with Audie Murphy? What's so special is the Medal of Honor around her neck, not the gonads.

    I don't really disagree with the hub. I just want it to remain clear, the debate should be about whether or not women meet the biological, physical standard required to go into combat. If they do, they should be in combat. The decision, however, needs to be made with cold, hard facts, and not politics.

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    8 years ago from Plymouth WI

    LOL Take your time; sometimes great ideas hit us if we take the time to think about something. I am consulting some active duty soldier's myself. Some in special unit's in combat orientated jobs to see what their consensus is. I am also a busy college student; mother of four that is recently divorced...KNOW how hectic life gets:) And detail is always welcome

  • darknezz111 profile image

    Daniel Durand 

    8 years ago from Southern Idaho

    I'm going to take some time and think out my response. Give me a couple days, as I'm a busy college student, but I WILL get back to this. Probably with too much detail.

  • abbykorinnelee profile imageAUTHOR

    Abigayle Korinne 

    8 years ago from Plymouth WI

    1: SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT: I wouldn't have termed it as you have stated but I do agree with this arguement. I think that from observing the female Navy sailors, marines and soldiers myself all these years the Army seems the worst in this area. They do put off an air they are 'better' than the women spouses (many do have careers and educations that have been put on hold or they do daily live as well as stay at home only high school graduates.) They act as if they are 'equal' yet have the statistics to state they have the highest rate of "excuses" they are let out of work, that they can't go or do something, sick call etc. Statistically speaking you are definately correct that they act as if they are entitled to a lot more than they put effort into.

    This does back my point a bit though; speaking of a female that exceeded the expectations in Marine boot camp myself to the already most equal training standards armed forces wide; to that of the males expectations...I will speak on the side of what about the one's who work as hard if not harder, push themselves to men's standards and exceed, give back as much as they get, are doing it because of the right reasons, have pride, respect etc?

    2: AS FOR "FLYING IN THE ARMY": This doesn't fly in any part of the service's. As it SHOULDN'T. Again, my point. They are proving to be why women should be KEPT FROM THOSE JOBS RIGHT? Well, again, if someone like me who has always been a small boned and skinny female but can maintain men requirements, have the values, have dedication, heart, hard work, and is someone that can also use her brain and offer some strategic and analytical thought to a mission ( as well as I was the top cadet in Army ROTC for a female out doing even our batallion commander in reg pushups and can read a mean land nav)...why stop me from being able to do what WHAT I ACTUALLY wanted to do and go for more combat orientated jobs and special forces? If men who believed women shouldn't even serve at all in the Marines changed their mind and said the only woman they have met that should wear the uniform WAS me...and this is after ten years of argueing and proving to this Marine my point...what then?

    3: LESBIAN CULTURE: I think this is one I didn't think at all about and I am glad you brought it up. I am thinking of researching this one for a different hub. I do notice that but as well as you can say they are "loose", "sluts", "whores", pull trains, have red lights outside rooms overseas and lines of men outside waiting their turn...IT HAPPENS, IT HAPPENS WITH MEN AND WOMEN AND IT HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS.

    This all goes to my point though...IF ALL OF THIS IS TRUE AS YOU STATE WHICH IS DEF MY OPINION, I AM ON YOUR SIDE....don't you think we should start from scratch and rebuild from ground zero with how we train our men and woman? How would it enhance the equality among genders? How would it hinder? Who would benefit or not? What would we have to change? I am interested in your ideas and your own theories myself.

  • darknezz111 profile image

    Daniel Durand 

    8 years ago from Southern Idaho

    I spoke to a friend once who had been deployed to Iraq twice. In his opinion, while surely not all women were bad soldiers, all of the ones he had seen had a sense of entitlement- that they deserved special treatment because they were female. That doesn't fly in the army, and it made things miserable for the other soldiers.

    I've heard from more than one vet that there is a large lesbian culture amongst female soldiers, who prey on and harass non-lesbians until they give in to peer pressure. In these vets' stories, it seems like a harsh environment for even the most strong-willed female soldier, and hardly something that should be present when the bullets are flying.

    Women should be treated equally; but not if it means giving up combat effectiveness. People's lives are on the line. I tend to trust the tales of people who have served over banner-waivers (not to imply this hub is banner-waiving), and from what I've heard, I'm not convinced change is needed.

working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)