Exactly Donny! Since women demand equal rights, they should be put on the front line alongside the men. Even better, put them in the NFL, the boxing ring and anything else that mostly men do. Maybe even allow them to go shirtless on the beach? Equal rights means "everything", not just a few chosen things.

I want all women to register for the draft then also - just as a symbolic gesture, even though we might never need it.

All for it when we have an all women war.

Women do play pro basketball in the WNBA. They likely play pro football and baseball as well.

We have seen women players on the mens football teams at the college level. If a woman had the skills and talent to earn a roster spot on the Packers, I have little doubt that the team would welcome her.

If they're strong enough, why not? Men and women already compete with each other in equestrian events, where the horses are of both sexes too.

If they want to they should be allowed. No such thing as a "Men Only" club in this day and age. Those that think so are disillusioned.

That may be their job. Are you naive enough to think that FBI counterintelpo agents don't troll here?

@Taoist Crocodile, I do take it personally, but I guess I have to just take it as a compliment that you would single me out among Patch editors as someone expected to moderate certain offensive commenters. I used to be religious in that role.

But I have retired from that position, and I now monitor closely only those articles and blogs that originate from Wauwatosa and Brookfiled. I just don't have the time to watch over every post made on all Patch sites. Things happen. We had a police officer murdered in our community. That has taken up a lot of my time. Frankly, it is more important to me to connect with my own community about that tragedy than to worry about the rabid dogs that inhabit the woods around the Patch on political topics.

If any three users flag any comment as inappropriate, it will disappear. I encourage you to use that function as necessary.

I agree with you on that point.

Men and women should have equal opportunities for all roles in the US military, but the criteria for being placed in those roles must also be equal. It does nobody any good to lower standards in order to be more inclusive.

These same standards should be applied to police and fire departments.

AWD -

Given the well-known fact that men, in general, have more muscle mass, which means, more physical upper body strength - the only area in which men surpass women in - plus the new 21st century changes in real combat, I would disagree. There is no need for women or men, for that matter, to carry a 70-pound backpack load for 20-miles. Besides, owing to the tremendously obese population of people in the USA, all military branches have massively reduced the physical requirement of potential soldiers, and they still cannot fill their enlistment quotas.

Physicality has become an ever-decreasing metric in combat training, and I suspect it will continue along that trend line. To actually expect women to meet physical qualifications that most of the new potential male enlistees cannot make is somewhat ludicrous. What we are really talking about here is “equality of opportunity.”

Finally, women in the military, both in Iraq and Afghanistan have been serving honorably in combat roles for over 10-years now. The projected period to implement this new directive is 3-years, which should give everyone a good deal of time to speak their onions and for the military to address all the issues involved, including physical standards.

You certainly speak out of your backside Randy.

There is another dimension to be considered. Typically, Infantrymen carry an 8-lb weapon, unless they are carrying a SAW (16-lbs) or an M-60 (23-lbs) or M-240 (27-lbs) machine gun. A Riflemen's basic load of ammunition loaded in magazines weighs about 10-lbs. They carry a rucksack that can weigh up to 125-lbs with everything they need inside. Can you imagine a 120-lb woman carrying equipment that weighs more than she does keeping up with the men in her unit over long movements through the desert or other difficult terrain? Consider this, too. What happens if a 160-lb male soldier is wounded? Can that 120-lb woman pick up and carry or drag that wounded soldier to safety or will we just have to leave him there to die? And what about hand-to-hand combat where strength, speed, and stamina matter?

Women in Infantry Units will make it difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish the mission of the Infantry, which is to, "close with and destroy the enemy by fire and close combat".

Combat is not a game or a theoretical exercise. Women in combat will reduce the combat effectiveness of units and will ultimately lead to higher casualty rates among all members of that unit.

I think Randy presented the position rather clearly.

"Not every human being is physically or emotionally suited to the job of a front line soldier. The individual has to be strong enough to carry the weaponry and throw a grenade a specific distance. In the normal course of things, fewer women will qualify for this than men, but those who do should not be excluded merely on the basis of gender."

If the '125 lb female' you mention cannot meet the physical requirements of a combat position, she should not qualify for that position. The point is that one's sex should not be the disqualifying characteristic.

Keep in mind Jack, that not all men are capable of carrying their theoretical 160 lb. wounded comrade to safety either.

Jack - Woman are perfectly capable of building just as much if not more muscle than men. If a 120 lb woman had 20 of those pounds in muscle she could certainly be just as effective as men. I would hope that the military would not promote women that had not passed any sort of skills test that would test her strength and stamina and same with a man. If they are emotionally and physically strong enough to do the job then let them do it - as with any other job.

@Cricket

Jack - Woman are perfectly capable of building just as much if not more muscle than men.
.................................

Oh reallyyyyyyy? Please share any studies you have on this issue.

Testosterone gives men an edge in the muscle-building department. Men also have better ability to use oxygen. However, women, on average, are far more durable over the long haul because nature designed them to survive childbirth.

As I said below, individuals come in a wide range of sizes and strengths. Not as many women will qualify for the general infantry. But then again, not all men to either. You guys act as if all men are 6'3" muscle-men and all women are 5'0" fragile waifs. It simply isn't so.

Well, Luke - I don't have any studies - just personal observation. As Randy pointed out, the one thing men can't do is endure childbirth. I know plenty of pansy a**ed men that are total weaklings in everything they do and can think of several women that could kick their butts. Again, if they are trained and tested on theirs skills - why not?

@Cricket

All indications suggest that you are correct that men cannot endure childbirth. Infants are much too large to to pass through that opening. In addition, the release of oxitocen at childbirth both increases bonding and courage in female mammals, so they have all the advantages. That said, I suspect that the future wars will not demand that children be birthed on the front lines as a means of defense.

As for there being some women that are more fit than some men, I've already said that women should be allowed to serve if they can meet the same standards as men. As it stands, women are already held to a much lower standard.

As for me, given my low lung capacity, I couldn't pass a fitness test for most any job that has such a test.

@Luke -- Obviously men aren't mechanically able to give birth. That isn't what I meant. Childbirth is also an occasion that requires great physical endurance, greater than men are designed for. Women are expending huge amounts of energy, losing blood and enduring pain for 36 hours in a stretch sometimes.

@Randy,

I'm not sure how I should respond to that. Obviously women go through a lot when giving birth. I'm glad I will not ever have to endure that myself.

On the other hand, what am I to assume men would do under the same circumstances, under the influence of the same hormones? Commit suicide? Hardly. They would lay flat on their backs with their feet in the air and push.

But we aren't asking anyone to give birth on the front lines. We are asking that soldiers be strong enough to pull their own asses over obsticals, and be strong enough to help others who need to be dragged or carried. Right now, women qualify to be Marines who have to be carried or pulled over certain obsticals, even before they are injured.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "That's not what I meant," since my reply was to Cricket, not you. That is, unless you are posting under two different names.

As a side note, the media has to treat them all as soldiers. There was a report(s) about a female soldier that was badly injured by an IED. The media went on about her gender, she was pissed, she stated that she was no different than anyone else that has served. She was right and I respect her for her views, service and sacrifice.

Michael McClusky: I couldn't find the column, if you could provide a link it would be appreciated. Thanks

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

You're welcome.

@KHD The article was originally posted on Jan. 23 at 7;01 PM ET. It is called "Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat." I guess now it would already be in their article or opinion archives.

@Randy 1949 Thanks a bunch.

Randy1949 –

I would suspect that at least the women actively serving in combat roles in Iraq and Afghanistan NOW are fairly cognizant of all of these issues; they probably talk with civilian women too, so I doubt if much of the article is new to too many military people. Furthermore, these are voluntary combat roles, so the women actually get to choose.

Regarding rape and the massive numbers of female military personnel currently being sexually assaulted by their own comrades, I would also suspect that they would be more alert to that possibility, rather than being captured and ravaged by the “enemy.”

@John Wilson -- I agree with you. The women who currently want to serve in combat (or have the fact that they are actually serving in combat right now and want that recognized) know exactly what they are facing and would be facing. To have them characterized as 'whiners' offends me.

I've been around a while, and I saw the same arguments made about gays in the military (before that, it was blacks), women serving as firefighters and police officers. Female construction workers. Female astronauts. You name it.

There was a time when women were kept out of medical school because they were too frail to handle the sight of blood, supposedly.

Randy1949 -

An interesting article from CNN:''

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Your post would make slghtly more sense if you laid out your position on the actual issue.
I disagree that anyone needs to see combat to comment on an issue. That makes as much sense as saying that you have to have cancer to be a doctor, God gave us a brain to make those connections.

As a liberal who has seen combat, there is absolutely no reason to deny anyone the opportunity to serve in combat roles if they are capable of performing the activities required. The ability of women to serve as NCOs and as junior officers
will enhance there careers and allow for the best person for the job no matter the gender.

I think that women, ages 18 to 25, should be required to register with the selective service as well as males.

A female life is no more valuable than a male life; life is life.

So when female American soldiers are captured by Islamists and raped will our liberal, progressive friends consider that progress?

And of course it is completely impossible now for Islamists to capture female soldiers from convoys, downed helicopters, during attacks on bases, or just off the street. Female soldiers are serving over there, Jack.

Do I bother responding to the stupid retort of Randy1949? Please read this

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/12/12684555-women-in-the-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer?lite

Look, the decision was made and has/will be supported by the same board of hacks who cooperated in putting out a report that classified Major Hasan's actions at Ft.Hood as "Workplace Violence".

The military is neutered and no one will speak out from way up high on this- for the very same reason this is an issue, female officers want to know why they don't move up any 'further' and in greater numbers.

Answer? they cannot serve in Combat Arms units or command them, Ipso- they haven not had their ticket(s) punched by having commanded a combat unit, it really is that simple.

And heres exactly why- from an honest marine officer ( who probably waved bye bye to her career too unfortunately);

Not to mention that women have been serving in the armed forces of other countries, in combat roles, for many years. The idea of having women in combat isn't exactly unprecedented...

Lyle has seen combat now? He was a soldier? What else does this guy do?

Tell you what, Jack. It seems like a very clever way of not punching the tickets of female career military. Even though women find themselves in situations where they are wounded and killed same as 'combat' soldiers, they aren't eligible for the same medals, pay and promotions as a man who had done the exact same thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/linda-l-bray-_n_2550027.html

Wouldn't the Joint Chiefs of Staff know about this? Those guys have a lot of medals on their chests.

@Jack....No one is suggesting that women man a 155 gun crew if they or any single individual is unable to perform the task. However, as new weapons come on line that are self propelled and self loading, that is something women could do. Women could also do artillery spotting just as easily as a man. I know you're an old time "grunt", but the Corps will adapt and still be the finest overall fighting force in the world. I think women make excellent combat pilots and shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

Jack -

NEWS UPDATE: this is January 2013, I believe the 21st century.

You dinosaurs have been barfing up the same puke about every change the military has made, gays in the military, female jet pilots, the infamous “unit cohesion” faux argument, and other such tripe. IF you do not think our men who have been captured were not subjected to rape, you are living in a cave. Israel has had women soldiers in combat for decades, in fact, it is mandatory for them to serve. A well trained combat person will “adjust, adapt and overcome” whether they are male or female.

Semper fi!

Of course, and if you are not stocking up on .223 and other essentials you are being foolish.

@AWD....What does that comment have to do with the question under discussion?

Jack -

I'm just stocking up on M72 LAWS Rockets... and I know exactly where the first one is going to go...

@Luke I once worked at a company that did not allow women to operate the heaviest line. I operated that line and I can tell you that it was extremely rough. Heck, I am only five foot two and a hundred and twenty-five pounds, but I happened to manage the job due to my strength in my tricep muscles. Men twice the size of me did not last very long on that that line.

@Michael,

That's great, but did you notice that I said that women should be allowed to serve if they can meet the SAME standards? What good is it to be sent into combat with people who can't pull their own weight up over a wall? Why set the standard high for only men, and why set the standard lower than those we might fight against?

@Luke Quite frankly I am in agreement with you. Equal pay deserves equal performance. My poiint is that the so-called average woman could not physically equal the physical labors of the average man in this case. Therefore one must conclude that we are all politically incorrect.

Luke -

There always are a great many "pull-up" contests during an enemy encounter on the battlefield ... damn, I think I must have witnessed somewhere around 6,000 of them in Afghanistan…

@John Wilson -- I'm not in favor of different qualification standards for different groups, as long as those standards are reasonable. If a frontline soldier has to be able to lift the weapon, carry the pack, and throw a grenade far enough away for safety, so be it. That will exclude some men, and many (but not all) women.

@John,

So you are in favor of a different standard for women? Or should we not have soldiers that can pull themselves up over a wall or out of a hole by holding onto an object? Get serious.

@joe Yep, we are headed towards hell in a basket! Are the dumb-ass liberals listening I wonder. Nope- we are doomed!

I can't afford the tax rate in California. Nor want to pay for their free loading minorities and illegals.

Thank you for your service.

Steve ® -

You have always been the most enlightened Neanderthal on the Patch, so I usually take my cues from you... have you mastered standing upright while you pee yet?

What does it matter?

Look, Team Christine -- human beings come in a large range of sizes and strengths. We should never assume that a 5'5" 140 pound man is fit for the general infantry while a 5'10" 150 pound woman who has worked out is not, simply because one has a certain kind of genitalia and the other doesn't. If a soldier can carry the pack and chuck the grenade the required distance (no different standards) then that person can do the job. Especially since it impacts pay and opportunities for promotion.

J.B. Schmidt –

Your posts reek of both male authoritarianism and paternalism toward women.

Gender distinction is not dead; to have the ability to distinguish the difference between male and female is reasonably clear to all educated humans. Distinguishing means the ability to observe and understand the difference between two things. What is dead or at least gasping its final breath is the quaint notion that women enjoy some special brand of courtesy – paternalism – and subsequently should not be involved in labor traditionally reserved for men, by men – authoritarianism. Children enjoy that special brand of both authoritative and paternalistic mentoring and courtesy, if you will, because we understand that they are underdeveloped, immature and extremely vulnerable, because of their age.

Please allow me to clarify one thing for you and other readers on the Patch, I am not a Liberal; I am the most Ultra-Liberal on the face of this planet. The Liberals in the Democratic Party do not even come close to me when it comes to Liberalism, and the GOP, well, they are so far behind that they actually think they are out front.

You use Liberalism as a pejorative term; I use Ultra-Liberalism as a badge of honor, demonstrating that I have freed myself from superstitions, religion, useless traditions, nationalism and have dedicated my existence to reading, analysis, logic and changes that help promote the development of our full human capacity, for all.

You mean you wouldn't hold a door for your 'bro' or watch your language out of simple respect? It's called courtesy.

I can't speak for all women, but I think they'd rather have the opportunity for better pay and advancement than be shielded from a few cuss-words. Besides, this is an all volunteer army.

@J.B. Schmidt....We have moved beyond courtesy based strictly on gender and observe human courtesy. If you are one person around women and another around men, what does this say about your authenticity and possible hypocrisy.

From a cultural standpoint, women have fought hard to reach what equity they have achieved and being able to fight in combat units is just another step toward full equality. Your archaic ideas are out of step with reality. When you hold to a singular position, it is a sign of obsession and the refusal to make change when it is necessary.

J. B. Schmidt –

"Does this mean chivalry is dead?

No, this has everything to do with true equality. Many of the professional women that I work closely with are actually offended – and some have told me so – when I open doors for them, hold their chair and help them be seated at a restaurant, among other things. They do not desire the trimmings of past centuries; they are confident, very self-assured and comfortable with breaking those old and tired traditions.

[Women over 40… not so much.]

When I examine the history of America, I see a country where both male authoritative and paternalistic attitudes toward women – largely evolved from the teachings of Christianity where women were trained to be silent, obedient, and submissive – has endured, and been the norm for centuries. Since the 60s, men feel both challenged and threatened by the rise of women across all areas. Their role as master of the home, king of all therein, the sole breadwinner, all that carries with it an entire host of privileges and special considerations, is falling apart before their very eyes. Men lost power and the only way many can see to cope is to double down on century’s worth of brainwashing and attempt to stop women in their tracks.

You may still play Sir Galahad – I do – with women, just be aware, that some of these women might not particularly like that.

Treating women as true equals, while recognizing their unique characteristics, makes all of us better people.

@John Wilson -- It's rude to chastise someone who has just done something nice for you. That would include a young woman who has just had a door opened for her by a man, a man who has just had a door held open for him by a young woman, and a civilian gentleman who has just had a woman join the military and ut herself in the line of fire to keep him and his freedoms safe. *cough* Hear that J.B.?

Chivalry is not dead, because chivalry meant those who could looking out for others who maybe could not. The problem with the old-fashioned door-opening and coat-holding is that it was used to justify women being paid three-quarters of what a man was paid. I think they'd rather hear the F-word and get the money.

No need to hold the door, and no need to feel obligated to pay the check (if single). Women are not a weaker sex.

Randy1949 -

EXACTLY!

Just an aside, one of the professional women that I work with is a Lebanese-French woman – former military – is barely 5’ tall, 105-pounds, is proficient is 3 different forms of martial arts, has a PhD in Physics, speaks 5-different languages fluently, is the most intelligent and creative person that I have ever known, and a sensitive, kind and always contributing team player. She is also self-confident and assertive enough to tell me to stop opening doors for her! I have seen her dress down – in a very controlled and masterful manner – a new employee, who was being very condescending and abusive with her, and some of the language that she used in my office that day would make a member of the Hell’s Angels blush…

Lyle,

Men and women have different ways of communicating and weigh aspects of communication differently. The differences are quite numerous and are biologically based. If you want to discuss the empirical observations of these tendencies across cultures, then we should do so. European feminists accepted and celebrated these differences long ago, but American feminists have been much slower to accept reality. I guess there are still some people intending to keep their grasp on those misconceptions all the way into the grave.

That said, there is an impersonal business way of communicating in public that we all use, which is polite and does not treat people differently because of their gender. But those that want to succeed had better know how to manage life beyond the superficial encounter. Celebrate people.

I love this. The evil conservative posts his hate speech suggesting that maybe women should be held at a higher regard then that of front line military service. Questioning if maybe some of the issue in society is that women have become less savored as something special and instead lowered to the level of men. Thinking maybe we don't want our women dying during the horrors of front line combat. Who stands in my way and chastises me for my religious, sexist bigotry that prevents me from understanding the hardships women have endured so that they can be beheaded and dragged through desert streets like men, the liberals.

Don't get me wrong, our front line military men are heroes in every sense of the word; however, are you all truly telling me that you want a woman taking fire on the front lines of a war that is controlled by men? Are you telling me that you want women in a position where they could be captured and introduced to unknown horrors at the hands of enemy men? I know, "They should be allowed to make their own decisions". That doesn't make it right or anything that should be supported.

As for some mythical idea of 'human courtesy', does that mean gender distinction is dead?

Lastly, this has nothing to do with this contrived feminist idea of 'shielding' or dominance; this is about a belief that women are important and deserve the honor of being placed above certain wickedness of the world to the best of a mans ability.

@Luke....Where did I say in my comment that men and women don't communicate differently? I am fully aware that their are biologically derived differences and also cultural differences. We are well into the Third Wave of Feminism, which is social expectations that go beyond gender differences. We have not come to this instantly but through a process of change. There are those that are beginning to talk about Fourth Wave of Feminism. The whole question concerning women in combat is based on a change of social expectations. The arguments for preventing this are "thread bare" and based on cultural traditions and not new understandings of reality, including physiology.

@J.B. Schmidt.....As a male, what gives you the right to decide what is right for women? The permission or denial of allowing women to participate in combat is an exercise of male dominance. By claiming that women are somehow better and need to be protected from the ravages of war or anything else is clearly faulty thinking given reality.

@Lyle
Explain where I have denied a women anything. That is the faulty thinking on your part. My larger question is why do liberal men seem hell bent on getting women in combat situations.

@J.B. Schmidt -- It's the women themselves who want to get into 'combat' situations, because they want the pay and career advancement that goes with the distinction. As I have repeatedly pointed out, women are in harm's way already flying helicopters, protecting bases and convoys, etc. They deserve the respect and the credit that goes along with it.

I think if you asked most 'liberal men' they would prefer to have as few people as possible in combat situations, male or female. Liberals are not the war-hawks here.

Lyle,

I was merely addressing your comment about behaving one way in front of women and another way around men. I think my comments were not misdirected.

@Randy
I never suggested anywhere that women should be denied the credit they deserve. I am just questioning a society that once held 'Women and Children first' when avoiding danger and now when you consider the current direction of our country (toward left of center) that between abortion and women in combat 'Women and Children first' is about getting them into harms way.

Holding the slow/stop sign does not mean they have equal titles/work.