Hunting Forum

I don't know what you all think about this. In my opinion, though (and I may get some heat from this. I don't care), this is a mistake. I'm sorry, but women just are not physically as capable as men, and combat roles physically and mentally take a tole on your body. I just don't believe women are as capable as men. I'm not being sexist. There are exceptions to the rule both ways (Some women can cut it, some guys can't). But all in all, men should be left to do the "dirty work". I honestly believe this is a big mistake. Also, I don't know if they would integrate male and female units, but either way, I think that more soldiers/Marines are going to get killed because of this. Again, I'm not sexist. I just truly believe that combat roles should be left to males. Females are the weaker and gentler of the two genders, males are the stronger and more hardened gender. Then there is always the question of medical/sexual issues, among other things that comes along with males and females. I just don't like this one bit. 

While in the military I seen some woman that I would rather have with me than some men.

having the women around may make the men harder then ever and thier would be less homo's in the foxholes

As long as they do not lower the standards of training, and disipline to accomidate the weaker sex. Meaning there is no differant treatment, and they learn to fit in, adapt, behave as in has been tradision in the units. I see no problem. Holly and I see it the same way in what he said.

I'm not trying to argue, but did you guys read my second link? The lady Marine is pretty "hardened", so to speak, and still said that she couldn't take the abuse compared to the men, even though she was in as good of shape as man of the men.

A lot of this has to do with the mentality of the person .I have seen men that could or would not be any good in combat .They crowle in a hole and hide .And there is some woman that are not fit for combat .Just like there are men as well .

That is what I meant by not lowering the standards, at all if they can not take the abuse the standards demand, they should not be in combat. Womens training standards are differant, and they should not be. Combat death is not sexest or racist it takes anyone who screws up without do overs.

Yeah, I don't understand why the standards are different. That always boggled my mind. Makes no sense at all.

Having never been in combat/battle with an enemy that was trying to kill me I don't really know what to say about this.

I'm interested in the opinions of those who have actually engaged the enemy, IMHO those are the opinions that really matter in this issue.

Reality sucks... women aren't equal to men or vice versa... they're two separate animals!

Why is it special groups keep howling over equal rights and when they finally get what they want, they're still not happy?

Protected status is what they are really after... not equal rights!

This holds true to gays, blacks, and any other group looking for status.

Don't get me wrong, there have always been injustice and that's what needs to be corrected!

I don't believe women what to be treated equal... I believe most want to be treated special, but you can't have it both ways.

While I don't disagree with LD and his thought, equal rights means equal responsibility and liability.

All one has to do is to see the protection Obama is getting from the media... he has this, not because he's a Democrat, but because he's a Black Democrat!

No white politician has ever had the protected status this guy has gotten...

This is an extremely complicated issue. First: All and I do mean all training standards must be maintained. This is especially true of physical standards. One of the natural differences between men and women is physical upper body strength. This physical strength is critical when it comes to carrying a fallen comrade from the field while under fire. Second: Men's thinking would have to change. By that I mean, that through out history, men have been the protectors of women. Traditions such as women and children first came from this mentality. Commanders who send soldiers on a mission, knowing that they are likely to die can not shy away from assigning female soldiers to that same mission. Third: The public will have to realize that women on the front lines sounds like equality, our enemies may likely afford them attention in ways that the public would be infuriated by. Fourth: The military thinks it has a problem with sexual assaults now, things are about to get worse. All-in-all, I don't think it is a particularly good idea.

As a foot soldier I would have to say no, only because 130 lb woman carrying 110 lb pack is a lil tough. But a tank driver or truck, or aircraft why not. They are limited by size and mass. But some of the best fighters in Nam were women. And they were fierce. And you are right , rape in the services is a major problem.

Hell, haven't the female soldiers already seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan? This just legitimizes what has already been happening. As mowgle said, I've had plenty of Viet Nam vets tell me about the female Viet Cong women and how ruthless they were; then let's take a minute and look at the Israelis. Their women have been active combatants since the establishment of their country! I honestly believe that women have a higher pain threshold than men, exhibited by the fact that they go through childbirth. If any of you have ever suffered through a kidney stone attack and the subsequent discharge of said stones, then compare that pain to giving birth!!!!!!! Besides, when I lived in Hinesville, Ga, the home of Ft. Stewart, I've seen some female GIs that there was no way I'd cross 'em, and I've lived most of my life close enough to Parris Island to tell you that those female Marines are not women you'd want to tangle with!!!!!!!!!!!

It's like I was saying .Some will be able to stand up to it and some wont .And the same goes for men ,some can handle it and others can't .