Comments on: Let’s Hear It For The Girls! Pentagon Approves Women In Combat

By: Barthel Zieba

Barthel Zieba — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:08:53 +0000

I’m a former soldier in the German army and we don’t have women in combat units afaik. The biggest problem here aren’t the women but the men. An example: I say I’ve never hit a woman in my life and you think “OF COURSE not”. I say I had some fights with guys, there even was some blood sometimes and you think “Meh, guys do that.” So how do you expect me to treat men and women alike in ground combat? The main concern here is, that male soldiers would hesitate to shoot at female enemies and would take extra risks to rescue wounded women from the frontline. In some engagements you have to continue with your attack even if fellow soldiers are wounded or killed. That’s tough and for me it would be even tougher, if that soldier was a woman. Because I was raised with a high threshold when it comes to violence against women, I want to protect them, when they are in danger and I don’t see why this is bad.

This might be hard to understand for women, so think about something, that usually is physically weaker than you – like a child. There are some very young athletes who compete against adults- think about the swimmers at the Olypics. So a 13-14 year old child can have the physical fitness to be a fine Marine. Could you fight with or against such a child without having a problem with it? You couldn’t, right? Because there is more than phyisical fitness – you don’t want to use violence against children and you don’t want to see them hurt. So even though a 13 year old guy can and maybe even might want to be a fine Marine, you wouldn’t like that at all, right? That’s how a lot of (most?) men think about children AND women concerning ground combat.

I think it would be hard for me to fire shots at a human beeing, but firing them at a woman or child, or finding out that I did after the firefight – hat would be so much harder to process, even if this woman or child was a danger for my life. There is a very big problem with PTSD already without women in combat units on a regular basis.

By: Kellie Pittman

Kellie Pittman — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:57:43 +0000

Great article! I also love Morning Joe and was taken aback by his comments. After reading your article, and the comments already posted it seems like Joe’s was a knee-jerk reaction to the military’s decision. Perhaps Joe and those who share his concerns aren’t very informed as to our military’s current standards for combat soldiers, or even military strategy (I would put most Americans, including myself, into this category). I agree that standards shouldn’t be lowered so that the military is more inclusive, so to speak, but also that the standards put in place should be realistic (i.e. being able to carry 200 lbs) to current combat conditions.

By: Lisa Hesse

Lisa Hesse — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:31:45 +0000

I’m a commissioned officer in the Army and got into a discussion with one of the (male) first sergeants in my battalion just yesterday. He’s a former infantry Soldier, so I fully expected him to give the whole “women can’t do this” crap that you wrote about, but he was surprisingly optimistic about the ordeal. The argument that a 120 lbs woman can’t drag a 250 lbs man off the field is crap for two reasons: 1) There are plenty of small, 120 lbs men in the infantry, and nobody complains about them being there; and 2) Everyone is trained to be able to do their jobs. Hardly any military recruit knows how to do a buddy rescue; that’s part of the years of training it takes to turn a civilian into a Soldier.

The next step is going to be setting standards for combat units and validating the standards. That means that if the artillery says, “You have to be able to carry 200 lbs by yourself”, that they have to prove scientifically that that is required to do the job. That’s a really good thing for the military–any time you get science to back up your claims, it’s a good thing.

We’ve gone through the same comments and complaints every time the military wanted to expand to women in positions where they were previously excluded: in the military at all, into the service academies, into airborne training, and so on, and now we look back at those and wonder why anyone ever thought women should be excluded. In ten years, we’ll be asking the same questions about women in combat roles, because women will go in and do those jobs and do them well.

By: Amelia Shister

Amelia Shister — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:02:53 +0000

Well he is right in that men and women are inherently different, but those differences actually make women BETTER suited to combat – better at multi-tasking, higher pain threshold, better able to handle stress (read, won’t go crazy and massacre a village).

Let’s also look at some pretty badass women from history who saw combat – and also saw combat as teenagers: Mulan (yes, she’s real, and she was like 12 when she fought), Joan of Arc, Brienne of Tarth (ok, not real, but have you seen her? I’d follow her into battle before some of the male soldiers I see today).

Also look at Israel, Japan, Korea (North and South), Cambodia, Italy, Germany all who at some point had (or have) women in combat roles.

Finally, check out these women who fought in the civil war! http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/think-women-haven-t-been-in-combat-situations-already-the-history-of-crossdressing-soldiers-20130124

Rock on Ashley, thanks for writing this!