And canary, I’m not calling you a femi-nazi either. I don’t take exception to anything you said in the dialogue above.

“I totally disagree with you, and demeans heroic acts of men”

Not at all, there is a fine difference between trying to save a life and saving your own life after your unfortunate comrade is dead. Greater love have no man than this, after all.

Integration of women into the military in as many aspects as possible has been based on the premise that everyone behaves themselves, and that women will stay away from the front as much as possible. This article seems to be celebrating the fact that no one is behaving themselves and that women are all over the front. To me, that means that the whole situation needs to be looked at again from the beginning. NOT, as this article implies that anyone with my wrong-headed ideas needs to just get with the program.
For instance, should a woman be in a support role in a combat infantry unit? Perhaps not. Do MOSs that are now plainly in combat that are not currently called combat arms need to be reclassified, such as truck driver? Should we make a “combat vehicle driver” that deploys and “vehicle driver” that women can join that stays in the rear? Perhaps. I definitely appreciate anyone who wants to serve their country, but I, like you, highly disagree with too many women being in the combat zone. Not only should women be protected from danger to the most practical extent, but also nobody is going over there to date. They’re there to kill people and break their stuff.

As many of you know, proreason is 100% behind the femi-nazi agenda, so my only real regret is that we don’t have more female Seals….but as an extremely sensitive metro-sexual male, I’m also empathetic to the macho male side of this issue….plus i’m all over the Death Scare scam.

So, the compromise is this. We should only use senior citizens in the military, and certainly in combat roles. Imagine the health care savings!!! Why haven’t the Emanuel brothers thought of this? Seniors only have a few marginably valuable years to live anyway, and their health care costs are enormous. Let them be cannon fodder.

This will allow young males to pursue activities more suited to their skills…..like fighting each other, playing violent video games, and exercising their libidos on any object in range. And young women can concentrate on telling them how to do it!! You know….the stuff libwits want them to be free to do at somebody else’s expense.

I disagree with you. A male soldier would do the same for another male soldier.

It’s just many are painting “all” women as weak, delicate and a burden.
And it’s an insult to be insulting our female troops.

pdsand “The basic idea is that a man will save himself and not incur unnecessary casualties if a fellow man is caught and killed,”

I totally disagree with you, and demeans heroic acts of men, who often ran out in fire several times to get wounded and try and get them to safety. Or a soldier who covers his body over a grenade to save his own men. There are many men who sacrifice their lives in order to save another man.

” but a man will go out of his way to save women and get himself killed when it’s unnecessary if women are fully integrated.”

I disagree with you. There are men, there a men soldiers who believe a woman should be left to die, and deserve to die, for joining the service to begin with.

I appreciate your concern for woman, and agree with you that women should not be drafted. And I have voted this way, and do not agree with the feminists. Such as becoming firemen. If a women is not good at passing the test, such as lifting heavy ladders, etc. they should get affirmative action, as women’s lib has fought for. The ones who should get those jobs are the ones that do the best. I suppose a large tall woman, might do better than a very small man. Tests are given. There seems to be a misconception that I am for the draft, and women on the front lines.
There has always been field hospitals where women have served. And of course there is a danger, but the women also save lives. And if volunteers can prevent the draft of men who say “it’s against my religion”. I mean we have volunteers that say stupid stuff like I’m a peaceful person, I want out.
I’m not sure what I’ve said, that gave the illusion I am for the draft or women in combat positions. I am for women that wish, to serve in the military as they have forever. I imagine during the civil war, women had to bear arms at times. I do believe that women who settled the west knew how to shoot.
I would just hate for conservatives, prehaps a female soldier viewing this board, to feel she is a burden and threat to fellow soldiers. Again, men soldiers will give their lives to save men.
Also one of my leaders was a gay woman. And she got both men and women to a place she felt they’d be safe in the situation, all were shot , only one barely managed to live. Miracle. And a male laid and played dead, as she spoke to him, checking on him. He knew she was going to get shot. And his behavior afterwards like he was better than everyone else and that’s why he didn’t die, caused everyone to loath him. Worse he major denied it, but he had admitted it in his statement. I thought the motto is LEAVE NO MAN BEHIND. Many times women soldiers end up working harder then the men, as punishment for trying to do a “man’s job”. They want the female soldier to regret joining, and to fail.
Again, I do appreciate that there may be a few men, that would worry about a female soldier dying, but I just never saw it. Prehaps you are that type of gentleman. Peace out. God bless all our troops. Tonite the elections start. I’m hoping if alot of our soldiers aren’t slaughtered, this might be a sign, they are not as equipped. I just feel it’s our responsibility to pray for the troops. Obama has more important self-serving agenda’s, that pale in comparison and as to what our priority should be.

I kind of catch your drift. … I’ve saw big men, run and jump over their wounded “men” and “women” Nope as they were unarmed, and probably would have been gunned down too. I don’t judge them. I am little, and probably could not lift someone and carry them out of gunfire, like some of the “big men” could have. And I saw the bravest of men do just that, and die, and saved lives to allow other big men to run for cover!!!!

You missed my drift altogether. Basically, the PC position for probably half a century has been that if a combat unit incorporating women were to fall under attack, that a man with a gun would make fatal mistakes resulting in unnecessary combat deaths if women were wounded. Either his gentlemanly instincts would kick in and he would assume a suicidal position in order to defend the women, or he would be so distraught that he would linger around the dead body of a woman while still subject to hostile fire and likely be killed himself. The basic idea is that a man will save himself and not incur unnecessary casualties if a fellow man is caught and killed, but a man will go out of his way to save women and get himself killed when it’s unnecessary if women are fully integrated.

Now whether you agree with this vision of American men is entirely up to you, and I suspect it’s probably pretty far off in most people’s opinion. However, I have known many people who fully intend to live up to it, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

As far as women fighting our wars, there is a bright line in the sand which I belive in. There is a phenomenal difference between a woman saying that they love this country and will do anything they can to defend it; and our country drafting women to fill the ranks of infrantry. If we have a national defense crisis, I fully expect every man of fighting age to volunteer to protect us. If it ever becomes so bad that we can’t get enough volunteer men and drafted young men to protect and fight for this country, then we don’t deserve to survive. Regardless what anyone thinnks of “equality”, if we have to draft women, then we are pathetic and useless, and might as well surrender.

fighting force is what you want, then having women around in the combat zone is not helping things. If you catch my drift.

I kind of catch your drift. Boot camp, I was expert and grenades. Did best with grenade launcher and could hit 300 milimeter target with M-16.
As far as the femine side of being a female,
I get your drift.
But, you see, men can be no better than a woman in war too. !!!! And men with assualt weapons can be cowardly too, when it comes to saving not just some “lingering woman” but wounded men and women, both!!!
And guess what. I’ve saw big men, run and jump over their wounded “men” and “women” Nope as they were unarmed, and probably would have been gunned down too. I don’t judge them. I am little, and probably could not lift someone and carry them out of gunfire, like some of the “big men” could have. And I saw the bravest of men do just that, and die, and saved lives to allow other big men to run for cover!!!!
Now I appreciate that you feel women should not fight. But, that might not be an option in America with the threat of terrorists, who at this rate, can come out of their homes. And so “big” men, would be good to have me, a little woman next to them. And guess what. Little me, got one of those adreniline freak things, that you do the inhumanely possible, which ruined my body, trying to save the man near me, who was also trying to save me.
So, while as a law goes, I do not think women should be forced, or drafted, because I know most women, are not suited, and cry if they break a finger nail, or spend one minute in the bad weather, when I spent days in bad weather with no relief.
And while I understand there is another problem with men and women together, in that some macho men, want the woman to fail. Want the woman to die, because they do not believe women should do what they do. I believe if I was not so bleeped up, that I should be able to go Afganistan or Iraq, and do what very little I might be able to do. But, as far as going out on combat missions, the law as it is, that women don’t have to, is fine with me. If the edit button works, I will try to correct my spelling. But, for now, I am going to take some deep breathes.

Yes, John, that’s what I meant.

I believe it was the other way around….homosexuals in place of women. Unless I’m losing my cognitive abilities, the inference is/was that, now that we’ve “proven” the no-women-in-combat thing to be wrong, the next social hurdle to surmount is homosexuals serving openly in lieu of don’t-ask-don’t-tell.

Will somebody tell me if I read it correctly? Or did I miss a larger point?

It’s a MARINE thing ……… WARRIORS!!