Skip to comments.Sen. Scott Brown pushes to allow women to serve on front-lines in military combat
Posted on 02/22/2012 9:44:14 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON D.C. - Calling for an evolution of policy, Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown is asking for changes that would allow women to serve on the front-lines in military combat.
Brown's push comes on the heels of a Department of Defense report calling for changes to the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule which barred women from certain roles in the military, including front-line ground-combat positions.
The report to Congress concluded that changes were needed so policy doesn't prevent enlisted female military members from rising to their potential. But Brown, in a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, said he believes changes need to go further to level the playing field for women in the military.
"As a 32-year member of the Massachusetts Army National Guard, I believe women should be able to serve in front line positions if they desire. I am mindful of the fact that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have claimed the lives of 140 women serving as Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen. Their service was honorable and reflective of the day-to-day reality of modern warfare and the contributions made by female service members," Brown wrote in the letter. "Closing these opportunities to women affect their ability to develop a career path in the military and advance to higher ranks. We have an obligation to expand the professional opportunities available to women, especially considering their sacrifices. Doing so in my view would improve military effectiveness, not detract from it."
The DOD report to Congress on women in the military is centered around a new vision statement calling for removal of "all barriers that would prevent Service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant."
Brown's likely Democratic opponent in the U.S. Senate Race in Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, said in October that she believes women should be allowed to serve in front-line combat positions.
"I think women should be in combat positions," Warren said at a UMass Lowell debate on Oct. 4. "Frankly, I think that women are just as tough as men and we can make that work."
The revisions recommended in the DOD report would open up to women 13,139 positions in the U.S. Army, 371 in the U.S. Marine Corps and 60 in the Navy. The Air Force already allows women to serve in 99 percent of all positions and was minimally affected by the report's recommendations.
The report stated that significant time and research would precede any changes, a potential delay Brown aid is unacceptable.
"We should not waste time endlessly studying this issue and getting bogged down in bureaucratic red tape," Brown said in his letter. "Those deployed to Afghanistan serving on Female Engagement Teams in support of special operations forces illustrates that the Department can take a more aggressive approach to offering additional opportunities to our women in uniform."
I’m still kicking myself for sending this RINO money a few years ago so he could beat that crazy liberal woman.
Rush Limbaugh’s “All-American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion” finally becomes a reality?
I continue to be strongly opposed to women on the front line. Renewed feminism, gays and their marriage and troop reductions - what a great presidency this has been.
Ditto. These morons have no idea what is expected of a soldier assigned to a front line combat unit. IOTV’s don’t get lighter because you’re a woman. A 249B doesn’t carry itself etc.
If women are assigned to these units, the remaining men in the units will be carrying her weight literally. Also, if you’re clearing a building and have to take a room. Where do you put the woman in the stack. If she’s the first person in the door, and finds herself wresteling with a 200 pound man in the dark (Giving up 70-100 pounds) what happens then. I’ll tell you what happens, you put her where she’s at least risk and that means forcing the male members of her unit to bear some of her share of the risk.
Yeah, it’s a bad idea.
These unbelievable idiots are living in a Hollywood psychotic fantasy world, IMO.
Unless millions of patriots stand up to the insanity engulfing our elected officials and put a permanent end to it, this country is doomed, IMO.
You are exactly right.
It’s bad, bad, bad.
If I were young, I wouldn’t join the military now.
Really? We’re to our women to the front lines of battle?
Not a matter of their capability, but more a matter of opening a whole new dimension of how ugly war can get...
I would prefer not.
Marxist denial of Natural Law Theory! Sorry, Brown. There is a difference between the nature of men and the nature of women.
This denial of Natural Law is egalitarianism—to make men and women interchangeable—so that the State can reshape man and destroy all biological relationships. Marx loathed religion and family.
Women are not equal to men in many areas and should not be fighting against men. How stupid is that Scott Brown to ignore science and our Constitution which affirms the Laws of Nature. (P.S. It means homosexual “marriage” is not legal either—it is unnatural and against the Laws of Nature. And the promotion of sodomy as “good” and “acceptable” is also EVIL and needs to be eliminated from the military! It destroys the freedom of religion>)
OUr government is supposed to promote Virtue—never evil—and never destroy the traditions and mores of society. Communism does that to destroy cultures.
The “field” is really raunchy. I sure wouldn’t want it for a daughter of mine.
American men have become so emasculated and wussified that every single institution in America is now tainted with the evils of brain dead liberalism, feminism, Marxism and identity politics.
Our ancestors would have never tolerated women in combat going back to the dawn of civilization.
Even a few decades ago this would have been a joke.
Maybe he could send his daughters they seem to be about the right age.
Maybe he could send his daughters they seem to be about the right age.
Maybe he could send his daughters they seem to be about the right age.
In general, experience around the world is that women don't hold up well in the infantry/armor/artillery but can serve well in other combat positions as well as partisan/guerrilla roles.
Contacting my daughter on this. She was with the first units into Iraq. Even though it was a support unit, I know that they had daily mortar attacks with loss of life.
This guy is so out to lunch.crazy
Or at least require them to register for the draft
It’s also a matter of their capability. Only in Hollywood can a 120 pound Angelina Jolie go toe to toe with a 200+ pound bad guy and survive the encounter.
Chill. As long as Brown votes to repeal Obamacare he’s served his purpose. He can vote for putting women in the front lines all he wants, because if it comes to a vote, it will never pass.
You and me both. rereading the article, it appears he only wants them in front line positions “so they can realize their full promotional potential.”
To paraphrase the movie 300:”this is madness!” “madness? This. Is. America!”
FU scott brown you colossal rino.
In 1977 I saw three telephone company trucks parked in front of a small fast food joint that was under construction. Three employees were installing phone lines. One was a woman. The two men were there to help her carry her ladder. That’s a fact.
My son in law has just been deployed. My daughter sees the women that are in his unit and says some of them look/act very much like bimbos. I was suprised because I thought that the majority of women who’d be attracted to the military would be tom boy types. On top of the fact that it’s wrong imo to put the weaker sex on the front lines,for one because it blurs the lines of what God intended for our roles to be, I also have the notion that were I an army wife I don’t think I’d care to have my husband thousands of miles away for a year or more, working that closely with the opposite sex. Am I weird for thinking that way?
“commander zero” has exceeded our enemies’ wildest expectations. He has surrendered Iraq after we won the war. He has surrendered Afcrapistan while we are winning. Gutted the budget, homos having sex in the showers and now this crap. Morale is at an all time low,we are ripe for an attack and it’s no longer “the few, the proud, the Marines” or “Army of one” but “ , the day will be saved by “Captain Fabulous”.
As a veteran and as someone who deals often with current active duty combat troops I will say this. When you are hit and down, you don’t give a rats ass if it is a man or a women that runs out and drags your sorry butt to cover. Some women will fail in combat. Some men do. In the new wars, were is a combat zone? How do you keep any segment of your forces out of harms way?
So youre suggesting a woman could drag a 220 lb man off the field of battle hunh? Ok
I think it’s a great idea, that way if we lose a war, we can just say to our conquerers: ‘oh aren’t you tough, you beat a bunch of girls’. =Bill Murray
At which point we'd hear IDIOT Senator Brown say, "I was against before I was for it"
Thank you Senator "BOX of ROCKS" Brown.
In combat or a house fire, ya want a woman trying to pick you up and carry you or up or down stairs, or a male who is more than capable?
How about trying to pull a 200 pound man up and out through a turret of an armored vehicle?
Don't know about you, but this is a *real* easy choice for me.
What’s next, Scott?
Gonna have the other drops wear fake boobs and fake preggo bellies so they can better understand how women feel in combat?
Pox: “These unbelievable idiots are living in a Hollywood psychotic fantasy world, IMO.”
Look here, Pox. The well known documentary, Starship Troopers, proves women carry equal weight in front line combat!
“When you are hit and down, you dont give a rats ass if it is a man or a women that runs out and drags your sorry butt to cover.”
If you are a 200 lb guy with 100 lbs of gear on, it will NOT be a woman who pulls you to cover. Same if you are a 150 lb guy with 100 lbs of gear.
Unless it is a movie. Then a 100 lb gal will carry you back over her shoulder while kickboxing the enemy. While cracking jokes.
I’m sure plenty of women exist that can perform just as well as an average man. Women who can do this should not be denied the opportunity if this is what they wish. However, you and I both know, that they will not decide this based on ability. It will become a political thing. The ones who can truly do this will most likely have no problem becoming a fairly cohesive person in the group, but the more girly-girl troops who think they can do it until the s*** hits the fan will most definitely cause major problems as male human nature to protect women asserts itself.
This guy is a complete waste!
So, I guess this means that women will now have to register for the draft as well?
Haven't heard the feminists clamoring for that.
I remember when this bozo got elected. Many Freepers wanted him to run for President for the GOP. Many of them were female Freepers and several men. MA elected just another DEM.
“American men have become so emasculated and wussified that every single institution in America is now tainted with the evils of brain dead liberalism, feminism, Marxism and identity politics. Our ancestors would have never tolerated women in combat going back to the dawn of civilization.”
All of our institutions have been destroyed; we are living in Bizarro World, and nothing will revert to the “before times”.
Me too. It has been the most painful political thing for me, the betrayal. Well, not even that. I knew he wasn't a real conservative, but I forced myself to believe he was more than he was.
Since putting some energy into getting Scott Brown elected (both time and money) then seeing him do the things that he did, it brought me to the hard realization that being a little bit liberal is very much like being a little bit pregnant. Just like the progression of a pregnancy ends up (most of the time) in the birth of a child, the progression of liberalism is very much a one-way ratchet, in that every surrender to liberalism is ground lost, rarely to be regained.
In other words, Ive come to the conclusion that you reach the same degree of liberalism by being a bit liberal as you do by being fully liberal.
Having people like Scott Brown in office will eventually bring you to the same destination as having someone like Elizabeth Warren.
It just takes you longer to get there.
This stuff makes me want to shout at the top of my lungs. Really, it does.
IT ISN'T ABOUT TOUGHNESS. IT IS ABOUT PHYSICAL CAPABILITY AND THE DYNAMIC OF MINGLING TWO SEXES.
I know plenty of tough women, capable women who I am proud to work with and for. But that is not the issue.
It is dipsticks like Warren, Brown, and most every liberal who cling to the dangerous fantasy that there is no difference between men and women.
They get all their ammunition from Hollywood, I'm sure.
All this scumbag cares about is himself and getting re-elected . No better than Kennedy , really . R means nothing anymore , for the most part .
Are there still two different sets of physical standards?
Keeping them out is of harms way is impossible.
PUTTING them in harms way is criminal.
I’m a veteran, too.
EVERY time a woman has had to perform rigorous physical tasks along side men, she’s failed. We (I) ended up humping her ruck and carrying her rifle.
Sure, some men fail.
Most, even ALL, women will fail when they physically compete alongside and with men.
But until the day they do this, no. Because I don't want my 180 lb. husband with 75 lb. of gear to have to rely on being carried to safety by someone who can't even do a standard push up or pull up. This is crap.
My husband's biggest issue with this is what happens when she can't handle the physical part, or the mental for that matter, and they are already in the midst of battle? What happens when she gets stuck and starts freaking but there is also one of his brothers hurt. Whom does he choose? Most men raised well will feel obligated to protect the women, which puts their male unit members at higher risk. What about the hygiene? In the field, they have to take some huge liberties with hygiene as it is. What happens when the woman is on her "time". It's different when you are in the field training and in the field for real. It's just bad all the way around.
Get the women off the battlefields.
With some exceptions, women in combat jeopardize the lives of the other soldiers. This is all part and parcel of the great socialist takeover of America.
Ah! Scott Brown, the darling of the Republican renaissance; the champion of conservatism; the “one” who would ride up the steps to the capital on a white horse; the one who drove the republican women crazy with lust while posing nude.
What a loser.
I do not hear a drumbeat of demand from the female enlisted ranks for combat slots. In fact, I see a lot of wangling to get out of long combat deployments by exercising the “female option” — pregnancy. Under current rules, you cannot remain deployed or in a combat zone when you are pregnant. When you start showing, you're transferred out to another unit until the child is born. [Once the child is born, the “parent” remains in the military and gets special administrative consideration for their family situation.] But, no one replaces the missing pregnant member and those left behind have to do the work that person used to do.
Let's get back to the crucial point of actually putting women into the combat arms (not combat support) — and that traditionally in the Army and Marines means armor, infantry, and artillery. If there are any organizations were toughness and literal physical strength are paramount, it would be these. Sorry, but 2/3 of women do not have the sheer upper body strength to compete. This is a fact of biology and gender, not because I am a male chauvinist bigot.
But, there's another set of reasons why we shouldn't put women into direct combat roles and that comes from examining the historical fact.
Fact: Only two countries on the planet have ever fielded all-women or mixed men-women units in direct combat — Russia (1941-1945) and Israel (1948-1949). Neither do it today (although they do give women combat training, no women are assigned direct combat roles). Why?
This is why.
1. The all-female or mixed male-female units took disproportionately MORE casualties than all-male units.
2. Males instinctively tried to protect females and suffered more casualties.
3. Females felt they had to take more risks to be considered equals and suffered more casualties.
4. Female casualties were devastating to morale of both female AND male combatants.
5. All-female and mixed male-female units were forced to work harder due to physical strength differences between the sexes.
Let's look at item 5 because that's where the cheating becomes paramount. In order for women to compete with men, the PRT (Physical Readiness Tests — or whatever the name is) have to be pro-rated DOWN to allow the women to pass. [The Canadian Forces are one of the few militaries that allow women to compete for infantry slots and only three women have either passed or keep trying. Why? Because the Canadian Forces do NOT pro-rate the PRT by gender. You either pass the Standard PRT for all, or you don't. The PRT is neutral and it fails both sexes equally that cannot measure up.]
So how does the cheating on the PRT affect the service members? The PRT is used to discharge those males who do not live up to its arbitrary numbers and also as a way to fast-track promotions for minorities based on sex and race. That is only one of the dirty little secrets no one talks about when increasing roles and missions for females in the Armed Forces raises its ugly head.
Patented Jim Noble response:
Scott Brown’s core constituency is unenrolled (”independent”) pro-abortion women. If he keeps them happy, he gets re-elected. If the Democrats keep nominating icy white b****es, he will be a Senator forever.
His supposed Tea Party base is a myth, the Massachusetts Tea Party could meet in a phone booth.