Women in Combat Roles

Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) now open to females.

Truthfully, I don't know that it makes a difference who does what job as many of the above MOS will become obsolete within my generation, considering advent of drone strikes and all... But drone strikes are a topic that my comrade Jadon has more authority on, so I will leave that one to him

Anyway, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is removing the ban on women in combat positions. A lot of hulabaloo is on the facebook about why women should or should not have these jobs. Anyone who knows me has a pretty good idea what I think about the matter. Of course women should be allowed the same opportunities as our counterparts. Anyone should have access to these positions, which ultimately put a service member in a better position to advance his or her career.

Bear with me: I would like to take a moment to address the particular arguments that I have heard and my counter to them.

1) Women are not as physically competent as men.
Put a man and a woman who have both been training hard and of course the man will be stronger. He will also run faster. He has the advantages of testosterone and larger lung capacity. However, I don't see how this automatically excludes females. All these jobs have minimum physical requirements that need to be met: leave these standards the same and let the challenger attempt to try. Par exemple: if the requirement is "Drag 300 lbs 100 feet" and Susie Q can do this, let her. If she can't, she can hit the road with the Joe that couldn't do it either.

It's been my experience in the Army Reserves (even during active training), that there are plenty of out-of-shape males (and females) but there are rockstars, too. Truthfully, the physical requirements for basic training and combat medic are weak. I've been disgusted over the years by PT failings--it's not that hard: run two miles twice a week and do as many push-ups/sit-ups during three sets of TV commercials as you can every other day and you have a winning recipe for the APFT. But I digress.

2) It's a man's instinct to protect women. He'll lose his wits about him if he's fighting alongside a female.
Seems to me that a new kind of training needs to be implemented. Women that enter these MOSs shouldn't have in mind that she needs a protector. And anyway, aren't we all each other's keepers while in the service? Repetitive training with males and females playing both hero and injured needs to be put into place.
Seriously, men that have this issue, get over yourselves. Chivalry does not belong in the service. Professionalism does.

3) Sexual assault is already a problem, it will only get worse.
First off, if we really started treating females like equal counterparts then perhaps the scumbag soldiers committing these crimes might think twice before acting.
Second, since it's already a problem, the service needs to get more serious about this anyway and make examples out of the offenders by following the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and give the death penalty.

4) Women have periods. And they need to squat to pee. We can't have that out in the field.
Women often lose their periods when under stress. Or there's birth control that can allow her to not have a period at all. Or there are tampons that can be thrown away. Good grief, people.
And I would suggest to both males and females that they use the restroom before leaving the wire. If it's an extended mission, they can cut the top off the bottle to go. Or check this cool Go Girl device out; there are other devices out there like it. Peeing is not a big deal.


So yes, let women be in combat positions if they qualify. If a single female can't make the cut, get rid of her. Just allow the opportunity to be available.