The Phaserl


Hagel: Why Shouldn’t Women Have ‘Same Opportunities’ as Men to Serve in Combat?

by Susan Jones, CNSnews:

Why shouldn’t women in the military have the same opportunities as men do? Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel asked on Thursday. It’s not a matter of lowering standards, he said.

In remarks at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, Hagel was asked how he feels about putting females on the front lines of combat — “based on our social background of men being the protectors of women,” as the questioner put it.

Hagel’s reponse:

First, I think everyone understands, and this is the right thing, we can’t lower standards. We have high standards. We should have high standards. Our country has high standards. Our military has always had higher standards. And we need to keep those standards. And so it’s not a matter of lowering standards to assist women to get into combat positions — women don’t want that, you wouldn’t want that — and I think to find the right balance of implementation to allow women to move into these new opportunities and new positions if they want, if they’re qualified, if they can do the job.

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

10 comments to Hagel: Why Shouldn’t Women Have ‘Same Opportunities’ as Men to Serve in Combat?

  • NaySayer

    Gee, if I wanted to be gang raped and sexually abused I could just…..go in the military, right?

    NO thanks. Not until they get their problems under control with women now being systematically sexually abused/raped by their own comrades in arms.

  • Tony

    I agree that women should not be serving on front lines with males. We need an all women regiment, led by women on the front line. That way, they will only be raped by enemy soldiers.

  • Kay

    I know I’ll get flack for this but I do agree with what Hagel has to say, to some degree. I think that certain physical requirements should be met, lifting x amount of weight, pushups, pull ups, long distance marches and so on. If any individual, man or woman, cannot meet these standards they should not be allowed to be on the front line.

    My thoughts are, imagine fire fighters trying to save lives. You have men and women who enter a building trying to save a person. There is A person who needs help weighs in excess of 200 lbs. I’ll be honest, but very few women can carry over 200 pounds of dead weight on them. Not too many men as well. But we choose the individuals who can pick up the 200 pound person, carry them down 10 flights of stairs and save them.

    Don’t get me wrong though, if there is a woman who can pick up and carry my 200 pound frame down ten flights of stairs, but the man can’t, I’ll stay with the female thank you.

    Affirmative actions, in many times, lead to lowered standards.

  • doc killdare

    before I make my statement I just want it known that I am a 22 year paratrooper vet. that said, I have no problem with women in the combat arms units, with one small provision. that provision is that the military do something they have never done before, make the women meet or surpass the same physical standards as the males. until they are willing to stop catering to the females in terms of physical strength, women have no business in combat units. consider, 130 lb female with 65 lbs of equipment (and that is just the basics no ruck sack added at this point) might find it a bit difficult to pick up and carry a 170 – 190 lb male with the same amount of gear on. but in a combat situation they will have to be able to do that or the male soldier dies and quite possibly the female as well. so unless the physical standards for women are doubled at the least they have no business there. if that happens no problem, in fact I almost feel sorry for any enemy our forces would fa

  • mutantone

    Women should have a position in combat, especially those enhanced by mechanical means like Jet fighters, tanks, bombers a Gun Ships. Their skill in areas of agility and physical as well as mental acumen is a gift that combat to win requires.

  • John

    I have been in combat.

    Go ahead ladies, you can take my place in the next war.

  • Bettie Holscher

    I have spent over 20 years in the military and I am female. I was never in combat nor did I ever want to be in that role. I felt I could better serve my country doing the skills I could do best. I worked on typewriters and computers doing orders, payroll, personnel records. I enjoyed my job and would do it again if I could. I felt I did my part by keeping records up to date, and keeping them always ready for deployment, promotions, awards, and retirements. There are many jobs in the military that females can do well and that way allow the men to be trained for combat and the heavier jobs. I always found ways to work hard and be tired at the end of the day. I was not there to prove a point, only to serve my country. I was trained to fight if I had to and I could fire an M16 any day. I believe all women in the military should stay out of the combat roles if possible. There are good jobs for them elsewhere that are just as important. No job is really done till the paperwork is done. Somebody has to do it.

  • Matt Sayers

    I agree with Bettie’s position. I served in the U.S. Army as a combat medic, so while in training, there were a lot of females in other platoons going through the same training I did. When we ran on the track during both basic training and AIT (advanced individual training, for us Medic school), I would lap every female soldier many times during the course of the 2 mile runs. I was at the top of the class for physical fitness, but even the slower guys would lap the women many times. The standards were considerably lower for the women on the run and the women were allowed to do pushups on their knees (which make pushups exponentially easier). I also saw many women get pregnant soon after finishing training and as a result, were placed on light duty and not doing the job the military spent tens of thousands of dollars to train that soldier to do. A woman can stay pregnant through her entire enlistment and then separate from the military before she ever works at the job she was trained to do. How combat ready will a combat unit be if many of the women decide to get pregnant rather than deploy to combat? Will the women be screened for pregnancy the day of a combat deployment to make sure that she isn’t going to combat with a child developing in her womb? What will be done when a woman is captured and impregnated by her captors? Who will then be responsible for that child? The mother? The military? Will the enemy combatant who impregnated her get paternal rights? How will the child feel about its origins when it’s old enough to find out about it and what will it think if our soldiers killed his father? What if the woman falls in love with one of her captors and changes sides? Will women carry months worth of feminine products with them into combat or has the military come up with a high tech solution? What about urination during combat? It’s a lot easier for a man to do it than a woman, plus a woman is going to expose a lot more skin, so will they have to camouflage their lower body area so as not to call attention to the enemy if they have pale skin? What about fraternization in the combat units? It already runs rampant in the support units, to the point that the military looks the other way. My ex GF married her squad leader and the army just let it happen as if it was OK. She also got pregnant by him out in the field. This kind of thing is already happening to a disgusting level. This is not what we pay our troops to do, but it’s constantly happening. Has anyone in the military addressed these question?

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>