Have you read the right-wing questions on women in the military?

[PoBoy]

Now, tell me again how the GOP, Tea Party and other assorted conservatives are not conducting a war on women. In '12 Obama receive 54% of the female vote. After women read the comments/questions here, how much will that % increase?

[StephenG]

Of course they are cons believe women are second class

[Ryde.On]

I am all for giving women the chance to prove themselves in combat . I propose all women platoons with no men to interfere with their good work.

How could you call that a war on women ?

[Jus®]

Men are a lot more efficient than women. It's a fact of nature. Create any arguement you want, you can't argue what is simply the truth.

Bigot? Give me a break. Just compare the bone and muscle structures, women aren't engineered for heavy physical labor intensive movements where life and death are involved.

[Keep On Smiling]

I'm not sure what your question had to do with the military, but as a woman, I'll comment on the War on Women: I could absolutely not bring myself to vote Republican this last election. If there are men out there who literally want to control women, and judge the "legitimacy" of when a woman is raped, or dare judge her when she gets an abortion because she's not suited to be a mother at that time, then they can go f**k themselves. Seriously. It angers me to no end. Women are already oppressed enough as it is, by the media, by social stigma, by the language that's used as synonyms to describe us.

Again, no way in HELL I'd ever vote for this terrible representation of what a proper Republican party should look like. I'm glad women are smart enough to realize how shameful they are.

PS: As of late, women are now allowed to fight on front combat lines in the U.S. military. Some women are bigger & stronger than some men. It makes sense, and I'm glad they're not discriminating.

@Jus: That was the most bigoted, ignorant statement I've seen in a long time.

[Rebel Alliance]

I'm surprised women haven't been put on the front line sooner. They can be cops and firefighters, they can be federal agents but they can't fight on the front lines? It's not just the Republicans that stopped them from doing so. There's no war on women, especially if only 54% voted Democrat. That's barely half of the female population. There can't be a war on women when there are women that oppose women serving on the front lines.

[McNamara]

No, I haven't. Judging by your tone, however, I'm guessing you haven't understood them and do not desire to understand them.

There is no "war on women" being waged by Tea Partiers, conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, right-wingers, etc. It is a biological fact that women naturally have less physical strength, endurance, and resilience. Even if a woman weighs 200lb, she will not win a sustained fight with a 200lb man of comparable training. Even the most liberal of football team coaches would laugh and say no to the idea of taking female players. They might look "progressive" and "tolerant", but against a team that's not quite so "tolerant", they would assuredly get slaughtered.

If a woman proves herself every bit as physically capable in combat as a man, then sure, I'm all for letting her join, but the idea that we should try to "balance" out the gender gap or actively reach out to women to fill combat roles is worse than absurd -- it's suicidal.

[Shin Nohara]

FunFact: the HIGHEST female fitness score is only in the MIDDLE of the men's fitness chart.

Let us use logic and rational thought to examine this latest vote-pandering move:

Why are the men's scores so much higher then the women's scores? If women are supposedly equal to men now, when it comes to combat, then what about all the males who were kicked out of the military, passed over for promotion, or otherwise discriminated against because of their low scores on the male charts (but high scores on the female charts)?

I put it to you that the male scores reflect the requirements placed upon the solider by the battlefield and the high scores are needed to ensure that the solider is equal if not better physically than the enemy. Therefore, female scores will need to be raised to match the male scores if women are to be in front-line combat in order to ensure they are capable of dealing with the realities of combat... otherwise, the military has been discriminating against men for decades.

What will actually happen: women will not meet the new standards and liberals will get all butt-hurt and demand the standard changed... which will put inferior soldiers on the front-lines, endangering soldiers lives and the safety and freedom of the US all to satisfy some liberal scum-bags "feelings".

[Nick]

well lets see i haven't read their questions but I do know this when i was in the military I was in a combat role, we did not have women in our unit but we had them in the support units. Every 3 days they had to be allowed to go to the rear and clean or shower to avoid health issues. Then when we did exercises such as mock attacks the women could not carry out most of the fake injured men. (note i said most not all) I was one they could not carry out. So now i put myself back in the same situation today and see that every 3 days in combat i would be (however many females are in my unit) short that many "men" leaving the rest of at risk and if i get shot and there isn't any men around just the females that took their slots well im as good as dead because they cant get me out. This is based off of real life military experience dealing with women in the military in mock situations you decide from there.

P.S. if you look into the history of the Amazons the real ones and the reports of male soldiers that fought them when they were unrestrained in the end they were called some of the most savage and fierce warriors in the world so.....

[Charlie]

A war on women. Urgh...