Teresa, I would say what you lose is the recognition that the different genders are God ordained and thus men are to be protectors of women and not treat them as if they are just men with bumps, or that as long as a woman can meet the physical requirements it is fine to go ahead and put them in any dangerous situation whatsoever. I think men are already callous and unprotective enough towards women in this day and age without furthering it along. As far as combat goes, I posted this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk because in it a general who fought in 3 wars made an excellent point. Combat is not just getting shot at or being in a "danger zone." It is seeking, closing with, and killing the enemy. That's combat.

I think we need clarity about what is meant by "combat." Do we mean: 1) Being put in positions where the enemy would try to kill them? 2) Being assigned to kill others? or 3) Humping 110-lb packs through the Afghan countrysides, a la Restrepo? I understand that physical standards will not be lowered, so that if women can't do the job of infantry or SEALs, there won't be any women in those units-- not because they have two X chromosomes, but because they can't meet the physical standards. But what about #1, which is already happening routinely? Or #2, which also happens quite often? If there are positions in the military which are closed to women but don't require a high level of physical ability (or experience in a physically-demanding specialty), what do we lose by allowing women to serve there?

Putting aside the theological and philosophical issues about equality for a moment, I recently watched the documentary "Restrepo", and it put this debate into a whole new light for me. After watching that, I simply don't understand how anybody could come to the conclusion that introducing women into combat wouldn't have a detrimental impact on our troops' safety.

Well, I was a Protestant and part of the evangelical culture for 17 years so I understand what you are saying. I don't look at keeping women out of combat as treating her as a "child" but as recognizing the essential differences between men and women. Women should recognize this just as well as men (and I think many do). I really don't think many of the people who advocate women in combat understand its horrors (at least not experientially) and those who do, like the General I have mentioned, strenuously oppose women in combat. But, as I said, the Saints I mentioned were strong women and fully adult.

The problem with being a christian woman (I'm talking mainly about evangelical culture) is that you are treated like a child who will never grow up. We teach children from a young age that choices have consequences and that they are responsible for their decisions & actions. We try to correlate the choice with the results - so that our children grow into competent, responsible members of society. Except for girls, who get taught the same message as children and then are told as adults that they must be governed by their husband for their entire adult lives. We call this "protection"- but what it is, is treating an adult as if they are a child. If a woman (like a man) enters a profession where she puts her life in danger to protect others , do we really think that she is unable to fully comprehend the risks vs rewards? If she is physically & mentally capable of performing the task, why is there even a question of "allowing" her to do it? - Because we think of her as a child...

Janet, my avocation that women should be prohibited from combat roles does not entail that therefore they shouldn't be allowed to think or act for themselves or should have to marry their rapist. Some of my favorite Saints like Therese of Liseux, Teresa of Avila, Hildegard of Bingen, and Catherine of Siena have been very strong and intelligent women who have done much for the Church. God bless.

Brennan, I suspect that I would be content to allow myself to be helped by whomever showed up to assist me, regardless of gender. I'm not sure if others' opinions are somehow supposed to convince me that I should stay at home and let the boys do all the thinking and acting for me. Forunately for me, I don't live in a world where I'm forced into that role. History teaches us many things: it teaches us, sometimes, how not to treat others. Biblical culture was specific to a time period in which all women were viewed as property and treated as such. I wasn't sold into bondage/marriage by my father nor do we keep slaves. My husband doesn't have many wives or any concubines. There's just me. Thankfully, I wasn't forced to marry my rapist, as previous cultures would have forced me to do. Stonings aren't all that common in American culture, either, thankfully. The Bible is full of beautiful truths. Fortunately for me, God's truth transcends culture. We are all one in Christ.

Here is the link in my previous comment as it didn't get inserted correctly. The article is called "Women in Combat: “Equality” and Ambition Over Privilege and Duty" and here is a lengthier quote: "One can go round and round about upper-body strength, about statistics, sexual harassment, equality, and so on and so on... The thing is, these arguments rarely get anywhere. That’s because hardly anybody really cares about any of these things. The liberals don’t care because they have an agenda that calls for obliterating all recognition of the differences between men and women. The conservatives shouldn't care because the traditional resistance to the idea of women in combat doesn't actually rest on any of these arguments. It rests on a certain ancient idea of the fundamental differences between men and women, which naturally the liberals do not grant." http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/women-in-combat-equality-and-ambition- over-privilege-and-duty

I'd suggest having a brawny man rescue you from a burning building. I posted the testimony of a General who has experienced combat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk) since I seriously doubt anyone commenting has. The argument goes beyond the physical and mental. It goes to why is it scandalous for a man to hit a woman (but not necessarily other men?) It goes to the feminine nature of women as life-givers and not life-takers and men as protectors. But as one female wrote: "One can go round and round about upper-body strength, about statistics, sexual harassment, equality, and so on and so on, et cetera... The thing is, these arguments rarely get anywhere. That’s because hardly anybody really cares about any of these things. The liberals don’t care because they have an agenda that calls for obliterating all recognition of the differences between men and women." http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/women-in-combat-equality-and-ambition-ov er-privilege-and-duty

Some folks' idea of "chivalry" is best left in the dark ages. Yes. I'm for allowing human beings to work in whatever capacity fits the gifts that God blessed them with. We should have the same criteria for both genders. We won't find equal numbers of women in combat infantry due to physical factors. Just as we won't suddenly start having a whole bunch of men who are 5'2" & weigh 110 pounds in our infantry, either. Would I feel better about a scrawny man coming to "rescue" me from a burning building or a brawny woman? I'll let you figure that one out on your own. I am wondering about the supposed "mental" differences that make women unfit for combat? -- You mean the ability to multi-task, see both the big & small picture, to prioritize & direct others? -- While I suppose men aren't as good at those things as women, I don't think it should disqualify the male gender as long as they can do the job as well as a woman. Gender really only matters if your having sex with the person.

Some folks' idea of "chivalry" is best left in the dark ages. Yes. I'm for allowing human beings to work in whatever capacity fits the gifts that God blessed them with. We should have the same criteria for both genders. We won't find equal numbers of women in combat infantry due to physical factors. Just as we won't suddenly start having a whole bunch of men who are 5'2" & weigh 110 pounds in our infantry, either. Would I feel better about a scrawny man coming to "rescue" me from a burning building or a brawny woman? I'll let you figure that one out on your own. I am wondering about the supposed "mental" differences that make women unfit for combat? -- You mean the ability to multi-task, see both the big & small picture, to prioritize & direct others? -- While I suppose men aren't as good at those things as women, I don't think it should disqualify the male gender as long as they can do the job as well as a woman. Gender really only matters if your having sex with the person.

Men and women are equal in value but they are not the same physically or mentally. My concern with women being in combat has nothing to do with their makeup or grumpiness. It has to do with what will most likely happen to them if they get captured. It has to do with both men and women dying and getting injured unnecessarily because women are simply not as strong as men. The decision should lie with those who have actually seen real combat and what makes for the most effective fighting force possible (and not the most socially engineered one). But don’t worry ladies, chivalry is almost completely dead so I’m sure we can pat ourselves on the back when women are blown to bits in combat in the name of gender equality.

Regarding firefighting, you can be like England and simply lower the standards to get more female firefighters: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-ser vice-strength-fitness-tests-relaxed-allow-women-firefighters.html Or you can change the operational procedures: “Lima and other firefighters are still livid, saying requiring three people to lift a ladder wastes manpower during fires — in order to help very few women. "It basically took a third member, handcuffed them, and delayed other vital operations on the ground, like forcible entry, shutting off utilities and shutting off gas," Or if you keep the same standards you get almost no women qualifying to be a firefighter period. http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-24/news/the-gender-boondoggle/ full/ And if your family is inside a burning home, would you really want a female firefighter going in to break down doors and trying to get them out? http://www.manwomanmyth.com/equality/a-tale-of-two-firefighters/

I love the way Janet phrased her response. Men, women have to meet the standards, same as you. Women have to do this when applying to be a fire fighter, too, and women have been in that field for quite a few years already. You guys are the only ones who have this opinion that you've failed if women enter combat. You have this belief that your dads and grandads are going to turn from you in disgust because you have "allowed" women to join in combat. You're not "allowing" it is not your call, it is the call of the women who want to go to the frontlines. There are me who do not want to go to the frontlines and women who do. Are you assuming all these women are going to be grumpy with their periods, have to put on their faces before facing the enemy, and complaining because their outfits are not in their "color wheel"? You're worrying about things that don't even exist. And yes, men and women are equal. Men are not superior to women anymore than women are superior to men.

Janet, women are not "equal" to men. They are different. Thus we should structure society according to reality rather than having an ideology of "gender equality" and trying to get reality to conform to that through social engineering. "We've got to get these uppity women under control or we're just not men anymore." Well, I have never said that. What I have said that it is a disgrace to purposely allow women to go into harms way via combat. And I don't know of any other word to use than allow. And if we're talking female politicians I would hope they would be in touch with reality enough not to allow it either. "After all, women are subjected to violence and harm all throughout society and amidst war, without anyone really blinking an eye." Yes, and that's a problem. Maybe it is this callousness to women which has led us to allowing them into combat.

Some still seem to think that it's all about the men. When men start "allowing" women to do this or that ... it makes them less of men. So, under this kind of definition, what it takes to be a real man is the ability to control what women do. If women are afforded the same rights, priveleges, and responsibilities as men ... then well, all heck will break loose. "We've got to get these uppity women under control or we're just not men anymore." -- Do you honestly NOT see the perversity in that line of thinking? It's not just about allowing women to be in harm's way. After all, women are subjected to violence and harm all throughout society and amidst war, without anyone really blinking an eye. It seems that the real problem is when we acknowledge that women are equals to men (rather than lesser-beings).

Yes, it sure does mean a lot. It means we are the most disgraceful generation of men to ever walk the face of the earth for allowing women into combat. Any previous generation of men would scorn us to shame and certainly wouldn't even bother calling us men. What a disgrace.

@MikeAtkinson - I have a female friend, 6'-0" tall, that could carry him with few issues. She's also been known to throw people larger than her around the gym, is apparently a reasonably good shot with a rifle or pistol, and would have been (except for some severe health issues) a member of the US armed forces. While her health issues would stop her from being front-line material, there's no reason a similar, healthy person couldn't do the job. So again, let's reiterate: The ONLY THING THAT IS CHANGING is that they are allowing women. *THEY ARE NOT LOWERING STANDARDS*. Does that mean fewer women than men can join? Probably, and that's OK. But having the option means a lot.

I agree with Courtney for no other reason than my 6'4" son is a US Marine, currently in southern Afghanistan. I just don't have the same trust that a woman would be able to carry him out of harm's way, like a man can. It's a very practical approach. Unfortunately when this goes into effect, we will hear the stories where woman contributed to unnecessary deaths on the battlefield - I would prefer to protect woman from that type of denigration...

Christine, you make an important point, even though women have not historically fought in the front lines but that in no way kept women from the horrors of war. All the more reason to try to keep everyone, men, women and children away from war.

As a Roman Catholic myself, Joan of Arc is one of my favorite saints. However, the History Channel website notes this (though I really dislike the term "mascot"): 3. While commander of the French army, Joan of Arc didn’t participate in active combat. Though remembered as a fearless warrior and considered a heroine of the Hundred Years’ War between France and England, Joan never actually fought in battle or killed an opponent. Instead, she would accompany her men as a sort of inspirational mascot, brandishing her banner in place of a weapon. She was also responsible for outlining military strategies, directing troops and proposing diplomatic solutions to the English (all of which they rejected). Despite her distance from the front lines, Joan was wounded at least twice, taking an arrow to the shoulder during her famed Orléans campaign and a crossbow bolt to the thigh during her failed bid to liberate Paris. http://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-joan-of -arc

In the early 1400's, following a vision from God, a young French woman requested to join her country's military effort in the 100 Years' War. It was reluctantly agreed to. The woman not only participated, but became a leader credited with great skills and numerous victories. In a brief period, she became so feared that she was captured and executed. She also became so revered that she was canonized as Saint Joan of Arc.

Brennan, I was thinking about the Costa Concordia when I wrote my comment. :) But the Brave New World of so-called equality aside - if women are to go into combat the EXACT requirements should apply to both sexes. No adjustments for height, weight, ability to lift, run with a 100 lb. pack, etc. should be made for women because to do so would lessen the effectiveness of our military. Nancy - it's only in recent times that any effort was made to spare women the horror of war. History if full of violence against the women (and children) as armies made their way through.

The author notes that women are equal in fields like finance, academia, and corporate America, but that they are too valuable to be put in harm's way on the battlefield, even if that means "inequality" in the military. I agree. But what does this value suggest about women in the workforce? Women who excel at their careers or academics often have fewer children, or even forgo marriage and children altogether. That means the brightest, most talented women are not using their female "value" for the benefit of the future - instead, the future is being populated to a large extent by women who lack the intelligence to get good jobs. I don't mean this post to be a lecture on eugenics - but if women are to be protected because of their value as females, then what does that say about women who intentionally negate this value through their lifestyle choices as civilians? I'm afraid this debate about the military does imply many uncomfortable things about the role of women in society at large.

"To deny women the front lines is actually a declaration of something much more than that — women are valued enough to be protected from violence and war. It is precisely because we are equal in value and dignity that we should be protected from the horrors of war." It seems to me we also ought to value men enough to protect them from violence and war also. Instead of spending time worrying about women in combat, perhaps we ought to think seriously and Christianly about sending anyone into combat. I know someone is getting ready to respond, war is sometimes necessary. And perhaps sometimes it is. But we are too quick to try to solve our problems with violence. Loving our enemies is not simply a slogan, it is to be a way of life.

Good job, Courtney.

American women, who will soon see themselves on the 'front lines', will not be the first to go into battle. Every able-bodied person in Israel must join the Israeli Defense Force. If women in the USA did not actively seek to give their lives in warfare we would probably call them hypocrites for wanting all the 'safe' jobs in the military. Placing themselves in harms way was the next obvious step in the evolution of equality. However , If like someone said, 'war is Hell', then the floodgates will soon open and all hell will break loose. Call me "sexist", but I do not cherish the thought of women being blown to pieces by IEDs, losing an arm, a leg, or both, being dragged through the streets of some town, experiencing prolonged captivity, being 'renditioned', raped by the enemy, having their throat slit by a 'terrorist', or forever carrying the mental and emotional scars of the warrior. The fight for equality has captured its last stronghold. More women will die, but long live equality!

Now, I'm not going to get all fanatical and suggest this guy should be listened to since obviously that would be beyond the pale of reason or evidence, but here's testimony from General Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps before the SASC on Women in Combat. He's only seen combat in three world arenas,--WWII, Korea, and Vietnam so naturally there's no way he understands combat the way Internet bloggers and politicians do (that's just crazy!) but I'd thought I'd post it anyway just for grins and giggles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk

"Brennan - I'm afraid if the Titanic were to happen today it would be every man for himself and the women and children would be trampled and pushed aside by the men. (but that's OK because it would be equality in action)" Actually, Christine Guthrie, that day has already arrived with the recent Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster: “An Australian mother and her young daughter have described being pushed aside by hysterical men as they tried to board lifeboats.” If the men of the Titanic had lived to read such a thing, they would have recoiled in shame." “There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats.” Yet another, a grandmother, complained, “I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls.” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288253/dude-where-s-my-li feboat-rich-lowry Well, at least the men weren't male chauvinist pigs like those men on the Titanic. Welcome to the Brave New World.

I don't want a society that protects women. I want a society in which we all protect each other to the best of our varied abilities. The notion that men are meant to lead and protect has a corrosive and demeaning corollary, which is that women are meant to follow and be thankful. Well, thank you very much, but I'd rather be treated like an adult, with all of the concomitant responsibilities.

Kathi, From what I understand female fire fighters and police officers often do not have the same physical requirements as males. (which is a shame) I have also been told by members of various military branches that women did not undergo the same rigors in their training as men. Personally, I'm now glad that my daughter has bad knees and can't find her way to the bathroom without her glasses because this means she can't be drafted. Brennan - I'm afraid if the Titanic were to happen today it would be every man for himself and the women and children would be trampled and pushed aside by the men. (but that's OK because it would be equality in action)

Does anyone remember when women were not allowed to run distance races and particularly marathons because the medical community stated that it would be harmful to their health? It wasn't until 1972 that women were allow to compete in the Boston Marathon and 1988 that there was a women's marathon in the Olympics. It seems that they have a tendency to the same foot, knee and hip injuries as men. So much for relying on reason and science especially as practiced by men.

What about female fire fighters? or police officers? Women must complete the same rigorous requirements as men and women have been in both of these fields for years.

If I understand this correctly, you want "equality", just not the equal right to be shot at. You want to be "free and independent", but you want men to protect you from harm. You want men to follow Ephesians 5 and "love their wives as Christ loved the church" but you don't mention that this passage also talks about wives being submissive to their husbands. In other words, you want all of the "benefits" of equality – just none of the responsibility and consequences of that equality. You want a biblical lifestyle – but only as it benefits you and makes your life better.

Dear God, what a national disgrace. You don't actually need a bible verse explicitly detailing why women should not be in combat. Faith and reason go together. And one thing that reason ought to tell anyone is that men and women are by their very nature fundamentally different, and not just physically. It is part of the nature of men to protect women, which is why when the men on the Titanic gave up their seats on the lifeboats to women and children they were acting according to their nature and doing their duty. If a number of men had simply decided to to take the seats of women and children they would have rightly been looked upon as cowards and not worthy of being called men. It takes a special kind of callousness to allow them into combat. But I suppose with the sexual revolution a lot of men have trained themselves to put their desires ahead of women's well being and women get to go ahead and pay the consequences, whether it's through single motherhood or abortion.

Courtney, Your argument is extremely problematic. First you claim that "Something will have to give. Either men will die protecting their female comrades or the standards will be lowered, and no one will win in those situations." However there is an obvious third option-- standards will be maintained and not as many women will be able to meet these standards. But the more significant flaw in your argument is your treatment of Ephesians 5. First, this was written to husbands and wives. I see no biblical basis to extend this passage to other male/female relationships. Secondly, you have substituted the words "protect" and "lead" for the word "love." This comes across to me as you decided to make an argument around the desire for protection and you forced scripture to conform to what you wanted. The context for Ephesians 5 is mutual submission and it should be read as such. Certainly women are to be valued-- no less nor no more than men.

Greg Gast, I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't come up with a way to say it nearly as well as you did. Norman stolpe, I am right there with you on the my-life-or-the-bad-guy's-life issue. http://timfall.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/killing-kindergartners-and-why-i-st ill-dont-carry-a-concealed-weapon/ Cheers, Tim P.S. There's really no space in the middle of the word "still" in that link, but that's the way the comment came out and I don't know how to fix it.

I would probably be labeled "egalitarian" (as much as I despise the way labels limit thinking), but I am concerned that some of "equality for women" leads them to engage in what has been destructive for men for generations. For me this debate is particularly egregious as it evades a much more fundamental issue: how does a person who seriously seeks to follow the teaching and example of Jesus use deadly force on another person made in the image of God? In some (I believe rare) instances I might risk it to protect my family, my friends, my neighbors, even my enemies, but I believe using deadly force on another person, even for self-defense, is far more spiritually dangerous than being killed. If faced with only this option (again rare), I hope I would choose to let a violent criminal send me into the arms of Jesus than to send them to eternal consequences from which there is no route to repentance.

I don't see this as being a Biblical issue one way or the other. And all the talk about providing "equal opportunity" for women in the military seems to be beside the point. Unlike organizations in civilian life, the military can't be run to serve any purpose or objective than maximum military effectiveness. It protects our nation, our freedom and our families against our enemies (and we have a lot of very dangerous enemies at the moment), and our soldiers in combat protect the lives of their fellow soldiers. That's just too important to make social engineering a consideration. I think we should just listen to the advice of our professional soldiers. If, without pressure from their political masters, they say that they are okay with women in combat and don't think it will impair the military's ability to perform its mission, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, I have an objection.

Of course military combat is not nearly as dangerous as have women becoming preachers, pastors or elders in certain churches! Though women are able to run companies and countries and now engage in combat if they choose, think of the harm if people were exposed to them preaching and teaching.

As will surprise nobody, I agree with Lindsey - and (as someone that *was* considered male) if I could have volunteered for military duty, I would have. The reason I didn't is because I didn't meet the physical requirements - I'm not even allowed to join the Peace Corp due to physical issues. But I *could* have, *if* I met the requirements. Keep the requirements where they are, just remove "being accepted as female from birth" from the list. As for Ephesians - I'm sorry, Paul said it himself: "...but I am talking about Christ and the church." (Eph. 5:32). (Also, a nitpick: Paul's dead wrong in Eph. 5:29...) ------- Kirk, do you support slavery? Paul did; the Bible is rife with comments supporting slavery. What about interracial marriage? Again, the Bible was once used as a club against interracial couples. Do you find that offensive?

The reason we tear up when we hear about A PERSON sacrificing themselves for another is because it is the ultimate act of LOVE. If a woman had thrown herself in front of her husband or boyfriend in that movie theatre, would we not have applauded and been touched by her act of heroism?

I'm going to have to agree with Lindsey on this one. Nowhere in the Bible does it call for an average man to "protect" a woman just because she's a woman. It does say that that laying one's life down for a friend is LOVING -- but that verse doesn't have any less meaning for women than it does for men. Just because the American Christian culture has decided that the role of christian men is to "protect" women (even from their foolish selves -- because women don't have the mental faculties to think clearly and the physical ability to act decisively) and that women then must demurely accept this protection, doesn't mean it's Biblical. I happen to agree that the same physical and mental criteria should be used for determining who is fit for combat, regardless of gender.

To affirm that a Biblical worldview does not support women in combat is not at all degrading to women, although many think so (i.e., Lindsey Weedston comments, "antiquated and useless benevolent sexism"). On the contrary, it's actually degrading to send women into combat situations. It degrades women because it distorts Biblical womanhood, making a woman into an instrument of war rather than someone to be cherished, loved, and protected. The Biblical view is not an ontological attack on the woman's value, but a (natural, reasonable) distinction in function and role. When Christian's err on this topic and fall into egalitarian views, it is not because they are merely reading their Bible differently. The Bible is clear on gender distinctions. This case of "bad theology" could be described with the phrase, "when Christians find their Bibles offensive." They find it offensive in regard to (at least) this teaching because they have succumbed to the worldview our culture proposes and pushes.

You've brought up a lot of points that bear consideration, Courtney. Nice job. One thing about the combat prohibition, though, is that it applied to more than ground combat troops; the issue of physical, mental and temperamental suitability for any role can be gauged on a scale without regard to being a man or woman. On your other question about whether we want to be a society that sends women into harm's way, the answer is that we already are. Police and firefighters, FBI agents and covert spies, women are already in these professions. They may not be as physically taxing as being an Army Ranger, but they put women at risk every single moment; our society benefits greatly from their worthy contributions. Cheers, Tim ( http://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/combat-women/ )

As a woman, I refuse to declare myself and my life more valuable than any man's. I want true equality. I want to register for the draft. We have physical fitness standards in the military, and no one is asking that they be lowered. Anyone, man or woman, who can pass the tests is fit for service on the front lines. Your antiquated and useless benevolent sexism is insulting to both women and men.