Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (24) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, almost 2 years ago

    Lisa’s on the front lines, ain’t she? Seems to be handling ‘it’ okay. Maybe we let individual women pursue their individual talents, eh? Fair and balanced and all that…

  2. Ottodesu

    Ottodesu said, almost 2 years ago

    Serious question: while in principle I am old fashioned enough to feel totally uncomfortable with women on the front lines, don’t they make smaller targets?
    Strategically speaking, does a military front line force always need 200 kg bipedal missile launchers?

  3. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, almost 2 years ago

    So women aren´t good enough to be on the front lines with the men now – too “frail” maybe? What exactly is this supposed to show besides being against Obama nomatter what is being done.

  4. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, almost 2 years ago

    Wasn’t that pillar of equality, Lindsey Graham, just saying how an assault rifle makes everybody equal? Does that only mean equal at the Mall? If a woman can do the work, and she wants to do the work, let her do it. No need to clear the job with Mount Rush Mo first.

  5. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, almost 2 years ago

    The military has physical standards for serving in combat, and if women can meet those standards, they can go in for combat duty.

  6. Paul B

    Paul B GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    This should be a no-brainer: It works well in Israel. Forget your theories about why it won’t work, reality says otherwise.

  7. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 2 years ago

    @russell5419

    The Israel Defense Forces requirement for carrying weight is proportional to body weight, not a specific weight (30% I think).

  8. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 2 years ago

    It must be noted that 69% or 88% or 92% of military positions are open to Israeli women (even the Israel Defense Forces can’t be consistent with their numbers). Proponents of women in combat are being disingenuous when using the IDF as a shining example of equality between men and women in front line positions. (And no, I do not object to women in combat.)

  9. nz4m60

    nz4m60 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    The illustration shows you what Tea Party Benson thinks of women compared to men. I’m surprised the thin little darl’n illustrated didn’t have an apron on so so we understood what Benson point is.
    As a combat veteran of Vietnam, I assure you that the hunky guys shown are not a universal representation of the men in battle. There were some pretty tough VC women up and down the Ho Che Minn trail too.

  10. moderateisntleft

    moderateisntleft said, almost 2 years ago

    …. so we should send all the soldiers who are, say, less than 5’4" home? I guess you you don’t understand maodern combat – most of the strength needed is in the index finger. That and someone who can keep their wits about them in a fire fight.

  11. Zipi

    Zipi said, almost 2 years ago

    I’m sure that Obama will be totally willing to send his two daughters to show that he’s fully behind women in combat.

  12. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, almost 2 years ago

    @TimeWeaver

    The detractors of this decision don’t believe that women are capable of understanding the gravity of this decision, and so must be told by those wiser than them (men) exactly what they’re capable of and should be doing with their lives.

  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 2 years ago

    Being an old guy, having been raised to respect and honor all women simply because they are indeed the “bearer of life” and the crucible of mankind’s future" I have personal reservations concerning MY conduct if I were to be in combat with female soldiers. Would I put others in danger due to my ingrained need to “defend and protect”? Or would I be able to direct them in a firefight with no “additional” consideration for their gender? I’m glad i never had to do that.

    However, I have been privileged to serve under the command of two different ladies, both fine officers. Still it WAS garrison duty.

    I have to agree with my brothers on the left. It’s up to the individual. It’s an all “volunteer” military. Yes, there should be requirements met, but I see no reason why a woman can not hump the same equipment that I did, it wasn’t that heavy. Wouldn’t you assume that the ladies would be and are “professional” and would be willing to train (whatever it took) to be able to meet the standards?

    I also worked as a labor building railroad track. During the Big War to end all Wars (LOL) the Ladies managed to do THAT job well enough and I know plenty of guys who just couldn’t hack it. Shoot, I quit every day for 6 months until I “acclimated” to the hard work.

    Let this one go my brothers (and sisters meaning you Lisa).

  14. Justice22

    Justice22 said, almost 2 years ago

    At present there is no “Front Line” for combat. If you are in Afghanistan, you are in combat.

  15. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, almost 2 years ago

    Okay, so this topic has finally come here. There are four very distinct and separate reasons why women should not be placed in infantry units. And none of them have anything to do with sexist reasons.

    First: Raw, brute strength. I have met a LOT of great female Marines in my time in the Corps. But I have not met any female Marines who could lift a 180-pound man, 40 pounds of body armor, 20-40 pounds more of gear, 40 pounds of THEIR body armor, and 20-40 pounds more of THEIR gear into a fireman’s carry and run 50 yards with them. Most women lack the brute strength to accomplish this feat.

    And if women are incapable of doing that but are allowed in, you will have something very significant happen: you will have the tendency of women forcing men to carry the heavy gear (mortar base plates, mortar tubes, AT-4’s, crew-served machine guns) because they lack the strength to lug the 120 pounds worth of gear as they go. This will build resentment towards the women as the men will not be able to equally shoulder the burden of the weight, and this erodes unit cohesion.

    The reality of infantry combat is that it’s not just about marksmanship. It’s about the ability to live out of your backpack for weeks in the field, carrying upwards of 100 pound of gear on your back, and being able to hump that weight for 15-20 km or more per day. And that brings me to the second reason: Hygiene.

    Second: Men are very basic creatures. We are. We know we are. We also have very basic needs: Food, Water, sleep. If we need to go 4 weeks without a shower because we’re in the field for 4 weeks, so be it. We are going to smell bad enough to wake the dead, but we can do it. We don’t have to worry about pH balances, or hormonal spikes each month (if you catch my meaning), we don’t need to keep specific parts of our anatomy clean for fear of various infections… it’s just we are very, very low maintenance models.

    Compare this to the “deluxe” model of a woman’s body, and you introduce a lot more hygiene issues. It has nothing to do with preference (aka “I don’t care if I smell bad”), because I’ve worked with a lot of female Marines who have no problem scuzzing it up with the guys. No, I’m talking infections, monthly issues, and other things that guys simply don’t get. This creates a logistics headache for the women, and for the corpsmen assigned to infantry units, as that adds more garbage they have to bring along to maintain those needs. And that brings my third issue to bear: Billeting.

    Third: Right now, guys in the infantry units can be out in the field, grab a bottle of water, strip down naked in front of each other, stab the bottle with their bayonets, and proceed to field shower. There is no need for privacy. You introduce women into that mix, and that need for privacy suddenly manifests itself. There are separate latrine areas needed, there are separate showering areas needed, there are separate tents that need to be brought (if using them), and then the biggest issue: sex.

    We are talking about men and women who are in the prime of their sexual capabilities. Most combat troops are 18-22 years old. Hormones + high stress + close quarters + no barriers = sex. And sex leads to kids, because I doubt every female is going to remember her birth control. And when a female is found to be pregnant in a combat theater, she is shipped home. That degrades the fighting effectiveness of the unit. There’s a reason why sex is specifically and explicitly prohibited in a war zone, and why females get their own section of billeting. It’s not because we are trying to segregate the genders because we feel one is superior to another, it’s because we don’t want to hear the pitter-patter of little feet running around. (No segway this time)

    And lastly: Instincts. Despite our higher brain functions that we all pretend to have (some more than others), we are all bound by our lizard brains. What is the natural instinct of a man when he sees a woman in pain? He wants to run and help the woman. If he hears a woman crying, his lizard brain says to go help her. If he sees a woman killed, his lizard brain gets angry and wants to kill whoever did it.

    In combat, our lizard brains are always wrong. In firefights, if a man gets hit, we instinctively know he will suck it up while we send lead downrange and once the area is secure we can go pick him up. Or, we know that if we go out there, it will be a deliberate, planned, and acceptable sacrifice for our brothers-at-arms. It won’t be because some genetic short circuit is going on to help protect the fairer sex. And if a man dies in combat, we mourn the loss of a comrade, but we are consoled by the fact that he died a warrior and his sacrifice was not in vain. Compare this to when a woman dies in combat, and many men find difficulty drawing the same conclusion. It’s genetics. It’s how we are hard-wired. And it’s got nothing to do with the capabilities of women.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (9).