I know a lot of women bigger and stronger than men (smarter too). And the women in the military will certainly be trained well and have walked miles in full gear before being shipped off to war. I'm not worried except for the idiot males who can't keep their mind on the business at hand.

Woman have been voluntering and serving a long time now and if they do meet the challenge they should have he same benefits as the men they serve with. They used the same arguments as they used to deny blacks, and gays, the same opportunities to serve.

Implication of inferiority in ability isn't a fact, and has been debunked every time by actual performances.

Quote:

---

Woman have been voluntering and serving a long time now and if they do meet the challenge they should have he same benefits as the men they serve with.

---

I don't deny that at all.

Quote:

---

Implication of inferiority in ability isn't a fact, and has been debunked every time by actual performances.

---

You have no evidence of that since it hasn't happened yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You have no evidence of that since it hasn't happened yet.

---

In other countries, it has.

Like where ? Israel ? Where women have been barred from combat since 1950 ?

Woman have served in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years and are a quarter million strong and combat roles are voluntary and takes 2 to 3 years to advance to.

Tammy Duckworth didn't lose her legs in a mess hall and many females drive tanks, and trucks, and fly planes. What infantry is the only combat roles?

But of course the evidence and facts are not part of conservative decision making. But the joint chiefs have had enough evidence (and lawsuits) to make changes.

Quote:

---

like where ?

---

Instead of picking a country where women are barred why don't you go back to the link I gave you on page 1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Woman have served in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years and are a quarter million strong and combat roles are voluntary and takes 2 to 3 years to advance to.

Tammy Duckworth didn't lose her legs in a mess hall and many females drive tanks, and trucks, and fly planes. What infantry is the only combat roles?
But of course the evidence and facts are not part of conservative decision making. But the joint chiefs have had enough evidence (and lawsuits) to make changes.

---

The issue is infantry combat roles .I am well aware that women serve other functions already . Where they perform the same as a man in those positions I believe they are already getting equal compensation.

How many women have become generals?

I don't know... I know there are women Generals .There is even an openly gay woman General . There are many more females in the officers corps. I imagine they are represented closely to the proportion of women in the services.
What difference ? This isn't a social experiment . The job of the military is to kill in the most efficient manner. The only thing that matters is effectiveness.
That being said ;I think our Generals overall do not do their jobs well overall ;and many of them should be purged . Maybe it would be better to replace them with females .

That has nothing to do with the issue of infantry ground forces.

5 percent of general officers in the Army are women, which includes mobilized Army Reserve and Army National Guard general officers.

Female military members sue to serve in combat - News - Boston.com

Quote:

---

Marine Corps Capt. Zoe Bedell said she left active duty, in large part, because of the combat exclusion policy. Bedell said she was frustrated that her advancement in the Marines was blocked by her inability to serve directly in combat units.

---

Lawsuit targets women's exclusion from direct combat jobs - Los Angeles Times

Quote:

---

Capt. Zoe Bedell graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In deployments to Afghanistan, she oversaw "female engagement teams" that accompanied male infantry units into the field — living and working in identical conditions.

---

Quote:

---

Capt. Zoe Bedell graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In deployments to Afghanistan, she oversaw "female engagement teams" that accompanied male infantry units into the field — living and working in identical conditions.

---

Clearly if she was doing that job then that is not what Panetta is referring to.

Quote:

---

Bedell said she left active duty last year because the policy limited her potential for promotion by failing to officially recognize her combat leadership experience. (In military parlance, the female teams that played a critical role in communicating with Afghan women were "attached," not "assigned," to infantry units.)

On Tuesday, she joined a federal lawsuit challenging the blanket exclusion.

"The modern battlefield means there are no front lines or safe areas," Bedell, 27 and now a Marine Corps reservist, said during a news conference at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. The ACLU is representing her, three female members of the Marines, the California Air National Guard and the Army Reserve, and the nonprofit Service Women's Action Network.

"My Marines supported infantry units," Bedell said. "They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back."

According to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the sweeping restriction based on gender is unconstitutional because it is not justified by a specific governmental objective, as the U.S. Supreme Court has required.

Women effectively serve in direct combat, the suit said, often without the level of training provided to their male counterparts or the recognition that would enable them to advance.

"The policy has the effect of closing off whole career fields for women," said Ariela Migdal, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Women Rights Project. "We demand that the U.S. military bring its policy into line with modern society."

---

I wonder if you read the whole links.

If they can pull their weight and that of their 250 pound male counterpart to safety after he gets shot then go get 'em Jane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Right wingers have been blaming rape on women for as long as I can remember... The problem is the RAPISTS, not the women..

excon

---

This is a huge generalization and I would say not true. There are a few nutcases of course, but the vast majority of conservatives do not believe what you are suggesting and do not promote this idea. I certainly don't.

I am on the right myself. I have no problem with gender being a non-issue in the military. The physical standards should not be lowered or tiered to accommodate women, however and I don't think it's necessary. If it's necessary to carry 50 pounds or run 10 miles or whatever for a particular role, then that standard should stay. Not all women, and not all men will make the cut, but many will. I think many women today are more athletic and considerably stronger. Strength is now admired in women, and is no longer seen as mannish as it used to be. Women's sports have come a long way and are more physical than ever.

Thanks to Billie Jean King for that one!

Here's the deal... her unit was there to be interpreters . That means they played a support role and were not the 'point of the spear'. In other words ;her unit's responsibility and training was NOT to engage the enemy. That they did on occasion ;I'm sure they were adequately trained. Convoys transporting equipment frequently came under fire ,especially with IED.. That did not make the driver of the truck's role a combat role.
Their role was not combat.This posting is called G I JANE .In the movie from which the title comes from ;the woman wants to join the Seals ; at the beginning standards are reduced to accommodate the physical differences ;and she insists that she be judged under the same standards as the male applicants.

Is that what Panetta has in mind ;that the women applicants will have to qualify for the same physical standards as the men ? I doubt it... More likely the standards will be reduced to accommodate ;compromising the effectiveness of the front line tip of the' spear infantry' .

Now I don't want to drop my point in my 1st response. Do you want women drafted and not given a choice about it like frequently happens in a draft army Or is this a move to abolish selective service ?

Yes, I keep forgetting you still conscript in the US; we don't in Canada, but always seem to have enough troops to go around, including the Peace Corp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dontknownuthin

Strength is now admired in women, and is no longer seen as mannish as it used to be. Women's sports have come a long way and are more physical than ever.

Thanks to Billie Jean King for that one!

---

I'm a huge fan of strong, athletic women... except for bodybuilders. That's just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

How many women have become generals?

---

Here you go.

Profiles of Women in the U.S. Army

First female four-star U.S. Army general nominated - CNN

Female Generals: The Pentagon's First Pair of Four-Star Women | TIME.com

When you are attacked everyone with a gun should be responding, so elimination of the terms attached to and assigned to to be clarified by training and accepted as a function of the team be it medic, interpretor, security, or driver, or cook.

The enemy makes no such distinctions, neither should we.

As to whether women should be drafted? In war, all hands on deck, in whatever capacity they can serve, if a draft is truly necessary, the prom kings and queens, as well as the ones from the elites and politicians should be drafted as the poor are.

Why would we need a draft in the first place? Clarify please?