 |
Hello:
She's a reality today.. Women will be serving in FULL combat roles. I'm thrilled about it. You? Of course, women have been serving in combat for years. They just didn't get the promotions that came along with it. So, it's NOT really about combat. It's about a glass ceiling that got broken.
How come I have the feeling that my right wing friends aren't going to like this?
excon
It's stupid . In OIF they sent a special rescue mission behind Iraqi lines to do a special rescue for a PFC because her capture was bad pr.
I suppose you can make a case for it in an all volunteer force and in a world of asymetrical warfare where combat is not as linear as it was . But what happens if we ever have to go to a draft ,and suddenly women aren't given a choice? What happens to your equal protection notions then ?
In fact ;this will open up a challenge to the constitutionality of Selective Service. How do I know that ? Because it was challenged in court when it was reenacted .
Rostker v. Goldberg, the Court ruled in favor of the Selective Service. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion .
“Congress acted well within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and navies when it authorized the registration of men and not women.”
In the decision he stated that "the existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them”
Well that logic goes out the window if women serve in combat positions. So the question becomes... do they now change the law to draft women ? And if they don't ,why isn't it a 5th amendment violation ? Maybe that's the hidden reason... the Obots want to end the Selective Service system . That would be like a budget cut item .
The Marines asked for female volunteers . 2 signed up and failed the Marine basic infantry course . So what will you have... different physical standards for the same job ?
Hello tom:
The equal protection clause doesn't mention gender.. Men weren't equally protected when women were excused from the draft.Quote:
if we ever have to go to a draft ,and suddenly women aren't given a choice? What happens to your equal protection notions then ?
Of course, they'll be drafted. Will there be some women, who harbor 20th Century notions, that'll complain?? Sure. Fortunately, that didn't stop the progress women have made.
Whatever adjustments the military has to make, they'll make. Just like they did upon the repeal of DADT. You were against that too, weren't you?
Excon
You are behind the times, women in the military have been in equal opportunity for the last 20 years in Canada.
Hello tick:
We'da been there sooner, but our right wing is holding us back.
excon
Irrelevant . There are no physical differences. Guess the US populace will have to get used to women getting captured in battle .Quote:
Just like they did upon the repeal of DADT. You were against that too, weren't you?
BTW ; I guess the Constitution doesn't apply to Leon Panetta either...
Article 1 sec 8 clause 14 gives CONGRESS the power To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Last law I saw on the subject ,Congress prohibitted women in front line roles. You may not like it ;but Congress has the final say.
By the way.. Canada already tried this . Women were recruited for the 16-week infantry training course which was identical to the men'scourse. The outcome was described as the 'high cost of recruiting women that yielded poor results. There were disruptions to cohesion and high rates of attrition for females in labor intensive specialties due to lower average upper body strength and higher rates of stress fractures.
“Of the 60 women recruited for the Canadian Infantry since last year, only one has successfully completed the 16-
week training program and is serving in the infantry, according to Cmdr. Judith Harper"
Canada Puts Women on Front Line : Combat: Many governments send women into combat during war. Canada, however, is recruiting women during peacetime. - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times
Thanks for your 1989 article tom.
Here's a newer one: Women filled 8.3% of Canada's combat positions in Afghanistan: study | News | National Post
Have women grown stronger there ? Or has physical standards been dropped degrading the close combat capabilities of the Army ?
Here are the PT standards currently for the Army.. let a woman fulfill them and then OK.
http://www.apft-standards.com/
Edit.. let them have the same pt standards as the men
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm
Hello tom:
Couple things.. Apparently the services think THEY have the final authority, because they're DOING it.Quote:
You may not like it ;but Congress has the final say...
Have women grown stronger there ?
Women haven't grown stronger.. Combat has become less physical and more technical.
Excon
Don't know, don't care.Quote:
have women grown stronger there ? Or has physical standards been dropped degrading the close combat capabilities of the Army ?
Sorry ;women in the military have a hard enough time defending themselves against male soldiers in the ranks ,let alone enemy in close combat.
In The Invisible War the facts presented are painfully clear. The Department of Defense estimates over 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in the military in 2010 alone. A conservative estimate states over 20% of women in the military will be sexually assaulted.
The Military's 'Invisible War:' A Call To Action To Stop Sexual Assaults - Forbes
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
And I of course am not blaming rape on women. . I'm saying that it is a indicator of the comparative physical strengths .I'm saying that physical strength is a factor in close combat and it always will be ,regardless of how high tech the occupation has become.
Physical strength, when was the last time a fight was really "hand to hand" ? My guess is seldom, it is normally rocket lauchers, snipers, and exchange of fire fights between buildings.
My cousin was in one in Iraq . Yes it does happen . There are accounts of hand to hand fights in Fallujah . In Afghanistan it happened even more frequently as the Taliban would set up ambushes . All you have to do is look on the web.
Strength isn't what is needed in hand-to-hand combat (or are all of our males in the military former football tackles?). A skilled fighter knows how to use the enemy's own weight against him.
Glad you bought up weight. Today's troops have armor ,gear ,weapons ,ammo that has them carrying 100lbs + depending on the requirements of the mission. Some of the women barely weigh more than that. By the way "hand to hand " is more commonly called 'close combat' ,and in an urban environment ,it happens more that one would think in this video war age .
I'll bet they will figure this out in boot camp and before she is shipped overseas. I can just see the Dems smacking themselves on the forehead, "Whatever were we thinking? Women are just itty-bitty things that have no place in the military. They need to be at home making up first-aid kits and putting together CARE packages for our men in uniform."
There are plenty of roles for women in the forces. Don't be silly . Just not "full combat roles " as Excon describes .
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.
I don't deny that at all.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.
You have no evidence of that since it hasn't happened yet.Quote:
Implication of inferiority in ability isn't a fact, and has been debunked every time by actual performances.
In other countries, it has.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
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:
like where ?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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
Lawsuit targets women's exclusion from direct combat jobs - Los Angeles TimesQuote:
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.
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:
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.
I wonder if you read the whole links.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."
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
I'm a huge fan of strong, athletic women... except for bodybuilders. That's just wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by dontknownuthin
Here you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 PM. |