Posted on 11/27/2012 12:55:31 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union sued on Tuesday on behalf of four U.S. servicewomen to challenge a longstanding policy barring women from thousands of ground combat positions, citing the changing nature of warfare and fairness for career soldiers.
The civil rights group argued in a legal complaint filed in federal court in Northern California that a military policy to bar women from combat roles on the basis of gender was unconstitutional.
"Nearly a century after women first earned the right of suffrage, the combat exclusion policy still denies women a core component of full citizenship - serving on equal footing in the military defense of our nation," reads the suit, on behalf of four women soldiers who have fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Their career opportunities also had been limited by the policy, the women said.
The lawsuit comes as the Department of Defense has slowly been dropping such gender-based restrictions. In February, it allowed some women to serve in combat battalions, a unit of 300 to 1,000 members, and dropped restrictions on women serving in units that were required to be based with combat units.
But women are still not allowed in infantry, or in smaller units engaged in combat. Women are barred from more the 238,000 positions, the ACLU said. But in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there are no clear battle lines, women have been pulled into combat in spite of the policy, the group added.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
This can be settled with a war game between military women picked by the ACLU and the best of the males in the Armed Services.
Out of curiosity, did the USSR put women in the front lines of combat?
But hey, I say ever army needs cannon fodder so make them all register for the draft and serve (involuntarily) in combat positions too.
Females in air combat “OK?”
They are one ejection from joining the ground war or becoming a POW.
True, but did we need to fight the wars we did? Seems they tend to end, unceremoniously, with little to show for them.
“They would require certain “personnel items” that would take up room in cargo vehicles normally used for ammo, food, and water. “
THAT is so true. Gulf War I, Day 2 in Iraq. In the TOC, staff meeting in progress and the S-4 and S-3 engaged in a discussion regarding how best to ensure “female” items are ordered and able to be delivered to HHC (only place where we had females).
Here we were, in combat, days into the ground war, talking about re-supply and we were talking about making room for female products??!!
“The only thing that is required is that if the female combat troop gets pregnant that there must be an article in the UCMJ that immediately discharges them with a general discharge and no future medical care for the mother or child.”
Actually they should be forced to have an abortion, be courtsmartialed for damaging government equipment and have their rank stripped then thrown back into the front lines.
That’s the equivalent to what happened to GIs in WWI and WW2 that contracted an STD.
Good Lord.
Best. Post. Ever. On. This. Subject.
Outstanding!
It takes a lot just for me to train a woman to get me a beer from the fridge when I snap my fingers..oh yeah, and to get me my back scratcher as well. So I can imagine what it takes to train them for combat, as IF they need training for that in the first place. Just leaving the seat up is enough.
Homos or women? I will take the women. At least they have the balls to fight.
Even the most athletic woman, stronger than the average man, bleeds and can get unexpectedly pregnant, neither of which is helpful to a combat situation. Can women serve in combat? Sure. They did in Russia against Hitler, and in Israel in 1948, and in a few cases in the civil and revolutionary wars. But this is far from ideal, and except in emergency situations should not be allowed. As for ‘Career’ considerations, give me a break. Dying needlessly is real bad for a career.
Well, I did state “ one woman on the field at all times” which would mean offense, defense, special teams too. Five women and it wouldn’t even be a close game, except for maybe the Chiefs or perhaps the Eagles. Heck, I might as well include my Cowgirls :)
The simple way to train women to put the seat up, is to not care about it in the first place, up, down, I don’t care.
It is an add on to a toilet anyway.
You scratch your own back......?
So liberal men want to be able to have sex with women, abort women, live off a woman and now kill women? What will the pro-woman movement think of next?
Not relevant to this thread.
when women can do the same test to get in the service, when they can carry 130 pound over 30 miles in 8 hours and then fight at the end and when women can not be a distraction to men then by all means serve in combat.
They cannot and it;s time for these idiots to understand women and men are build differently
agreed.
We had a woman in arctic training with our unit and she was a massive failure.
This is stupid to think that women can do the same job, carry the same weight over the same distance and then fight.
Women today do not do the same test to get in a unit and yet think they should then serve the same as a guy., no frigging way.
I can think of one reason and one reason only it would be beneficial to a grunt to have women in a CW environment.......and that is to to hope she gets hypothermia so you can strip her down, strip yourself down and climb in a sleeping bag with her in order to get her core temp back up.
Okay, maybe two reasons; you can claim frostbite and stick your hands under her armpits to warm your fingers back up.
However, even that isn't worth the headache and backache of carrying her gear the rest of the op.
Or just one woman on the line. Good luck with one against all the those gigantor men. No matter what the offense or defense position they all get creamed one time or another in the right dog pile. Even the centers get stomped. Talk about "PULP Friction"!
However, it would be worth a few laughs to see they're new protective breast were sticking out of their uniforms, as if that would protect them. Of course, they would probably change the rules so the men don't push against the chest area any longer. I'm sick of feminists not letting men enjoy their own time together.
The sexual harassment thing has been mostly resolved - apparently the "free association" thing no longer exists.
“... new protective breast [bras] sticking out of their uniforms! But then if they had metal or composite type pointy bra like early Madonna, they could do some damage...har.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.