Posted on 11/28/2012 9:45:44 AM PST by Starman417
Except as otherwise provided in this title (sections 451 to 471a of this Appendix) it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.
That is section 453 of the Military Selective Service Act that was passed in 1917 and amended many times over the years, the most recent being in 2003. This will come into play later.
On my way home from work, the news played a clip of a former Army helicopter pilot, Major Mary Jennings Hegar. There was much ado about the fact she served three combat tours in Afghanistan. Along with three other female veterans, she has joined with the ACLU to sue the Department of Defense over the combat exclusion policy that bars females from going into combat specialties. In an op-ed published today, MAJ Hegar made the following comments:
If there is one thing I’ve learned about the differences between us all throughout my years of service, it’s this: putting the right person in the right job has very little to do with one’s gender, race, religion, or other demographic descriptor. It has everything to do with one’s heart, character, ability, determination and dedication.That’s the problem with the military’s combat exclusion policy. It makes it that much harder for people to see someone’s abilities, and instead reinforces stereotypes about gender. The policy creates the pervasive way of thinking in military and civilian populations that women can’t serve in combat roles, even in the face of the reality that servicewomen in all branches of the military are already fighting for their country alongside their male counterparts. They shoot, they return fire, they drag wounded comrades to safety and they engage with the enemy, and they have been doing this for years. They risk their lives for their country, and the combat exclusion policy does them a great disservice.
It's no secret and I don't deny that women have been shot at, shot back, and contributed to direct-fire engagements of the enemy. However, that doesn't mean that these actions equate to being infantry, cavalry, or other combat specialty. As a matter of fact, the Marine Corps recently opened up their Infantry Officers Course to women. Two women volunteered to attend the course...and both women dropped from the program. These women were "to complete required training due to unspecified medical reasons, a Marine official told Marine Corps Times. It’s unclear whether she was injured or if she became ill," according to the Marine Corps Times.
Women in the military want to have equal treatment while being treated differently. For example, in order for a male my age to just pass the push-up event with the minimum passing score, he has to correctly perform 34 push-ups. For a female of the same age, she only needs to complete 13. To pass the 2-mile run, I need to run 18:18 or faster while a female my age can take up to 22:42 to complete the same distance.
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Pinging the list because feminism is immoral for many reasons. In this case, feminism demoralizes and weakens the military. Numerous personal accounts prove this, what to speak of news stories. Women should have their own outfits as they did previously. Affirmative action is crippling to individuals and everything it touches. If they want to have women mixed in, then the women should have to perform every test, every action, every bit of training exactly up to the mens' standards. If they can't do it, too bad! (and hardly any of them will be able to).
Too bloody right I couldn't keep up with the kids on a 2-mile track!
I was NOT, nor never was, Infantry. As an Intel geek, I had a skill set which kept me at a distance from things; but the mission demanded that I knew how to move/shoot/communicate at least as well as the young'uns.
Sometimes I was on convoy duty; sometimes I was on LRS missions. Daily we were paying attention to FOB Defense. All of this was as a long-in-the-tooth, 43yo E-6, and I burned up a few tubes of IcyHot trying to run with the big dogs.
And just as a nod to the girls: The Bride was a USAF medic, and ate the same dirt I did. She has stories of wymmyn trying to be She-Ra, same as I do. Same as we all do. But we who have wore the suit and ate the dirt know the deal.
If women are promoted equally to combat soldiers, you make the men in combat slaves to people who are bossing them around, but have not earned that right and position.
Why should men in leadership be required to fight but not women if they are treated quota equally in rank and line of work outside combat?
Why should men be put on the front line to fight and risk death and mutilation and not women if women are going to be considered equal to men in noncombat position and rank?
There should be a two track promotion of men and women because the military is naturally and honestly respecting the differences in physical strength between the sexes. Since women are not equal to men in strength, women should be serving around what is best for the miliary careers of men who can fight.
That means women should have no standing to argue for quotas and assignments in leadership positions. Men, because they serve in in combat should be perferred in every way. Women should serve around their needs.
Tossing women into combat without equalizing a standard of physical qualification applied equally to men and women before they can join military operations, will be a femenazi experiment in mass murder. Either women are treated toally equal to men in the military, or they are not treated equally in the military.
No half way p.c. games to serve feminists and disadvantage men in the military!
You said it all, and very well. I agree 100%. If not more so!
If the woman can meet the same requirements as a man, then give her a rifle.
Otherwise she is a larger liability.
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.