Your post is exactly why women should not be in the military. The billets that women now fill, i.e. non-combat duty used to be used to give a guy a break in between arduous duty. Now women fill those "cushy" jobs ensuring a male is going to have to rough for 20 straight years, if he lives that long.
I think I recall seeing World War II posters recruiting women with slogans such as “free a man to fight.”
The United States made the decision to allow women in the military, not just as a wartime emergency measure during World War II but in permanent roles beyond nursing positions, all the way back in the late 1940s. This is settled law and has been since before the Korean War broke out.
I have no problem with women in the military, and neither has the majority of Congress for nearly six and a half decades. I have a big problem with women in jobs they can't physically perform — or men either, for that matter.
@ little jeremiah: I'm aware of the situation with Israeli female soldiers. They're facing a situation that we have not had in the United States for at least a century and a half, in which every able-bodied adult, whether male or female, needs to be able to defend their home, their property and their life. They also draft women, which virtually nobody in the United States would support. I'm not sure the parallels to an all-volunteer American force are close.
@ Future Snake Eater: You and I agree on the problems of repealing DADT and the danger of the drive to allow women in infantry positions. My read of the situation is that the next election will end the danger from radical feminists for a while, and hopefully something will be done about open-and-out homosexuals. I hope the court martial of the Wikileaker and his gay hacker buddies will show people in Congress who are actually open to debate why homosexuals present a real security risk, not just a theoretical risk, and this specific homosexual caused the worst security breach of classified documents in American military history.
Saturday, February 18, 2012 11:12:58 AM · 19 of 44 lefty-lie-spy to darrellmaurina: “Wow. Can I still joi. The reserves at 41? I’ve always wanted to enlist. I live in Tokyo now, but would love to join the reserves. If anyone knows if this is possible please let me know.”
The short answer is that so much depends on specifics of your situation that I can't give a useful answer; you need to talk to a recruiter. Some things may be waiverable even if the rules say “no.”
The longer answer is that after 9/11, due to the need to expand the military force and some very aggressive individual efforts by a few people to get into the military who didn't meet age rules that were at the time non-waiverable, several states started accepting people up until age 42 into the Army National Guard for those states. The program was later expanded to the Army Reserve; I don't remember at this point if it was ever officially extended to active duty Army for initial enlistment but there are people who started NG or Army Reserve and later went active duty. As others on this thread have said, the actual age of maximum acceptance depends on whether the person was prior service military and whether they have critically needed skills.
The recent drawdown of the military is making it considerably more difficult to get waivers of all types, not just for age restrictions. Again, specifics vary so talking to a recruiter about your situation is really the only way to get accurate answers, and the answer you get today may not be the answer you would have gotten a year ago or the answer you'll get next year.