|
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 ...
Sheesh the REMFS at the ACLU will do anything to stay out of a line unit.
Single women overwhelmingly voted Obama.
Let’s get as many of them into combat as want to go. I’m all for eliminating Obama voters however we can.
The end is near.
I supposed I’d rather have a bull dyke watching my back in combat rather than a light in the loafers flaming fluffer.
air combat, OK.. ground combat, No.
not sure how ya keep the battle lines from getting crossed up.. ‘fog of war’ and all.. ‘no holds barred’ can apply as easily to walking down the streets of a number of US cities today. so can sacrifice for a cause.. should we begrudge those who do seek to go in harm’s way, some as capable as their male counterparts, well aware of the risks?
You’d think CODE Pink’rs would be at the head of the recruitment line.. go figure.
Homosexuals and women.
Funny, back in the day feminist told us if let in the military there would be no more war - men just screwed it up and caused war and now they want to get in the fight.
I’ve never experienced war, and I understand your concerns about ground combat, but I also feel that if the left wants to push this, then send them to the front lines. Actually, I’m in favor of mandatory military service for community organizers.
The problem is that you destroy the military in doing that, you get everyone killed and we lose the war, and America ceases to exist.
What sounds funny to some people is not realistic.
I support some form of public service be it either military or community based.
Both my wife and I are veterans. Fortunate to have not seen combat ,, more a timing thing ,, but that wouldn’t have stopped her or me from going at it.
I do find it ironic that the Left which pushes all these new freedoms for gays and women so readily sacrifices others to fulfill their own agendas. but that’s business these days in politics..
Among other things, combat is an athletic event. So, putting aside all the social and sexual aspects of this, if there is one woman in an infantry squad it means that the squad as a whole is short the difference in strength and ability to carry supplies, munitions, etc that a man could carry. It’s not about women lacking the ability to pull the trigger or anything like that. History is chock full of examples depicting women being quite capable of doing so. An example of my point has come to mind. Lets say that as an experiment one NFL team could be be persuaded to always have one woman on the field at all times during every game of a season. How many games would that team win? I suggest that the answer is none. Ok, ok, maybe the Chiefs Would have won two games by now. I’ll concede that, lol :)
Females in combat would cause numerous difficulties. They would require certain "personnel items" that would take up room in cargo vehicles normally used for ammo, food, and water. They could, if they were not ugly dykes, potentially cause attention deficits which would give rise to security risks. Finally, they are not strong enough to help the big guys over obstacles or pull wounded teammates to safety.
Wouldn't that exclude about 85-90% of the citizens of the United States, males AND females, who for physical and other reasons, do not qualify?
Oh, this post is CLASSIC!!!
‘Females in combat would cause numerous difficulties. They would require certain “personnel items” that would take up room in cargo vehicles normally used for ammo, food, and water. They could, if they were not ugly dykes, potentially cause attention deficits which would give rise to security risks. Finally, they are not strong enough to help the big guys over obstacles or pull wounded teammates to safety. “
They also get raped, and they also get pregnant.
Wonder how long it’ll be after they demand this in the name of equality before the ACLU is demanding preferential treatment in the name of respecting women.
As bad as this’ll be for the future, you gotta admit the fact these screwballs can’t make up their minds is amusing.
No way that women could ever fight in real combat like THAT. These morons have forgotten what the military is for and what it does. To them, it's just another government job with lots of perks followed by 20-year retirement.
Lord help us if we ever get into another such war with say Russia or Red China.
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.
