This is actually quite interesting: “The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing four military women and the activist Servicewomen’s Action Network (SWAN), has filed a San Francisco lawsuit demanding that female soldiers be forced into direct ground combat (infantry) battalions.” This despite “numerous studies and tests conducted over the past 30 years, in the direct ground combat environment” showing “women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.”
So. What takes precedence in the military? Civil rights law? Or the protection of our forces and the best chances to achieve the military objective.
Personally, I believe that any woman who can pass the same preparedness tests as their male counterparts should be eligible for combat. And those who cannot should not.
— Which is one of the things that has always fascinated me about these kinds of activist-feminist gambits: the demand is always for equal inclusion as a civil right, and yet it is usually coupled with suggestions that special consideration (namely, a lowering of the standards for combat readiness among women soldiers) is required to level the playing field. Meaning, women soldiers are being discriminated against if they aren’t allowed special dispensation to artificially bring them in line with their male counterparts. Or, to put it another way, equality must be made to exist, no matter how the deck is stacked to get it there.
I’m curious to see how this turns out.
I’m pretty sure that ACLU/SWAN won’t rest until the U.S. has signed treaties with every nation and terrorist group on Earth, getting them all to promise they won’t work as hard to kill our female soldiers as the do to kill our men.
No idea what we’d have to offer in return. My first idea was “topless Tuesdays” on the battlefield, but somehow I doubt ACLU/SWAN would go for that.
Maybe somebody should invent a prick-seeking missile. It could give our infantrywomen an edge, and clean up the officer corps, all in one swell foop!
How soon before they file lawsuits to have women in the SEALs and on subs? Immediately followed by A] complaints that the SEAL requirements are waaaay to tough (nevermind that most men don’t make it) , and B] complaints of sexual harassment/hostile work environment on subs because there’s so little space (shared bunks, tight passageways, etc.).
Personally, I believe that any woman who can pass the same preparedness tests as their male counterparts should be eligible for combat. And those who cannot should not.
____________________________
Fuck that. We can end this little tantrum by stipulating that if are to serve in combat, all girls must register for Selective Service.
Girrrrrrrrllll Pwower!!!!
And thus, America’s military collapse continues apace. Forward!
they can get superstrong cyborg limbs grafted on with laser beams and gps screens and wear lightweight form-fitting body armor and pobably they’ll all look like michelle rodriguez
that’s how i would implement this anyway
*probably* i mean
you go to war with the army you’ve got you know
…all girls must register for Selective Service.
I’m surprised that ACLU/SWAN didn’t file that suit ages ago.
Greetings:
On my civil rights “To Do” list.
1) Sue the Federal (mis)Government to allow male soldiers to wear their hair at lengths similar to
soldierettes. Fight the (barber) Power.
2) Sue the Federal (mis)Government to allow male servicepersons to shower with females. After
all, if it’s okay for homosexuals to shower with their sexual objects “por que no los
heterosexuales” ???
3) Sue the Federal (mis)Government for mixed gender sleeping areas. Just think of the unit and
other cohesions that could be built.
Busy, busy, busy.
And why is it that an officer who screws his subordinates as a matter of course gets promoted, while an officer who screws his subordinates after hours gets reprimanded?
UNFAIR!
Deebow over at http://www.blackfive.net has a lot to say about it. An excerpt:
And why in the world do these chicks want to be in the combat arms so bad? Do they have a mud fetish? Do they long to spend sleepless hours standing watch in a fox hole while their buddies snort and fart in their sleep underneath a poncho liner inches away in their patrol base? They have to check off “spend 3 hours putting 95 pound 155mm shells into a cannon and firing them” off their bucket list? They can’t live any longer until they have carried an 81mm mortar baseplate up the side of a mountain, along with part of the machine gunner’s ammunition and their own equipment after getting 2 hours of sleep in the last 36 hours?
Go read the rest
As soon as we make a mostly small arms proof, portable, strength and endurance enhancing exoskeleton women will have a place on a breaching team. Frankly I think we should be using robots for that shit. Imagine a modified “big dog” with a stainless ram on the front, and smoke launcher style mortar tubes facing all arcs smashes the door in, advances, drops and launches flashbangs, frags, incendiaries, smoke, claymores, tear gas, puke-juice…whatever you want loaded on it. All in a couple of seconds. THEN you send in the shot guns. Or maybe if it is more serious than that, big dog just tells the cruiser off shore where the missile needs to land.
Ah, who am I kidding. Cruiser? We’ll probably have a mostly ‘stealthy littoral combat ship’ style navy by then.
You need to be in a combat unit at some point if you want your career to advance apace. The problem was letting women into the regular armed forces in the first place. They used to be separate.
It’s going to end with a lot of dead or hurt people, the way it always does when idiots force the wrong people into the wrong situations in the name of *insert random inane equality stance here*. Of course, this has more potential to kill people directly rather than indirectly, as just forcing women poorly-equipped (physically) into combat will get them and their squad mates killed much faster than, say, thrusting poorly-equipped students into engineering programs and watching their bridges and building collapse decades later.
Any gender “victory” that leads to an increased chance of unnecessary casualties really makes me wonder how these dicks sleep at night.
Ah, sorry, sorry! How these vaginas sleep at night.
“Personally, I believe that any woman who can pass the same preparedness tests as their male counterparts should be eligible for combat.” Really? Simple answer is that they can’t meet those requirements. So where does that lead us?
I weight trained for more than twenty years and in all that time I only met one female who could come close to lifting her own body weight, (she could lift her body weight, but not for reps). She was physically built like a man and had been a steriod user earlier on in her life. Compare that to men I trained with who consistantly lifted multiples of their own body weight, for reps.
The other consideration is the mental toughness that combat requires. Some of that hardness can be taught, but there is a level of violence in men that is instinctual and that is the foundation that the military builds upon.
And thus, America’s military collapse continues apace. Forward!
Exactly. This is an attack on the American military. Plain and simple.
Right where we are, with the exception of the one or two women who can meet the requirements?
Changing the requirements. Duh.
nothing about putting womens into battle what can’t be solved with a little American can-do attitude
lol
“Changing the requirements. Duh.” A 30 kilo pack is, (surprise!), 30 kilos and it doen’t make one whit of difference as to which back it is strapped. Add to that belt, weapon, vest and whatever personal gear etc. and you can understand the need for physical strength. All this is before one shot is fired.
“nothing about putting womens into battle what can’t be solved with a little American can-do attitude ” /s Are you being sarcastic?
“Right where we are, with the exception of the one or two women who can meet the requirements?” The real issue is that for some tasks mens bodies are better suited to the physical abuse that is meted out during combat.
SAS train and carry 34 to 45.5 kilo packs plus body armour. I believe that if this was an idea that had a chance of wet fart in a hurricane of succeeding it would have been tried before. Amazonia notwithstanding.
Gulermo, then surely the men can carry their ruck and some for the women.
I have a feeling you’re not on board with equality, bigot.
Women are prone to pelvic stress fractures associated with drills used in military training. Some years back, a woman officer, a doctor, addressed her concerns about women in combat and nearly lost her commission. I wish I could remember her name and find a link to her report.
Spending months on crutches isn’t anyone’s idea of a good time.
“I have a feeling you’re not on board with equality, bigot.” Equality; interesting choice of word.
It’s all in keeping with the up is down, black is white motif America is living under…
Just wait till they get “disparate impact” put into play in all of the law. I expect this idea to be one that will be pushed out more and more during the next 4 long years. Progressive wet dream and American societal collapse all in a tidy little package. What’s not to like?
“I have a feeling you’re not on board with equality, bigot.”
Oh they did rather well while the bullets held out,
But assaults proved their steel a bit thin,
And the gods of the copy book headings quipped,
” The mightier force tends to win. “
For Sale on Saudi Facebook: Abdul, the Castrated Black Aftrican Slave
A 30 kilo pack is, (surprise!), 30 kilos and it doen’t make one whit of difference as to which back it is strapped. Add to that belt, weapon, vest and whatever personal gear etc. and you can understand the need for physical strength.
Obviously a kilo as currently valued is too heavy then. We just need to adjust the kilo to a less sexist amount.
Former massage parlor owner’s crimes compared to ‘modern-day slavery’
their amerikkka
President Obama serves Mitt Romney white turkey
and mittens goes to the slaughter willfully. lol
The Marines allowed women to volunteer for the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course, and two did: they were being subjected to the same training as the men, and both were gone in a week. 29 men also washed out the first week. The article stated that 25% of the 109 class starters will not finish the course, but with 31 out of 109 already gone, the washout rate is already beyond 25%.
Some women have completed Army Sapper Leader Course, a physically demanding course itself, that not all of the males pass.
The facts of modern warfare have simply changed; we no longer have a distinct front and a safe rear echelon, but the entire battalion can be subject to enemy action. We do not have women assigned to combat units, but the Army is getting around that by having women attached to combat units, primarily medics and commos.
Army medic SPC Monica Brown won the Silver Star for gallantry in combat.
More at the link. Some women will be able to handle it, and others will not, but the same is true of men.
[…] over at Protein Wisdom gives us the scoop on the latest doings on the female empowerment front. This is actually quite interesting: […]