Women in Combat

	posted by Matt on 03:50 PM May 20th, 2005
	Anonymous User writes "Story here: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year. The House Armed Services Committee approved the overall measure early Thursday on a 61-1 vote. The same committee in the Senate passed a different version last week. The House and Senate are to vote on their respective bills next week." Click "Read more..." for the rest of the excerpt.

	"The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat. "Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh, R-New York, who sponsored the amendment. It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to notify Congress when opening up positions to women. The amendment replaced narrower language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed."

<  Richard Hayden | Are video games only for men?  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

It's about time! (Score:1) by quetzal on 09:02 AM May 21st, 2005 EST (#1) In a previous life I was in the Navy (active) as an enlisted person. This sounds to me like one of the few good ideas the government/military has ever come up with, as far as "hot issues". Especially after the truth was revealed about the Jessica Lynch story..and just the fact that she can be discharged and write a book due to her "experience". I think part of the problem with this issue may be the typical "psychologist" mentality, as demonstrated in the mock conversation below:   Feminist Psychologist: "But Sargeant Bailey, don't you think it would be more fair if women could serve in combat?" Bailey: "Not really. Have you ever been in the military? You sound like you don't know much about it. Having women in close quarters in conditions such as hand to hand combat, or, say on a submarine, is liable to lead to all sorts of trouble which even the ignorant masses can deduce. Unfortunately, some ignorant psychologists are not led to the same conclusion...since they are the 'true knowers' and arbiters of human behavior..they seem to think, 'but once the men get used to having them around/studies indicate../maybe the military could change/etc...'" Feminist Psychologist: "Yes, I see what you mean..maybe I AM a dunce with no connection to reality whatsoever..I will now commence to analyze myself. Thanks!"

Decision is Sexist & Hateful Against Men (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 11:14 AM May 21st, 2005 EST (#2) "Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year." How chivalrous of the conservative gender bigots to keep women safe from combat, and how hypocritical of the liberal gender feminists to acquiesce so silently against women's rights to be equal to men. It's politics against men as usual in America. I can't wait for these same hate monger elected officials to reauthorize VAWA with billions more for women, alleged to be victims of intimate partner violence, while completely ignoring the future intimate partner violence of men now serving in combat - along with all other American men. It would have been easy enough for a "separate, but equal" unit to have been formed so that women could have proved their ability to serve in combat and be equal to men. Why are the gender feminists not outraged if they are truly about showing women can do anything men can (given the opportunity), and why is it exclusively men's duty to do this horrible death job? This decision is 100% sexist and hateful against men, and you only have one feminist supporting women in combat. What hypocrites gender feminists are saying they want equal opportunity for women. In this article from the American Bar Association (ABA) we see "military service" as one of the profiling predictions used to characterize people "prone to workplace violence." Prone to Violence "A profiled worker may be a loner, own weapons, and have completed military service." Look at the list of "male only" penalties for men who do not register for selective service. BENEFITS AND PROGRAMS LINKED TO REGISTRATION , Women don't have to worry about losing these benefits if they don't register, only men (because the SSS never requires females to register with the SSS). Look through the other topics on the SSS web site to see this: "HOSPITALIZED OR INCARCERATED MEN Young men in hospitals, mental institutions or prisons do not have to register while they are committed. However, they must register within 30 days after being released if they have not yet reached their 26th birthday. DISABLED MEN Disabled men who live at home must register with Selective Service if they can reasonably leave their homes and move about independently. A friend or relative may help a disabled man fill out the registration form if he can't do it himself. Men with disabilities that would disqualify them from military service still must register with Selective Service. Selective Service does not presently have authority to classify men, so even men with obvious handicaps must register now, and if needed, classifications would be determined later." Once again let us never forget this, "WOMEN AND THE DRAFT Women Aren't Required to Register Selective Service law as it's written now refers specifically to "male persons" in stating who must register and who would be drafted." Why??? Considering that women have chosen to have over 30,000,000 abortions over the past 3 decades, American women certainly aren't vitally necessary to the roles of child bearer and Mother, maintaining America's population. It is clear that we live in a country that is sexist and hateful against men, before, during and after "military service," in the workplace, and in society at large. America is sexist and hateful against men and it is institutionalized, and this story is just one more major, glaring example. Women must be required to register with SSS and serve in all combat, just like a man or America should forever stop sending men to fight its damned wars. War Is Just Another Excuse for Violence Against Men , Click "View Larger," disregard pricing and sales info. Why Send Only Men to Combat them Blame Only Men for Violence , Click "View Larger," disregard pricing and sales info. Sincerely, Ray

Re:Decision is Sexist & Hateful Against Men (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 04:10 PM May 21st, 2005 EST (#3) Agree 100%. Needless to say, they dont want women to be exempt from high prestige, empowering and relatively low risk roles such as fighter pilots, nuclear sub commanders ,etc. When it comes to walking down sniper infested,booby trapped, streets then women play the helpless defenseless fragile flower card. Still, there may be one advantage in keeping women out of the ground war. It may reduce the numbers of enemy prisoners being tortured and thus help protect America's reputation. Hotspur

Re:Decision is Sexist & Hateful Against Men (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 08:13 PM May 21st, 2005 EST (#4) Also agree 100%. I think some servicemen might be legitimately concerned that having women in their squad would subject them to more danger, as brainwashed men would strive to "protect women" at the expense of their male colleagues. The solution is obvious: all-female units. Assign them to the most dangerous combat assignments. This would help to promote "gender equity" in the number of casualties. Men are not disposable. Women do not deserve special protection. Sexism in combat assignments has to go.

Re:Decision is Sexist & Hateful Against Men (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 08:55 PM May 21st, 2005 EST (#5) "The solution is obvious: all-female units. Assign them to the most dangerous combat assignments. This would help to promote "gender equity" in the number of casualties. Men are not disposable. Women do not deserve special protection. Sexism in combat assignments has to go." ...and I really 100% agree with what you've said. Ray Men Are Not Disposable Click "View Larger," disregard pricing and sales info.

Re:Things you'll never hear (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 08:12 PM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#6) Remember all those comments about how a women makes only _ of a man. We don't consider the incredulous price that men have to pay in biased life and car insurance plans. Yeah men might die at a higher rate then women but how many women are dieing on the front lines. Because more men die and the death rate is higher we all pay a higher premimum when we go for life and car insurance. Do women deserve privileged and minority status anymore? I certainly don't think so.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]