Panetta opens combat roles to women

Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2013-01-23 21:50

Article here.

'WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Why are women strong enough for the military but in need of special protection from the government in other circumstances?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Mastodon on Thu, 2013-01-24 05:22

One of the issues here is that women have customarily been the "protected" sex. If they're tough enough to go to combat, should they still need special protection, as offered by VAWA. I expect women will still demand special protections.

And if the ship goes down, do men and children get the lifeboats? Probably not.

And will Hillary Clinton tell us men are the true victims of war because they lose their wives and daughters? I doubt it.

And will all wars still be blamed on all men? Or can we now blame women as well?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Thu, 2013-01-24 14:46

Reason doesn't count where nymphotropism is concerned. There are no limits to the contradictions and invalid conclusions it produces. The net result must always be the same: To women go the deference, excuses, goodies, etc., whatever they may be. Nothing should come as any surprise.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2013-01-24 15:17