Pentagon chief opening combat roles to women
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after generations of limits on their service, defense officials said Wednesday.
The changes, set to be announced Thursday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, will not happen overnight. The services must now develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.
Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.
There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.
But as news of Panetta's expected order got out, members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.
"It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," Levin said.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will be the top Republican on the Armed Services panel, said, however, that he does not believe this will be a broad opening of combat roles for women because there are practical barriers that have to be overcome in order to protect the safety and privacy of all members of the military.
Panetta's move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department's action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. Panetta's decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.
Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and they often included top command and support staff.
The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached - but not formally assigned - to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.
Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs - including some infantry and commando positions.
In the Navy, however, women have begun moving into the submarine force, with several officers already beginning to serve.
Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the veterans group VoteVets.org, said it may be difficult for the military services to carve out exceptions to the new rule. And while he acknowledged that not all women are interested in pursuing some of the gritty combat jobs, "some of them are, and when you're looking for the best of the best you cast a wide net. There are women who can meet these standards, and they have a right to compete."
Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.
The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.
A senior military official familiar with the discussions said the chiefs concluded this was an opportunity to maximize women's service in the military. The official said the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process:
- That they were obligated to maintain America's effective fighting force.
- That they would set up a process that would give all service members, men and women alike, the best chance to succeed.
-That they would preserve military readiness.
Part of the process, the official said, would allow time to get female service members in leadership and officer positions in some of the more difficult job classifications in order to help pave the way for female enlisted troops.
"Not every woman makes a good soldier, but not every man makes a good soldier. So women will compete," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. "We're not asking that standards be lowered. We're saying that if they can be effective and they can be a good soldier or a good Marine in that particular operation, then give them a shot."
Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 who have been killed, 152 have been women.
The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.
If the draft were ever reinstated, changing the rules would be a difficult proposition. The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat, American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.
If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law.
The changes, set to be announced Thursday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, will not happen overnight. The services must now develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.
Officials briefed The Associated Press on the changes on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.
There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.
But as news of Panetta's expected order got out, members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.
"It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," Levin said.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will be the top Republican on the Armed Services panel, said, however, that he does not believe this will be a broad opening of combat roles for women because there are practical barriers that have to be overcome in order to protect the safety and privacy of all members of the military.
Panetta's move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department's action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. Panetta's decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.
Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and they often included top command and support staff.
The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached - but not formally assigned - to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.
Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs - including some infantry and commando positions.
In the Navy, however, women have begun moving into the submarine force, with several officers already beginning to serve.
Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the veterans group VoteVets.org, said it may be difficult for the military services to carve out exceptions to the new rule. And while he acknowledged that not all women are interested in pursuing some of the gritty combat jobs, "some of them are, and when you're looking for the best of the best you cast a wide net. There are women who can meet these standards, and they have a right to compete."
Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.
The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.
A senior military official familiar with the discussions said the chiefs concluded this was an opportunity to maximize women's service in the military. The official said the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process:
- That they were obligated to maintain America's effective fighting force.
- That they would set up a process that would give all service members, men and women alike, the best chance to succeed.
-That they would preserve military readiness.
Part of the process, the official said, would allow time to get female service members in leadership and officer positions in some of the more difficult job classifications in order to help pave the way for female enlisted troops.
"Not every woman makes a good soldier, but not every man makes a good soldier. So women will compete," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. "We're not asking that standards be lowered. We're saying that if they can be effective and they can be a good soldier or a good Marine in that particular operation, then give them a shot."
Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 who have been killed, 152 have been women.
The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.
If the draft were ever reinstated, changing the rules would be a difficult proposition. The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat, American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.
If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law.
If you have never served in the military, keep your comments to yourself because you have no idea what you are commenting about....
 @clem77 I wonder if the same would have applied when the military were polled back before desegregation. The military didn't want blacks in the same units as whites. Same with Jews. The military was wrong.
Â
Here's the down and dirty folks. So many of you are working on old, outdated and sexist information. Currently, female soldiers accompany combat teams on combat missions. Yes this happens ALL the time and has for years. My gunner on my last tour in Iraq was female along with my medic and my driver. We logged thousands of miles and over a thousand hours on combat missions. Secondly, if a male can keep clean for 40 days in the field so can females, I know I have seen it done. Third, so what if a female isn't as strong as a male. But if you really want to run with this line of logic then come down to post, if you can score better on a PT test than my senior medic ill defer to your logic...BTW she scored a 300+ on the male scale and is a triathlete. Lastly, OMG if they get captured they could be raped. Hey guess what, we know the deal. W all know that getting captured isn't going to be good. Most of us are not that dumb. But really what could I know, I only have 16 years and multiple deployments. It's time you all dumped your stupid sexist attitudes and let people who are adults make their own decisions.
Having spent the past 31+ years in the Army, and still currently serving, (the first 15 of those in the Infantry and as a Drill Sergeant)Â I can accurately say that you are only painting 'part' of the picture. Yes you went on combat patrols and operations, in hostile territory---yes---not disputing that. But you were NOT attached to an Infantry company and gone on patrol for 2 and 3 weeks at a time. You had access to the FOB and other facilities at least within 'x' amount of time. Don't say you didn't ---you did. Why? Because Geneva Convention says you MUST. If you did not, someone of the rank of O-3 or higher broke the law and should be prosecuted under UCMJ. As i put in my post below, yes--there are 'some' females that we know can do it. Yes. But 'can' and 'should' are two different things.
Â
And don't give me 'we know the deal' on the rape issue. Society does not view or regard rape of women the same as it does for men being violated. In fact, society scarcely even TALKS about men being violated; beaten and tortured, sure---but not violated. Yet it happens more often than not. Put it this way: if they are now going to allow women in the Infantry, Cav, Armor, ADA, etc, then the standards should be the same, too. Sorry but you can't have the best of both worlds. You can't sit there and say 'yeah I want to be able to be an Infantry''person' but 'you better still treat me like a lady' and 'I still need my private time' or some privacy. Oh and don't expect me to carry the same load as you men, either. Bull****. Doesn;t work that way. Old saying: "You wear the scroll, you pay the toll."
Â
This is not sexist, it is realist. Spend a few weeks in the Infantry and you'll change your mind quickly. It is an ugly business and comes with rigors that you likely will want no part of. One day's political decision will not change thousands of years of experience that men have had to endure. Wome fulfill roles in the military extraordinarily well--often times, in some of them, better than their male counterparts. I will grant that all day long. But Infantry and Cav are not among them. Period.
@oldarmysoldier Having spent the majority of my time as a combat medic, with light infantry, combat engineers and lastly a Striker unit I am very familiar with how the combat units work. So where the female soldiers that where attached to them. We spent weeks going from fob to fob or even the smaller Cobs. You want realism, fine. I know many male infantry soldiers that really shouldn't be and many female soldiers that I would put in thier place on any given day. With regard to rape, it happens IN the military. A female doesn't need to get captured for it to happen and manner in which the military deals with these assaults sickens me. However, units with good leadership don't have as much of an issue with this as one with poor leadership. As for the idea that female soldiers can not perform to standard with regard to combat load and life in the field. I disagree. I have seem them perform. It's time to put aside your bias and treat them as soldiers first and females second.
 @DeadRabitz  @oldarmysoldier We will always find x number of soldiers in this MOS or that that have no business there. That has nothing to do with the overall picture whatsoever. And you completely missed the point about rape--or completely ignored it, on purpose, because you know it is the truth. As I stated---society does not even begin to regard male rape as they do female rape; in fact, male rape is scarcely even ever given screen time, period. We're just expected to 'deal with it'; but if a female gets raped, its OMG, and you know Im telling the truth, Don;t deny it. And again---yes there are a few females that we know 'can' do the job. yes. Got it. I acknowledged that in my first post. But 'can' and 'should' are two different things. And if youre going to try and tell me that the fellow male soldiers just stood there and watched you urinate out in the middle of the barren desert, youd be lying and you know it. Women still want their 'private time'---understandably. And if youre in a place where the closest friggin TERRAIN FEATURE is 50 miles away, 'ain't gonna be no private time'. So now what" youre going to ask all the boys to please turn the other way and not watch? Out of 'consideration'? Youre kidding, right?
Â
Young soldier you are blinded by your own understanding. Â You have confused 'can' with 'should'. I 'can' go to a doctor and ask to have progesterone treatments so that I can grow breasts. Does that mean that I 'should'?Â
Â
And if youre going to go down that road far enough, are you going to support me if I decide tomorrow to go to the local women-only gym and protest that I'm being discriminated against because I am a man and they won't let me in just because of that?Â
Â
It seems as though women want 'equality' without the commensurate 'responsibility'. They want the 'perks' and the 'status; without the 'burdens---only so long as it benefits THEM. I don't claim to know the pain a woman goes through in bearing a child, nor is it my place to question it. Nor should I be pursuing some kind of medical metamorphosis to enable me to do the same. Â And even if medical science was able to acheive that---does that mean that I SHOULD?
Â
BY the same token, women should also recognize that there are certain things better left to be done by men. Again-this is not about 'who is better'--it is about recognizing and accepting physiological differences. You think this about 'better' or 'worse'. Its not. Get over yourself.
Bad dumb and stupid move. What was the 1st thing that happened to the females taken prisoner during the Gulf War 1991...? They were immediately sexually abused, or the nutjobs in Iraq tried to rape the women prisoners within minutes of being captured.. Now, after this many years...what does the average female think will happen to any US Military female captured in a war zone.especially over in the mid east?? Imagine being a prisoner for over a year? I can only imagine the unspeakable things that would happen to Military females taken prisoner.
@BFI-Native  How much different would that treatment be than the treatment some women get right here at home?
This is a colossal mistake on more grounds than can easily be listed.Â
Â
1) POW: Let's start with what happens to women who are captured as POW's...we all KNOW what happens. All you ladies out there who are 'okay' with that, and are ready to understand that that's just 'part of the landscape if you are a front line soldier', raise your hand. Guess what: men have endured being raped as POWs for how long? And we're supposed to just 'suck it up, it's part of the risk you take'. Comments, ladies? Uh huh..that's what I thought.
Â
2) Hygienics: In the summer of 1987, I was on an extended field operation in the desert of Yakima Firing Center for 42 days without a shower. 42 days. Ok--there is no 'nice way to say this': ladies how many of you are ready to go for 42-plus days without a shower? Or access to hygienic facilities? Do you think the Taliban or Al-Qaeda are going to provide you with that? How many people---even other women---would even want to be around a woman who has gone for 6 or 7 weeks without a shower? Heck---we men are bad enough!
Â
3) Privacy. DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FIELD, FOLKS. For us men in combat roles, if we have to 'take a whiz', we simply turn around, drop fly and go---even in the barren desert. It is part of the question and no one says anything or even cares. Ladies, raise your hand if it's gonna be 'okay' for you to simply 'drop drawers and squat' right there. Think there's going to be 'privacy' out in the barren desert? No on your life. There is no 'lady time', no 'privacy time' in the field, folks. NONE--no matter what time of the month it is.Â
Â
4) Performance and job standards. I often had to do 15 and 20-mile roadmarches with 40 and 50-lb rucksacks and full comat gear as a young troop. Young Infantry soldiers still do that today. How many women out there have the upper body strength or stamina to do that--or would even WANT to do that? SO now what: we lower the performance standards just to be 'accomodating'? No---if the 'opportunity' is going to be the same, the standards should be the same, too. That is entirely fair. Hmm?
Â
...and there are PLENTY more issues out here than just this to deal with....sanitary issues, men and women in close combat, the natural protective instinct that men have for women, likely increase for sexual harassment....the list goes on. That's it---let's add MORE to the list of issues that commanders already have to deal with in the field.Â
Â
This is not about "neaderthal thinking' and all the other bull that the far left wants to throw out there; it has to do with simple, indisputable, physiological differences between men and women. It is not saying men or women are 'better' than each other---simply DIFFERENT. Women usually handle pain better than men, and often have better endurance as well. This is a known scientific physiological fact. It is time we respected those facts, and assigned people tasks and positions accordingly. Yes---there are a handful of women out there that we know CAN 'do the job'---yes. It is true. But 'can'and 'should' are two different things. God made man and woman different for a reason. Not 'better'---simply different.Â
Â
This was a mistake.
If women want to take on roles that are traditionally filled by men, well more power to 'em.  However, we can't have women cherry picking the perks from both gender roles and eschewing the responsibilities from both.  Society would fall apart if we let that continue, and American law already has way too many gross double standards between the sexes.  Therefore, if women want to serve in combat, it's only reasonable that girls have to start registering for military selective service at age 18, just like boys.  We all want equality, right?
Here is my BIGGEST immediate concern here.... You've got men who have been fighting off and on since 2001. Even with many of those no longer serving, you still have a long drawn out war with everyone doing multiple tours, long tours. Morale is already low. Changes in politics at home (don't assume because someone is deployed that they have no clue of the crap going on here at home), changes in letting gays openly serve, more SUICIDES than COMBAT DEATHS, and you want ANOTHER MAJOR CHANGE to be put on to our troops!!Â
Â
What, in God's name (or any other for that matter) makes people think that DURING A WAR making these major changes like this is a good thing? People's lives are at stake. And this is why I will have no problem pointing out that our society and culture values men far lower than women. And for this "Women's Liberation" or whatever else they may wish to call it (is there a name??? IDK) it goes to PROVE that they don't give a F*K about our Service Members. Folks like that only care for their own agenda. These things are not something that should be done unless in peace time. Stop demoralizing our guys!! Â
Although I believe this to be a tragic error, Â a greater concern is the fact that our wars are phony. Â The bogeymen, that we seem to have difficulty catching and containing, Â are actually our CIA patsies. Â Google: Â zbigniew brzezinski mujahideen
 @cheekygesturton perhaps bigfoot's involved... eh Cheeky?
Â
Though we all have differing opinions on whether women should serve, I think we should all recognize that some of these "worst case scenarios" happen to our male soldiers as well. Men are not exempt from anything anymore than women are.
Â
Let's give our current soldiers the respect of observing that.
Nobody want to think our daughters, mothers and sisters can be tortured and raped if they're captured.
Ask the majority of Women if they want to go to the front line.
It is the minority of Women who think they are speaking for all Women.
Just ask the Women in your Family if they want to go to combat. Â Will women now be drafted?Â
@Tacobender50   Since it's an all volunteer force and you get to pick your job only women who want to go to the front line will request the position. Â
 @Murigen I don't know what Military organization  you are talking about.Volunteer to sign up, yes.But guaranteed nothing, the Military can put you where they want.I do like the idea of women requesting to go to the front line.Â
 @Murigen Some of the people on this post don't understand the words."As other duties assigned" you know that can happen.I was in the Navy myself and I was in a field I picked, but  as I moved up in rank.I was less and less associated with my field.You know and I know the Military if they want can put where they need you and you know that can happen.When you first sign up, it always the sales pitch and yes there are some  guarantees. Â
Â
As far as Women in combat, I still work around the Military and Women in the Military. The majority are against Women going to combat.The biggest reason is there Families (child) and the possibility if they are killed they would never see them again.Â
@Tacobender50  The military I signed up for.   When I looked into the Army I was told if I signed up for 2 years I could choose between job or base, if I signed up for 3 (maybe 4) I could get both.  I choose the AF. I couldn't choose my base but I could choose my job.  I didn't have to sign any papers or take an oath before I accepted a job.  I gave the recruiter a list of jobs and he found one on that list.  My younger brother had the same experience with the Navy, he picked his job.  My son also had that experience just a few years ago with the Navy.  Now...if you failed in training for the job you selected your buttocks belonged to the military and they could stick you where they needed you.  If, for some reason, the job you signed up for wasn't available once you graduated from basic you had the choice of getting out or selecting a new position. Â
 @oldarmysoldier  @Tacobender50  @Murigen thanks for your service sir.
 @Tacobender50  @Murigen It is not humanly possible for you to be more mistaken. I have spent the past 31 years in the Army, and am currently still serving. 14 years of that was spent in recruiting command, including 4 years an an actual Army Guidance Counselor--the folks who actually contract people into the military. Can't speak about the other services, bu in the Army, the only people who are in the Infantry , Cavalry, Armor and etc are those who CHOOSE to take those MOS's. There is no such in the Army as "I signed up to be an aircraft mechanic, and instead they changed my job and stuck my in the Infantry on the front lines." No such animal in the Army. You are patently mistaken. And not everyone who joins the  Army or the Marine Corps is 'on the front lines' or in a 'front lines' job, my man. Get your facts straight before you make an idiot out of yourself.
 @Tacobender50 You think men are never raped or tortured?Â
 @Melissa Angevine Would you want your daughter on the front line?
You ever served in the Military?
@Tacobender50 @Melissa Angevine I am serving and If my daughters chose to serve and chose a combat job then so be it. They are adults at that point. No, I would never want anything bad to happen but weather they are in a combat job or not most still go out on missions and have the same risks as those in combat mos. But what do I know, only been in for 16 years.
And the armies from middle eastern countries are 'LOOKING FORWARD' to this.Â
This is hysterical. The same people, the exact same people screaming, "arm every school teacher with a gun," are now posting that combat is no place for a woman.
Â
So which is it???
 @Howard Beale This is because nobody gives a crap about a father, or a son, or a brother, and most definitely not about a husband. Individually people may. My wife cares about me for example, but by and large, SOCIETY has made men out to be of very little importance. This fact is proven for every mother on crack that has custody of the kids. Our society places the value of women far above that of men. For this reason, it's deemed acceptable to kill off men in wars. And for men, this is a point of pride. WE are the protector. War is no place for a woman. Our society runs much smoother with them at home taking care of the things they take care of, much of which is the very same as men do at home because when men are at war SOMEONE has to keep things going back at home. Men are disposable.Â
Â
And while I am absolutely glad I am no longer in the Army with all of these changes going on, I also have to say GOOD!! Now YOU WOMEN get to see, feel, and experience the EXACT SAME STUFF we MEN go through and deal with in war! NOW you have NO EXCUSE to call us a nut job, or a drunk, or creepy, or dirt bag, or any other of the massive amount of insults you Fems call us War Veterans. But DON'T YOU COMPLAIN!!! Not ONE WORD, you'll get no sympathy from me. No crying, no whining, no nothing. And once you all have been fully saturated in the HELL THAT WAR IS, you're going to have to remember before you open your mouth to whine and complain.... YOU ASKED FOR IT!
Â
Â
This comment has been deleted
 @PhunkyMunky  @Howard Beale You too my crazy brother
 @TruthinAdverts  @Howard Beale LOL enjoy your evening man.Â
 @PhunkyMunky  @Howard Beale well... better than you = )
 @TruthinAdverts  @Howard Beale Done now? Feel better?Â
 @PhunkyMunky  @Howard Beale and for the record... your statement..."Thank you for being yet another to assume and point out that i need help". Friend... if multiple people are telling you that you are making crazy statements, and that you need help... Well, you might want to get help.
 @TruthinAdverts  @Howard Beale :-) mlm
 @PhunkyMunky  @Howard Beale dude... I assume it because (let me borrow something you might understand)... YOU DO! That's the thing about crazy folks munky... they ironically never think they're crazy
 @TruthinAdverts  @Howard Beale No.... No seething hatred. It's a loathing for THOSE TYPE of women. I am very happy with my own wife, she doesn't do these things. But I have met way too many that do. Thank you for being yet another to assume and point out that i "need help".Â
 @Howard Beale It's because every society has survived by having disposable people. And historically, we all know this has been men. Men being shipped of by the thousands and millions to be blown apart and die to preserve the system. How does this translate into the modern day? We see violence against women as this terrible, horrible problem yet  abuse of males is not taken seriously or even offered a fraction of the amount of spotlight.Â
Might as well make everyone march to the tune of enforcing are military might on the rest of the world...
This is a great step in equality for women. To finish that step however, we need to require them to register for selective service...just like men have to.Â
@PuyallupCoug  No reason we shouldn't require that. Â
 @PuyallupCoug Well, that will never happen. Feminazis don't want true equality. They want Cafeteria Equality which promotes: women and women first for all the goodies, preferential treatment and gives them entitlement. I'll put money down the feminists will be marching against this. No, I'm sorry ... actually when women start dying in combat, they'll put all the focus onto women dying in combat. It will simply become like the rest of our system that thinks women dying is wrong, men dying is business as usual. Â
 @Lisa  @PuyallupCoug I have always believed everyone should serve in some capacity: military, social services....something helping people and society.
Â
Not only does it build character, it opens your eyes.
Ironically on the very same day.
Presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett, who is personally close to President Barack Obama, tweeted, that "If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting women from violence."
 The Obama administration is beyond obsessed with violence against women and they've made it well know. Yet when it comes to men, this administration doesn't take male abuse seriously. This almighty figure of hope and change is once again a ball-less democrat who will only work for women. Young males are 5x's more likely than a female to kill themselves in their 20's. And there are countless other examples (but I'm not going to write a novel on KOMO) Why is it when groups bring up resource centers for males in need, it's seen as an anti-female? Until then, in my opinion, the disposable male lives on while we promote a society where the female well being is more important than the males. Sad.Â
having been in both the infantry and armor the strength requirements are great whether its a 80 pound ruck sack or 110 pound road wheels you can not lower the requirements to let women in becouse troops will die. and i do not want to hear about the men that can not do it, guess what they fail out. so do not change the standard for Ranger school, buds, eod, sniper school and the list goes on. when i went through jump school out of the 34 woman that started only 3 graduated and they had a lower standard in the run and pt
@armor    I don't want to see standards lowered.  If you can't physically or mentally do the job, be you male or female, you shouldn't get the job.
Once you signed up for the military,they own you,and they can assign you
 to any combat unit,no one can dispute that !
@scychan   Unless things have changed drastically the only way the military can put you where they want you is if that's the route you took going in OR if you fail in the training for the job you picked.
Equality... including in body bags. Let's hope for everyone that our combat experiences are limited in the future... though that never quite seems to be... we continue to be a warrior nation... and history will observe us as such... for better, or for worse.
 @TruthinAdverts On this I will not argue one bit.Â
I never wanted to be in combat and I know none of you did either. It did nothing to make me a better, more productive member of society. Nothing positive came out of it for any of us... except us.