Female servicemembers sue US government

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Chockstock, Nov 27, 2012.

  1. Chockstock

    Chockstock "Forever One Team"

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    8
    http://news.yahoo.com/female-military-members-sue-serve-combat-192246975.html

    I think its only a matter of time. Germany and Israel have successfully integrated their military and I think if the standards are not compromised, I can't really see why this shouldn't happen. Not sure what to say about the promotion argument, seems a bit selfish
     
  2. ESLGuy

    ESLGuy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that it's only a matter of time, but I doubt one lawsuit will have much affect. I think women who can meet the requirements should receive the same opportunities men do.
     
  3. pilot2b

    pilot2b Candidate Appointee

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't know about Germany, but Israel still only allows women in peripheral combat roles (i.e. pilots, sniper, etc., but not infantry, or any "red boot" units such as the paratroops, duvdevan, or so on).
     
  4. Melitzank

    Melitzank Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    474
    Likes Received:
    1
    Canada, I know, allows women in combat positions. (Not sure about their Special Ops though...)
     
  5. Aglahad

    Aglahad Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    5
    This topic has been talked about many a time on this forum and I think most of us agree that if a woman can pass the same standards as men then why not. However, not to disrespect/downplay what our NATO allies do, it is obvious they do not operate on the same combat or theatre scale as our armed forces. In essence their adaptation with women in combat roles has not been battle tested to the point which would affirm a reason to change our policy. Our closest European ally, Britain, fights on a rather large scale and they still have a ban on women in combat roles. It's easy for a country like Finland or Norway to say they have no issues when they by and large do not participate in a large spectrum of military operations.

    Recently, the Marines allowed two women to try and complete the infantry officer course and neither were successful.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...of-grueling-marine-corps-infantry-course?lite

    I also find it interesting that one of the main reasons they are suing is because of blocks to promotion and advancement. What happened to "For God and Country"?
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  6. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    607
    Until you've seen what any of those "successfully integrated" militaries do in a combat environment, don't cite them as any form of success story.

    The Women in Combat idea is pushed most heavily by those who know nothing of combat or the military, and see diversity as a goal rather than seeing combat effectiveness as a goal. It's an issue for vote-hungry politicians and teeth-gnashing folks on the periphery who have no practical experience.

    Will it happen? Probably, thanks to myopic civilian and political leaders who need a headline achievement on their resumes. Will it make us more effective? No. Will it makes us less effective? Most likely.

    Those in favor have a great position to shout from, though, as they can call their opponents bigots and misogynists and vilify them to the last, with no regard for what happens in the real world. It's easy to push the issue when you're not the one who has to live with it.

    You're a fool if you think women would ever be asked to meet the same standards as men across the board. We don't do it now, and we never have. Women can be fatter, slower, and weaker and still perform the same MOS as a male counterpart in dozens of cases across the career spectrum. What on earth would make us believe we'd suddenly start holding them to an equal standard?
     
  7. Jwmiller6

    Jwmiller6 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    I completely agree with you.

    Also, women would be more likely to "freeze up" in a combat situation, due to the lack of testosterone. This could jeopardize any mission.
     
  8. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    607
    I don't know that I agree with that premise at all. There's more making a military function than what happens at the first crack of a bullet, though.
     
  9. Melitzank

    Melitzank Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    474
    Likes Received:
    1
    scoutpilot (and to anyone else), if and when this does happen, how many women do you think will volunteer for these positions? I was just wondering, because I was reading an article on the whole thing with the Marines starting to allow women to go to Infantry training (for the officers), and they reported that they were having a hard time finding women who wanted to go--as far as I know, the two women that attempted the training are the only two who have volunteered so far.

    But I didn't know if since that with opening more positions open to women of all branches (and not just officers, enlisted too), a lot more women would volunteer, or if they'd still have a tough time getting women to step forward?

    This was where I read about not finding women who wanted to do it:

    http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-womem-infantry-officers-course-101512/
     
  10. Aglahad

    Aglahad Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    5
    To be fair from a biological perspective I wouldn't attribute freezing up in a combat situation due to a lack of testosterone (aggression maybe). It is just a male sex androgen.

    I think you meant catecholamines, of which I am not aware of any differences in levels between genders.

    (Edit: Saw an interesting article on catecholamines and fat metabolism which could MAYBE alter fight or flight hormones)
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  11. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    607
    If they're smart they'll volunteer, secure in the knowledge that the politically savvy and career-sensitive leadership will not allow them to fail, lest they be painted as being one who inhibited progress or "singled out" the first women by forcing them to meet unwavering standards.
     
  12. BigBear

    BigBear Class of 2015

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    1
    Now what will they do if a male servicemember decides to sue for a woman being promoted over him when she had an easier standard to meet?
     
  13. osdad

    osdad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    28
    Such a load of ...

    Key points:

    Women are serving in combat roles now.
    If they can meet the physical requirments there's no reason to limit them.

    Then there's:

    Seems we've heard this (false) argumant before.
     
  14. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    607
    Says you, based on what?
     
  15. osdad

    osdad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    28
    Point #1: Beyond dispute 1000 dead or injured = combat

    Point #2: The Major's words not mine.

    Point #3: DADT
     
  16. BigBear

    BigBear Class of 2015

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    1
    The problem, at least as I see it, is not the individuals who can meet the current standards. The problem is when people who can't meet those standards say they aren't fair and the standard is then lowered for them, or even worse, lowered for everyone.
     
  17. bruno

    bruno Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    301
    Despite the comments justifying this because women are "already in the front lines" - the issue with women in the Infantry for most with experience is not the possible death of women in the combat zone- clearly in the environments in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers from all echelons of the battlefield have been exposed to danger and been casualties. But Army and Marine Infantry units do more than reactively fire when in a kill zone- it's a heavy, largely physical job in which the failure of one soldier to carry his load significantly endangers both his fellow soldiers and the unit's mission success. It is a physiological fact of life that the average woman is significantly smaller and physically weaker than her counterpart average male. (See any women playing in NCAA D1/2/3 Football or NFL? NHL? PGA? Even at the very highest level of professional sports it still holds true. The only way to make it not true is to compare the statistical anomallous woman against the average man or to spend vast amounts of money and training trying to produce a physically significantly above average woman to get to an average man's physical strength. ) So how to get around that? And should we if the yield is in in the single digit % of women capable of successfully performing the MOS? Would either the Army or the Congress or the public see a success rate like that and call it acceptable? Probably not. So then the question becomes do they abandon the test or do they change the standards to get a success ? Anyone who has seen these things before knows exactly what will happen- they will establish a standard that differentiates almost nothing and then will declare a success when everyone passes. It's not just me that believes that: From the Congressional Research Service report- of April 5 2012:"Women in Combat - Issues for Congress".

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42075.pdf

    What I don't see are the people arguing that this is good for the Army or the Marine Corps? The arguments made are that it provides better promotion opportunities for women if they can serve in the Infantry. But if they can't really serve in the Infantry without significant accomodation or degradation of the close combat capabilities of the Army - is it good for the Army?
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  18. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    956
    I agree with bruno

    IMPO, if these women want to serve, than they should perform the PT test at the standard for men. I am sure there are women that can meet these standards.

    I have a 2nd reason why this can be an issue. Medically. I am not going down the path of pregnancy, but let's be honest woman have different medical issues that requires specific products. Men don't have that issue. There is not one medical product they need compared to a woman.

    Not trying to be rude, but that is a fact. It has an impact on the mission if they are going to now place another line in the sand and how long they are able to be deployed regarding personal products.

    I am a woman, so my perspective is different regarding my medical needs.

    Additionally, what about sleeping arrangements? How is that going to work? Does the Army need to make sure that they have in every combat unit X amount of women, in specific ranks? Will female officers live with female enlisted?

    I am not opposed to women serving in combat positions. I am opposed to the military doing a knee jerk reaction, to satisfy others.

    I think every woman should have the opportunity as their male counterparts as long as the military doesn't lower/change the bar for just them.

    If you want to run with the big dogs, run with them, don't ask/require a head start or special needs. The minute they can prove that these issues aren't issues, than women should be in combat.
     
  19. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    Even if these four women win the law suit, will be be an empty vicotry and will still go back to the qualification.

    The courts usually defer military matters to the military and courts rarely make broad ruling. Still somehow the courts say the military open up combat positions to women. Females soldiers soldiers/marines with non-combat specialty/MOS can't get into combat position because they don't have the right specaility/MOS. Most people agreed that if femals soldiers can meet the same standard, no problem having them serving in whatever position. So if the Army opens up Infantry to females, how many females would want to be Infantry. A challenging questions are branch transfer for officers and MOS reclassification for enlisted soldiers. Captains Career Course and Senior NCO courses are not physically challenging.
     
  20. Packer

    Packer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,877
    Likes Received:
    5
    Bruno, I know what you are saying and you are just repeating the past justifications. The following statement is not true and never has been.
    This is simply political twisting to try and justify something. It takes a certain amount of energy to move 100 lbs from point A to B and it doesn't matter who or what moved it. Simple physics.

    If a woman can do the job without accomadations, great let her do it. If she can't, well she can't.
     

Share This Page