Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat

Why didn't 110 lb Viet Cong 18 year olds give it up to play American football.....hmmmm could be they did a pretty good job at war....but probably sucked at football. I used foot controls on heavy equipment for 30 years, but now equipment allows you to switch to hand controls....now a kid who is good at video games can kick my ass.......and my son in law always goes with the hand controls.....the need to wield a sword and shield has been replaced with different skill sets in killing in a mobile and dynamic battlefield......but go to the characteristics which you think make a good soldier.....fight the last war......that always gets good results.....not......but note.....I never said change the standards.....just make the standards rational and make sure that being able to lift 200 lbs is important for all 238k jobs which women are being denied......less qualified folks are getting advanced....fact......that has to be fixed.

there must be some reason Anheuser-Busch uses Clydesdales instead of Shetlands....

there must be some reason Anheuser-Busch uses Clydesdales instead of Shetlands....

Yep....when they are in a parade they leave bigger piles of crap......and as every bud drinker knows......you crap bigger.....so of course they do not want etzzzziiie bitsssssy Shetland poop. They have a brand to protect.

2seaoat wrote:Why didn't 110 lb Viet Cong 18 year olds give it up to play American football.....hmmmm could be they did a pretty good job at war....but probably sucked at football. I used foot controls on heavy equipment for 30 years, but now equipment allows you to switch to hand controls....now a kid who is good at video games can kick my ass.......and my son in law always goes with the hand controls.....the need to wield a sword and shield has been replaced with different skill sets in killing in a mobile and dynamic battlefield......but go to the characteristics which you think make a good soldier.....fight the last war......that always gets good results.....not......but note.....I never said change the standards.....just make the standards rational and make sure that being able to lift 200 lbs is important for all 238k jobs which women are being denied......less qualified folks are getting advanced....fact......that has to be fixed.

I agree women should be given the same advancement standards but how do you know women are not getting the same advancement opportunities as men in a combat role?

Now as far as a rational standard, a rational standard is the exact same standard that is required from men with zero exceptions. If a man is required to hike 20 miles dressed out in full combat gear carrying 80lbs of equipment then a women should have to meet the exact same standard without any accommodation or exceptions just for being a women. If that is the case I am all for it, why? Because being a combat soldier is not the same as a firefighter, police officer, or a prison guard and being a combat soldier on the front line is not the same as a soldier in a support role. Totally different training and purpose, totally different mindset and mentality. There is really no comparing a combat soldier to any other job unfortunately some people are stupid enough to try and do so. I am not saying women can not do the job I just do not want more young soldiers coming home in coffins because some brain dead fucktard politician or judge decided to make an uneducated, uninformed decision on a subject that they have never experienced or endured just to satisfy some political correct bullshit agenda. The military is great at adapting to new mandates but it needs to be done correctly and carefully with all aspects of a combat soldiers role on the table not just the ones to justify an agenda.

Well said Mr Alecto... Because being a combat soldier is not the same as a firefighter, police officer, or a prison guard and being a combat soldier on the front line is not the same as a soldier in a support role. Totally different training and purpose, totally different mindset and mentality. There is really no comparing a combat soldier to any other job unfortunately some people are stupid enough to try and do so. I am not saying women can not do the job I just do not want more young soldiers coming home in coffins because some brain dead fucktard politician or judge decided to make an uneducated, uninformed decision on a subject that they have never experienced or endured just to satisfy some political correct bullshit agenda.


Mr Oats thinks the Military should be some sort of unisex, one size fits all training school. I guess it all sounds good if you know that you or any of your people will not have to die by the very laws you set in motion. If not, why in the hell would you help promote such a policy?. Oh I know "Equal rights for women" Never mind the fact that society doesnt allow women in Pro Base ball or even Pro golf. Two sports that have no element of danger unless it is to the psyche of the Pseudo Macho players having women beat their ass. It would be a better argument to help women join Country clubs and other almost 100% male dominated organizations. It seems ok for Mr Oats and his buds to play golf at a male only country club when advocating some Military guy risk his life in a social experiment that might result in his death.

Nope, I heard one of the women who are plaintiffs in this challenge which is going to the Supreme Court. She is a captain who has a purple heart. Her argument is that women certainly at this time cannot meet the standards on a handful of 238k jobs which women are now being denied the opportunity because they are called combat. Most of those 238 thousand positions lead to higher rank and opportunity and women can certainly fill those positions. Two people on the TV talk show said that less qualified people are being advanced in the US military because women are denied access to thousands of job opportunity because it is classified as combat, yet the women can meet the standards, and their military careers are damaged even though they are more qualified. Sorry, if you are telling me that I am arguing that a 120 lb woman should play the line on an NFL team.....nope......I just do not want the manager of player personnel to be catagorized as combat, and tell me that a woman cannot do the job. The Plaintiffs are going to win this argument, and opportunities are going to open up......and sadly more than 117 women killed in combat will be the reality.

Also......if this was simply about political correctness......I would agree, however this is about more qualified folks who can do a better job being denied the opportunity to improve our overall capabilities.

When the first woman combat casualty comes home, I will think of this thread.

I am sure the 117 women who have died in combat to date in Iraq and Afghanastan appreciate you have a problem with their career advancement, but completely ignore the danger they are exposed to everyday......keep those women down....who knows they may ask for the vote next.......Heaven forbide if they could outperform a man as a tank commander on a M1A2 Tank with plenty of armor.....yet we send down a road Humvee to bring chow to the front lines.....yep.....they should make sure their hair looks good, and they work the chow line to bring up morale.......

A good many cavemen on the forum lately......maybe you can grab a woman by her hair.....drag her in the cave.....and tell her that she needs to be protected......

hallmarkgrad wrote:You really know a hell of a lot for a guy who never served or was never in a area of combat. There, slow play is completed.
Your assessment that I think woman are inferior is erroneous. The exact opposite is true. I protect the people and things that are the most valuable to me. My wife was a better person that I. She bore my children and helped me stay alive. She stayed strong, when I was weak and put up with a lot of my defects. You do me a great disservice by saying that I dishonor the women in my life that have done so much for me.

You're right... You and most of the other posters, including most of the women , think that a womans place is barefoot, in a maternity outfit, and in the kitchen.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzWOa8loCDI

hallmarkgrad wrote:And you think they should be dead and in a box because you are too chick shit to fight..[/b[b]] You new age Army dudes need a woman to help you out?. LOL

I spent twenty years in the military.

I've also been to Israel several times, which has women soldiers by the way, and that's about the last country I'd want to be told we're going to war with.

I've also had a couple females work for me in the military, who I'd rather have had protecting my back in combat, than most of the hundreds of males I've either had work for me or that I've worked with.

If you're so worried about some man attempting to protect some female in their troop in combat then all that has to be done is start an all female regiment.

The argument about the weaker sex is inadequate considering that a majority of American females are bigger an stronger than any Japanese soldier ever thought of being in WWII.

Also to reiterate my earlier point... With equal rights comes equal responsibility. If women want the rights and opportuities then women should also be willing to accept the responsibility.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5X_Dd_6Czk

You new age Army dudes need a woman to help you out?

Bottom line is that we want the most qualified folks defending this country....I think most would agree. In some of the 238k positions which have been designated as combat and are a complete bar to women.....women are more qualified, and can meet all the standards. The Plaintiffs who I listened to the other day argue that this hurts our nation's defense. In an all volunteer force, if a women is more qualified and meets every standard for a particular job......are you telling me that because she is a woman.....you want our fighting force to less because we put more qualified folks on the sideline? I started this thread because the radio show asked some interesting questions, and the tv program I watched confirmed what I had heard......now I have been attacked as a progressive, having not served, not have any idea what combat is like, and trying to put women at risk........I think this thread has exposed that a great many males have defined themselves by their service, and women doing some combat assignments somehow creates a threat to their self image. I think it is silly. I think the women will get greater opportunities, and it simply may take a generation to allow prejudice to die with tired old ideas that blacks, brown skinned folks, women ,and homosexuals have no place in the military......it is the last frontier.

I guess if I had to go to war... I would prefer that there were women around.

As long as they keep up with the cooking and cleaning, I guess it's alright.

If you think I have a poor self image you are full of crap.

If the shoe does not fit.......then you should not worry about my observations. My observation from when I was a kid and I was told that blacks could not be QBs because they did not have the requisite skills. I just saw a black QB from seattle who is a rookie from Wisconsin destroy the Chicago Bears........However, consistently folks who have served on this forum state that somebody who has not served does not have a voice......that military service is a prerequisite to having an opinion. The problem is that this is a cross section of America.....that some American citizens are thought to be less.....and military service has always been a path to economic and political power in America....yet you do not see what your denial does to women who volunteered and are in fact dying.....yet consistently folks on this thread who try in discussions to disenfranchise other fellow forum members because of their lack of service, cannot see the hypocrisy when they deny women their opportunities, and then try to argue that all of this which is happening.....well it never happened.....sorry....this thread has fingerprints all over it.

hallmarkgrad wrote:I have never defined my self by my Military service. I just have stated what I did and that it was a shitty job that I hated. You play the same old card over and over and over as if every one is prejudiced if you disagree with anything some one says. If you dont think it is a problem to have women in combat then so be it. One minute you are spouting how great the history of Lincoln was, then if I state how the Army was with out women I get a lecture on how this is the "New " warfare and all my experiences don't count.

If you think I have a poor self image you are full of crap. You all ways want to take the easy way out and attack me and not my posts. So what do I do? State over and over what I have done only to have you call me a dumb ass? No Mr friend, not any more. You champion the right for women to die in combat and be proud of it...

You have here. You're afraid to say women have just as much right, and responsibility, to be in combat as men because you're a chickshit who's scared some female might become a hero by saving your dumb ass thereby making you look bad because you were stupid enough to put yourself in a sticky situation were you shouldn't have been in the first place.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5X_Dd_6Czk

I guess if women want to go to battle knowing full well that they are at a significant disadvantage it's ok by me.

But not my daughters.

hallmarkgrad wrote:You and Seaoats break out a case a of flags and wave them at the coffins of the women who come home in a box because you want them to die for you. I am a scared chicken shit because I oppose women having to fight for me?
You state the real reason is because I am against women is combat is because I might have a women save me? What a scenario. You sacrifice the women in your life to combat. Not me.. Be sure you can take care of them when they come home mangled and hurt. Their blood will be on people like you. Not me. I am man enough to say that women do not need to fight for me. Contrary to what you might think my honour and duty to my country is beyond reproach. [/b]

I never said I wanted them to die. However there are females in our military who die now anyway.

So now you're saying that our Veterans Hospitals are inadequate for the care that our returning veterans require. It's always nice to hear how well our government treats our returning vets.

Yes it is much more civilized to send our young men to war to be killed and mangled because that never happens to women and children during war. Wait a second... Women and children are killed and mangled during war all the time. How much of their blood is on your hands?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

More that I would like.........a fact that brings me no joy................I can not change the past but I can voice my thoughts about the future. Unlike some, there are not many days that I dont think about it..................I am going to the VA hospital in Biloxi on Thursday. I will get the chance to see and talk with some of the young men with one arm, no legs, burned faces. It boggles my mind that people would wish this on women.

I agree entirely with Hallmark but even if he and I are both wrong, he's entitled to his opinion and I don't know why y'all insult him because he has a different view than y'all do.

It boggles my mind that people would wish this on women.


I don't know why y'all insult him because he has a different view than y'all do.

I do not even know where to start. Where did I insult anybody in these threads. I have made an observation that people who have served try to disenfranchise those who have not served.....and when a women who is a volunteer and is qualified seeks a position which has a combat label on it.....I simply do not understand why the most qualified people are not advancing in the military, and they become disenfranchised by this fraternal club which may or may not be justified based on rational basis tests for each of those 238k jobs in the military.

First, to Hallmark......I am not the one who wishes this on women.....this is again, turning this discussion backwards and attacking the folks who support the women who have brought this litigation and simply want equal protection under the law...just like blacks, just like homosexuals, and now women. If a Black is given the opportunity to fly combat missions....are you going to turn this discussion around with some warped logic that I want blacks to get maimed and killed. If a male homosexual who served bravely in combat and won the silver star, was booted out of the service because he declared his sexual status.....would I be advocating for him to be maimed and killed by defending his right to equal protection under the law? Now to suggest that I agree with the women that there are jobs which many women could in fact do which are now classified as combat, am I now wanting to see women maimed and killed.....you miss the fundamental concept of this thread....these are volunteers....they know the risks and choose to serve this country.....some would think them less, and take away that right even though they are qualified to do the job.....nobody.....and I repeat nobody....including the plaintiffs are asking unqualified people to be placed in positions that they cannot qualify......so what we are left with is simple prejudice.....and if that is considered an insult, then rational and objective discussions cannot be had, because there is no rational basis for the kind of prejudice which has been displayed on this thread.

Women in the military isn't the same as blacks or gays.

Women in the military isn't the same as blacks or gays.

Gosh, the Israelis have been having these same discussions for 30 years.....whether it is women, Ethiopians, or gays....they have been having these discussions for a very long time, and in fact if a job description exists which a woman is qualified, are you telling me as a starting point of pure prejudice, that you will not even apply the standard constitutional test of a rational basis for the classification......and some would argue that women because of the immutable status of sex should be given strict scrutiny standards which means the government must give a compelling basis for denial of a woman in a position which which she qualifies.........are you making a rhetorical question, or are you making a constitutional argument....as to the rhetorical....well yes they are not the same.......to what end this is offered I am confused, but as to a constitutional distinction.....well all three have higher levels of scrutiny in a constitutional framework than say a bunch of white men who cannot pass the physical requirements of the police or fire test.