Female Military Members Sue To Serve In Combat

Nov 28, 2012 | Posted by: Mr_Bill | Full story: www.huffingtonpost.com

Four female service members filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, hoping the move will add pressure to drop the policy just as officials are gauging the effect that lifting the prohibition will have on morale.

Comments
41 - 45 of 45 Comments Last updated Dec 5, 2012
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Dec 5, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know they can't pass? Are you just assuming they can't because they're women?
Again, there are a lot of men who can't pass infantry training either, but they are all still given the opportunity to try.
Women deserve the same opportunity.
If they fail, so be it.
The drop rate for Basic training for males is roughly 3%. This is inclusive for physical and mental/emotional discharges. Most male discharges occur within the first two weeks for mental/emotional reasons,the physical reasons are spread out along the training cycle. Accidents and physical stress resulting in long term (3 months or longer) injury being the rest of the discharge percentages.

The drop rate for females is roughly 8-9%. The majority being for physical injury of long duration (3 months or longer),and occuring within the first 3 weeks. The female mental/emotional dischjarge rate being lower with drops occuring towards the later 1/2 of the training cycle.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Dec 5, 2012
 
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>The drop rate for Basic training for males is roughly 3%. This is inclusive for physical and mental/emotional discharges. Most male discharges occur within the first two weeks for mental/emotional reasons,the physical reasons are spread out along the training cycle. Accidents and physical stress resulting in long term (3 months or longer) injury being the rest of the discharge percentages.
The drop rate for females is roughly 8-9%. The majority being for physical injury of long duration (3 months or longer),and occuring within the first 3 weeks. The female mental/emotional dischjarge rate being lower with drops occuring towards the later 1/2 of the training cycle.
So what's the harm in allowing the remaining 91%-92% to go through infantry training if they can cut it?

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Dec 5, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So what's the harm in allowing the remaining 91%-92% to go through infantry training if they can cut it?
Training cost money,LOTS of money. With liberal screeching about defense spending and conservatives wanting to get the most out of every tax dollar why spend tax dollars training women to do a job where you may have a failure rate of 100% statistically? You MAY have the occasional exception to the rule. But is that justification to accept EVERY woman who applies just because THEY want to try it? And what do you do aferr,IF they complete advanced infantry training and they decide it isn't for them after all? What then? MAKE them stay infantry? An easy out for that is to get knocked up. Wasted funds,wasted trainers' time/effort,wasted training slots. Wasted arguement.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Dec 5, 2012
 
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>
Training cost money,LOTS of money. With liberal screeching about defense spending and conservatives wanting to get the most out of every tax dollar why spend tax dollars training women to do a job where you may have a failure rate of 100% statistically? You MAY have the occasional exception to the rule. But is that justification to accept EVERY woman who applies just because THEY want to try it? And what do you do aferr,IF they complete advanced infantry training and they decide it isn't for them after all? What then? MAKE them stay infantry? An easy out for that is to get knocked up. Wasted funds,wasted trainers' time/effort,wasted training slots. Wasted arguement.
You just got done claiming only a couple of women would even sign up for the training, so it wouldn't cost that much.

The military already has physical readiness testing; set the standards for acceptance to the training program at whatever level men must meet.

Women would be treated the same as men who complete the training but then decide it's not for them- they're s.o.l.

Mandatory birth control for any women going into combat billets.

Any questions?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Dec 5, 2012
 
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>
Training cost money,LOTS of money. With liberal screeching about defense spending and conservatives wanting to get the most out of every tax dollar why spend tax dollars training women to do a job where you may have a failure rate of 100% statistically? You MAY have the occasional exception to the rule. But is that justification to accept EVERY woman who applies just because THEY want to try it? And what do you do aferr,IF they complete advanced infantry training and they decide it isn't for them after all? What then? MAKE them stay infantry? An easy out for that is to get knocked up. Wasted funds,wasted trainers' time/effort,wasted training slots. Wasted arguement.
Btw, those were the EXACT SAME arguments used to keep women off ships & out of cockpits & out of the military completely. At least you're following the standard playbook.....

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Army Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Officials offer no details of Las Cruces myster... Tue Knight1 1
Navy Discharges African-American Sailor For Ref... Aug 25 Polyphase 53
SOA Watch may protest on Fort Benning Road unde... Aug 25 Will Dockery 2
Hanau says goodbye to U.S. troops (Nov '08) Aug 24 JJB 1,384
More Aug 23 SirPrize 1
GAO: Pentagon broke law in Bergdahl swap Aug 23 WE JUST DONT CARE 2
General Dempsey Favors Building Vietnamese Nava... Aug 21 concern 21
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US Army People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••