Female Military Members Sue To Serve In Combat

There are 20 comments on the www.huffingtonpost.com story from Nov 28, 2012, titled Female Military Members Sue To Serve In Combat. In it, www.huffingtonpost.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Nov 28, 2012
Women ALREADY serve in combat, just not officially.

If they're worried about women being a "distraction", then at least allow the lesbians to serve in combat.

The hetero men will just have to get over it. If women can meet the physical standards necessary for combat roles, then let them serve.

“Concerned in Tennessee”

Since: Dec 07

Knoxville, TN

#2 Nov 28, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Women ALREADY serve in combat, just not officially.
If they're worried about women being a "distraction", then at least allow the lesbians to serve in combat.
The hetero men will just have to get over it. If women can meet the physical standards necessary for combat roles, then let them serve.
I think part of the point of it was that yes, some women are serving "unofficially" in combat situations, but they aren't getting the credit and advancement that often follows with it.
Papillon

Sacramento, CA

#3 Nov 28, 2012
No doubt, these are homosexual females who want their names in the news.

For one reason or another, they were disqualified from combat duty, because they lacked the mental and/or physical capabilities.

Now it's time to pull out the homosexual card.

These registered democRATS need to get a life.

.
MERRY CHRISTMAS

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#4 Nov 28, 2012
Papillon wrote:
No doubt, these are homosexual females who want their names in the news.
For one reason or another, they were disqualified from combat duty, because they lacked the mental and/or physical capabilities.
Now it's time to pull out the homosexual card.
These registered democRATS need to get a life.
.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Please keep ou opinion about your mother to your sick self, swine.

“Concerned in Tennessee”

Since: Dec 07

Knoxville, TN

#7 Nov 29, 2012
Papillon wrote:
No doubt, these are homosexual females who want their names in the news.
For one reason or another, they were disqualified from combat duty, because they lacked the mental and/or physical capabilities.
Now it's time to pull out the homosexual card.
These registered democRATS need to get a life.
.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Two points:

First, nothing in the news article said anything about them being homosexual or being disqualified for combat duty. In fact the story mentioned that some of them were serving in combat situations just not getting credit for it.

Second, I find it odd that you would end such an offensive post with "Merry Christmas." The reason that I find it so odd, is that from your message you clearly demonstrate that you are not a Christian, so what do you care about Christmas?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Nov 29, 2012
Papillon wrote:
No doubt, these are homosexual females who want their names in the news.
For one reason or another, they were disqualified from combat duty, because they lacked the mental and/or physical capabilities.
Now it's time to pull out the homosexual card.
These registered democRATS need to get a life.
.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Lesbian or not, ALL women are currently officially banned from combat duty.

Go serve in the military for a few years and then come back; maybe you won't make such moronic statements in the future. Of course you're too cowardly to do that, just like most armchair patriots.
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#9 Nov 29, 2012
I am surprised that they did not mention the combat load. Not sure what it is today but I bet for a 2 day patrol it is close to 90 pounds.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Nov 29, 2012
Robert wrote:
I am surprised that they did not mention the combat load. Not sure what it is today but I bet for a 2 day patrol it is close to 90 pounds.
If they can meet the physical standards, let them serve.
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#11 Nov 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If they can meet the physical standards, let them serve.
There is no need for women in these roles due to the availability of men who can perform these jobs. Lets face it men are just better at breaking stuff and killing people, women are much better in a supportive nurturing role.

Women in army tests proved to be about 70% as capable as men in physical testing. No doubt that some women could pass the necessary tests for ground combat but evidence is that few would. You just could not bring up women to the standards they would have to meet in the same time.

Even if they can pass a basic test women are just not as durable as men, they break easier, require more maintenance than men, and men fight over them. This just sounds like a bad idea but I am sure it will end up being decided on a political basis than a military one.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#12 Nov 29, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no need for women in these roles due to the availability of men who can perform these jobs. Lets face it men are just better at breaking stuff and killing people, women are much better in a supportive nurturing role.
Women in army tests proved to be about 70% as capable as men in physical testing. No doubt that some women could pass the necessary tests for ground combat but evidence is that few would. You just could not bring up women to the standards they would have to meet in the same time.
Even if they can pass a basic test women are just not as durable as men, they break easier, require more maintenance than men, and men fight over them. This just sounds like a bad idea but I am sure it will end up being decided on a political basis than a military one.
BINGO!!! We have a winner here. IF these women ever were given the green light for combat "officially" ande were sent it wouldn't be long before they would be suing to be returned to their previous status. While it has been quite a few years since I was in I still remember the 20 mile humps with a 60+ pound ruck. Add the stress of a extended combat op and you have the makings of a unit cohesion breakdown. Combat support is one thing combatant roles are another.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Nov 29, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no need for women in these roles due to the availability of men who can perform these jobs. Lets face it men are just better at breaking stuff and killing people, women are much better in a supportive nurturing role.
Women in army tests proved to be about 70% as capable as men in physical testing. No doubt that some women could pass the necessary tests for ground combat but evidence is that few would. You just could not bring up women to the standards they would have to meet in the same time.
Even if they can pass a basic test women are just not as durable as men, they break easier, require more maintenance than men, and men fight over them. This just sounds like a bad idea but I am sure it will end up being decided on a political basis than a military one.
At least you're keeping all the stereotypes alive......

So the women who CAN meet the physical requirements should be punished because neanderthal men will "fight over them"? Then at least assign the lesbians to combat roles; the men won't fight over them......
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#14 Nov 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you're keeping all the stereotypes alive......
So the women who CAN meet the physical requirements should be punished because neanderthal men will "fight over them"? Then at least assign the lesbians to combat roles; the men won't fight over them......
You must be living on the moon, men are dogs and will fight over the lesbians too. You know I am right on all these counts and while you have a point on fairness for the few who could pass the pt test it is not worth turning things upside down to placate the egos of those few.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#15 Nov 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you're keeping all the stereotypes alive......
So the women who CAN meet the physical requirements should be punished because neanderthal men will "fight over them"? Then at least assign the lesbians to combat roles; the men won't fight over them......
Where do liberals learn their reading comprehension skills? Do they teach you to read into something ONLY what you want to see? READ the post,again. The truth IS,even if liberals KNOW it but WON'T accept it IS. WOMEN by the very nature of their physical make up are NOT suited for EXTENDED strenuous physical exertion. Period. onw week,two week ops with limited hygene facilities,heavy combat loads,the body armor,LONG humps under in all type weather conditions contribute to a sustained physical exhaustion. Women just caqan't do it. Get over it anf face reality. Women have a deserved place in combat SUPPORT roles such as they have served for a couple decades now. But not combat infantry roles. THAT is still a man's game and liberals changing laws can't change nature.
lolol

Albuquerque, NM

#16 Nov 29, 2012
the 7.62 coming at ya don't care what gender you are, plus female pow's are well treated by muzzie combatants and totally adhere to geneva war protocols. if the girlies want to rock n roll in the field, let em.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Nov 30, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be living on the moon, men are dogs and will fight over the lesbians too. You know I am right on all these counts and while you have a point on fairness for the few who could pass the pt test it is not worth turning things upside down to placate the egos of those few.
If men can't control their sexual urges then they can be kicked out of the military.

Problem solved.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Nov 30, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Where do liberals learn their reading comprehension skills? Do they teach you to read into something ONLY what you want to see? READ the post,again. The truth IS,even if liberals KNOW it but WON'T accept it IS. WOMEN by the very nature of their physical make up are NOT suited for EXTENDED strenuous physical exertion. Period. onw week,two week ops with limited hygene facilities,heavy combat loads,the body armor,LONG humps under in all type weather conditions contribute to a sustained physical exhaustion. Women just caqan't do it. Get over it anf face reality. Women have a deserved place in combat SUPPORT roles such as they have served for a couple decades now. But not combat infantry roles. THAT is still a man's game and liberals changing laws can't change nature.
Many men can't handle the extended strenuous physical exertion of combat either. I treated MANY of them during my 20+ years.

Some women will be able to handle it, some won't. No need to deny the opportunity to all women just because some won't be able to cut it.
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#19 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If men can't control their sexual urges then they can be kicked out of the military.
Problem solved.
Yea right the girls and girly men will fight the wars, I am sure that will work out. War is a dirty business and there is no place for that is not FAIR i'll sue you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Nov 30, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea right the girls and girly men will fight the wars, I am sure that will work out. War is a dirty business and there is no place for that is not FAIR i'll sue you.
Then the "manly men" will just have to learn to control themselves in combat just as they are expected to in non-combat situations.

The UCMJ still applies regardless of what unit you're assigned to.
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#21 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then the "manly men" will just have to learn to control themselves in combat just as they are expected to in non-combat situations.
The UCMJ still applies regardless of what unit you're assigned to.
The UCMJ will not help a woman with 90 pounds of gear get over the mountain when she runs out of steam.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#22 Nov 30, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then the "manly men" will just have to learn to control themselves in combat just as they are expected to in non-combat situations.
The UCMJ still applies regardless of what unit you're assigned to.
You're wrong,KNOW you're wrong but not honest enough admit it to the people you've been discussing this topic with. Or are you soooo ideologically driven that you would place an infantry unit's security in jeapordy on a whim to see women in an active combat role simply as an social experiment?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
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 Marine Corps Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Study: Sexual assault in U.S. military plummets 12 hr goonsquad 4
News Marine murder case reveals US-Philippine sore spot (Oct '14) Apr 30 amc 48
News Obama's Agreement to Russian S-300 Weapons Deli... Apr 30 Tazo 1
News No concessions emerge from first Onaga-Abe meeting Apr 30 Super Shinzo 2
News Fighting Saddam all over again Apr 29 Joey 3
News Battle stress may lead to misconduct (Jul '07) Apr 21 VictorF 19
News Bajram Asllani, 30, poses in front of his house... (Nov '10) Apr 19 SMARTYPANTS 18
More from around the web