Female Soldiers Sue U.S. in Challenge to Combat Limits

[MR2]

Female Soldiers Sue U.S. in Challenge to Combat Limits
By Tom Schoenberg, David Lerman and Sara Forden - May 23, 2012 3:35 PM MT


Two female soldiers asked a federal judge to throw out the U.S. military’s restrictions on women in combat, claiming the policy violates their constitutional rights.

U.S. Army reservists Jane Baldwin and Ellen Haring, in a lawsuit filed today in Washington, said policies excluding them from assignments “solely because they are women” violate their right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment. The complaint names Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Secretary John McHugh as defendants.

“This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.

The Pentagon in February announced a change in policy that opened more than 14,000 additional positions to women across the armed services, most of them in the Army. Still, it stopped short of allowing women to serve in so-called ground combat assignments, including special forces and long range reconnaissance operations.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...at-policy.html

[Dusty]

All well and good until females start getting dead in large numbers.

[Richard]

Well...I pooped today.

If it works, don't fix it.

And so it goes...

Richard

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

Well...I pooped today.

If it works, don't fix it.

And so it goes...

Richard

Am I misunderstanding, or do you actually believe the education system is working as it should?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Am I misunderstanding, or do you actually believe the education system is working as it should?

Huh? I thought this thread was about the roles of women in combat and the push to change them.

Richard

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

Huh? I thought this thread was about the roles of women in combat and the push to change them.

Richard

I...I...I

Cross thread points?

[Streck-Fu]

This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.

Umm, what?

Don't we have female generals? Don't women earn hostile fire, combat zone pay, and tax free pay while in theater?

Not sure how the above can be a valid claim.

[head]

As for physical performance...

If I saw fewer fatasses and beanpoles that can't do a pullup in combat arms, I might be upset about this.

Get rid of the Male/Female standards.

Implement two sets of standards for weight and physical capabilities, Support and Combat.

Allow units to supplement standards (at Division/Regiment level) - they can "add to but can't take away" - ie higher standards (or additional events) for USASFC combat soldiers. The unit standards would be evaluated and approved so not to be biased against one gender, race, etc, but a no-shit standard that needs to be met in order to do a job. Frankly, I could give a damn about a soldier who can get a 350 on the current PT test if he can't run 200m with his 230lb buddy over his shoulder. 100 pushups never saved anyone's life.

These standards need to be enforced - regardless of gender, and commands need to have the legal ability to swiftly remove a soldier and place on worldwide assignment (or QMP) for not meeting the standard.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Dusty

I...I...I

Cross thread points?

That's it Dusty,No more sipping Jamason when writing posts on this forum...........

Big Teddy

[cbtengr]

When the big reduction in force starts how many women are going to be filing suit because they were wrongfully put out of the military? Where does it end? Their, their, their, its all about them. Losing ones job definitely restricts current and future earnings. What do they want? Rumor has it that RS is opening up to some of them.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

That's it Dusty,No more Jamason when writing posts on this forum...........

Big Teddy

lol It would make absolutey zero difference if I tried to explain.

[plato]

Originally Posted by head

As for physical performance...

Frankly, I could give a damn about a soldier who can get a 350 on the current PT test if he can't run 200m with his 230lb buddy over his shoulder. 100 pushups never saved anyone's life.

A vigorous Amen.

It was irritating to see women whine their way into West Point. However, when the officials there dropped the requirement for female cadets to become able to carry an equipped soldier of equal weight to safety, as an absolute requirement for graduation, it pushed me over the edge.

Been a 2LT, and granted, being of actual value to their unit takes some growing time and "adoption" by their NCOs. But, fer Chrissakes, not to be able to help your own when they're hurt? Beyond absurd.

[mark46th]

I have found the best way to get along with women is to give them what they want. Send them.

[twistedsquid]

history's deadliest soldier was a russian woman...train them and send
them...just my 2 ct...

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by twistedsquid

history's deadliest soldier was a russian woman...train them and send
them...just my 2 ct...

Most deadly in what respect and scale?