Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 The 14th Amendment employed to justify equal access and therefore no discrimination based upon race, color, etc has to come into play. This was just one of the reasons the Equal Rights Amendment failed, but the courts have pursued to implement anyways. You can not impose upon one half of the population to take the burden of defense while granting the other half the privilege of deciding to participate or not. While Art. I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate the militia [by law the basis of selective service], it has till now excluded women from such obligatory service via the prohibition from serving in combat units. By this administrative act, the one obstruction to 14th Amendment modification has been removed.
Careful though as the argument will be raised that the militia/draft is outdated and can be done away with thus protecting your daughters. That is an indirect attack to remove private ownership of guns as well. No militia, no guns. Or so the argument will be eventually be presented.
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-01-24 00:14||
#2 Typical Muslim, Women are hell and MUST be killed,
Posted by Redneck Jim 2013-01-24 00:20||
#3 The US Govt-DOD sees no more major or large-scale inter-State wars thru 2050 iff not 2100, just UN-style Peacekeeping roles or OOTW.
* E.G. TOPIX > [Telegraph.UK = Michael Deacon] SKETCH: TERRORISTS OR MILITANTS. THEY'LL BE AN ENEMY FOR GENERATIONS.
* SAME, WORLD NEWS > THE WAR IS IN MALI, BUT THE THREAT IS INTERNATIONAL.
* BHARAT RAKSHAK > JIHADISTS EVOLVING TO THREATEN AMERICA IN [roughly = circa] 2030.
* IIRC FOX NEWS CHANNEL > "THE FIVE'S" GREG GUTFIELD = quipped that THE MOST IMPORTANT US PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION WILL BE THE NEXT ONE AFTER OBAMA , FOR THAT IS WHEN IT MAY BE HELD OR SPOKEN IN CHINESE.
Thus far, the Burqua/Hard Boyz in AFPAK + elsewhere have shown little inclination to refrain from attacking and destroying Civilian Villages in outlying areas under Govt-Army control or striking at non-Army Police or Local Constabulary forces + beheading or executing everyone they capture - IOW, THE JIHADIS/MILTERRS ARE ATTACKING WHERE THEIR ENEMIES ARE LEAST OR WEAKEST.
THIS WILL NOT CHANGE - THE ONLY THING THE BAMMER ADMIN + PANETTA HAVE DONE IS PUTTING A TARGET SIGN ON US FIELD UNITS [Combat Support + Services] WHERE WOMEN COMPRISE SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS.
Instead of attacking the front-line, all-male heavy infantry + related direct combat/action units, the Bad Boyz will be prioritizing attacks agz the flanks + rear echelons that have female-heavy units.
IRONICALLY, THE ADMIN + PANETTA + BAD BOYZ HAVE JUST INADVERTENTLY VALIDATED PRO-GUN RIGHTS INCLUD THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE ASSAULT GUN OWNERSHIP + HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES.
DEDICATED JIHADIS = DEDICATED CRIMINALS = WANT TO WIN + PREVAIL = DESIRE TO QUICKLY, DECISIVELY, + OVERWHELMINGLY STRIKE AT THE WEAKER OR WEAKEST ELEMENTS WID THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE WEAPON OR ADVANTAGE + WID THE LEAST INJURIES TO THEMSELVES.
JIHADIS OR STREET CRIMINAL, THEY WANNA HIT-N-RUN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, WID NO INJURIES + WID ALL THE GOODIES THEY CAN GET. THEY DON'T WANT TO FACE AMAP ALAP ANYONE WID WEAPON TECHS, ETC. ON PAR, SUPERIOR, OR DOMINANT IN OPPOSITION TO THEIRS.
THEY DON'T TO FACE JOHN WAYNE IN ANYTHING.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-01-24 01:12||
#4 i don't understand the highlighted words in this article. Women in the Army and Marines have been actively campaiging to be positioned in the front lines. They WANT to be there. They have argued that it is discrimination against their roles in the military to be denied the ability to fight the enemy. In a way they are right ... so ling as they only do "support jobs" they may be denied promotions based on active service.
If you've got a beef with what Panetta has just done ... take it up with the women who want to serve in active duty.
Posted by Raider 2013-01-24 01:24||
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-01-24 01:35||
#6 take it up with the women who want to serve in active duty.
Active duty is not what this is about, it is about violence against women. I don't condone violent acts against women. Any man or woman who supports brutal violence against women are are debased.
Posted by Dino Shomomp7692 2013-01-24 02:24||
#7 It's skin in the game Dino.
The franchise was limited from the beginning of the Republic to the same people who were the militia which at the time was 'all free white males', per the Militia Act of 1792. That act was modified in 1862 to include Americans of African decent, followed thereafter by the 15th Amendment adding said group to the franchise. It's at the 19th Amendment that the linkage (skin in the game) between the vote and duty was decoupled.
Now after a couple of generations of feminist indoctrination, the logical end is coming in sight. Full equality means full responsibility. Why should any man die defending a system that says they are expendable while the other gender gets all the benefits and protections of that system?
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-01-24 04:17||
#8 Sounds sensible as long as ability assessment is assessed in a equal way.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2013-01-24 07:12||
#9 Isn't this the result of sequestration? Obama pays women less, so we get more bang for the buck! So to speak.
Posted by Guillibaldo Johnson4614 2013-01-24 08:17||
#10 This is the mouse in the living room. Here is the elephant, and why all of this discussion and political dialogue is purely theater.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-24 09:01||
#11 They would make for some interesting conversation at the slit trench latrine out in the field.
Posted by OCCD 2013-01-24 09:15||
#12 Women have been fighting on the front lines since the Revolutionary war and still do today, just not as active front line units.
As an infantryman, I really don't have a problem with this as long as the women know what they are signing up for and the physical standards aren't pushed down (women can do them, they ain't THAT hard).
Now make all women eligible for the draft just like men (they can work in the rear areas if needed) and it will be full equality for everyone. Can you just imagine some of these reality twits being drafted. Makes me grin.
Posted by DarthVader 2013-01-24 09:34||
#13 practically ... I suppose it all depends on how the Pentagon puts this into practice. I'm guessing that any women who want front line active duty - would need to volunteer for that assignment. If they do things that way - I've got no problem with the policy.
As far as violent treatment of women goes ... the truth is that our enemies are very nasty people - esp. in the third world. It's not just women who have that risk. Men can be brutalized, raped, and mutilated too. Anybody on the front lines better stick with their unit for protection, or save the last bullet for themselves.
Posted by Raider 2013-01-24 10:15||
#14 Unfortunately, its not really about ability/merit, it's all about promoting, breaking the senior grade positions which are largely held by combat arms officers who are male. We've been through this political game before, just look at the selections for the Supreme Court and the political preconditions attached to the nominees.
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-01-24 10:18||
#15 Why should any man die defending a system that says they are expendable while the other gender gets all the benefits and protections of that system?
Because the men are far less necessary for delivering the next generation.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-01-24 10:23||
#16 I see many problems with this.Yes, women have served honorably and bravely in combat. However, despite what the feminazis say, there are differences between men and women.
The most obvious difference is in physical strength. The average man is stronger than the average woman. An infantryman carries a combat load that can approach 100 pounds. How many women can do that? Will the army have women carry less weight than men?
What will America say when a woman is captured and gang raped to death?
Many men are protective of women. So in combat, men may try to protect the women - possibly at the cost of other men.
Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2013-01-24 10:33||
#17 Many men are protective of women. So in combat, men may try to protect the women - possibly at the cost of other men. Posted by Rambler in Virginia
From centralized promotion board guidance and PT tests, the duel standard system and deference paid to female soldiers [officer and enlisted] by the senior grades and the Department of the Army is longstanding and unquestionable. None of this should come as a surprise.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-24 10:42||
#18 Because the men are far less necessary for delivering the next generation.
I recall recent postings on demographics that show without immigration (legal/illegal) we're already in the Euro/Japanese population decline. Time is already running out assisted by governmental policies that have supplanted the traditional responsibilities of fatherhood.
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-01-24 10:45||
#19 Over 40 years of legalized abortion comes with a price.
Without global imports, 54 million human beings are difficult to replace.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-24 10:49||
#20 Based on what Procopius2k says, this opens the door to a court challenge against separate physical fitness requirements for men and women -- something I would dearly love to see struck down. You want to serve? Fine. Pass the same tests.
Posted by Iblis 2013-01-24 10:56||
#21 I agree with DarthVader. Having served in the Reserve Army of three different countries, I remember being told by all three that the ratio of support staff was seven to one. There is no reason why women, as a critical resource, cannot be used in these support roles just like the Israeli Defence Forces.
As long as it is handled intelligently, where allowance is made for pregnancy and motherhood and not driven by idiotic equal opportunity nonsense, women should ne an asset to any defense force.
Posted by tipper 2013-01-24 11:01||
#22 The quite obvious "double standard" of women being assigned to combat arms units, [only when they request it] is already circulating the media. Guess what might happen if a male soldier refused assignment orders or transfer to a rifle company of the 3rd Infantry Division.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-24 11:14||
#23 @Iblis - we've already seen fire departments have double standard requirements. Also, some liberated ladies should have been careful for what they asked for because if the draft is ever reinstated, there will be many unhappy ladies going into basic training and doing more than pilates.
Posted by warthogswife 2013-01-24 11:30||
Without global imports, 54 million human beings are difficult to replace.
Given that their parent chose to kill them, I'm not sure were worse off without them. It's called the Roe effect and it will have an impact.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-01-24 13:22||
#25 Guess what might happen if a male soldier refused assignment orders or transfer to a rifle company of the 3rd Infantry Division.
I can't speak to the enlisted ranks, but from 2001-2008 more West Point cadets tried to branch infantry than there were slots available each year.
And more women and men, both, tried to branch as combat pilots than there were slots available, too. Rear echelon specialties were the least often chosen.
Posted by lotp 2013-01-24 14:05||
#26 Because the men are far less necessary for delivering the next generation.
Nope. Because winners/survivors used to receive reproductive privileges.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-01-24 14:06||
#27 I don't understand your point.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-01-24 14:37||
#28 Individual rather than group selection
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-01-24 14:50||
#29 Still don't understand, but I must be dense. My point, which may be what is confusing, is that vast numbers of men are not going to bear or rear the next generation. If they die in combat, it will not threaten the opportunity for the next generation to be produced. Therefore it is not in society's interest to send large numbers of those who can create the next generation into combat where they may die.
If you are making some Darwinian argument, I would suggest that whatever qualities are lost to the gene pool through combat death will be even more likely to be lost if the women who have those genetic qualities are allowed to go to combat as well.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-01-24 15:08||
#30 Women can't hump the boonies, a lot of men can't either. Support? sure.
Posted by bman 2013-01-24 15:22||
#31 My argument NS, is men used to fight because we were getting something in return. Nowadays it doesn't apply.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-01-24 17:54||
#32 Two old ladies lay'n in bed,
One rolled over to the other and said.
I wanna be an Airborne Ranger,
I wanna lead a life of fun and danger.
And now they CAN!
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-24 18:17||
#33 If they are going to go ahead and do this by executive fiat, then there better be a non-gender specific set of physical performance standards that ALL combat arms have to meet. The current standard for USMC Men ought to be it. In combat, it may or may not matter if your battle buddy is female male gay or straight - but it most certainly WILL matter if they are not strong enough to go hand to hand in a room clearing. Or if they cannot haul as much ammo as you and run out or have to tap yours, or if they are too weak to fireman/buddy carry/drag you if you are wounded (while both of you are in full battle rattle), or cannot repeatedly haul a M2 (or 81MM mortar) base or ammo a few hundred yards to set up a tactical firing point, or do not have the strength to "break track" to get your tracked vehicle moving again.
If anyone has the proven physical strength/capabilities, and has passed the training to the same standards, and has at least the same mental outlook, then I have no objections other than the cultural/behavioral issues, like is she going to be as comfortable taking a dump in a cat hole while a male buddy overwatches, or vice versa? There are few real secrets in a proper combat arms unit, and certainly no physical privacy.
Posted by OldSpook 2013-01-24 18:30||
#34 Today's Penneta release was timed to mask or override the Clinton ARB testimony and media headlines. The administration psyops campaign against the American people continues.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-24 18:36||
#35 The Taliban, whom we are at war with at the moment love to take their women to soccer fields with stadiums full of towns people, make the woman drop to her knees as the crowd watches the Imam walk up and put a round through the back of her skull.
We now have "friendlies" turning their guns on our male troops frequently. The same friendlies would therefore have no problem kidnapping our daughters on the front line, and releasing even more sinister videos to the world of their terrifying demise.
The ignorance of this this decision is another astonishing criminal act by the Hussien Regime.
Posted by Uncle Phester 2013-01-24 19:54||
#37 Ranger school is of course more than airborne, Besoeker, but do note that women have successfully completed airborne school in mixed-sex cadres for some time now. An acquaintance of mine, an Army senior aviator who was on track to make master aviator before she took her career in another direction, was one of the first to do so years ago. As I recall there were 2 women among the 100 soldiers in her training group. I don't think the other woman made it through but the overall success rate was maybe 60% or so IIRC, which means a good number of the men washed out as well.
Another acquaintance, a recently retired Navy wing commander and also a pilot, regularly aced her fitness tests, including within weeks after giving birth to each of her 3 children. She's been pretty much at the top of her unit's scores since before graduating from Annapolis. And by scores I mean raw scores: number of pushups, pullups, time on runs, etc., not 'grading on a curve'. FWIW - and yes, I know that's not the same thing as infantry in the field. But it's a data point.
A third acquaintance of mine used to be Secret Service. She later spent a number of years doing private protection for some high profile people in rather sketchy places. She is a deadly shot with either hand and by the usual measures (dead weights she can lift/carry/move, aerobic endurance, mental stamina) she is about as fit and strong as many men I know. It's not a military measure, but again it's a data point. Her preferred martial art is krav maga.
Now I, OTOH, have never been in that kind of shape. :-)
Given that many men who branch infantry find their bodies wearing out heavily by the time they're 40, I do wonder about career endurance if women do so, given the significantly increased weight loads soldiers carry in the field now. Current equipment is ill suited for weight distribution across the female frame of shoulders and hips, I suspect. OTOH other approaches are being taken to that for both sexes in the form of rapidly maturing robotic assistants, including the Marines' Robo-mule system which is coming along rather well according the DARPA.
Old Spook's comments are dead on IMO.
Posted by lotp 2013-01-24 20:12||
#38 I also agree with OS's comments. Unfortunately however, the "standards" have already been bent and will be again.
[affirmative results will dictate that standards be adjusted - seen done for decades, just the way it works in gov't]
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-24 21:57||