Four female service members sue over Pentagon’s combat-exclusion policy
Four female service members filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking to overturn the Pentagon’s exclusion of women from many combat roles, arguing that the restrictions are unconstitutional and have hindered their careers.
The plaintiffs have all served in Iraq or Afghanistan and each performed dangerous combat-related missions. Two were awarded Purple Hearts — a combat decoration — after they were wounded on the battlefield. …
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco against Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, is the latest legal attempt to force the Pentagon to lift its long-standing ban on women serving in most ground combat units. In May, two female Army reservists filed a similar suit in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.
In both cases, the women are accusing the Pentagon of moving too slowly to recognize the reality of modern war zones, where the military has become dependent on female troops to fight the enemy even though on paper they are barred from doing so in many cases. In addition to Hunt, the plaintiffs are Marine Capt. Zoe Bedell, Marine 1st Lt. Colleen Farrell and Air Force Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
sweet. start registering them for the draft. Make it totally equal.
todler on November 28, 2012 at 8:25 AM
If you can find women who are as brave as men, as strong as men, have the endurance that men have, & get sick no more often than men do, you’ll still have the damsel-in-distress factor.
This will affect the way the men act during the battle, & it will affect the way the public will react to women POWs.
itsnotaboutme on November 28, 2012 at 8:28 AM
We’ve got many groups that need to find out what equality really is, so might as well start with this one.
DFCtomm on November 28, 2012 at 8:42 AM
More activists starting the incremental “transformation” of a long standing system.
Mimzey on November 28, 2012 at 8:50 AM
I heard a female drill sergeant at Fort Gordon back in 1981 telling another drill sergeant that she would much rather train males than females. One of the reasons given was that females have 10 times the medical problems.
backwoods conservative on November 28, 2012 at 8:53 AM
It will be interesting to see if this turns out to be one of those lawsuits that’s done with a wink and a nod. You see these with the EPA where a left wing group will sue them and the EPA will go right along with their demands in a settlement because they already agree on everything.
Wigglesworth on November 28, 2012 at 8:53 AM
What about the whopping TWO (2) female lieutenants that tried out for the infantry for the Marine Corps… and promptly washed out? At least they’re holding them to the same standards, unlike the PFT nonsense.
Living4Him5534 on November 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Ask them if they are ok with doing away with the women’s standards on the PT test and everyone going with the men’s standards.
warren on November 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM
I’d like to see a poll of Americans regarding the number of parents that support forcing their daughters to register for Selective Service.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 9:13 AM
That’s the key, if they can perform up to the standards of men, than they can do what men can do…but no women can physically equal that of an average man, let alone a man conditioned and hardened.
right2bright on November 28, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Two of the plantiffs are Marines. They could sign up for the Infantry Officers Course right now. In fact, the Marines are complaining about the lack of women volunteers except for the two that didn’t pass. Step up.
Marines are changing that too. Currently only men do pull ups. In 2014 now everybody has to do a minimum of 3 (current male standard).
Spade on November 28, 2012 at 9:32 AM
This is a strange statement. It certainly isn’t correct.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Rescue swimmers have successfully prevented their standards from being lowered for women, and nobody is willing to be responsible for forcing the standard to be lowered because they know that they will be blamed the first time a woman fails to successfully rescue someone.
Pull ups is the number one reason that women are attrited from Rescue Swimmer School. I believe the program requires 9 for completion. Statistically, very few women can do that many pull ups.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 9:39 AM
How have their careers been hindered?
Mitoch55 on November 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Fine. Hold women to the IDENTICAL Pt standards as men. and if a woman gets pregnant-she gets discharged.
annoyinglittletwerp on November 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Are military pull ups different than a standard pull up?
From childhood through high school my sister was a competitive gymnast. She was able to do 30 pull ups at a time. They were the standard, overhand grip, start hanging with arms straight type pull ups.
As a mom in her 30′s now, she’s no longer able to do them; however, she traded daily training for toddler wrangling. Had she chosen a career path (such as the military) that required a high level of fitness and continued training she’d at least be able to get the 3-9 mentioned above (unless these pullups are more difficult).
By the way, I’m not promoting women in combat (as someone with zero knowledge of the military I’m not for or against anything there as those decisions are much better made by people with a depth of experience) and I’m not claiming women are as physically strong as men – I’m just curious about the military pull ups.
JadeNYU on November 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM
That’s pretty much the Marine Corps’ definition of a pull-up.
My wife can knock out 6-10 depending on the day but even she, as an avid hiker and former fitness instructor was a no go with the pack requirements during a hump. Small day packs (20-30 lbs) aren’t an issue but women’s bodies, structurally, tend to break down much easier and with much more dire consequences under the prolonged stress of frequent foot patrols and mountain warfare.
I’ll have to look for the young woman’s name, she was one of the Army’s first female ‘community outreach’ team members in Afghanistan and her body is all but detroyed. She adamantly opposes women in those roles because of the health consequences of the current COIN model.
StompUDead on November 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM
This is the kind of stupid crap you get for repealing DADT before SCOTUS had a chance to bounce the cases on it. You volunteer for the military. You are not entitled to tell them what job you will do.
Rocks on November 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Marines are already trying.
Last class of Marine Infantry Officers School had two female volunteers; first couldn’t make if physically, the second dropped two weeks in due to medical reasons. The most recent class they allowed 30 women a chance to try, none accepted.
This not a lack of opportunity issue.
LincolntheHun on November 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM
I noticed that too. Why all officers? This is about promotion. They want to command, not fight. What they should do if they want that is run for public office.
Rocks on November 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM
I’m sure your sister and other competitive gymnasts would be fine. The problem is that only a tiny percentage of recruits are competitive gymnasts.
It’s expensive to establish and maintain programs in which only a tiny percentage of people can participate and avoid attrition. The military needs a very large number of combat personnel. We can’t raise the cost of training all female combat personnel to equate to special forces training costs.
So, the question becomes, can the programs cost a reasonable amount without needing to lower combat personnel physical requirements? Maybe there’s a viable solution, but I don’t think I’ve ever read about one.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 12:13 PM