DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Law School Team to Fight U.S. Ban on Women in Combat, Draft

**cigattIcTot** · 12-06-2011, 07:08 PM

I'm all for allowing women at the front lines, as long as the standards are the same for men and women. If we are doing the same job, then the physical fitness tests MUST be the same for both. There cannot be a different standard for strength, speed, stamina, etc. If I have to rely on you to fight by my side, then I have to be able to know you have the same physical capabilities as everyone else. To me, it's discrimination when a guy has to do 60 pushups and a woman only has to do 25 (or whatever the standard is in each service).

I agree that JOB PERFORMANCE standards should be the same.

Note: Job Performance Standards are not the same as Fitness standards.

I honestly don't care if they do or they don't. I think they "should" open it up. My point on the forcing is that some people have commented in the past that if it is opened up, then you're going to get women that don't want to be infantry at infantry AIT and "ruining" it or some weird shit.

Do the men who are non-vol'd into infantry "ruin" it?

Yes I agree with the goal - however, I don't agree with the way or the reason they're doing it. In a different article this student law team (students who haven't ever served) say it's violating our "constitutional right" by not letting women be infantry. THAT is where I get irritated. At least one of the lawyers has served, but that's beside the point. If they get around to filing, they are going to need clients who have standing.

There is no constitutional right to serve. So their basis is a little naive I feel. This argument is a little naive I feel. It basically allows anyone to discriminate on any basis.

"There is no right to serve" does not mean "The military is therefore free to discriminate on any basis it or congress decides" nor does it mean "Servicemembers therefore have no rights"

But to change the law, Congress should take into account the services. They did with DADT (no matter what some people say about that survey). Before the services or congress took up DADT repeal...it was pushed in the courts.

I'm saying that don't do it at this minute or at least make sure we're at a position we (the military) can handle it. I think women have shown they can handle combat. Let those who are qualified have those jobs - just like you let the men who are qualified have combat MOSs. (Well most of the time). Let's face it, women are already in combat.

12-06-2011, 07:08 PM	#6
cigattIcTot Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 409 Senior Member	I'm all for allowing women at the front lines, as long as the standards are the same for men and women. If we are doing the same job, then the physical fitness tests MUST be the same for both. There cannot be a different standard for strength, speed, stamina, etc. If I have to rely on you to fight by my side, then I have to be able to know you have the same physical capabilities as everyone else. To me, it's discrimination when a guy has to do 60 pushups and a woman only has to do 25 (or whatever the standard is in each service). I agree that JOB PERFORMANCE standards should be the same. Note: Job Performance Standards are not the same as Fitness standards. I honestly don't care if they do or they don't. I think they "should" open it up. My point on the forcing is that some people have commented in the past that if it is opened up, then you're going to get women that don't want to be infantry at infantry AIT and "ruining" it or some weird shit. Do the men who are non-vol'd into infantry "ruin" it? Yes I agree with the goal - however, I don't agree with the way or the reason they're doing it. In a different article this student law team (students who haven't ever served) say it's violating our "constitutional right" by not letting women be infantry. THAT is where I get irritated. At least one of the lawyers has served, but that's beside the point. If they get around to filing, they are going to need clients who have standing. There is no constitutional right to serve. So their basis is a little naive I feel. This argument is a little naive I feel. It basically allows anyone to discriminate on any basis. "There is no right to serve" does not mean "The military is therefore free to discriminate on any basis it or congress decides" nor does it mean "Servicemembers therefore have no rights" But to change the law, Congress should take into account the services. They did with DADT (no matter what some people say about that survey). Before the services or congress took up DADT repeal...it was pushed in the courts. I'm saying that don't do it at this minute or at least make sure we're at a position we (the military) can handle it. I think women have shown they can handle combat. Let those who are qualified have those jobs - just like you let the men who are qualified have combat MOSs. (Well most of the time). Let's face it, women are already in combat.
	Quote