[Corryikilelet]

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/new..._in_combat.htm

More than 200,000 women have served in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 100 have died in Iraq alone. But frontline combat duty, with its risks and rewards, is not officially an option for American women serving in the military. A group of University of Virginia School of Law students, a professor and a graduate want to change that and are aiming to seek out litigants to win women the official right to serve in combat roles — and to qualify for the draft as well.

"Our goals are to gain official recognition for those women who have been placed in harm's way in the course of line of duty, and to expose a gender classification that is based on archaic stereotypes and is unconstitutional," said second-year law student Kyle Mallinak. "We don't just have to speculate about how women would perform in combat conditions. We know now that they've performed, and performed well."

I really don't like the idea of this. Let the services decide when it should happen. I think if women can meet the same standards already in place in infantry or combat MOSs - let them. But don't FORCE the issue. In some article about this they stated that our "constitutional rights" were being violated. How? It's not a "right" to serve. So I don't know where they got that.

The law keeping women from having to sign up for the draft will go away if women are allowed in infantry. That's the only reason we aren't required to sign up for the draft. Because that's to fill up infantry basically.

I think that combat MOSs should be open for those women who can MEET the same standards but not force any who don't want to do it. I mean all males don't have to be infantry. I think women should have to sign up for Selective Service too. But I really don't like people outside the military getting involved with these things. And there is no "right" to serve. I think things are a lot better for females today than 10, 15, 20 years ago and on in the past. It's not perfect but it never will be.

[JackTimQSR]

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/new..._in_combat.htm

More than 200,000 women have served in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 100 have died in Iraq alone. But frontline combat duty, with its risks and rewards, is not officially an option for American women serving in the military. A group of University of Virginia School of Law students, a professor and a graduate want to change that and are aiming to seek out litigants to win women the official right to serve in combat roles — and to qualify for the draft as well.

"Our goals are to gain official recognition for those women who have been placed in harm's way in the course of line of duty, and to expose a gender classification that is based on archaic stereotypes and is unconstitutional," said second-year law student Kyle Mallinak. "We don't just have to speculate about how women would perform in combat conditions. We know now that they've performed, and performed well."

I really don't like the idea of this. Let the services decide when it should happen.

The services don't change or make laws...they follow them. Active duty personnel are rarely in a position to challenge laws.

I think if women can meet the same standards already in place in infantry or combat MOSs - let them. But don't FORCE the issue. In some article about this they stated that our "constitutional rights" were being violated. How? It's not a "right" to serve. So I don't know where they got that. It is a right to not be arbitrarily discriminated against. This argument that "there is no right to serve" is completely flawed. There is no right to work at Dominoes...is Dominoes there free to discriminate against blacks, women and jews? There is no right to live at 193 Elm St....is the seller of 193 Elm St. therefore free to refuse to sell to Christians? Etc., etc.

The law keeping women from having to sign up for the draft will go away if women are allowed in infantry. That's the only reason we aren't required to sign up for the draft. Because that's to fill up infantry basically. Yes, and it should go away.

I think that combat MOSs should be open for those women who can MEET the same standards but not force any who don't want to do it. I mean all males don't have to be infantry. I think women should have to sign up for Selective Service too. Are you saying that this would force women into the infantry when men are not? What is your point. You seem to agree with the goal of the Law School Team (to open up combat to women), but are trying hard to disagree with them.

But I really don't like people outside the military getting involved with these things. And there is no "right" to serve. I think things are a lot better for females today than 10, 15, 20 years ago and on in the past. It's not perfect but it never will be. It wasn't the "services" that up and decided to allow women...

[ferelrossi]

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).

[lasadeykar]

The services don't change or make laws...they follow them. Active duty personnel are rarely in a position to challenge laws.



It is a right to not be arbitrarily discriminated against. This argument that "there is no right to serve" is completely flawed. There is no right to work at Dominoes...is Dominoes there free to discriminate against blacks, women and jews? There is no right to live at 193 Elm St....is the seller of 193 Elm St. therefore free to refuse to sell to Christians? Etc., etc.



Yes, and it should go away.



Are you saying that this would force women into the infantry when men are not? What is your point. You seem to agree with the goal of the Law School Team (to open up combat to women), but are trying hard to disagree with them.



It wasn't the "services" that up and decided to allow women...

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.

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. There is no constitutional right to serve. So their basis is a little naive I feel.

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). 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).

[Phywhewashect]

Hey, any man-sized chick who wants to catch a bullet for Uncle Sam instead of me, has my approval. Preferrably the ugly or bitchy ones first.....!

[cigattIcTot]

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.

[Mowselelex]

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/new..._in_combat.htm

More than 200,000 women have served in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 100 have died in Iraq alone. But frontline combat duty, with its risks and rewards, is not officially an option for American women serving in the military. A group of University of Virginia School of Law students, a professor and a graduate want to change that and are aiming to seek out litigants to win women the official right to serve in combat roles — and to qualify for the draft as well.
"Our goals are to gain official recognition for those women who have been placed in harm's way in the course of line of duty, and to expose a gender classification that is based on archaic stereotypes and is unconstitutional," said second-year law student Kyle Mallinak. "We don't just have to speculate about how women would perform in combat conditions. We know now that they've performed, and performed well."

I really don't like the idea of this.
I think that combat MOSs should be open for those women who can MEET the same standards but not force any who don't want to do it. I mean all males don't have to be infantry. I think women should have to sign up for Selective Service too. But I really don't like people outside the military getting involved with these things. And there is no "right" to serve. I think things are a lot better for females today than 10, 15, 20 years ago and on in the past. It's not perfect but it never will be.

So you don't like the idea of it but you agree with everything they want? I am also a bit confused as to why you think women should meet the same standards and be required to register with selective service but should get preferential treatment when it comes to choosing a job. You get a 16 on your ASVAB you should have the same choice a male does; Infantry or....Infantry?

[masteryxisman]

I think we're getting a bit wrapped around the axle about Constitutionally granted "rights" here, which kind of would lead a person to assume the Constitution actually grants rights to the people, which is actually false (which is why the ninth amendment to the Bill of Rights exists and partially why the fourteenth came about a little bit later). What really seems to be in question is whether service to our military is a right, a privilege, or something else entirely (I'm sure draft proponents would argue for the third). Bearing arms in defense of personal liberty is a right to all persons, which by our current definition includes women. Another right is to earn fair compensation for services rendered in terms of a social contract between employer and employee, which is not as specifically enumerated in the Constitution but moreso recognized by the law of the land. So simple arithmetic logic would tend to imply A + B = C, women have a right to fight for their country, and they have a right to be paid for it. Constitutionality is kind of an off-concern, as a Constitution only binds government, which is more serving the role as employer than Federal government in this instance, but nonetheless subjected to the terms of social contract. I think it would at least be fair to say that denial of women to exercise their right to bear arms in defense of liberty, and denial of a fair wage in terms of social contract, would be a violation of their rights.

What is not covered here, however, is whether we can derive this to mean the military must admit women specifically into the special forces. This falls more under the Equal Opportunity in Employment Act of 1964. That would imply there is a significant occupational hazard preventing women from serving under these roles, which I think is the key question.

[NanoGordeno]

I think we're getting a bit wrapped around the axle about Constitutionally granted "rights" here, which kind of would lead a person to assume the Constitution actually grants rights to the people, which is actually false (which is why the ninth amendment to the Bill of Rights exists and partially why the fourteenth came about a little bit later). What really seems to be in question is whether service to our military is a right, a privilege, or something else entirely (I'm sure draft proponents would argue for the third). Bearing arms in defense of personal liberty is a right to all persons, which by our current definition includes women. Another right is to earn fair compensation for services rendered in terms of a social contract between employer and employee, which is not as specifically enumerated in the Constitution but moreso recognized by the law of the land. So simple arithmetic logic would tend to imply A + B = C, women have a right to fight for their country, and they have a right to be paid for it. Constitutionality is kind of an off-concern, as a Constitution only binds government, which is more serving the role as employer than Federal government in this instance, but nonetheless subjected to the terms of social contract. I think it would at least be fair to say that denial of women to exercise their right to bear arms in defense of liberty, and denial of a fair wage in terms of social contract, would be a violation of their rights.

What is not covered here, however, is whether we can derive this to mean the military must admit women specifically into the special forces. This falls more under the Equal Opportunity in Employment Act of 1964. That would imply there is a significant occupational hazard preventing women from serving under these roles, which I think is the key question.

That is a nice little story there...but, I think you missed the issue.

The question would be whether or not there is a overriding Govt. security interest that makes the exclusion of women from combat units necessary.

I think, to prove that, you would have to prove that the presence of women makes the unit ineffective. Burden of proof is on the govt.

[astefecyAvevy]

That is a nice little story there...but, I think you missed the issue.

The question would be whether or not there is a overriding Govt. security interest that makes the exclusion of women from combat units necessary.

I think, to prove that, you would have to prove that the presence of women makes the unit ineffective. Burden of proof is on the govt.

It was actually my point that "Constitutional Rights" were a side issue here. Actually your question is what I addressed in my second paragraph, which is almost a direct paraphrase of what you asked. Are there in fact genuine bona fide occupational qualifications in place that makes it legal discrimination? Or like you said is some form of overriding government security interest that makes it necessary? I think that question has a very nuanced answer, as the physical and mental requirements aren't even uniform in front line infantry fields throughout the various services.

[Marc Spilkintin]

Its about time the Selective Service System dinosaur was brought into the 21st century. Women now have the right to vote, and if they vote pro-war, they have to accept the potential consequences of the nation going to war.

So you don't like the idea of it but you agree with everything they want? I am also a bit confused as to why you think women should meet the same standards and be required to register with selective service but should get preferential treatment when it comes to choosing a job. You get a 16 on your ASVAB you should have the same choice a male does; Infantry or....Infantry?

But... but... the recruiter said I was going to be a nuclear scientist! I mean, that's what "open contract" stands for, right?

[UitEz0Qo]

I agree that JOB PERFORMANCE standards should be the same.

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



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



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.



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"



Before the services or congress took up DADT repeal...it was pushed in the courts.



Let's face it, women are already in combat.

Well the military has discriminated based on the fact there is no right to serve. Look how long it took to get homosexuals able to serve openly. Look how long it was segregated by race and gender. Is it "right" for them to do that? No it's not right - but they've done it and they were able to because the military is supposed to take the best of the recruiting pool. I never said servicemembers have no rights - what I said is that serving in the military is a privilege -not a right. Just like there's no "right" to have a driver's license. There's no "right" for a lot of things we have in this country. But we have them.

In today's military, what men are "non vol'd" to join the infantry? I never said that anyone would ruin the infantry. This was my original comment: 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.


There have been people who "think" it will "ruin the infantry" if women are allowed to serve. I say you recruit only those who can meet the same standards that are already in place. That's it. The only thing that's going to change is that if a female wants to be infantry, she would have the choice as a MOS. That's not saying she has to do it. Now she just has more options when determining which service to join.

I know women are already in combat and that's the point some people are getting at. But let's see how many women they can get to support their student law case.

[gZAhTyWY]

So you don't like the idea of it but you agree with everything they want? I am also a bit confused as to why you think women should meet the same standards and be required to register with selective service but should get preferential treatment when it comes to choosing a job. You get a 16 on your ASVAB you should have the same choice a male does; Infantry or....Infantry?

I don't like the idea of these law students doing it - when they have no military experience and they state "constitutional right" as their basis. THAT is what gets me.

Did I say they should get preferential treatment when choosing a job? Where did I say that because now I'm confused? All I see in my comment you replied to is that they should open combat MOSs to women. I didn't say that women would flock to them. Just that those would be another option IF they qualify. Aso if someone gets a 16 on their ASVAB - male or female - I don't think they're getting in. They are returning to standards again with all the budget cuts and having to get rid of people. I guess I should've clarified more of "I don't like the idea of this." That was a bit vague. No we shouldn't get preferential treatment on choosing a job but we don't get preferential treatment on choosing a job now anyway.

[Roferurse]

In today's military, what men are "non vol'd" to join the infantry? I never said that anyone would ruin the infantry. This was my original comment: 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.

And you are IN the Army? It happens ALL the time... Score and 18 (or 16) on the ASVAB? Really REALLY want to join the Army? 11Bravo... Female? Hmmm, I think you can drive a truck (might be a medical job available with scores that low too-can't remember). The point is that it happens to males ALL THE TIME... but for some reason you think it would be wrong to have females who can't get a decent score on the ASVAB to have the same thing happen to them.

Did I say they should get preferential treatment when choosing a job? Where did I say that because now I'm confused? All I see in my comment you replied to is that they should open combat MOSs to women. I didn't say that women would flock to them. Just that those would be another option IF they qualify. Aso if someone gets a 16 on their ASVAB - male or female - I don't think they're getting in. They are returning to standards again with all the budget cuts and having to get rid of people. I guess I should've clarified more of "I don't like the idea of this." That was a bit vague. No we shouldn't get preferential treatment on choosing a job but we don't get preferential treatment on choosing a job now anyway.

You said they shouldn't be forced into infantry. For males with the same scores, that is their only "choice." Why should someone have more choices just because they are female? Ummmthey have always HAD standards, they just kept lowering them to get more people qualified... And yeah, a 16 was good enough. To hell you don't, if you bomb the ASVAB, you can join the Army and not be an 11B, a dude gets the exact same score=11B.

[GuitarLoverBe]

Well the military has discriminated based on the fact there is no right to serve. Look how long it took to get homosexuals able to serve openly. Look how long it was segregated by race and gender. Is it "right" for them to do that? No it's not right - but they've done it and they were able to because the military is supposed to take the best of the recruiting pool. I never said servicemembers have no rights - what I said is that serving in the military is a privilege -not a right. Just like there's no "right" to have a driver's license. There's no "right" for a lot of things we have in this country. But we have them.

The prohibitions against gays and blacks...and women are not "based on the fact there is no right to serve". There were based on the belief that there was an overriding national security interest. In fact, one of the DADT cases (Witt v. USAF) was decided in favor of Witt in part because the govt. failed to prove the overriding govt. interest.

In today's military, what men are "non vol'd" to join the infantry? I never said that anyone would ruin the infantry. This was my original comment: 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.
Is the infantry all-volunteers? Can't say I'm that familar with the Army...I know in the AF we have some people come in "Open General" and get jobs they didn't really want...or get non-vol crosstrained into something they don't want.

So, if men aren't non-vol'd into the infantry...why would women be? Why would women "ruin" it?

There have been people who "think" it will "ruin the infantry" if women are allowed to serve. I say you recruit only those who can meet the same standards that are already in place. That's it. The only thing that's going to change is that if a female wants to be infantry, she would have the choice as a MOS. That's not saying she has to do it. Now she just has more options when determining which service to join. Right...so you agree with the lawsuit?

I know women are already in combat and that's the point some people are getting at. But let's see how many women they can get to support their student law case. Okay.

[Quiniacab]

I don't like the idea of these law students doing it - when they have no military experience and they state "constitutional right" as their basis. THAT is what gets me.

They would have to have clients before they actually file a suit, of course. One of the lawyers has military experience, and I believe is still in the Guard or Reserve, if that makes you feel better.

Did I say they should get preferential treatment when choosing a job? Where did I say that because now I'm confused? All I see in my comment you replied to is that they should open combat MOSs to women. I didn't say that women would flock to them. Just that those would be another option IF they qualify. Aso if someone gets a 16 on their ASVAB - male or female - I don't think they're getting in. They are returning to standards again with all the budget cuts and having to get rid of people. I guess I should've clarified more of "I don't like the idea of this." That was a bit vague. No we shouldn't get preferential treatment on choosing a job but we don't get preferential treatment on choosing a job now anyway. I'm confused...you say that combat MOSs should be open to women. Then, you say you "don't like the idea of this."

It is my understanding that "this" is opening combat MOSs to women...

So, it seems to me you are saying "Combat MOSs should be open to women, but I don't like the idea of opening combat MOSs to women."

[QvhhbjLy]

I don't like the idea of these law students doing it - when they have no military experience and they state "constitutional right" as their basis. THAT is what gets me.

Did I say they should get preferential treatment when choosing a job? Where did I say that because now I'm confused? All I see in my comment you replied to is that they should open combat MOSs to women. I didn't say that women would flock to them. Just that those would be another option IF they qualify. Aso if someone gets a 16 on their ASVAB - male or female - I don't think they're getting in. They are returning to standards again with all the budget cuts and having to get rid of people. I guess I should've clarified more of "I don't like the idea of this." That was a bit vague. No we shouldn't get preferential treatment on choosing a job but we don't get preferential treatment on choosing a job now anyway.

If it makes you feel any better, I believe I saw where you were coming from and actually applaud it. You weren't attacking the principle that is wrong, it was attacking the method used to support the principle, which I agree, is using the wrong approach. These law students don't need military experience to understand law, but they should at least understand law, especially the supreme law of the land. Attacking denial of access based on "Constitutional Rights" is a weak argument, you are exactly correct. It also pains me how frivolously people invoke the term absent the actual understanding of what the US Constitution is and what it does. If they want to approach it with a law that does apply they should go back as recent as the Lyndon B. Johnson years, plenty of stuff there. Then they of course will run into the wonder acronym BFOQ, which when faced with that you're also correct, a little foreknowledge of what are legitimate requirements wouldn't hurt their position.

[Borrinas]

And you are IN the Army? It happens ALL the time... Score and 18 (or 16) on the ASVAB? Really REALLY want to join the Army? 11Bravo... Female? Hmmm, I think you can drive a truck (might be a medical job available with scores that low too-can't remember). The point is that it happens to males ALL THE TIME... but for some reason you think it would be wrong to have females who can't get a decent score on the ASVAB to have the same thing happen to them.



You said they shouldn't be forced into infantry. For males with the same scores, that is their only "choice." Why should someone have more choices just because they are female? Ummmthey have always HAD standards, they just kept lowering them to get more people qualified... And yeah, a 16 was good enough. To hell you don't, if you bomb the ASVAB, you can join the Army and not be an 11B, a dude gets the exact same score=11B.

Okay so what I meant was that some people in the past have commented that they think as soon as it's open for females, they'll be forced to do it. Oh and no one is "forced" to do it. If they don't want that job then they don't "have" to join the Army. If they want to be in the Army that bad, well then I guess that's what they get. But I don't know too many people who wanted to be in the Army that bad. I thought you had to score at least a 50 on the ASVAB just to get in the Army? Medical jobs I think you have to score higher than that.

Yeah if a female gets a 16 on the ASVAB she CAN'T be infantry. That's not her fault. That's Congress' fault. So if you can get in the Army on a 16 and if infantry is the only job available and IF a male or female wants to join the Army THAT badly, then yes they would choose that. But no one is forcing them to - that's just the standard for that MOS. But since females aren't allowed to be in the MOS, then how is that our fault we don't get put in it?

[goatteatromiag]

The prohibitions against gays and blacks...and women are not "based on the fact there is no right to serve". There were based on the belief that there was an overriding national security interest. In fact, one of the DADT cases (Witt v. USAF) was decided in favor of Witt in part because the govt. failed to prove the overriding govt. interest.



Is the infantry all-volunteers? Can't say I'm that familar with the Army...I know in the AF we have some people come in "Open General" and get jobs they didn't really want...or get non-vol crosstrained into something they don't want.

So, if men aren't non-vol'd into the infantry...why would women be? Why would women "ruin" it?



Right...so you agree with the lawsuit?



Okay.

Again I did not say that women would "ruin" the infantry. I said OTHER people have commented in the past stating that.

I agree with the idea of the lawsuit - I don't agree with the way they are doing it or talking about how they want to do it. That's all.

Well considering that the military is all volunteer and considering that you don't HAVE to join the Army, then no one gets forced into a MOS (unless they are a forced reclass when a MOS gets phased out as has happened). So if you really want to be in the military THAT bad that you'd take a job like infantry, that's your choice. That's not forcing someone.

[DeilMikina]

If it makes you feel any better, I believe I saw where you were coming from and actually applaud it. You weren't attacking the principle that is wrong, it was attacking the method used to support the principle, which I agree, is using the wrong approach. These law students don't need military experience to understand law, but they should at least understand law, especially the supreme law of the land. Attacking denial of access based on "Constitutional Rights" is a weak argument, you are exactly correct. It also pains me how frivolously people invoke the term absent the actual understanding of what the US Constitution is and what it does. If they want to approach it with a law that does apply they should go back as recent as the Lyndon B. Johnson years, plenty of stuff there. Then they of course will run into the wonder acronym BFOQ, which when faced with that you're also correct, a little foreknowledge of what are legitimate requirements wouldn't hurt their position.

That's all I'm saying. Thank you. I understand I may have written it poorly to start with so I apologize to all for that.