[Kiariitf]

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?

So since no one is FORCED to join the Army, unless there is a draft no women would be forced into the Infantry so AGAIN, you want them to have a different standard than a male that is drafed and forced into the INfantry? A 50? REALLY? You actually thought the Army had the HIGHEST standards? Exactly the opposite. In fact the Army has the lowest standards not only in that area, they also accept felons, and they accept the oldest enlistees. As far as the Medical, that is dependant on line scores (which the Army grades significantly higher than the AF-AF max is 99 Army is well over 100). The overall score (AFQT) is the minimum score to get in which the max is 99 low is a 0.

[Jifyicyfuhpop]

So since no one is FORCED to join the Army, unless there is a draft no women would be forced into the Infantry so AGAIN, you want them to have a different standard than a male that is drafed and forced into the INfantry? A 50? REALLY? You actually thought the Army had the HIGHEST standards? Exactly the opposite. In fact the Army has the lowest standards not only in that area, they also accept felons, and they accept the oldest enlistees. As far as the Medical, that is dependant on line scores (which the Army grades significantly higher than the AF-AF max is 99 Army is well over 100). The overall score (AFQT) is the minimum score to get in which the max is 99 low is a 0.

A 50 doesn't seem that high...and they're not accepting felons anymore and not accepting old people either. You do know that the services all have to cut people right? So the Army got rid of moral waivers for the most part and they lowered the enlistment age max at least a year or two ago. I never said the Army had the highest standards - I just remember hearing 50 was the minimum on the ASVAB when I was coming into the Army. The highest you can score on the ASVAB is a 99- so you're telling me a 50 is "too high" of a score?

This is what I found for the Army:

Army

ASVAB Score - The Army requires a minimum AFQT Score of 31 to qualify for enlistment. However, in recent months, the Army has been approving more and more waivers for those with scores as low as 26 (Category IVA). To qualify for certain enlistment incentives, such as enlistment bonuses, an Army recruit must score a minimum of 50.

Education - The Army allows more recruits to enlist with a GED than any other branch. In Fiscal Year 2008, only 83 percent of new Army recruits had a high school diploma (or at least 15 college credits), compared with the Department of Defense (DOD) average of 92 percent. The Army even has a special program, called Army Prep School, that allows individuals to enlist who have no high school diploma or GED.

Like the Air Force, the Army also offers a higher enlistment rank for recruits with college. Unlike the Air Force, where the maximum initial enlistment rank for college credits is E-3, the Army offers the rank of E-4 for those with a bachelors degree.

That might be where the 50 came from when I was enlisting. I came in as a SPC because I went to college first and got a degree. So someone who got a 16 or 18 wouldn't be allowed in. Maybe when they were handing out waivers like candy but not anymore. They're even drawing back on reenlistments.

I swear reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. I said women should have to sign up for the Selective Service. Pretty sure I said that. I also never said anything about preferential treatment. All I said was that I don't like the way these law students are going about getting women to be in combat MOSs. That's all. One person figured it out.

[Kokomoxcvcv]

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.



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."

*Sigh* No the "this" is the law students and the way they're going about it. I never said that I disagree with opening combat MOSs to women. They should but they need to keep the same standards in place for anyone - male or female - who chooses that job.

[Dr. Shon Thomson]

*Sigh* No the "this" is the law students and the way they're going about it. I never said that I disagree with opening combat MOSs to women. They should but they need to keep the same standards in place for anyone - male or female - who chooses that job.

Yes, every thinks women should have to meet the same standards if they are to serve in combat MOSs.

Now, as to whether or not lawyers should seek out clients to challenge laws...well, I think that's exactly what they should be doing. I don't buy the whole "you mut be in the military to have an opinion on who gets to be in the military."

And as mentioned, at least one lawyer has prior service and is currently in the Reserve or Guard...is that okay now?

[xquFzpNw]

Yes, every thinks women should have to meet the same standards if they are to serve in combat MOSs.

Now, as to whether or not lawyers should seek out clients to challenge laws...well, I think that's exactly what they should be doing. I don't buy the whole "you mut be in the military to have an opinion on who gets to be in the military."

And as mentioned, at least one lawyer has prior service and is currently in the Reserve or Guard...is that okay now?

That's not what I meant. Okay I botched this up but I thought I explained it. I don't like them saying they're doing this because it's a "constitutional right." It's not a "constitutional right" to serve in the military. THAT is my big deal with their approach. Does that make sense now?

[Rx-Ultram]

That's not what I meant. Okay I botched this up but I thought I explained it. I don't like them saying they're doing this because it's a "constitutional right." It's not a "constitutional right" to serve in the military. THAT is my big deal with their approach. Does that make sense now?

As I mentioned before...your reply that "there is no right to serve" is crap, IMO. No one is saying there is a constitutional right to serve.

They are saying it's a "constitutional right" to not be arbitrarily discriminated against...in the service. This unfairly infringes on their rights to life, liberty and property.

As to whether or not the govt's security interest overrides that right is the question....I think they have a good case.

i.e. If Michele Bachman wins the election and issues an Executive Order that says "since this is Christian nation, that only Christians may serve in the military"...has she violated anyone's rights? Would you say, "since there is no right to serve, she is free, as President, to do this"?

If Dominoes refuses to hire Black people...would an acceptable defense be "there is no constitutional right to work at Dominoes"? I mean, there isn't one, right?

[haittiweerved]

As I mentioned before...you reply that "there is no right to serve" is crap, IMO. No one is saying there is a constitutional right to serve.

They are saying it's a "constitutional right" to not be arbitrarily discriminated against...in the service.

As to whether or not the govt's security interest overrides that right is the question....I think they have a good case.

i.e. If Michele Bachman wins the election and issues an Executive Order that says "since this is Christian nation, that only Christians may serve in the military"...has she violated anyone's rights? Would you say, "since there is no right to serve, she is free, as President, to do this"?

Okay but whether or not what was publicly used as the excuse to keep women and blacks segregated, the underlying reason was because of race and gender. So wasn't that discrimination? But it happened for how many years? When I read the article my "understanding" of the constitutional right was different than yours. Technically she would be free to do it but no one would let that happen (if only one religion was allowed to serve although it seems people want that to happen).

Discrimination has occurred in the military since it started - so for them to try to use that now IMO seems to be the wrong way to go. That is just MY opinion. Take it how you want.

[ensuppono]

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.

You have anything specific in mind? i'm not intimately familiar with the Vietnam draft, or what precedents it set.

[IdomeoreTew]

Okay but whether or not what was publicly used as the excuse to keep women and blacks segregated, the underlying reason was because of race and gender. So wasn't that discrimination?

Yes it was discrimination...

But it happened for how many years? When I read the article my "understanding" of the constitutional right was different than yours. well, no one is claiming there is a constitutional right to serve...so it's kind of silly to argue against a point no one is making.

Technically she would be free to do it but no one would let that happen (if only one religion was allowed to serve although it seems people want that to happen). We can only hope. But, that is why such an argument as "there is no right to serve" should not be used...it opens the door to say that to anyone.

Discrimination has occurred in the military since it started - so for them to try to use that now IMO seems to be the wrong way to go. That is just MY opinion. Take it how you want. There is legal discrimination (i.e. ASVAB scores, education level, etc.)

Then, there is illegal discrimination (i.e. race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age etc.)

Traditionally...the military has "enjoyed" sort of an exemption to discriminate in areas that would normally be considered illegal because of an OVERRIDING national security interest. This is when there is a GOOD reason why the discrimination would be allowed.

For years, blacks could be discriminated against or segregated, because there was a belief that integrating units would decrease their fighting effectiveness and thus jeopardize national security. When social norms became such that this could be overcome, that reason ceased to exist.

Same thing for gays...

Same thing for women in combat...

We still discriminate based on age...which is something most other federal agencies are not allowed to do.

[ambientambien]

You have anything specific in mind? i'm not intimately familiar with the Vietnam draft, or what precedents it set.

The birth era of Equal Opportunity in our country. The draft is a side discussion which isn't entirely pertinent. I figured the BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification) would give it away.

[u2ZQGC6b]

I wonder if anybody here has actually served on the ground in a combat role. I'm not talking a mechanic who went outside the wire a few times. I'm talking someone who actually did the job for a regular MOS. How many of you have broke track on an M1 Abrams or slung rounds for a sustained period of time? How many of you have humped up a hill with 100 lbs on your back for days at a time? Running convoys out of a FOB is easy. Serving in actual Combat Arms MOS is not.

During training I spent plenty of time with females. I've been in two line units that had females. On my last deployment we were augmented with females as well. My experience with females in a combat setting has been mostly negative.

Here's one example: We did a ruck march at a school I was at. The pace was extremely slow, and it was done with a 35 lb pack. One female "blacked out" and dropped her weapon. One of the men carried it the rest of the way. Another literally cried the whole way there, and was dragged to the finish line by one of the men. Some didn't finish at all. None of them ever offered to carry the machine guns, CLS bags, claymores. Nothing. All of these women are now leading Soldiers.

Another example: I went to a school with a female that could almost max the male APFT standards. She was maybe 110 lbs soaking wet. She looked great on paper but in reality as soon as you put a ruck on her she was a hindrance. By the time I left she was having joint injuries.

My wife is Active Duty Army. She's tall for a woman (5'9) and pretty strong as well. She routinely scores 300+ on the APFT and has been a part of All Army Sports. She still has a hard time keeping up with the men at PT. Some of them are 10 years older than her. Now it's catching up to her and she needs major surgery just so she can function again. If she can't physically keep up, where are the women who can?

This whole "it's not fair" is a bunch of BS. Is it fair that they don't allow colorblind people in certain MOS's? Is it fair that people over 42 can't enlist? Is it fair that women can skip out of deployment by getting pregnant often with no negative consequences? Is it fair if you're too fat the recruiter won't even bother with you? Is it fair that if you can't make the minimum ASVAB score you can't enlist? All of that is "discrimination" as well. Cry me a river. Life isn't fair.

We would benefit significantly if we as society could get over the gender issue. Men and women are not created equal. Each gender has it's stengths and it's weaknesses. Women typically can multi-task better than men. Men are typically physically stronger than women. Women have significantly higher hygiene requirements than men. Men have a lower pain threshold. I realize I'm generalizing, but there will exceptions to every rule. It doesn't make one gender better than the other. It just makes one gender better suited to certain things than the other. We all know that if combat arms are opened up to females, the standards will be lowered. The idea of equal standards is a pipe dream at best. Even SMA Chandler is already pushing for separate standards on the new APFT.

[asharbiq]

I wonder if anybody here has actually served on the ground in a combat role. I'm not talking a mechanic who went outside the wire a few times. I'm talking someone who actually did the job for a regular MOS. How many of you have broke track on an M1 Abrams or slung rounds for a sustained period of time? How many of you have humped up a hill with 100 lbs on your back for days at a time? Running convoys out of a FOB is easy. Serving in actual Combat Arms MOS is not.

Just ranting or was there an argument against something specific? What you're stating here is exactly what has been referred to ad nauseum when stating the government can discriminate if it can be determined without exception that females will be able to perform adequately in the roles being assigned. Since every service and even among services the physical demands of the MOS/rates are quite different I imagine mileage will vary. Me personally, I say open the doors, set standardized non-biased physical requirements and see who signs up and makes the cut. If that number just so happens to include zero females nobody could argue they weren't offered the opportunity.

[HexcewlyRette]

I wonder if anybody here has actually served on the ground in a combat role. I'm not talking a mechanic who went outside the wire a few times. I'm talking someone who actually did the job for a regular MOS. How many of you have broke track on an M1 Abrams or slung rounds for a sustained period of time? How many of you have humped up a hill with 100 lbs on your back for days at a time? Running convoys out of a FOB is easy. Serving in actual Combat Arms MOS is not.

During training I spent plenty of time with females. I've been in two line units that had females. On my last deployment we were augmented with females as well. My experience with females in a combat setting has been mostly negative.

Here's one example: We did a ruck march at a school I was at. The pace was extremely slow, and it was done with a 35 lb pack. One female "blacked out" and dropped her weapon. One of the men carried it the rest of the way. Another literally cried the whole way there, and was dragged to the finish line by one of the men. Some didn't finish at all. None of them ever offered to carry the machine guns, CLS bags, claymores. Nothing. All of these women are now leading Soldiers.

Another example: I went to a school with a female that could almost max the male APFT standards. She was maybe 110 lbs soaking wet. She looked great on paper but in reality as soon as you put a ruck on her she was a hindrance. By the time I left she was having joint injuries.

My wife is Active Duty Army. She's tall for a woman (5'9) and pretty strong as well. She routinely scores 300+ on the APFT and has been a part of All Army Sports. She still has a hard time keeping up with the men at PT. Some of them are 10 years older than her. Now it's catching up to her and she needs major surgery just so she can function again. If she can't physically keep up, where are the women who can?

This whole "it's not fair" is a bunch of BS. Is it fair that they don't allow colorblind people in certain MOS's? Is it fair that people over 42 can't enlist? Is it fair that women can skip out of deployment by getting pregnant often with no negative consequences? Is it fair if you're too fat the recruiter won't even bother with you? Is it fair that if you can't make the minimum ASVAB score you can't enlist? All of that is "discrimination" as well. Cry me a river. Life isn't fair.

We would benefit significantly if we as society could get over the gender issue. Men and women are not created equal. Each gender has it's stengths and it's weaknesses. Women typically can multi-task better than men. Men are typically physically stronger than women. Women have significantly higher hygiene requirements than men. Men have a lower pain threshold. I realize I'm generalizing, but there will exceptions to every rule. It doesn't make one gender better than the other. It just makes one gender better suited to certain things than the other. We all know that if combat arms are opened up to females, the standards will be lowered. The idea of equal standards is a pipe dream at best. Even SMA Chandler is already pushing for separate standards on the new APFT.

I've seen males do the same things you say you saw females do. And? I don't stereotype them all. I've seen males not complete ruck marches and I have even had to help out males who were falling out of those marches.

All people are saying is IF they meet the SAME standards as males are - all of them - then let them in.

Yeah we would be better if we got over the "gender" issue. If our society didn't raise children with "gender roles." I will continue to say that if they just open the combat MOSs to women (infantry isn't the only one) or the ones that are male only and women meet the same standards then they can be that MOS.

With the new APFT - that has changed so much in the last several months no one knows what it will be. There was only talk of gender-neutral standards. They had to test it out. The last I heard they've gone from the five events to talking about pushups, rower and 2 mile run. Then I read something that SMA Chandler allegedly stated they might not even change the APFT. Until that comes out officially, I'm not believing anything.

Yes men and women are different - but if you take a look throughout history --- human history --- women have proven they are capable of fighting in combat. There are women who have led armies.

I'm not saying I want to do it. Hell no. But IF there is a female who meets all the standards already in place, let her have at it.

You can't take your experiences with females and generalize all of us. I don't generalize all Army males based on my experiences with them. I could easily say that all Army males are just filthy, disgusting, vile, sex-craze individuals. Or that all Army males cheat on their spouses. Or that they all sexually harass and/or sexually assault because I experienced some males like that. But I don't generalize or stereotype people and no one else should. You can have that opinion of females but we're not all like that.

Also not all females get pregnant to "get out of" a deployment. Some are married, some find out AFTER they get to Iraq or Afghanistan. You know what, when men can have babies, then you can "use that excuse." It's not my fault I was born a female and you a male and our anatomy is that females have babies. I don't think that's fair to hold against the majority of females who don't get pregnant on purpose.

[UriDepkeeks]

Just ranting or was there an argument against something specific? What you're stating here is exactly what has been referred to ad nauseum when stating the government can discriminate if it can be determined without exception that females will be able to perform adequately in the roles being assigned. Since every service and even among services the physical demands of the MOS/rates are quite different I imagine mileage will vary. Me personally, I say open the doors, set standardized non-biased physical requirements and see who signs up and makes the cut. If that number just so happens to include zero females nobody could argue they weren't offered the opportunity.

Exactly! I don't think there are a lot of females who would do it but let the opportunity be there if they can do it. If not, then we move on.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

The birth era of Equal Opportunity in our country. The draft is a side discussion which isn't entirely pertinent. I figured the BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification) would give it away.

Ah okay, I thought you were going a different direction with that.

In that case you're right, I agree.

[LClan439]

Ah okay, I thought you were going a different direction with that.

In that case you're right, I agree.

If we were discussing the draft the historic discussion would far precede Woodstock, attacking the draft only in the 60's under a Democratic President would be akin to assuming our History with Iran began with Carter in 1979.

[gZAhTyWY]

Obviously my point was not clear, so I'll try again.

The first issue is screening people. The majority of the time you choose your MOS prior to even shipping to BCT. What do we do with that 110 lb female who can't make it but insists on enlisting for Infantry? Do we do tryouts before AIT? We would have to completely change how we do recruiting and training IET Soldiers. The alternative would be retraining those who couldn't hack it, which means more money spent that we already don't have. Say we do open all MOS's and no female can make the standards. Do you really think that will fly? I'll bet a months pay that the same people pushing for this will push for either lower or separate standards. Again it will be in the name of "fairness."

Secondly, the Army discriminates regularly to ensure it has the best force on the ground. Age discrimination is illegal and yet we have an age cap for enlistment. Discrimination against people with disabilities is illegal but we don't allow colorblind people in certain MOS's. We even discriminate against intelligence and education. If you don't have a GT score of 110 or better you can't be an Officer. It will never be "fair."

We've all seen the males out there who can't hack it either. However, the ratio between males and females is far in the males favor. If nothing else, male physiology has an easier time building strength to compensate for their initial shortcomings. There are also the increased hygiene requirements of females that need to be looked at. It's not really an issue now with the FOB's everywhere, but in a war like WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam it would be. Say we end up in another high-intensity conflict. Then what?

It's easy to look at this as an idealist. You won't have to deal with the ramifications. From what I've seen the people pushing for this have never actually done the job. There's a difference between being a gunner on a HMMWV and a crewman on an M1Abrams. There's also a difference between being on a FET and being in the Infantry. You're adamant that there are females out there who can do it, but you don't even really know what "it" entails. I've still never seen a female who could hack it. All I see coming from this is a reduction in my combat power in the name of "fairness."

[huerta]

Obviously my point was not clear, so I'll try again.

Honestly I think it's absolutely feasible, as long as the physical standards set are Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications it is absolutely inside of legal constraints to set them, despite the fact that they may weed out every single female who applies. Someone may push for lower standards as you say, I'm sure the ACLU might take that on board. But in the end, it's still legal to set minimum standards that may not be attainable by subgroups if the need to meet those standards is genuine. We'll never know if females are incapable until we give them the opportunity to try, and if none step up or none make it at least they'll have had the opportunity.

[Gaiaakgyyyg]

Its about average. The AVERAGE male is larger and stronger than the AVERAGE female - that by no means the whole female population is unqualified.

[xLQLRcXh]

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.

Agreed. Serving is a privelage, but these days many things we know are privelages the 'masses' think should be rights..

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.

Again agreed. BUT i am all for it. IMO keeping it to where women don't have to sign up is sexist.

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.

+1 to that. I am all for women in combat, if they meet the same requirements (check out the threat we had on this a few months back)..

I don't buy the whole "you mut be in the military to have an opinion on who gets to be in the military."

That's the only part i will disagree with you on. To me, before someone gets on a high horse and starts ranting about what they feel needs to get changed in the military, they should have served, so they know what they are on about.