Boots on the ground are boots on the ground.

[The Illusive Man]

The lawsuit comes as the Department of Defense has slowly been dropping such gender-based restrictions. Under the 1994 policy, women are allowed to serve in combat units as medics, intelligence officers and other jobs at the brigade level. In February, women were allowed to perform the same job in a battalion, which can be as small as a few hundred troops. The Pentagon dropped restrictions on women serving in units that were required to be based with combat units.

But women are still not allowed in infantry, or in smaller units engaged in combat. Women are barred from more the 238,000 positions, the ACLU said. Nevertheless, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there are no clear battle lines, women have been pulled into combat in spite of the policy, the group added.

Further info about the case Hegar vs Panetta, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 12-6005 is paywalled. Normally I could register for “free” P.A.C.E.R. access but that would take 7 to 10 days and they will charge me per page viewed. So yeah, that shit is not happening.

The comments…shudder. And remember folks, men are the expendable gender, amirite? Go ask the IDF..oh wait.

wyattb wrote:
Will more American women want to join the military, especially on an open contract, knowing they may be assigned to the infantry? The expected result will be fewer females volunteering to serve.

Promotions can be made fair without subjecting women to the horrors of being captured and raped in frontline outfits and before anyone says that won’t happen you must understand that many of our enemies are not as civilized as us and do not fight warfare by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Nah man, solders just respawn after 10 seconds.

[Material Defender]

Still think it's silly and it's a real obstacle for ending sexism.

Because it's institutional sexism that women are denied part of the army.

[starseeker]

There is a documented issue with male soldiers prioritising their female comrades' safety first and the issues with strength differences. But simply saying women cannot serve in combat is not the right solution.

(I favour amazon brigades)

[Old Viking]

The issue isn't whether women can engage in combat, it's whether they should.  The answer is No.  Those who say otherwise know little of biology and nothing about combat.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The issue isn't whether women can engage in combat, it's whether they should.  The answer is No.  Those who say otherwise know little of biology and nothing about combat.

I agree. Their breasts might get in the way during combat

[The Illusive Man]

The issue isn't whether women can engage in combat, it's whether they should.  The answer is No.  Those who say otherwise know little of biology and nothing about combat.

I am curious as to the reasons of why and how they can not.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The issue isn't whether women can engage in combat, it's whether they should.  The answer is No.  Those who say otherwise know little of biology and nothing about combat.

I am curious as to the reasons of why and how they can not.

As am I.

[ironbite]

OV....didn't we go over this with Skyfire?

Ironbite-are you taking the piss or did you turn conservative on us?

[kefkaownsall]

Well the whole female safety thing can be worked around and in fact if structured properly used as an advantage

[Meshakhad]

Given that yes, women are at greater risk of being raped should they be captured, I could see the logic in allowing women to opt out of combat duty where capture is at all likely, but not to bar them from doing so.

[m52nickerson]

Given that yes, women are at greater risk of being raped should they be captured, I could see the logic in allowing women to opt out of combat duty where capture is at all likely, but not to bar them from doing so.

I disagree, they have to be in or out.  If men don't get a choice women should not.  If women are to be included in combat units they should have to follow all the same rules and treated exactly the same.

[rookie]

The issue isn't whether women can engage in combat, it's whether they should.  The answer is No.  Those who say otherwise know little of biology and nothing about combat.

In all fairness to Viking here, I doubt he is happy about seeing men in combat as well.

[davedan]

The issue isn't whether women can engage in combat, it's whether they should.  The answer is No.  Those who say otherwise know little of biology and nothing about combat.

I am curious as to the reasons of why and how they can not.

Except for the fact that he never said they cannot but rather they should not.

As with rookie, I dare say Old Viking would answer 'no' to the question of whether men should be in combat to. Besides which he was being funny.

[Material Defender]

OV....didn't we go over this with Skyfire?

Ironbite-are you taking the piss or did you turn conservative on us?

Considering 95% of his posts are taking a piss, what do you think?

[Jack Mann]

I will say that I think that if women are to be in direct combat positions, they need to fulfill all of the requirements men do. 

Normally, women have different standards on PT tests than men.  That's fine.  For most people in the military, the important thing is that you're relatively fit, and that means different things for men and women.  But if they're going to be in direct combat, they need to have the same strength and stamina their male counterparts do.  Provided they can meet those standards (and there are certainly women who can), I see no issue with them serving.