Four female service members sue over Pentagon’s combat-exclusion policy

[Major Nikon]

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 shrapnel that tore through the vehicle that day didn’t stop because I’m a female,” Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, who was injured in Iraq by a roadside bomb while she was riding in a Humvee, said in a telephone interview. She said the Pentagon’s combat-exclusion policy assumes that women are less capable than men, “which is, I think, one of the biggest errors the military can make.”

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/four-female-service-members-sue-over-pentagons-combat-exclusion-policy/2012/11/27/460cf994-38da-11e2-83f9-fb7ac9b29fad_story.html

[Macoy51]

1. I Can Live With This

No problem. Just kick out ALL soldiers who can not meet the male PT standards. The remaining females would be free to serve in any branch/MOS. I am sure the feminists would be thrilled at the opportunity to prove they are just as capable as men.

Or do you think they just cry ‘equality” when it suits them, but then turn around and claim female privilege when that suits them???


Macoy

[Major Nikon]

2. Actually the beginnings of the feminist 2nd wave understood this all too well

They understood that shared equality also means shared responsibility and they also understood that equality in opportunity does not necessarily mean equality in outcome. I thought the ERA was nothing short of true brilliance. It demands true meaningful equality by insuring that any government law offers no privilege to either sex. It was a counter to men who claimed that feminists were asking for their own privilege. They could simply point to the ERA as their own personal bullshit call to anyone to claimed as much.

[MadrasT]

3. Works for me. n/t