A crack in the ‘brass ceiling’
Lifting the ban on servicewomen in combat is just the start of a long process.
Last week’s decision to lift the U.S. military’s ban on women serving in combat was a no-brainer, in a way: Senior military officials acknowledged it was almost impossible to keep servicewomen out of combat in America’s most recent wars. In Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgencies made “the front line” too amorphous.
But Defense Secretary Leon Panetta did not issue the order lightly, without military buy-in. Nor will the service branches implement it immediately, because carrying it out will not be a no-brainer at all.
January 28, 2013 - 6:20 AM
This is, to me, sad, another sign of the erosion and devolution of humanity. Men – speaking as one – rely on women to civilize us. Without women, men would still living in mud caves and in filth. We are the ones who are supposed to debase ourselves and try to destroy our fellow man, who are supposed to dehumanize ourselves and destroy society. We, and any civilized society, rely on woman to restore us and civilize us and make us human again. With this, gentility and kindness and love and respect and humanity take a huge loss. Sad.
I’m all for the women getting the equality they desire.
How soon will they be required to register for selective service?
Now can we pass the Equal Rights Amendment?? Please?!
3 – what more would that do?
#2, as soon as they pass the Equal Rights Amendment. When we have parity then we will talk about equal responsibility, not before.
My previous post has mysteriously disappeared. Good job Roanoke Times for supporting the 1st amendment!
Too lazy to re-hash it all, but in a nutshell, the military exists for the sole purpose of fighting and winning wars – not for making women feel better about themselves and letting them prove to themselves that they are better at being a man than a man himself.
To prove my assertion that women are NOT physically capable of the rigors of front-line combat, I proposed that 1 lucky NFL team should draft a half dozen or so women and be required to have at least 2 of them in for every play. If the team can finish the season with even 1 win, then I say let the military experiment begin.
Are you aware that that “the military experiment” began long ago and that women have BEEN serving in combat regiments and combat related jobs just without the possibility of the promotions and benefits that means PaddyORyan? Apparently not.
#6 I have seen entire threads disappear. Within the chronological sandwich of other threads.
It’s good to be the king.
Women have the right to “compete”. But what/where is the point of diminishing returns, functionally & economically (for the most part, are not the same folks advocating women here, also advocating reducing military spending?).
Many women will NOT be able to meet the physical requirements of frontline combat duty. Many men aren’t able to meet those requirements either. But those who ARE able to meet those requirements should be allowed to serve if they so choose, regardless of gender. Enough with the chauvinism.
And YES, if young men are required to register for Selective Service on their 18th birthday, young women should be required also.
Oh excellent point Jim Lucas, if we cannot build more aircraft carriers than the Navy needs, we surely cannot pay the combat troops or promote any soldiers.