Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Hegar, et al. v. Panetta

November 27, 2012

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern California and the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP are representing four servicewomen and the Service Women’s Action Network in challenging the Defense Department’s longstanding policy barring women from thousands of ground combat positions, known as the “combat exclusion policy.”

The four servicemembers have all done tours in Iraq or Afghanistan--some deploying multiple times--where they served in combat or led female troops who went on missions with combat infantrymen. Their careers and opportunities have been limited by a policy that does not grant them the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts. The combat exclusion policy also makes it harder for them to do their jobs.

See the full profiles of the plaintiffs.

Two of the plaintiffs were awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded in the course of their deployments.  Two led Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams, in which women Marines lived with and went on missions with Marine Infantrymen in active combat zones.  Two were awarded medals in recognition of their performance while in active engagement in combat zones.  One earned a Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor Device for extraordinary achievement and heroism while engaging in direct ground fire with the enemy, after being wounded when her helicopter was shot down over Afghanistan.

Women make up more than 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel, yet the rule categorically excludes them from more than 200,000 positions, as well as from entire career fields. Consequently, commanders are stymied in their ability to mobilize their troops effectively. In addition, servicewomen are:

  • denied training and recognition for their service
  • put at a disadvantage for promotions
  • prevented from competing for positions for which they have demonstrated their suitability and from advancing in rank.
by on Dec. 2, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Replies (171-180):
GotSomeKids
by Silver Member on Dec. 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Right!!!!

Seriously, even if I could fathom the idea of no shower, you can't hold your urine/BM for months on end. 

Quoting Mommy_of_Riley:

That's a lie.

My husband is a Marine. He's gone "to sea" twice (each time for 7 months). When they go "out to sea" it's called a MEU and they are on a Navy ship... Which has bathrooms and showers. Your friend is lying to you.


Quoting Shull87:

 I was talking about Marines, My friend was telling me they have to go 4 months out in sea and they have no showers/bathrooms.  Should of made myself clear.


kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Dec. 3, 2012 at 11:58 PM

I'm confused.  Did you quote the right post?

Quoting AMBG825:

I am not suggesting that you are lying only that you are not aware of all the facts. 

Quoting kailu1835:

No, they're not.  No matter how many times you want to say it.  SOME women may be just as physically capabable if not more, but for the vast majority of women, that simply is not true.  Our biological differences cause differences in physical capabilities.  I will never be as strong as a man, or as capable of long term hard physical labor as a man.  I'm not going to bitch about it, because there are other areas in which I will always excel beyond a man's capabilities.  Equal, NOT same.

Quoting mikiemom:

I beg to differ, Women are just as capable as men often more capable. This is yet again the tired excuse that men use to keep women as second class citizens.


 

Quoting kailu1835:

Here's a tiny history lesson.  Marines didn't accept women.  Then women made a stink, and so Marines started letting women join.  Now the physical standards are lower. 

Women don't belong in combat.  Period.





babiesbabybaby development

AMBG825
by on Dec. 4, 2012 at 4:21 AM

Yes I think I did. This is why I hate posting from my IPad. 


I apologize. 

Quoting kailu1835:

I'm confused.  Did you quote the right post?

Quoting AMBG825:

I am not suggesting that you are lying only that you are not aware of all the facts. 

Quoting kailu1835:

No, they're not.  No matter how many times you want to say it.  SOME women may be just as physically capabable if not more, but for the vast majority of women, that simply is not true.  Our biological differences cause differences in physical capabilities.  I will never be as strong as a man, or as capable of long term hard physical labor as a man.  I'm not going to bitch about it, because there are other areas in which I will always excel beyond a man's capabilities.  Equal, NOT same.

Quoting mikiemom:

I beg to differ, Women are just as capable as men often more capable. This is yet again the tired excuse that men use to keep women as second class citizens.


 

Quoting kailu1835:

Here's a tiny history lesson.  Marines didn't accept women.  Then women made a stink, and so Marines started letting women join.  Now the physical standards are lower. 

Women don't belong in combat.  Period.











 

AMBG825
by on Dec. 4, 2012 at 4:54 AM

The Marines are part of the Navy. When they go out to sea, they go out on naval ships. All Navy ships have showers and toilets.  

Quoting Shull87:

 I was talking about Marines, My friend was telling me they have to go 4 months out in sea and they have no showers/bathrooms.  Should of made myself clear.







 

witchybabymomma
by Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 10:49 AM

 I think woman can do just about anything a man can. If a man can serve his country and go into combat then women should be allowed to as well.

witchybabymomma
by Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 10:56 AM

 Since when did it require such physical strength to shoot a gun, or drive a tank, or march thru a combat zone??? I'm sorry, but combat is not a weight lifting competition and women are just as capable of serving as men. Obviously women are capable of serving in combat zones because they do. Just because some areas of the armed service try to keep them out doesn't mean the women are not capable if just means some people are still stuck in a time when they thought women were less then men. I'm sorry if you feel men are so much better then you are, but I know I am capable of doing the same things they are. A news flash not all men have the same physical capabilities as other men either, but they are not being told they cannot serve because they are men, so how do you see that as fair??

Quoting kailu1835:

I'm confused.  Did you quote the right post?

Quoting AMBG825:

I am not suggesting that you are lying only that you are not aware of all the facts. 

Quoting kailu1835:

No, they're not.  No matter how many times you want to say it.  SOME women may be just as physically capabable if not more, but for the vast majority of women, that simply is not true.  Our biological differences cause differences in physical capabilities.  I will never be as strong as a man, or as capable of long term hard physical labor as a man.  I'm not going to bitch about it, because there are other areas in which I will always excel beyond a man's capabilities.  Equal, NOT same.

Quoting mikiemom:

I beg to differ, Women are just as capable as men often more capable. This is yet again the tired excuse that men use to keep women as second class citizens.


 

Quoting kailu1835:

Here's a tiny history lesson.  Marines didn't accept women.  Then women made a stink, and so Marines started letting women join.  Now the physical standards are lower. 

Women don't belong in combat.  Period.

 




 

Sekirei
by Nari Trickster on Dec. 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM
2 moms liked this

nah.. just kick all of the women out of the military..

I mean.. if you don't want them in combat, don't let them in.. because when they deploy, like it or not, they are in combat.. they have been in firefights, they have been in ambushes... some of been taken prisoner.... 

You can't have respect for women and expect to keep them out of a job they know/think they can do... if they can't do it.. move them, but don't keep them out of it because of their sexual organs.. that's pathetic

mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Exactly this. Often times. women are already doing many of the jobs in question but are just not getting the recognition for them, this comes into play for promotions while in the military and veterans benefits while not in the military. I know a lady who had difficulty getting her VA disability for he injury sustained in combat because on paper she wasn't supposed to be in combat so they ASSumed she was lying.

Quoting Sekirei:

nah.. just kick all of the women out of the military..

I mean.. if you don't want them in combat, don't let them in.. because when they deploy, like it or not, they are in combat.. they have been in firefights, they have been in ambushes... some of been taken prisoner.... 

You can't have respect for women and expect to keep them out of a job they know/think they can do... if they can't do it.. move them, but don't keep them out of it because of their sexual organs.. that's pathetic


fullxbusymom
by Bronze Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM
3 moms liked this
Thank you....I agree she has NO CLUE what she is talking about. My friends daughter is a marine and just got back from Afghanistan in active combat. Her platoon was the platoon where they got invaded and several marines were blown up. She gets NO special treatment of any kind. She is equal to any man that has her position.

Quoting Susan0805:

That's not true. Pt standards are not one size fits all. They are designed to ensure the member is physically capable within their individual limits. Example an 18 year old male member does not have the same pt standard as a 40 year old. It's specific to the person, factors are not just gender but also height, age etc. when i was active duty we marched, did drills, trained, ate, obstacle courses, etc with our male brother flight. We were NOT treated differently. Our pt tests are specific and not even two males neccesarily have the same standards. You dont know what you are talking about.
Ps.... Women are already in combat, and doing a damn fine job too. Period!!!!




Quoting kailu1835:

Here's a tiny history lesson.  Marines didn't accept women.  Then women made a stink, and so Marines started letting women join.  Now the physical standards are lower. 

Women don't belong in combat.  Period.

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Angelina052105
by Member on Dec. 5, 2012 at 12:22 AM

 Yeah okay..I'm not stupid...and also I have common sense. I shoot an M-16 better than my husband sometimes...I still don't think that it's a job for a female.  We'll just have to agree to disagree..:)

Quoting Susan0805:

Women are eod and so they are handling bombs just fine already. Why cant women handle weapons? I shoot better than my husband with our glock? And as far as hand to hand combat, it's something you are trained to do. In martial arts i could take down men bigger then me because i used my training, it's the same as with hand to hand. Also we are trained to do fireman carry and such, we learn techniques to allow us to compensate for being smaller. You realize even some of the boys are small right?

Quoting Angelina052105:

 I was in the military..I think they have great advancement opportunities..I was treated wonderfully..and I do not think women should be in combat.  I just believe that a male would do a much better job with bombs, guns and hand to hand combat.  I have never met a woman who wanted to do that very honorable job.  God bless our troops and the families this Christmas season.

 

~The evidence of God's presence far outweighs the proof of His absence~


angel<3 Angela

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN