Females sue military for combat jobs

| November 27, 2012 | 32 Comments

COB6 sends a link to a short article by the Associate Press which reports that four female soldiers have filed a law suit in a San Francisco federal court challenging the Pentagon’s policy that excludes women from combat assignments;

The lawsuit alleges the ban on a single gender violates constitutional equal protection rights and unfairly blocks women from promotions and other advancements open to men in combat.

[...]

Two of the four women who filed the lawsuit have received Purple Heart medals for injuries sustained in Afghanistan. The women are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

No! The ACLU is involved? That’s impossible. COB6 says they should join the Marine Corps and volunteer for the Infantry Leaders’ Course. or at least pay attention to the fact that the Marines are having trouble finding volunteers among the younger generation, despite what the media would have us believe.

No, actually, these four women are hoping to get the opportunity to be combat arms leaders without having to do the hard part, because everyone knows that a court order is just as good as going through infantry training, right? Just ask Shannon Faulkner, the fat chick who thought her lawsuit against The Citadel would insulate her from the hard work, but she washed out after four hours.

If I’m not mistaken, Panetta is expected to make recommendations to Congress next week, so what’s their hurry? Well, unless this is just another lawyer employment opportunity for some ambulance chasers in San Francisco. The women have probably already commissioned an artist to carve their images in stone somewhere.

ADDED: Stars & Stripes has a more complete story now, including the women’s names;

Major Mary Jennings Hegar, a combat helicopter pilot in the California Air National Guard; Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, a civil affairs soldier in the Army reserves; Capt. Alexandra Zoe Bedell, a logistics officer in the Marine Corps reserves; and 1st Lt. Colleen Farrell, an active-duty Marine air support control officer, are the plaintiffs in the suit, along with the Service Women’s Action Network.

Two of them are already Marines, so why don’t they just volunteer for the Marines’ program? The article we read yesterday said that that the Marines are having a hard time finding volunteers. They just don’t want to do the hard stuff, they just want it given to them without earning it like men have to do.

Category: Military issues

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (32)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Twist says:

    Only Combat Arms gets promoted? Well heck, all you non-Infantry/Tanker/Arty folks out there better turn in your stripes and bars. You are all now guilty of stolen valor…sarcasm switch is now off.

  2. Ex-PH2 says:

    Gee, if those gals want to be assigned to combat infantry and get their stuff shot up, let ‘em. Truck them on over to the USMC IT school and let them run through the woods with the big boys.

    They are BORING me to death with their whining.

  3. Redacted1775 says:

    Everyone gets promoted within their MOS, their complaint makes no sense.

  4. DefendUSA says:

    Even I, a chicklet, am over this. Stick them with the big boys in infantry training. Make them sign a waiver that they are responsible for any nooky they partake in and under no circumstances can they cry “rape”, no crying, and no dumbing down anything standard wise, physical requirements. If they can do it, more power to them. Otherwise, they need a nice hot cup of Uncle J’s favorite…STFU!!

  5. melle1228 says:

    Of course they did in San Fran where if it is appealed the nutty 9th circuit will hear it. I agree with everyone else. Give them exactly what they want with no different standards and see who far these females get.

  6. kp32 says:

    Previously, Col Ellen Haring sued because she didn’t believe enough women were being killed. She didn’t seem too concerned that even less Colonels were being killed.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/us/female-soldiers-fight-pentagon-in-court-for-combat-positions-1.193258

  7. Rabak Kabar says:

    @4 says it all perfectly. No reduction in standards and I’ve read the Marine Corps is looking at making physical standards for women more closely parralel men such as eliminating the dead hang and replacing it with pull ups. If the reason more promotions are in combat arms is attrition because of combat deaths, makes sense to me that women would want to rush to fill those slots by court order. Just shaking my head.

  8. Redacted1775 says:

    #7 I just read an article saying pull ups for female Marines will be in effect as of 1 January 2014. 8 Pull ups for a perfect score, not quite an even standard, but a step in the right direction.

  9. USMCE8Ret says:

    I hope they win their case, then – and off they go to the appropriate combat arms training school and see if they really have what it takes. They can put that in their juice box and suck on that! (sarc)

  10. BohicaTwentyTwo says:

    Is there really a glass ceiling for females on the enlisted side, considering there are CSM slots all over the CS/CSS branches. Really, this is all about general officer slots. Feminists are just wanting to have the first female General Pretaeus.

  11. kp32 says:

    @10- I volunteer to be biographer.

  12. OWB says:

    Sure hope that the judge specifically asks the Marines why they are not in school now. It was offered to them, They should be taken off the case just for that reason.

    How strange.

  13. Rerun0369 says:

    #8- I just made a post yesterday about the MC not changing the standards anymore, that they scrapped the program. Then that article comes out today, damnit. Funny about it though, the pilot program found that over half of the females were only able to do 1.65 pullups. Yet the minimum they established for females is 3, the same as males, interesting.

  14. Beretverde says:

    Disgusting…

  15. BCousins says:

    I would like to meet these four and tell them about some real life experiences. What you are means nothing, what you do and how well you do it is everything. I know two women Army general officers, one a four star and recent commander of the Army Materiel Command. The other is a three star and is currently the J-4 of the Joint Staff. I knew them both as captains and knew they would go far. They used to call me sir. They took the hard jobs and did them very well and that is why they both kept getting promoted. These whiners who are suing DoD need to get their heads straight (or out of their second point of contact) and do their jobs or get out of the service.

  16. Rerun0369 says:

    Also wanted to share this from the following USNews article:

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/21/women-in-combat-how-should-it-be-done?s_cid=related-links:TOP

    “A recent RAND Corp. study (cited in the DoD report to Congress), found no statistical differences in the career progression of female officers in open MOSs (with closed positions) as compared to women in fully open occupations,” according to the Marine Corps report. “Both groups of women shared the same likelihood of reaching pay grade of [colonel].

    New precedent shows this even playing field could continue past past that rank. The current Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James F. Amos is a fighter pilot. This billet is currently available to women in the Navy, but female Marines are restricted to flying transports. Amos’ varied training never included advanced infantry school.”

    Now what was that about not having equal career opportunities?

    Actual study if you want to read it:
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1159.html

  17. Jonn Lilyea says:

    BCousins #15, if that’s your second point of contact, you’re doing PLFs wrong. Just trying to help.

  18. Eric says:

    Yeah, if you can’t get promoted in Civil Affairs in the reserves, you must not have a pulse… Once you make E-6 and have a deployment, you will make E-8 once you hit eligibility easily enough. Civil Affairs units (with up to a 30% female population) are working with combat arms units all the times in order to do the CA mission. You can’t get much closer.

    TPU promotion boards for the last couple years, for senior NCOs is about 99% selection rate. Junior promotions are a bit tougher because the MTOE of CA units changed causing a hold up due to less E-5 positions, but even that is working itself out.

    And that just kept getting better and better as you said key words: San Francisco, ACLU, 9th Circuit, sueing…

    Lets all go to San Fran and get the ACLU to help us sue the Army because females only have to do less than half the amount of push ups as males, that’s not “equal opportunity” as I see it, so it violates the Constitutional rights of males in the Army.

  19. BCousins says:

    Jonn at 17# I always hit heels, ass head. Isn’t that right? Maybe that’s why I talk funny today. Ha!

  20. Nik says:

    Were there restrictions on who was allowed to volunteer for IOC?

  21. David says:

    Someone yesterday said the original group of women allowed in the Infantry course were restricted to volunteers from recent OCS grads…. anyone know if that is true or any female officer could apply?

    Knew a female officer who became a general (intel officer) – easily one of the most useless I knew of, and later alleged a candidate for IG (a three star?) had committed sexual harassment on her. He lost, basically…. I suspect Congress looked at her and questioned his judgement. She was, shall we say, an unattractive person when she was a Major.

  22. Nik says:

    @22

    I read something like that, but couldn’t immediately find proof of whether that is indeed a restriction or not.

  23. basil says:

    @20 heels will now have a new meaning in the Infantry if the ACLU has their way

  24. Old Tanker says:

    @20, you have an ass head? I knew there was something not quite right about guys that jumped out of planes!! ;-)

  25. RedLeg JO says:

    @22 they are restricted to new LTs comming out of the basic course just like male officers (so any commisioning source) it only makes sense why would you send a CPT to a LT training course?

  26. Nik says:

    And that’s very well possible why the two Marines listed didn’t volunteer for the course.

    As long as they’re held to the exact same standards as men, I say let ‘em have at it. Just don’t bend the standards for women. Bullets don’t strike any softer for women than men. Knives cut women just as deeply as men. The course should be just the same.

  27. Rerun0369 says:

    Volunteers for IOC were restricted to OCS and Naval Academy grads already slated to attend TBS, the caveat being the complete TBS first. Same exact restrictions as males.

  28. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    During my short but boring career, I only met two BAMs who could hang with the fellas. One was at the NCO Academy the other was a “guest” officer in S-something at Battalion. At the NCO Academy it was L/Cpl McSomething who could PT with the best of us. The other was 2nd Lt “gorgeous”. She was on my ‘hog’ for a training cycle, usually three to four days, and did everything the crew did, including “breaking track”. We went to the “bog” and I intentionally threw a track so the crew had to put it back on. The Lt. was out there in the sh1t “busting track” with the crew. If the standard remains the same, hell let ‘em try! My beloved nephew is a SSgt and I know he ain’t gonna let some les than qualified ossifer command his Plt.

  29. Anonymous says:

    What would really be equal opportunity if all females in this country had to register with Selective Service when they turned 18, just as all males now do.

    Can’t beleive that the National Organization of Women wouldn’t want to champion that one! HA!

  30. USMCE8Ret says:

    I noticed all of these ladies are reservists. Not that it makes a difference, but what gives? Sources here in Quantico say 1st Lt. Colleen Farrell’s last day of active duty was over a month ago, so I presume she’s in the IRR by now. I’m just curious where the active duty voices are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *