"Gonna wash that man right out of my hair." Sung by WAVE Officer Nellie Forbush in South Pacific.

[No Elephants]

AP Top News at 9:45 a.m. EST

Military has to decide which combat jobs for women

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon's decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat presents a daunting challenge to top military leaders who now will have to decide which, if any, jobs they believe should be open only to men

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to announce Thursday that more than 230,000 battlefront posts - many in Army and Marine infantry units and in potentially elite commando jobs - are now open to women. It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend and defend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy SEALs or the Army's Delta Force.

The historic change, which was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.

The change won't take place overnight: Service chiefs will have to develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, may take longer. The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WOMEN_IN_COMBAT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-24-07-31-45

Du-uuuh.

Isn't it obvious? Perfect jobs for women in combat areas: nursing, cooking for the troops, Kitchen Police, laundering and ironing of uniforms, cleaning latrines, etc. They have the skill sets and the experience; and that will keep them protected (as they should be) and out of the way of the men, aka, the real combat personnel.

Of course, combat experience counts for a lot in advancement within the military.

Of course, women will have to meet the exact same standards as men do before they can qualify for combat.



So, this morning, I see some TV reporter interview a military man who explains his opposition to women in combat thusly: "We even have men who have a difficult time, physically and emotionally, with combat."

Implied; If some males can't handle it, not a single woman can handle it. Because we all know who keeps calm and carries on better in civilian life, don't we? (Ask Ethel Kennedy, or any single mother of 10 to 16 kids, single or not, rich or poor.)
"
Next interview: A smiling and radiant Congressional Representative Tammy Duckworth. Q. "Do you think women can handle combat?" A. (Laughs) "I'm pretty sure I did not lose my legs in a bar fight."

[Enthusiast]

1. This is one area of women's rights

where I am not so sure. I want a military draft in the extremely rare event that there is a war worthy of fighting. And I do not want to see women drafted. Call me a chauvinist if you wish.

[No Elephants]

2. I would not call you a chauvinist. I would say you are well-intentioned, but

maybe not considering all of the issues.

The draft is a dead letter. No one wants all that distracting draft card burningand demonstrating (even if there are no liberal kids left who are likely to demonstrate).

And, I can't imagine another war worth fighting.

So, overall, I think your scenario is doubly unlikely.

Besides, keeping women out of combat areas does not prevent anyone from drafting women does it? There have always been many more behind the lines jobs than there were men in actual combat areas.

Moreover, as Tammy Duckworth jokingly told us women already are in combat areas: she did not lose her legs in a bar fight. It's just that no one admits it and they don't get resume credit for it when promotions are the issue.

The military is getting away with using women as cannon fodder in Iraq and Afghanistan because in modern wars, where we ARE the government AND the occupying force, which is a combat area and which isn't is not as clear as when we had "theaters" or whatever.

And we have not had those since WWII. No matter where you were in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan et al,, you were in a combat area, whether it was officially designated as such or not.


So, you can more than rationalize drafting women, yet keep them out of combat areas (even if you only pretend to keep them out, as is now the case).

Moreover, women have been enlisting, even before they were legally allowed to do so.

Sometimes, they went on the battlefield in male drag, as they did in the Revolutionary War. (We know that only because some got wounded and the medic or doc ratted them out.)

Sometimes, they went as civilian nurses.

Sometimes, they went on the battlefield in the midst of battle to tend the wounded as unpaid volunteers, as in the Civil War, for example.

Or as drivers, as in WWII. One lady lady who did that fell in love with Eisenhower. Another sits on the throne of England.

And, even under this change being discussed right now, the woman has to both volunteer to go into a combat area and to meet all the same standards males have to meet.

So, the net results would be only to (a) leave the ability to decide a woman's own fate in the hands of males, as usual; and (b) leave women exposed to amputation, PTSD, and death, while playing the game that they are not in areas officially designated as combat areas, but without giving them equal rights to advance within the military.

Against all the above you have to weight that these thousands of women who have, one way or another, been in combat areas in reality have been getting penalized for alleged lack of exposure in an official combat area. This is a very real and present situation that we should not want to perpetuate, certainly not to the point of overriding the wishes of women in the military.

[Enthusiast]

3. I have taken into consideration everything you have said.

I knew about women's historical contributions on the battlefield. I acknowledge these contributions. But I also know there are actual biological differences between the sexes. I love women and I don't want even more of them to have battlefield injuries.

[No Elephants]

4. If you love them, consider allowing them the dignity of making their own decisions.

Besides, if they can pass the same physical tests men can pass, what difference do biological differences make?

Unless we are talking about their periods and not the way they are built?

[No Elephants]

5. P.S. what about the reality that they are in combat anyway, yet still not able to get credit for it?