View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of all the goofy debates that have transpired in the roughly 90 days you've been absent, I'm perplexed as to why this one has brought you out of the dark. Nonetheless , welcome back Mr. Gybe. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DanWeiss
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Posts: 2296 Location: Connecticut, USA
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The DOD is being sued for gender discrimination that alleges, in part, that the current state of affairs places women in combat roles without crediting the women for that service while crediting the men taking the same role.
I'm not commenting on the normative value of allowing women to take on the same active combat roles as men or any effect on military power, but if women are permitted or forced in a practical sense to do so, women deserve to be credited for such experiences, including equal pay and equal promotion as given men. It is morally corrupt to put anyone in combat then refuse to categorize them as having so served based SOLELY on gender.
That is the current state of affairs and what this move corrects. _________________ Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With respect, the lawsuit argues that women should no longer be specifically excluded from certain combat positions, it does not attempt to redefine positions already filled by women. The 1994 policy states “Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.” The recent change rescinds the 1994 policy and opens about 53,000 positions to suitably qualified women which were previously not available to them. That is the issue, and the impact of the change. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DanWeiss
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Posts: 2296 Location: Connecticut, USA
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you not splitting hairs? The underlying reason for the suit is to address the disparity in pay and advancement that are given to male soldiers but not to female soldiers even though the women are doing the same jobs as the men. The issue isn't to redefine, because that is tantamount to caving to the the DOD's use different labels used merely as pretext for the discriminatory practice of disparate treatment. The claims made are for the most part following a basic gender discrimination claim under Title VII.
Combat positions have been de facto open to women since the start of the war in Iraq. Women carry full combat arms, get shot and do shooting. The argument is that the DOD failed to recognize the combat service of women by restricting them to certain titles. It is bootstrapping at its best.
While I agree that the recision of the 1994 policy will formally open positions (titles) that were not available to women, many women were already serving in these positions without the formal recognition and benefits available to men. That's why I support this change. Equal treatment. _________________ Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|