G.I. Jane

Don't let the pigtails fool you, I will bust a cap in ya ass.
Don’t let the pigtails fool you, I will bust a cap in ya ass.
Last Wednesday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted a longstanding ban on women serving in combat after a long debate.

Women have been officially banned from taking part in combat since a 1994 rule that banned them from serving in ground combat units. Now all branches of the military have until this May to come up with a plan to implement the change.

Women have been allowed to take part in aerial combat albeit limited by flying combat sorties since 1993. In 2010, the Navy allowed them on submarines. But by doing away with restrictions on frontline ground combat will break a key barrier in the military and allow women to fight on the front lines for the first time.

Even though the banned has been lifted, all military branches will have until January 2016 to seek waivers for certain jobs, but those waivers will need approval from the secretary of defense.

As you can imagine reactions and opinions are varied, no one can deny that this is a big change for the military, a military that while adapting on the battle field is slow to change everywhere else.

People like Steve Harvey have debated whether or not women should be allowed to fight on the front lines, it should be noted that he teased one of his female callers who is in the military because “she had a squeaky voice”, and in case of an attack no one would be able to hear her yell take cover, as if she wouldn’t have been trained on what to do in the event an attack happens.

Some people including some women in uniform that wants no part of frontline fighting argue that the physical requirements alone could be too demanding on women.

But those that are in favor think that placing women in combat roles would help equalize the services and actually cut down on sexual assaults, which has become a huge problem for the military. And it would go along way for women soldiers to gain the respect from their male counterparts that they normally wouldn’t get.

In my opinion this is just like the debate on whether or not gays should be allowed to serve openly in the service, what does it matter? If someone loves this country enough to lay down their life if need be to fight for this country’s freedom and my civil liberties then I say let them. What’s the worse that can happened women will be killed or hurt?

Well those that aren’t even in combat and have served in support positions on and off the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, where war is waged on street corners and in markets, are still at risk, so that argument holds not weight since no one man or woman is safe while being on the frontlines.

So what do you think, are you for or against women being allowed to fight on the frontlines of war?

5 thoughts on “G.I. Jane

  1. As you stated if a person no matter their sex love this country enough to die for it then so be it!! The problem is passing the law is just a small piece to a bigger puzzle. Even on the front line I am sure arguments of women being to slow,emotional,or weak will be some of many complaints. Being on the frontline wont make them any less a target to rape,insult,or being viewed as less a soldier. The military as a whole still have a lot of evolving to do.
    Courage,Honor,and Respect isnt a gender issue. The sad reality is where the governments involved nothing really changes they just find ways to pacify situations…Women will always be fragile creatures not fit for battle… Our America…..

    1. I often wish men could get pregnant and have cramps… A week of crying,swollen feet,cravings,cramping,sleeping a certain way, and getting so fat they cant see their feet is laughable.
      Imagine sitting on the couch eating choclate chip cookie dough ice-cream,waffles,and drinking diet coke,while watching the notebook crying and looking at your baby-mama because in your mind they dont love you like that…lol…lmao… Women like men are flawed but are a lot stronger than their sometimes given credit for.

      1. I know I wouldn’t to bleed for a week and look like the Michelin tire man. In that regard you all have my respect, I aint having it. But y’all can have the “Terms of Endearment” marathon though.

    2. You would think that when it comes to war every able bodied human being should be included. We’ll see what happens though no matter what there will always be people for it and people against it.

  2. Hey B… i’m gonna copy and paste an email i got from a friend… this is an article online somewhere i’m not sure where but it surely did open my eyes to the true issue at hand.. position, power and money.. that was what was being held back from women… not fighting…

    Women have been in combat. We’ll disregard the women who fought in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, who took advantage of lax physical exam rules to dress as men and enlist. The advent of more detailed medical exams on entry shut women out of that route when World War I rolled around. No, we’ll skip to the 21st century and the first US military operation of the new millennium.

    The first woman killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom was Lori Piestwa, a Hopi woman assigned to an Army support and maintenance division ambushed outside Nasiriyah, Iraq. The ambush took place on 23 March 2003, just four days after the fighting started; SPC Piestwa’s fellow soldiers Jessica Lynch and Shoshanna Johnson were injured in the ambush.

    Since Lori Piestwa, over 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 139 have died. They became casualties while serving in “non-combat” positions in a theater of war in which someone forgot to inform the enemy that there is any such thing as a “non-combat” soldier.

    The history of women in modern combat roles doesn’t start with 2003, however. In the US Navy, enlisted women have been serving on board surface warships since 1993, the year before the Pentagon’s ban on women in ground combat positions was instituted. While barred from submarine service, women serve in every role men do on board Navy destroyers, cruisers, and aircraft carriers, including those that deal with offensive and defensive weapons systems.

    Women in the Army have been flying helicopters, including the Apache gunship, since about a year after women were barred from artillery and infantry positions. Women in the Air Force have been flying in combat aircraft since 1993 as well, although they still make up only about 2% of the fighter pilot force.

    Women on the ground were taking fire, as Piestwa and her squadmates proved so early on. Women in combat aircraft were dropping bombs and firing guns. This policy change doesn’t even mean pay parity — women have had that.

    Women stationed in combat theaters already receive the same combat pay that men do, and have for years. My own pay stubs from my time in the Persian Gulf prove it.

    What this policy from the Pentagon does offer to women is equality in career opportunity.

    That is what should be celebrated here: that finally women will receive the same career opportunities as men in the US military, where promotion and advancement are often weighted toward those with combat experience, particularly for those in leadership roles.

    Well, it offers equality for the most part. The services have three years to implement it, and are allowed to petition for exceptions to the rule.

    This makes it likely that some jobs, particularly those in the ultra-macho, obscenely hypermasculine world of special forces, are going to continue to be male-only. The major difference is that right now, the Army and Marine Corps must change the rules in order to allow women into the infantry and artillery.

    After this policy change goes into effect, it will take a rule change to keep women out. Anyone who believes that the services won’t petition to ensure some roles remain closed to women is living in fantasyland, as a macho culture doesn’t do an about-face maneuver in a day, or even in three years.

    The whole furor surrounding the Pentagon’s policy change highlights for me the problems I have with progressive politics as a woman veteran. Too often the military is ignored, and then when the left does take notice as they have here, they celebrate the wrong achievement and in the process erase the presence of women combat veterans.

    The Veteran’s Administration does a poor job serving women veterans, and this change in Pentagon policy will do nothing to change that. Nor will it change the fact that women in the armed services are at higher risk of sexual assault than dying in combat, a problem that the military structure in general seems unable or unwilling to address.

    This policy will not change the fact that single mothers in the military are often pressured to give up custody of their children or get out. It won’t change the attitude that women who get pregnant unexpectedly are only doing it to avoid deployment, or the million other misogynist attitudes that actively hamper women’s career advancement.

    We can hope, of course, that as more women move into traditionally male-only jobs in the military, the macho culture that defines masculinity as opposed to all things (and therefore all people) feminine will change.

    That is the hope that this policy change represents, the hope that one day a woman in the military will be more likely to be shot by the enemy than raped by one of her co-workers.

    Let’s make sure we celebrate what this shift actually does and the hope it brings us, rather than making women combat veterans invisible in our haste to rejoice that the Pentagon has finally caught up with reality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s