(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Female military members sue for the right to earn coveted "Combat Sammich Maker" ribbon

28 Nov 2012 04:27 AM   |   9570 clicks   |   Yahoo
Showing 1-50 of 384 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
XGoldenDragon514    [TotalFark]  
Will they get a purple heart once a month for bleeding?

28 Nov 2012 12:35 AM
Rincewind53     
-1. Cheap, old, tired, boring, sexist half-joke.

28 Nov 2012 12:39 AM
MaudlinMutantMollusk    [TotalFark]  
Subby, I dare you to tell one of the women filing this suit to their face that they should be making sammiches

/any one of them
//double dog dare

28 Nov 2012 12:51 AM
knbber2    [TotalFark]  
They want the same jobs, they should have to sign up for selective service at age 18. You want the opportunities, you have to take the possible downside as well.

28 Nov 2012 01:01 AM
PreMortem    [TotalFark]  
No.

There's a very simple reason why, obviously these females are too ignorant and self righteous to see that.

28 Nov 2012 01:07 AM
Rincewind53     

knbber2: They want the same jobs, they should have to sign up for selective service at age 18. You want the opportunities, you have to take the possible downside as well.


Women HAVE sued to be included in the draft. And the Supreme Court turned them down. So your argument is completely and utterly invalid, just like this asinine headline.

28 Nov 2012 01:14 AM
Fark Me To Tears    [TotalFark]  
No. I'm sorry. I think this would be far more trouble than it's worth.

/former military
//not taking this position to be mean

28 Nov 2012 01:19 AM
coco ebert    [TotalFark]  
I'll paraphrase Chris Rock here by saying, women wanna fight? let 'em fight, 'cause I ain't fightin'.

28 Nov 2012 01:25 AM
knbber2    [TotalFark]  

Rincewind53: So your argument is completely and utterly invalid


Absolutely wrong, that was in 1981 when NO combat arms jobs were open to women. That decision was based on not needing women for COMBAT, because they were not eligible. Many combat arms jobs are now open to females, including being a fighter pilot, a helicopter door gunner...etc. They now want all combat arms positions open, so they are now eligible to be drafted for combat. New times, time to readdress that decision.

28 Nov 2012 01:27 AM
stevegarbowski     
Why would anyone sue for the opportunity to kill another person?

28 Nov 2012 01:27 AM
violentsalvation    [TotalFark]  
Eh, whatever. I don't care anymore. I used to care, but if you want to go experience combat then you go right ahead. History has shown that you can do it and you're just as capable.

I'm old enough and with enough health problems that I likely won't ever get called up to do anything, we're volunteer now. So I won't have to fret over the incoming mortars the enemy decides to shoot out of your captured, tortured vagina.

28 Nov 2012 01:28 AM
fiver5    [TotalFark]  
Just give the bleeders what they want. They want rifles give them farking rifles what do I care I'm too old. I'm not holding the farking door open for them anymore though. They can do it on their goddamn own if I want to interact with them, I will give them money for sex otherwise, que sera sera.

28 Nov 2012 01:34 AM
fiver5    [TotalFark]  

stevegarbowski: Why would anyone sue for the opportunity to kill another person?


Women. Duh did you not read the article?

28 Nov 2012 01:35 AM
vossiewulf    [TotalFark]  
If they're physically and mentally able to fulfill the role, they should be allowed to serve in combat. End of story.

28 Nov 2012 01:39 AM
coco ebert    [TotalFark]  

violentsalvation: Eh, whatever. I don't care anymore. I used to care, but if you want to go experience combat then you go right ahead. History has shown that you can do it and you're just as capable.

I'm old enough and with enough health problems that I likely won't ever get called up to do anything, we're volunteer now. So I won't have to fret over the incoming mortars the enemy decides to shoot out of your captured, tortured vagina.


fiver5: Just give the bleeders what they want. They want rifles give them farking rifles what do I care I'm too old. I'm not holding the farking door open for them anymore though. They can do it on their goddamn own if I want to interact with them, I will give them money for sex otherwise, que sera sera.


Uhh, I ... *backs out of thread, holds own door*

28 Nov 2012 01:42 AM
PreMortem    [TotalFark]  

knbber2: Rincewind53: So your argument is completely and utterly invalid

Absolutely wrong, that was in 1981 when NO combat arms jobs were open to women. That decision was based on not needing women for COMBAT, because they were not eligible. Many combat arms jobs are now open to females, including being a fighter pilot, a helicopter door gunner...etc. They now want all combat arms positions open, so they are now eligible to be drafted for combat. New times, time to readdress that decision.


vossiewulf: If they're physically and mentally able to fulfill the role, they should be allowed to serve in combat. End of story.




Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.

28 Nov 2012 01:52 AM
OregonVet    [TotalFark]  

Rincewind53: And the Supreme Court turned them down.


So they been tole already? They need tole twice?

28 Nov 2012 01:57 AM
Rincewind53     

fiver5: Just give the bleeders what they want. They want rifles give them farking rifles what do I care I'm too old. I'm not holding the farking door open for them anymore though. They can do it on their goddamn own if I want to interact with them, I will give them money for sex otherwise, que sera sera.


That may be the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on Fark. Congratulations!

PreMortem:

Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.


Huh. Women having been serving and fighting and dying in various roles in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, and yet somehow this magic army of eunuchs you speak of has not come to pass. Maybe.... and I'm just throwing this out there, you know.... Maybe your "MEN STRONG. MEN AM PROTECTOR. MEN AM LOSE MIND POWER IN FACE OF PRETTY LADY IN DANGER!" view might be a little ill-informed? Just a thought, you know.

/P.S. They also used to say that having gays in the military would cause biological problems when men ran in to save their lovers. That hasn't worked out like that. Give our troops some common damn sense.

28 Nov 2012 02:05 AM
violentsalvation    [TotalFark]  

coco ebert: Uhh, I ... *backs out of thread, holds own door*


That is what it's about though. Men act differently, stupidly, around women. And the expectation is that the stupidity would be exacerbated in combat. I'm sure men put this rule in place, but there is probably some reason for it, beyond blatant sexism. I don't agree with it, logically, but men are men, and we are wired differently.

28 Nov 2012 02:07 AM
SnarfVader     
I have no problem with this.

/Robots, on the other hand...

28 Nov 2012 02:35 AM
MmmmBacon    [TotalFark]  
Let the ladies have a gun and point them towards the enemy, I'm all for it. Why? I have seen women fight, they're good at it, and we need all the capable soldiers and sailors we can get our hands on right now.

28 Nov 2012 03:02 AM
PreMortem    [TotalFark]  

Rincewind53: PreMortem:

Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.

Huh. Women having been serving and fighting and dying in various roles in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, and yet somehow this magic army of eunuchs you speak of has not come to pass. Maybe.... and I'm just throwing this out there, you know.... Maybe your "MEN STRONG. MEN AM PROTECTOR. MEN AM LOSE MIND POWER IN FACE OF PRETTY LADY IN DANGER!" view might be a little ill-informed? Just a thought, you know.


I'd like to see the story of a woman who died "fighting". Those various roles you speak of do not include front-line infantry/combat troops. That is what these women are suing for.

Also, assuming you are a male and you have a choice of letting your wife or your daughter die, which do you choose? Through evolutionary processes this decision is a no-brainer. Unless you don't believe in evolution and that certain behavioral traits are not still embedded in our DNA. Can it be overcome? Obviously, but I'd argue that wiring is still too embedded and would cause more lives.

I think the decision to allow women in combat roles should be left up to the generals, not some civilian court. There is a reason the military has it's own set of rules and that some constitutional rights are not extended to military members.

/P.S. They also used to say that having gays in the military would cause biological problems when men ran in to save their lovers. That hasn't worked out like that. Give our troops some common damn sense.

I'm not sure who the "they" is you speak of, but I would guess the likes of Pat Robertson...and common sense, damned or not, has no place in combat.

28 Nov 2012 03:23 AM
Sgt Otter    [TotalFark]  
FTA: Hunt and the other three women said the policy unfairly blocks them from promotions and other advancements open to men in combat.

Promotions are competitive in your own career field. A female Intel Sergeant doesn't compete against a male Infantry Sergeant for promotion to Staff Sergeant; they compete against other intel troops. A male intel soldier is as equally unlikely to see combat as a female intel soldier.

The promotion cut-off scores for Combat Arms tend to (on average) have slightly lower promotion point requirements, but the point values fluctuate year-to-year based on the Army's manning requirements. There are Service & Support jobs that have lower cut-off scores than infantry, armor, or cavalry.

28 Nov 2012 03:46 AM
PhiloeBedoe    [TotalFark]  
Women shouldn't be fighting...neither should men.

28 Nov 2012 04:28 AM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
Can't we just shoot them now?

28 Nov 2012 04:30 AM
ExcaliburPrime111     
Government policies that are inherently discriminatory, as the policy against women serving in direct combat roles, should be viewed with a strong bias on repealing them, unless the government can prove compelling reasons to keep the policy in place.

For instance, the government might be able to prove that having women in these combat roles is onerous from a logistical standpoint, or might be detrimental to proper order and morale, or something of the kind. But if they do so, there had better be a pile of well-researched, evidence-based support for why this discrimination should continue. If the only reason(s) are generalizations and platitudes, then the policy ought to go.

/Not military
//Would be interested in a military perspective.

28 Nov 2012 04:38 AM
HotWingAgenda    [TotalFark]  

PreMortem: Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.


There's also the whole rape issue. We already have a pretty rapetastic set of armed forces.

/I actually support sending women on LRRPs, they'd be good comm techs

28 Nov 2012 04:40 AM
steerforth     

PreMortem: Rincewind53: PreMortem:

Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.

Huh. Women having been serving and fighting and dying in various roles in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, and yet somehow this magic army of eunuchs you speak of has not come to pass. Maybe.... and I'm just throwing this out there, you know.... Maybe your "MEN STRONG. MEN AM PROTECTOR. MEN AM LOSE MIND POWER IN FACE OF PRETTY LADY IN DANGER!" view might be a little ill-informed? Just a thought, you know.

I'd like to see the story of a woman who died "fighting". Those various roles you speak of do not include front-line infantry/combat troops. That is what these women are suing for.

Also, assuming you are a male and you have a choice of letting your wife or your daughter die, which do you choose? Through evolutionary processes this decision is a no-brainer. Unless you don't believe in evolution and that certain behavioral traits are not still embedded in our DNA. Can it be overcome? Obviously, but I'd argue that wiring is still too embedded and would cause more lives.

I think the decision to allow women in combat roles should be left up to the generals, not some civilian court. There is a reason the military has it's own set of rules and that some constitutional rights are not extended to military members.

/P.S. They also used to say that having gays in the military would cause biological problems when men ran in to save their lovers. That hasn't worked out like that. Give our troops some common damn sense.

I'm not sure who the "they" is you speak of, but I would guess the likes of Pat Robertson...and common sense, damned or not, has no place in combat.


Bullshiate to the nth degree. Men are biologically programmed to protect their women and children, not all women and children. Women are programmed exactly the same.

If women are physically capable of combat, they should not be banned from doing so just because it offends the sensibilities of halfwits like you.

28 Nov 2012 04:42 AM
Fluorescent Testicle     
Wow, even for the main tab, this thread got brain-damagingly retarded fast.

28 Nov 2012 04:43 AM
debug     
"The military is the last place where you are allowed to be discriminated against because of you gender," she said.


No it isn't. There's gender discrimination all over the place. Most of the time it happens to work in women's favor, but it's still gender discrimination.

28 Nov 2012 04:50 AM
albuquerquehalsey     

Fluorescent Testicle: Wow, even for the main tab, this thread got brain-damagingly retarded fast.


thatescalatedquickly.png

28 Nov 2012 04:51 AM
MmmmBacon    [TotalFark]  

Fluorescent Testicle: Wow, even for the main tab, this thread got brain-damagingly retarded fast.


If it were in Politics, it would have been faster.

28 Nov 2012 04:51 AM
debug     
By the way, not having to cut your hair off, like the men do or being required to pass the same physical requirements that the men do is gender discrimination too. It just happens to work in your favor so you aren't fussing about that.

28 Nov 2012 04:52 AM
gadian     

knbber2: They want the same jobs, they should have to sign up for selective service at age 18. You want the opportunities, you have to take the possible downside as well.


I did register for the draft. Of course the draft people sent me back a card that said "according to our records, you're female and females don't have to register". I did reaffirm that I was female and that they should register me. I didn't get another card.

28 Nov 2012 04:53 AM
Shrinkwrap     

Fluorescent Testicle: Wow, even for the main tab, this thread got brain-damagingly retarded fast.


Feel those neurons melt!

28 Nov 2012 04:54 AM
gadian     
Other countries can have women on the front lines. Of course, other countries can some how make their male soldiers not rape anything resembling a vagina as well.

28 Nov 2012 04:55 AM
log_jammin     
pffft...My XCOM Valkyrie squad spits on your Combat Sammich Maker.

28 Nov 2012 04:56 AM
Mock26     

PreMortem: knbber2: Rincewind53: So your argument is completely and utterly invalid

Absolutely wrong, that was in 1981 when NO combat arms jobs were open to women. That decision was based on not needing women for COMBAT, because they were not eligible. Many combat arms jobs are now open to females, including being a fighter pilot, a helicopter door gunner...etc. They now want all combat arms positions open, so they are now eligible to be drafted for combat. New times, time to readdress that decision.

vossiewulf: If they're physically and mentally able to fulfill the role, they should be allowed to serve in combat. End of story.



Again, NO.

Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.


That mechanism can be "turned off" with proper training.

28 Nov 2012 04:59 AM
HotWingAgenda    [TotalFark]  

Mock26: Human males have a bio genetic mechanism to try to protect females. One gets winged out in the open field by a sniper and odds are one or more testosterone fueled idiots will run out and try and save her, costing more lives.

THAT is why it should never happen. Unless you want an all volunteer army full of eunuchs.

Like I said, simple reason.

That mechanism can be "turned off" with proper training.


The Training of O-2?

28 Nov 2012 05:03 AM
Ryker's Peninsula     
FTFA: "I'm trying to get rid of the ban with a sharp poke," said U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt...

Out of context quotes are awesome!

28 Nov 2012 05:04 AM
0z79     
You must really hate women, don't you subby?

Fark you. Fark the horse you rode in on, and the mare that bore it.

You're a misogynistic nothing.

28 Nov 2012 05:04 AM
zzrhardy     
Hold everyone to same exact standards and give them all the same opportunities based on standards met.

I'll carry you should you be wounded, but I damned well want you to be physically able to carry me if I go down.

28 Nov 2012 05:04 AM
GF named my left testicle thundercles     
i1172.photobucket.comView Full Size


Here is the problem that i see. the military exists to kill people in order to defend the country. it should be designed for absolute maximum efficiency or people die. In that calculus there is no room for equality politics. I am extremely skeptical of how well women can do the job because of their lesser physical abilities, which i think could get people killed. My girlfriend is amazing in alot of ways but she is 95 pounds. I am almost double her weight. She is afraid of parking garages. i love her very much but she could not be a soldier.

Imagine that we were part of a abramns crew, our tank gets hit, and i am knocked unconscious inside the burning wreck. would a 95 pound woman be able to pull me to safety or would i be burned alive?

that is what is at stake here.

i wonder how an all female unit would perform in combat against an all male unit. why not introduce segregated units of women as a pilot program?

28 Nov 2012 05:05 AM
log_jammin     

GF named my left testicle thundercles: it should be designed for absolute maximum efficiency or people die.


Know how I know you were never in the military?

28 Nov 2012 05:07 AM
HotWingAgenda    [TotalFark]  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 700x525]

Here is the problem that i see. the military exists to kill people in order to defend the country. it should be designed for absolute maximum efficiency or people die. In that calculus there is no room for equality politics. I am extremely skeptical of how well black people can do the job because of their lesser physical abilities, which i think could get people killed. My manservant is amazing in alot of ways but he is wiry and superstitious. I am almost double his weight.

Imagine that we were part of a abramns crew, our tank gets hit, and i am knocked unconscious inside the burning wreck. would a black man be able to pull me to safety or would i be burned alive?

that is what is at stake here.

i wonder how an all white unit would perform in combat against an all black unit. why not introduce segregated units as a pilot program?


And thus, the Tuskegee Airmen were assembled.

28 Nov 2012 05:11 AM
CarnySaur     
Even the Farkers who make sexist jokes are reading some of these comments and thinking "wow, that's really sexist".

28 Nov 2012 05:12 AM
GF named my left testicle thundercles     

HotWingAgenda: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 700x525]

Here is the problem that i see. the military exists to kill people in order to defend the country. it should be designed for absolute maximum efficiency or people die. In that calculus there is no room for equality politics. I am extremely skeptical of how well black people can do the job because of their lesser physical abilities, which i think could get people killed. My manservant is amazing in alot of ways but he is wiry and superstitious. I am almost double his weight.

Imagine that we were part of a abramns crew, our tank gets hit, and i am knocked unconscious inside the burning wreck. would a black man be able to pull me to safety or would i be burned alive?

that is what is at stake here.

i wonder how an all white unit would perform in combat against an all black unit. why not introduce segregated units as a pilot program?

And thus, the Tuskegee Airmen were assembled.


the difference between racial segregation and gender segregation is that there are no differences between races but there are huge differences between genders

28 Nov 2012 05:13 AM
untaken_name     
I fully support combat duty for any woman who wants it. In fact, I fully support replacing all men in combat with women. Who doesn't like watching chicks fight? Let's make it happen!

28 Nov 2012 05:20 AM
untaken_name     

GF named my left testicle thundercles: there are no differences between races


Then how do we know there are different races?

28 Nov 2012 05:21 AM
log_jammin     

GF named my left testicle thundercles: the difference between racial segregation and gender segregation is that there are no differences between races but there are huge differences between genders


there are also a huge differences in the genders themselves.

Hint: There are 95 pound men, and 6 foot 180 pound women.

28 Nov 2012 05:22 AM
Showing 1-50 of 384 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined