It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by burdman30ott6
Her new job has her serving as the Director of the Army Reserve Human Capital Core Enterprise (HCCE), overseeing the professional development and recruitment of Army Reserve soldiers.
She'll be nowhere near combat nor warzones. This is a PR kind of thing I'd think.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
It just seems odd to have such loud cries about changing one antiquated policy while leaving another equally antiuated policy unspoken of and unchanged.
It's a highly controversial prospect and the Pentagon is proceeding cautiously. In an early step last February, military officials rejected a congressional commission's recommendation that prohibitions on women in combat be lifted, announcing instead that they would be open, on a trial basis, 14,000 jobs previously closed to female service members.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Also, more WOMEN oppose women in combat... So, it is a sticky one. I personally support BOTH antiquated policies changing. I think everything should be equal. If a woman can pass the same training and carry the same gun, then she should have the same job. Neither the soldier's gender (NOR their orientation) should be an issue, any more than their race, which was once another discriminatory policy that had to change.
Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
This statement is what confused me:
There are women who want the right of the higher paying positions
And usually when i hear something like that it usually means that some women want the pay without doing the work or the responsibility.