Meet Brig. Gen. Tammy Smith, the first openly gay U.S. general

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.

Source

She'll be nowhere near combat nor warzones. This is a PR kind of thing I'd think.

~Heff

I forgot how corporate the modern army has become. This happened towards the end of the Vietnam war. Things are very different. Anyway I have no problem with her.

reply to post by Hefficide


Totally missed the part about her post being oversight and development of reserve recruits.

I do, however, still find it somewhat fascinating that policy changes have moved so swiftly in regards to sexual orientation, yet still seem to drag along in regards to the actual gender of the soldiers and the duties they are classified as. I mean, common sense would say that only a select few female recruits would be qualified to lunk an HMG around a battlefield, but then again not a whole lot of male soldiers are physically capable of doing so, either. It just seems odd to have such loud cries about changing one antiquated policy while leaving another equally antiuated policy unspoken of and unchanged.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

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.

I think the "women in combat" policies are moving forward, but at a slower pace, because the military members see it as a more controversial issue and it doesn't have the same support by them or by the general population that the "gays in the military" policies do. But they are both moving forward...

Women in Combat: US Military on the Verge of Making it Official

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.

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.

Thirdly, being gay is a lot more controversial and sensational than being a woman, so we're bound to hear more about "gays in the military" in our news media than women's progress. But it's there.

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.

I agree fully.

And - - I don't support a man should be put on the front line just because he is a man.

There are women who want the right of the higher paying positions. From past discussions - - apparently there is combat pay or pay grades determined on degree of danger.

Anyway - - I think this is awesome and significant.

Why should women be able to receive higher combat pay without being eligible for combat? Isn't that unfair?

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


No one is suggesting that. I can't even figure out where your misunderstanding took place to address it. Sorry.

Both Annie and I are saying that a woman SHOULD be able to take any job in the military (including combat roles) if she can qualify for it by passing the SAME requirements as a man.

Now, how does that suggest that she should get higher pay without being eligible?

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.

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.

Uh no.

Read BH's post prior to mine.

Answered by Annee.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


English Comprehension 101

There is one position available, two people apply for the post which carries with it many benefits including HIGHER REMUNERATION.

One male, one female, both have the same qualification and job experience.

Who gets the job?

The male!

Why?

Because he's male (and presumably straight)!