Re: G. I. Jane coming to a Foxhole near YOU
numbered for ease of response. Unless I missed your sarcasm I assume the point by point aspect of your post was not in jest, with the later paragraphs as the answer to the rhetorical nature of the point by point. If you were kidding, I totally missed it at this late hour.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wallace11bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
1)<span style="color: #000099">
The issue with women in combat arms has absolutely nothing to do with the women. It really doesn't.</span>
Then why do your solutions necessitate female-specific application? Of course it has to do with women. This is like saying sugar in a gas tank has nothing to do with a car. Of course it does when people are saying put sugar in the tank, since it, by its very essence does not mesh with the form and function of the car, nor does it tend toward its end of driving.
2)<span style="color: #000099">
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Women getting pregnant?</span> Ok, issue contraceptives. Small price to pay for equality, which I am all for. <span style="font-style: italic">Little to no negative impact.</span></span>
You contradict this in #7. Further, you exacerbate that which you already say is a problem. beyond that, you have then told not only the women, but the men two things:
#1- we do not expect discipline from our troops.
#2- we expect (though this is implicit more than implicit) fraternizing and reduction of the proper understanding of unit cohesion and professionalism.
The other issue is that contraception is not 100% effective, can actually cause early stage abortions when it's a chemical contraceptive, and encourages promiscuity.
This also ignores the existing reality of freely available contraception in every military clinic, also available from TRICARE, and the lack of efficacy it's had on a) reducing military pregnancies and b) the detriment it has caused in the view of the female soldier.
It's actually a recipe for disaster on multiple levels.
3)<span style="color: #000099">
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Other medical concerns?</span> (stress fractures, infertility, etc), Make the female service-member aware of these risks, and provide necessary support. Again, small price, and solutions would be found given a long enough timeline. <span style="font-style: italic">Undetermined negative impact</span> (and I will give them the benefit of the doubt). </span>
So why not let in asthmatics and give them an inhaler? It's only the potential for a squad to lose their machine gunner during a firefight, or a medic during a massive casualty event, or their squad-leader during the offensive assault on an HVT compound... etc. But let's let the incapable feel equal without being so. Yeah.
This line of thought is essentially the reduction of the worth of the female soldier (also found in the contraception concept), and encourages, needlessly, the strain of broken soldierettes on an already strained medical system-- both in the military and the VA. Do you really want to pay out for something based on a definable medical risk when none need be taken in the interest of what is actually a perversion of equality-- meaning recognizing the worth of the person as an individual?
4)<span style="color: #000099">
<span style="font-weight: bold">Readiness?</span> There is a bit of an issue here, generated mostly by the medical concerns, but it is already dealt. Anything that would keep a female from deploying as a grunt would also keep them from deploying as a POG. Those standards are the same across the board, so why do we allow females in the service at all? These risks are negligible until proven otherwise. <span style="font-style: italic">Moot point.</span>
</span>
Again, untrue. Support Personnel have a much different deployment experience and medical realities are just part. Such a comment makes me wonder what your comprehensive deployment experience has actually been. Such a claim is absurd as the standards to merely deploy are bare minimum, and do not speak of the necessity of fitness for a grunt to do their job versus some paper pusher to sit on their butt.
5)<span style="color: #000099">
<span style="font-weight: bold">Physical strength and endurance?</span> Gender neutral standards, not lower, just the same across the board. <span style="font-style: italic">Non-issue.</span>
</span>
But this won't happen. If it does I'll be surprised. What one must logically conclude here is not a neutrality of standards as if we pulled it out of our collective ass, but that the already lower standards for females are RAISED to those of males. The only other answer is the LOWERING of male standards. One of the two must give for there to be an equalization of standards without respect to gender. All you will see there is attrition and loss of taxpayer money on a larger swath of recruits and female soldiers who are capable in their present state of non-combat MOS support personnel-- meeting the current standard for females.
6)<span style="color: #000099">
<span style="font-weight: bold">Psychological issues?</span> Bullshit. I have seen plenty of men cower, fail to escalate in their use of force, etc. Show me any comparative statistical evidence that females are less capable, mentally, of doing the job. Until said evidence is produced: Bullshit. <span style="font-style: italic">Non-issue.</span></span>
There's a lot more to the military than JUST the shooting war, which is actually a small percentage of it. Women, by nature, are nurturers. They take things personally more than men tend to do. Now, with the feminization of society, mostly seen in young males, this has been "equalized" somewhat and the result is negative in implication. What you've seen is not a testament to the capability of females to somehow "man up", but rather a reality of the human nature to resist killing other human beings. You should read LTC Dave Grossman on this, as he is probably the least brainiac author in this field of study which focuses on this phenomena.
7)<span style="color: #000099">
The problem is the men AND the women in the same units. By introducing the opposite sex in close quarters you degrade mission focus (already piss poor in a force led by POGs and Politicians). Sex (reproduction)is the driving force to everything everybody everywhere does. It really is.To pretend hormones and genitals do not exist is both foolish and juvenile.</span>
As said, you contradict this in #2 by the issuance of contraception. Which is it?
What you are arguing for, here, in the name of equality is segregation. That's equal... how?
8)<span style="color: #000099">
<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Sex</span></span>, and the pursuit thereof, becomes a distraction. It degrades combat focus distracts from the goal of mission success. The side effects, including social tension and conflict (not either gender's fault) degrade unit cohesion.
Combat effectiveness suffers and, in turn, mission success is jeopardized. But no one cares as long as things are PC. It sucks plenty as it is. Training is check the box, standards are lowered or ignored, promotions are political, no one is held accountable, bad decisions are made by the wrong people for the wrong reasons, and every servicemember is only watching out for their own career and interests. I still remember when combat effectiveness and mission success were the ultimate focus, long gone are those days, I fear.
</span>
And you expect this to change or get rectified by exacerbating the problem through yet another ridiculous means of tilting at the windmills of failure and systemic devolution? The mind reels with such "logic". This entire effort to make women grunts IS politicking, PC, bad decisions led lowering of standards based. Dude, did you even put rational thought into this?
9) <span style="color: #000099">The army (I cannot speak for the other branches) has morphed into some sort of overgrown boyscouts. I watched it happen while I was in, I did not want to keep riding that train, and I got off at the next stop. It appears there has been no reversal, stop, or turn on those tracks, as this most recent action shows.</span>
And yet you argue for it? Did I miss the sarcasm?
</div></div>
