Pilots, fine. Warships and subs? Stupid. "In terms of their sexual energy, young adults in military service are like young people in college and away from home for the first time. In the Navy, that energy may become particularly intense living in extremely close quarters for long periods, sometimes in dangerous circumstances. They also may have trouble getting prescriptions refilled or accessing different methods of contraception while at sea." " the problem of unplanned pregnancies is not with career-minded individuals, but with the junior enlisted sailors in the 17-21 age group who have not yet decided to make the Navy a career…not sure what they are thinking, but the statistics indicate that within these junior enlisted ranks, about 66% of the pregnancies are unplanned. Because the Navy offers free birth control to those who want it, this is a disturbing statistic." http://nation.time.com/2013/03/21/it-may-be-time-for-navy-bootie-camp/ Plus, there is just as much likelihood that the two rangers discussed earlier had help and unfair advantages getting through. What, just so we can say they had a chance? That's stupid when you are talking about people's lives during combat.
It's not about what people "deserve". It's about making the military work as effectively as possible. It probably doesn't help make the military to have a few crazy butch women fighters. It's probably just simpler to stick with dudes and not have to deal with the nonsense of integrating women.
Whatever few men some of these women measure up to, probably shouldn't be serving in combat roles either. I just think it's an unnecessary distraction placing the truly qualified men in more danger by pulling more dead weight than necessary not to mention all the politically correct crap that comes with it. Cargo Pilots, logistics, desk jobs, organization etc, I'm all for. Women picking up a rifle and going door to door combat I'm totally against.....bad idea. My grandfather once told me, know who you are and what you are capable of. My 2 cents.
I am sure there are a lot of reasons to excuse discrimination. So, most women can't hack it. We all agree. I just say we judge them on what they can actually do, not on their gender. They should be expected to do what a man their size can do, but if they can do it, take the training, pass the courses, and qualify on their merits . . . give 'em a fucking gun.
It's why I don't see the big deal. So few women can pass muster that I cant see what it hurts to let the few who do get on with their careers. Especially the officers. Even if they can't hack deployment with the rangers, these women will be extremely qualified to work with and command rangers as they advance. These women are 6-footer West Point graduates, one's a helicopter pilot and the other a military policeman. They aren't doing this to make a career of camping with the Rangers. They are doing this in order to compete with their male counterparts to advance. The top slots in the corporation favor soldiers with ranger tabs, airborne pins, and combat infantryman badges. These women want to retire as generals and they are doing what it takes to compete in their world. It's good for all of us to have a meritocracy.
Because it starts with people then thinking, "why aren't more women in X" Just like they do with Women as CEO's, diversity with minorities, etc... They will eventually lower the standards. They already have for the "office" jobs. I was in the Air-force last year. Women my age had lower standards. I don't know why having a vagina means you get to run slower, but it does.
It's just a really bad idea. I don't care who she is, how strong she is, how much hair she has on her balls I can guarantee that at some point the words "but I'm a girl" will come out of her mouth and it is all downhill from there. Let them fly, I don't care if they fly combat missions, let them be MP's, let them do just about anything but you keep them out of combat units on the ground.
