Yes, liberals are treading on thin ice when they use that same line of reasoning to claim that this is proof we shouldn't be in Iraq. They fail to admit that the majority of our troops, male and female, are honorable. They claim to support our troops, but then they use the rare occurrance of impropriety to paint all of our troops as war criminals, or all of our female troops as unfit for service. And then there are those with a 7th-century mindset, who think women are unfit for anything except serving men in whatever capacity the men dictate. People who refuse to recognize others for their accomplishments, and instead judge everyone based on race, gender, or other physical characteristics are extremely narrow minded. They will often ignore any and all facts that are contrary to their agenda. If a soldier is recognized for accomplishments rather than gender, that would mean that some women have accomplished more than some men, and we can't have that. Women must all be categorized as inferior to men. Another effect of this reasoning is that men who never accomplish anything can still be proud, because the only thing that really matters is their gender. When anyone (especially a woman, who is supposed to be subservient) points this out, it threatens the overblown value the man has placed upon his existence. It's really quite amusing. Men who actually accomplish something in life, don't have to live vicariously through other men's deeds, and rarely if ever resort to denying the accomplishments of others. When a man like that says he supports our troops, he doesn't mean just the white troops, or just the male troops. He means he supports our troops. There's more to being a good soldier than just being born with certain genitalia, or a certain skin color. Our troops do not accomplish their missions by sitting around admiring what the Good Lord blessed them with at birth. There's more to it than that. To suggest otherwise is an insult to all of our troops, and is no more supportive of our troops than any other means of undermining their mission.
"People who refuse to recognize others for their accomplishments, and instead judge everyone based on race, gender, or other physical characteristics are extremely narrow minded. They will often ignore any and all facts that are contrary to their agenda. If a soldier is recognized for accomplishments rather than gender, that would mean that some women have accomplished more than some men, and we can't have that. Women must all be categorized as inferior to men. Another effect of this reasoning is that men who never accomplish anything can still be proud, because the only thing that really matters is their gender. When anyone (especially a woman, who is supposed to be subservient) points this out, it threatens the overblown value the man has placed upon his existence. It's really quite amusing."
Cute trick, but the problem is the natural response of men and women in stressful situations. To deny that is to bury your head in the sand and deny basic human physiology and psychology.
1) They have sex.
2) There is sexual tension, and jealousy.
3) The chivalry instinct - men will tend to protect the woman instead of the unit.
You've never served.
Because I'll tell you this, women are the BEST intelligence agents in the world. Bar none. I don't care how good a male intelligence agent is, or how much training they get, a female intelligence agent will be better.
I don't know why, but women listen better, they are better at picking up non-verbal communication.
They are good at a lot of other wartime tasks. Mixed gender combat divisions, or mixed gender foward area commands don't work. I can give you mountains of proof.
Combat and forward area deployments are stressful situations already, in war or peace. You add women to the mix, or men for that matter, and you at least double it.
All female ships, all female platoons, brigades, divisions - that would be a fair thing to ask of either gender.
Armies and Navies are built for one very serious purpose - one so serious that it should be a very deliberate process you go through when you decide to make a change for something such as 'social and/or gender equity'.
A mixed black and white army was a very similar situation. There were very real military reasons why a general would not want to start with the military in terms of racial equality. Fact is all black platoons, brigades, regements were formed. Blacks were thought not qualified for flight status, but the Tuskegee airmen, placed in an all black fighter wing, proved they did a BETTER job than white male pilots.
I have yet to see that tried with all female divisions, ships, SEAL teams. I think it should happen, but it hasn't. Until it does, I'll go by the EXPERIENCE I've earned. The benefits that females bring to a operational command aren't outweighed by the challenges they pose, and all that does is hurt women and degrade the unit.
One of my classmates was top of our class and selected for the astronaut program. You don't have to sit there and tell me that they aren't necessarily up to the job. I'm simply telling you that they STILL have never been afforded the opportunity to prove it definitively.
Case in point: there is only one female admiral in the USCG. She's never had a tour afloat.
Now, I don't a thing about her beside this one fact. I don't think that there is another admiral in the CG that hasn't had an operational tour, either in the air or at sea.
At the academy, they tell you unequivocally that you need to have your ticket punched in a variety of commands to make flag rank. A mix of operational and shore commands (although, unbelievably, that's changing).
Why make the one exception, and when you do, why make it a female? Why not make it a white male, black male, hispanic male, male primate, anything but a female to make that exception?
Why NOT form an all female SEAL team? Why must it be mixed gender, or nothing at all?
The Masschusetts 54th in the Civil war proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that blacks could be as good, if not better, infantry than whites. With the exception of their CO, they were all black. If they won, there was no questions, no lingering doubts. Other white soldiers in other units, going into a battle, whether they hated blacks or not, preferred having the 54th fight along side because when it came to life and death, all that mattered was their effectiveness in battle.
Do you know that they are talking about sterilizing astronauts for the Mars mission?
Why do that when you can send an all female crew? After all, you are going to be in a can for 3 years - why add sexual tension to the list?