Replies

I don't pretend to be "all wise", but it has been just recently in our history that women have been ALLOWED the same rights as men. Hey, we're smart enough to cast an informed vote! Who'd of thunk?? Wow, we can drive cars, hold jobs, become doctors....now there's a shock for ya!

Madam, military combat efficiency has, throughout history, been the ultimate arbiter of victory. If women had significantly increased combat efficiency at any time in the past, there would have been no question women about being allowed to participate, they would have been drafted to do so. However, since such has never been the case, the question is still on the table and you have not addressed it at all.

I know that there are some things men can do better, and there are things that women are better at. But in general, I think both are equally capable of going through the rigors of basic training, attending the academy, and serving the military.

You are correct that there are some things that, in general, each sex is better at than the other. In particular, men are, on average, 10% taller, 25% more muscular (even more so in the upper body), possess greater physical endurance, and are somewhat better at target directed skills. All of these tend to be important characteristics in a combat situation. Given this physical imbalance, one must wonder why it is at all advisable to put women in a combat situation where they could face a male adversary and be at such a potential disadvantage. Perhaps you could answer this important question.

As to your assertion concerning your “belief” that both sexes are equally capable of enduring the rigors of basic training, you are very mistaken. An earlier post on this thread cited several studies with statistics that women experience significantly more injuries in basic training than men. Unfortunately, the real issue is not basic training, but combat which is far more rigorous and perilous than basic training. Again, perhaps you could address why we, as a nation, should put women into a situation where they are likely to experience more injury unnecessarily and, as a consequence, reduce the combat efficiency of the unit to which they are assigned.

Some men just can't seem to get over that fact and will do their darndest to make life for these women in the academy as difficult as they can. They would never live it down if the girls outdid them! It would be a deadening blow to their egos! These are the "toads" I am talking about!

It seems that this is an emotional response and completely vacuous in terms of addressing why women should be at the academy or in military combat assignments. Perhaps you could explain how this response logically and factually relates to the is

Lord have mercy on me, but you make a lot of valid points!
I guess all I am saying is that women should be able to prove their worth, same as men. If they measure up, great! If not, so be it. But they should not be treated as second class citizens or frowned upon as being "weak" simply because they are women. I have read every post up to now and have learned a lot. I appreciate every opinion. But may I ask you your honest opinion? Don't you think that these men that harrasss the women cadets do so because they feel a bit threatened? I'm just curious as to what your thoughts on this are, from a male perspective. Thanks!