Replies

Twenty two percent do not believe women should be at the academy? They are probably the ones causing 99% of the problems. These toads must feel their macho egos are threatened by having females there that can do everything they can do. What little sissies they are!

"females there that can do everything they can do"

I really doubt that!

I'm a former AF officer and served with female officers.

Back in the day, the physical training regimens were not identical for males and females, and generally speaking, they probably need not be -- but as soon as the reality that they are not the same is seen by male cadets, there is an instinctive surge of disapproval. It takes a minute to assess the difference and draw some conclusion about its fairness.

The problem is if one is exhausted at that moment one is not inclined to do some extra mental work to decide whether or not "they are getting off easy". One looks, one sees they are doing pushups from their knees and not their toes, or one sees that because they are there you have to memorize additional uniform regulations for inspections. It's extra work. It is never clear it is extra work that really needs to be done in order to kill the enemy most effectively.

The presence of women there is social engineering. There is no evidence that their presence wins wars more effectively then if they were not there. Winning wars should be the ONLY criterion for deciding admittance.

Twenty two percent do not believe women should be at the academy? They are probably the ones causing 99% of the problems. These toads must feel their macho egos are threatened by having females there that can do everything they can do. What little sissies they are!

The “problems,” as you put it, did not exist until women were admitted to the academy. Therefore, logically, it appears that those “who do not believe women should be at the academy” have a valid point.

It seems rather odd that for the last 5,000 years of recorded history, or so, that female participation in military combat activities has been a rare exception. However, by the standards that are creating the “problems” at the academy and in today’s military in general, it seems female participation is a requirement. Consequently, one is left to wonder why such a requirement would exist in the first place.

Rationally, one would conclude that if females were such an efficient addition to military combat forces, they would have been routinely added to military combat forces centuries, if not, millennia ago. After all, if such increases in military combat efficiency were, in deed, the case, then the first force to do so would have been overwhelmingly victorious and all afterwards would have followed suit. However, such a situation is manifestly not the situation nor has it ever been except in very rare and very limited circumstances. Again, one is left to wonder why.

Perhaps, in your great wisdom you would care to address the above-cited quandaries.

"These toads must feel their macho egos are threatened by having females there that can do everything they can do. What little sissies they are!"

In what alternate universe can these woman "do everything" the men can do?

Where have you been the last 30 years? The standards were lowered UNTIL woman could perform "up to standard".