To be fair, Allendale and I responded to Phillyred's comment:
And it is one thing for them to be allowed in these roles, but now the government is promoting it to women more than men now.
We did not question whether females have a proper role in the military, but did argue that political correctness has currently contaminated the thinking behind the issue of how and where they should serve.
Speaking for myself, no matter what Hollywood tried to do with Demi Moore and Meg Ryan, females in a fire fight are ultimately a liability.
Make that: “...in a prolonged and mixed sex fire fight.”
There is no question that women deployed in gender appropriate role can enhance the combat effectiveness of an army when there are manpower shortages.The Israelis have pioneered this concept. However what is not commonly known is that these women rarely see or are expected to see actual combat. However the politically correct “gender neutral” policy of today’s Pentagon reflects current political realities rather than the hard lessons of combat. During the Battle of the Bulge the very outcome and the number of casualties would have been far worse if support troops were not committed to the battle. In today’s army most of those “support troops” are women, many of whom are pregnant at any given time. The use of women in combat roles will endanger the men and make units less effective. No one can say with certainty when the American army will be as hard pressed as they were at the Battle of the Bulge ,Chosin or Hue again. The only certainty will be that if a future battle goes badly for our new gender neutral fighting force, the politicians will scurry and will never be held accountable.
What I was trying to point out, is when this madness started.
This is a 40 year effort and it is nowhere near completion.