The ubiquitous attempts at reprogramming do definitely avoid facts. They work on emotions and reactions with images that are lies filmed such they seem to work in reality. Even military manuals state that images are internalized as fact, regardless of whether they are or not. My surface assumption is that you watch too much of them.
The fact is that women have not had "roles" in the military that directly place them in combat danger. This is recent. Oh there might be a woman or two in history that have been known to fight, but the obvious paucity of those examples merely proved the rule, Exceptio probat regulam de rebus non exceptio.
Sure, SOME women CAN perform combat duty. The fact is that women in such roles are hanging on, surviving, but unless they provide some stellar talent with regards to making war, what is the sense of putting them when there is an overabundance of men who take to those roles as a matter of natural inborn ability? Add that to the fact that, with men's obvious and undisputed, also inborn, attitude toward the safety of women, there can actually be harm done.
It really doesn't matter whether women want to be like men, want education benefits or their family has a tradition of military service. The fact is that to use of them for which they are not suited, when there are those waiting in the wings that are every one suited by natural programing is absurd. If these women want to serve their nation, let them serve in the way a woman is uniquely built to serve, by making, raising and socializing more men who are built to fight.
I have been convinced that women are being used by those who hunger for political power, like Hillary Clinton, to plug that one hole in all reasoning for women in political leadership position, the fighting and dying aspect of the social protection role, leadership being a direct outgrowth of the role of social protection.
If women come to the military, they should be allowed duty in a support role while there are still plenty of men to fill combat roles. When the supply of men is exhausted, then women fight to perserve the nation. We are nowhere near that condition and won't ever be unless a war occurs on this soil. Why not let women serve in combat capacity who want to? Why not? I've answered that above.
The military is surely the part of the government with the specific duty to provide America with the best protection from foreign hostility possible. How can you say that women are the best protection possible with (at least) ten thousand years of contrary history behind us? Again, they at best survive. Anything less that survival is a hazzard to the rest of a combat unit.
There has been numerous evidences, by reasoning and direct experience, that indicate women do lessen the protection. Since they have no special talent for war, physically and psychologically, and more men exist that the military can accept, then the only the possibility they will cause a reduction of fighting form in any way is reason enough to keep them out of combat duty.
I didn't say they had roles in the military that placed them in combat danger. I said they had roles in the military. There a difference and I'd appreciate it if you didn't change what I said just to make you right. Now historically there are a handful of very limited examples of women in combat roles (ala Joan of Arc) but it's pretty rare. Even now we aren't putting women in direct combat roles, we're putting them in areas that are supposedly support but might wind up in combat.
You're assuming there's an overabundance. I reject that assumption. If you have proof provide it, I'll listen to proof I ignore unfounded assumptions.
We're all being used by those that hunger for political power, get used to it. Or become a hermit. Your choice. Although I've heard there are a few members of the Libertarian party making eyes at hermits, be adviced. As for women in political roles what's the problem? Didn't like Maggie Thatcher. Politics is the art of compromise and manipulation, as is rearing 3 year olds, I think parenting skills directly apply to careers in politics. This probably explains why Hilary is so bad as a senator, she thinks it takes a village to raise a kid way to advertise one's bad parenting skills.
Problem with your math is who's going to train the women for combat duty when there's no men for the job? If it gets to the point when all secretaries must now become soldiers we've already lost. If a woman is suited for combat duty there is no logical reason to not let them do it. There's a good bet that a woman suited for combat duty isn't suited for a lot of other things we associate with womanness. Forcing them to be something they're not is a waste of their talents.
There isn't any history contradicting it. There's no large based historical example period. Nobody's tried it before in a large scale. You're arguement is akin to people in the 19th century saying that if man was meant to fly they already would be. America is, at its heart, a grand and noble experiment, many of the things we do (like representative democracy, like building democracy in the mid-east) have failed miserably before, and yet we try. Fear of bucking historical trends is contrary to the American dream.
People keep saying there's evidence, and yet nobody has provided any proof. Pony up the proof and I'll read it.
BTW thanks for being polite and interesting. You've elevated the quality of conversation on this thread and I appreciate it.