Replies

You can fight all you want, but the war has already been fought. Women are in all the roles they can conceivably qualify for now. Men and women are getting used to dealing with each other in those roles, and they appear to be, overall, not failing to perform. You are fighting whether they should be put there, when they already are there. It is like arguing whether the earth should be round. It is going to take a compelling reason to take them out. Compelling is going to be more than just theorizing about chivalry and the lost roles of women of old.

"Women are in all the roles they can conceivably qualify for now. Men and women are getting used to dealing with each other in those roles, and they appear to be, overall, not failing to perform. "

I think that's still very much open for debate. Although it's not quite politically touchable yet, there's broad concern about their net effect on ships such as AC Carriers and in other roles. Having women in MOSs (jobs) that are distributed at both combat units (regimental level and below) and at rear units deprives both of experience from one another.

From my limited experience, women as Division level intelligence analysts were slightly limited due to their lack of experience with the grunts in Battalion or Regimental level roles. But more importantly, high female to male ratios at Division levels denied training and positions to lower level analysts.

There was some animosity toward women Marines having lower PT standards than the men. Why should they not be required to be a fit as males? In generally, they had a number of disadvantages, some genetic and some cultural, that from my perspective kept them a step or two behind men. I knew of many women who more than pulled their weight, one or two very exceptional ones, but not as many as men.

What I'm saying is that unless the culture has changed radically from 1985, and the stories I read of the problems are just right wing rants that are only read here, they are failing to perform in some roles and they've been pushed a little further than they should be.

Women are in all the roles they can conceivably qualify for now

In reality, they don't "qualify" for any, because the standards are lowered for them.

But the rest of your statement is patently absurd, as is most of your argument for the feminization of the military.

And to argue using the "cat is already out of the bag" reasoning is illogical. With that reasoning, I suppose we conservatives should stop fighting for the rights of the unborn? Afterall, the right to kill your unborn child is already "out of the bag". So we should just put down our pro-life rally signs and walk away, shrugging our shoulders in surrender?

Leftists desire the complete feminization of the military, and they are patient (employing the "little by little, inch by inch" tactics) and devious. They don't want a strong defense of this nation--remember that. And this issue strikes to the core, as its a way for them to cripple our society. By supporting women in the military (except in medical or very minor roles) we are playing into the hands of these leftist fascists.