Reno, I read to the end of the thread before I wrote this.
You seem to have been hit hard for your “bring them in” comment, and in the context of Infantry, well you should have. Infantry may get a lot of rides sometimes but they were humping the mountains of Afghanistan on foot carrying up to and sometimes over 100 lbs.
The “women in combat” issue is not really “women in combat” because they are already in combat - be it pilots, MPs or many other jobs. In those positions they have served well.
The argument now is “should all positions be opened?” The Army and Marines are looking at the issue - and the required strength for each MOS. They are also saying standards will not be lowered. If the job is for the individual to get over a five foot wall and they place a 1 foot box in front for the females are they getting over a five foot or a “four” foot wall? Have the standards just been lowered?
In interesting study on what they are doing.
http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecRpt-100314.pdf
Condensed version (oped)
So the questions are “What are the standards”, “Can women pass those standards?” and finally “Should the standards be lowered far enough to get the proper number of women?”
And at the end of all that comes “If the Infantry is voluntary for females why can males be just assigned?”
“Should the standards be lowered far enough to get the proper number of women?”
What exactly is the “proper” number of women and what is is based on and why does it even exist? I thought we were all equal now. There are no women, blacks, latinos, white men, cripples, retarded.... just all equal androgynous human units.
This “proper” number of things is just another exercise in mediocrity promoted by inferiors.
The standards were lowered for women when hubby did a stint in the Army, and he’s been out over twenty years. Rumor was they were lowering them again the year he got out; don’t remember how that went but they were already past many danger points.