Replies

What do you think of the impact of the "politically correct" sexually integrated armed forces? I know that even the USMC hasn't been immune from that.

I may not have a common view on this. Overall, I'm not opposed to a COMPLETE equality amongst all, regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. That's the full equal pay for equal work. Where I think it breaks down is that there is generally NOT an equality. Females have different physical fitness requirements. If a woman takes the same physical fitness test, does all the same exact training, and lugs the same weight pack for a forced march, then I have no problem with her being a rifleman.

The other problem, is our culture says we need to be nice to women, open doors for them, do the heavy work for them, protect them. It's this conflict between the two that really creates the problem, IMO. I even think that the majority of feminist activists want it both ways....they want the equal pay for equal work (which it should always be...especially in the corporate world, where there is some level of equal work!!!), but they also still want to be placed on a pedistal to some extent.

At least in terms of the combat arms (infantry, armor, artillery, etc), getting women into the front line troops will be very difficult.

You named two problems, Justin, but I propose that there is a third that is even more important than those two.
Men, as a general rule, don't get raped repeatedly when captured; women do.
A squad or platoon or company is no different in psychological make-up toward their women than a troop of chimpanzees. They will protect their women and throw caution to the winds when one of their women is being held captive and raped by the enemy. It's an affront to the masculinity.
The enemy could use this very effectively.