re: Should we expand womens role in the Military?

quote:

---

I've heard this as a barracks tale, but in the 30 days we were at NTC in the bush, this never happened

---

I was stationed at the NTC for three years from 85-88. Saw very few women down range.

I have no problem with females serving but nothing gets a bunch of 18-21 year olds fighting faster than adding a few women to the mix.

quote:

---

Or should it continue to work pay and benefits?

---

Please explain how women do not receive equal pay. Currently it is against federal law to pay women and men different wages for the same position. The statistic pushed out to 'prove' women do not make as much as men do for the same work takes women's average salary vs men's average salary, and does not factor in industry, position, experience, job performance reviews, or any other factor, in order to slant the data.

quote:

---

On the other hand, if we embrace that women and men are not equal, how far does that go? Should it stop with military service and insurance rates?

---

In order to get my paycheck in the military, I had a harder set of PT requirements than the female officers. They needed only to match a fraction of my PT performance in order to receive the same pay/benefits.

Women get maternity leave, men almost always get no or a much shorter paternity leave. Custody courts in almost all states greatly favor women over men, regardless of suitability or stability. Women are allowed to accuse men of sexual misconduct, even years after the fact if they decide later that they regret a sexual encounter, with no proof required to completely destroy the man's life.

I'd say things are quite slanted, just not the way Lena Dunham thinks.

Not trying to argue over this...just pointing out the VERY slippery slope.

We have a society today that is making leaps and bounds to make men and women "equal", when I am not sure that it is achievable. But if you recognize that they are not equals, what are the limits to which we can differentiate?

Part of the problem is the false premise that men and women are the same. They're not, never have been, never will been. They are of equal value, but not the same. Feminism in the 60's and 70's sold our culture a bill of goods. Women were designed (by God or nature/evolution depending on whether you're a theist or a secular humanist) for different roles and tasks. Men will never be able to have a baby, naturally. Men will never be able to emotionally nurture a child the way a mother can. Women generally seem to be as smart or even smarter than men in my experience in many arenas.

That being said the male species will always generally be larger, stronger and physically faster with less emotional thinking than a woman which makes him more fit both physically and mentally/emotionally for roles like that of a soldier, police officer, protector of their family, etc. Listen, when there's a noise in my house at 3 am...I'm the one with a baseball bat wondering through my house looking for any danger, not my wife. That's not a choice we made or discussed, I just naturally am drawn to that role and my wife isn't. There are countless other examples of just how different we are as genders, equal, but very different. Those differences should be celebrated, not treated as a handicap nor should we pretend they don't exist. So to answer the question, no...women should not be on the front lines or in combat any more than I should be expected to conceive and carry a child. I wasn't designed for it, and if if the medical world could make it possible one day by altering me with feminine parts--it's still not something I was designed to do by evolution or God--depending on your worldview. We have become so "enlightened" we have become stupid.

If a woman can perform the same job as a man with no needed additional accommodations, there is no reason that they should be denied the opportunity to seek that role if they so desire it. However, with that being said, they must be held to the exact same standards as a man. Women should not be allowed to skirt the physical fitness requirements. That is just the soft misogyny of lowered expectations.

quote:

---

I said I was just fine with females being MPs..

---

I was just pointing out what being an MP might turn out to involve.

I've never been in; I have no idea how much of an outlier Sgt. Hester is, either in what her mission turned into, or what she did personally. I figure the military on this site would probably recognize the decoration in that picture, though.

And that's the gist of it. It's equal opportunity that's important, not a forced equality.

quote:

---

That being said the male species will always generally be larger, stronger and physically faster with less emotional thinking than a woman which makes him more fit both physically and mentally/emotionally for roles like that of a soldier, police officer, protector of their family, etc.

---

Don't bet on it. The longer we live in confined society where risk and hard labor are done by few so that many don't have to, and the more selective women can be, the more we will evolve to adapt to that society. That means that traits that helped us survive in the wild - strength, speed, etc - will give way to traits that make us good mates and fathers - more feminine traits.

I suspect that in a few thousand years or so, if we make it that far, women and men will be almost identical in physical attributes, except for reproductive ones.

quote:

---

I suspect that in a few thousand years or so, if we make it that far, women and men will be almost identical in physical attributes, except for reproductive ones.

---

Natural selection no longer applies to humans. Genetic modification and A.I. technology will determine the physical and mental characteristics of future humans.