"The truth about the military gender integration debate"

... women don't want to be equal "like that".

No mention of how basically wrong it is to force anyone, male or female, into combat or a combat role. It's only a problem if women don't want it, it seems.

Today's feminism: Equal (ie, more) rights, equal (only when we want it) obligations.

There, easy enough.

Does this mean that if a woman dies or suffers an injury, it's worse than if a man dies or suffers an injury?

Men are snowflakes.

Women are special snowflakes.

A million men die to save one woman. Fine by feminists, a more than even trade.

Never underestimate the power of nymphotropism.

Clearly there are individual women who can do any job in the military, from infantry to special forces operations, but if nearly all are unsuitable for these arduous tasks due to biology, then the military should not be a testing grounds. Every slot counts in war and there is no room for "well, you tried."

I read the article and I agree more than I disagree. She is supportive of women being drafted. Her concern lies with forcing women to equally represent in all military possitions. If that were to occur, there would be more injuries to women compared to men. Whatever the gender, more injuries means a weaker military, and more money, time and effort would be wasted. We would then have a ineffient military.

This is one of the scenarios when we have to face the fact that genders are not equal, so we have to decide if we treat them "the same", "equal" or "fair" because those terms are not synonymous. For example, if women are required to carry the same amount of gear and hike in difficult terrain, a woman will have more physical injuries because she doesn't have the same muscle mass, she has weaker ligaments and tendons. Even if a woman passe a physical requirement on a given day, it will take more work for her to maintain her physical state, so women's physical abilities are more apt to fade even if they once qualified.

related video (substitute "firefighter" with "soldier"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoHYa19T2OI

* re: the women attempting to break down a door, in real life a woman would be more at risk of a dislocated shoulder or fractured bones compared to a man.

... no exceptions. Wanna play soldier? Then play soldier, with all that entails.

No passes, no gimmes, no whining, "It might hurt." Yeah, we already know. Suck it up like a man, woman, and face The Reaper.

... wanna be treated like a man? Want to be regarded as equals? OK, then. Put on your boots and march. And die. Like men.

Otherwise, stop whining. I am DONE with feminist double-standards. Done.

'truth'

coming from a source like cnn, well,

as they say, 'consider the source'.

I have watched the military kiss feminists and minorities butts since I joined
in the late 70's. imho, all this feminist butt kissin' is just getting started.

the military has always been an easy way to get 'free stuff' by
enlisting, and then after a short while, faking an injury to get
permanent disability benefits. also, it has always bothered me that
I see mil. guys getting shafted by the crooked feminist courts on everything
from alimony to c.s. to false accusations of rape, molestation or d.v.,
and the military just buys into whatever comes along. unfortunately, while in the military, a guy's career is totally dependent on what his present c.i.c.
decides is fair. leaving people behind (Benghazi) to die and selling arms to
mexican drug dealers, then claiming 'executive privilege' to keep the amerikan sheeple from knowing the truth isn't 'honorable' behavior.

hate to know I would have to put my life on the line under the orders of what passes for cic these days. by putting crooks into office the 'people' show how little regard they have for our men in arms. looks to me like the promise of 'free stuff', especially gov. furnished benefits, rule the day, again.

and the free ride will only get much, much worse under a proclaimed feminist president. their history speaks for itself, for anyone not wearing p.c. blinders.

Like the article mentioned, if women are expected to fulfill military service during wartime, and they are biologically unable to do it, then we have to press them into non-combat (presumably less arduous) positions while men go into harm's way. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a problem since men were in the combat positions anyway, but I can see it resulting in some hard feelings. Maybe forming all-female units is the answer - but that does begin to sound like all-black units from the past.

I agree with your first comment and this part of your second comment: "if women are expected to fulfill military service during wartime, and they are biologically unable to do it, then we have to press them into non-combat (presumably less arduous) positions"

I think everyone should be expected to defend their freedom and fight to the best of their ability.

If I understand Matt correctly, he wants to see women represented 50/50 in combat positions. I don't agree; not to be favorable to women but because it will be inefficient and will lead to more deaths of both genders. We need military to be efficient.

(edit history: I deleted my original post and replaced it with this. similar post just worded better)

It sounds like you want to punish or hold feminist accountable to their word. I don't really blame you for that. The trouble I have with front-line military positions is, as you punish or hold feminists accountable, you put OTHER soldiers in danger. Think of all the male soldier's lives that will be sacrifised just to prove a point, is it fair to them? We need a strong and efficient military more than we need gender balance or to prove anything to feminists.

As I have said many times, I am for both genders being drafted, but I prefer to have all people working to the best of their ability and in a way that is most efficient. I don't see putting an equal number of women on the front lines good for anyone. I know you and I have gone round and round about this before and we wont change each other's minds so I'm going to try to refrain from responding to any more about this.

... has nothing to do with it. It's about equal responsibilities. Want to have equal rights? You need equal responsibilities. Wanna play soldier? That requires equal sharing of the dangers. That means combat.