Killing At Home Jobs Has Started “Mommy Wars”

Mike

Women in combat? I served many years active duty Navy, and then the Army Guard while in college. I wish to apply my experince working with women in the service, and as a conservative, so please give feedback as I apply my reasoning. I am your student…

For the most part the female officers I served under were equals in professionalism to anyone else serving. Mayve less so for the enlisted ranks, but as a generality, males and females would perform similarly in MOST situations. However, one must consider some issues in physcial strenght, and stature. I have experienced this in the military with women, and their physical fitness levels, and physical abilities. With politicians pushing for political correctness, and feminization of the force, there have been effects on the military. For example, while in the Navy, women’s physical fitness standards where lower then men (less push ups, situps, or slower running times). I saw many examples of women who could not flake out a hose or carry heavy damage controll equipment when needed. This was compensated for my men general. Not to say they are not men who where overweight or out of shape and could not perform as well, or women that would be able to do so, but women where enabled to not have to do as much, as their standards were lower when it came to fitness. This may not be as much of a problem on a large ship or unit where there are others to compensate. Or with the female officer corps having a higher level of professionalism, and drive, so as my experience, they performed very well.
To consider women in combat units or even special forces, is a scary proposition. The differences must be addressed. My experience is that of LOWER physical fitness standards which enable a an acceptable lowered capability, the males will have to do more, and carry a larger burden. To be clear, with a history of allowing for lower female physical fitness standards, why would it be different now? So we put women in combat units who have on average 50% less muscle mass then men, and allow for them to not be required to keep the SAME standard as men. That is not equality. An infantryman must be able to carry a lot of stuff on his back for himself, and FOR THE TEAM, as the others in the TEAM must count on him (or her). To allow a woman in a role, but let her do less, or be less able and then say it is equality is not logical, ethical, or morale . It will lessen the ability of the unit to perform. ONLY if standards are kept high, and that women will have to meet those standards will it not effect the ability of the combat team. So women will have to have the same requirements as males, without lowering the standards to allow women to get into a situation that is detremental to the combat unit.
History and experience shows us that this is not the case. The standards have been allowed to be lower in the past, so why would it be different now?
I have one other issue, which is about selective service. As a point to feminsit, if all being equal, and the physical standards for combat units are not lowered, should we require then that females register for selective service? Why are not the feminist clamoring for this? Would it not signify equality? In 1979, wasn’t there a SCOTUS decision that did not allow for female selective service based on the combat exclusion? As there was such as decision, would it now stand that feminist would now want selective service for all women, and a possibilty of the draft, now that they can be in combat units? If women want equality, they should have it.. but I do not see this as about equality…