(September 11, 2015 at 11:21 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Because of the physical disparities overall, a higher number of women by percent will wash out of the training. This is okay with all involved, since it means that those who do graduate the programs will be the sort of elites needed for combat. It is to the advantage of the nation to have members in the Combat Arms career path who come from different backgrounds, who think in different ways, and who have a range of physical abilities and skills which can be integrated into an effective combat team. Elite female warriors may be rare, by numerical comparison to their male comrades, but they bring combat capabilities to the team which the men cannot, in the modern style of warfare, particular in conflict areas of the 21st century where the social structure of the nations being occupied prohibit men from interacting with women as sources of potential intel or to search for weapons.
I'm gonna point out a seeming contradiction here, and I may well be wrong.
How is it in one breath you are okay to say gender is not an issue, that people and their attributes are unique, the military should treat people as indivuals and assess them as such. But in another "women have combat capabilities that men do not"?
What are these capabilities besides a seemingly vague and/or relatively rare social scenario where 'men can't interact with women'?
I dont disagree with anything you said, but I'm not sure what exactly the point is in saying women bring things to the table that men can't, and in the same breath saying the judgement/requirements for them being there shouldn't actually have anything to do with that anyway.
