It's not the women in combat that's the problem, it's the lowering of the standards to let them enter combat arms MOS's.
There's no women's league war, sorry girls.
The hard wall of reality about humping gear that's crippling fit young men will hit home right fast.
Never mind chores like breaking track or loading heavy cannon and howitzer projectiles.
Combat MOS's are 90% strong back and weak minds. In the 10% that needs sharp minds, where women are equal to men, it's not a problem. But it's not most of the task, is it?
Extrapolating that since woman are successful at the combat aviation job they'll be good at infantry just doesn't add up.
I'd also like to bring up the cost-benefit of separate berthing and plumbing that always accompanies mixed sex units. It costs more to have and it forces a fixed percentage mix of sexes based on the available facilities rather than eligible candidates.
If 15% of your bunks, for example, are for women; then if your unit has less than 15% women it will be undermanned (pun). You can't put men in those bunks if there's only 10% women available. So you overbuild your barracks and bunkroom capacity to make sure there's enough people to do the job regardless of the gender ratio. That costs more.
I guess we could say "full equality" and go back to single bays and one latrine (head). But we're also going to have to address another cost of the mixed sex mil, that we're studiously avoiding every day from when we first decided women could serve non-combat roles. Tab A fits into slot A and everyone wants to complete assembly because they're going to be young, mostly fit, and hormonal.
Bing up "olympic village condoms" for another example of mixing the young and horny.
Tab A fitting into slot B and slot C is far less a problem because there's no pregnancy from that. Score one for gays in the military here, homosexual sex doesn't typically result in babies.
Cost-benefit.
Do the benefits offset the costs?
Are we being told what the costs and benefits are honestly?
There's no women's league war, sorry girls.
The hard wall of reality about humping gear that's crippling fit young men will hit home right fast.
Never mind chores like breaking track or loading heavy cannon and howitzer projectiles.
Combat MOS's are 90% strong back and weak minds. In the 10% that needs sharp minds, where women are equal to men, it's not a problem. But it's not most of the task, is it?
Extrapolating that since woman are successful at the combat aviation job they'll be good at infantry just doesn't add up.
I'd also like to bring up the cost-benefit of separate berthing and plumbing that always accompanies mixed sex units. It costs more to have and it forces a fixed percentage mix of sexes based on the available facilities rather than eligible candidates.
If 15% of your bunks, for example, are for women; then if your unit has less than 15% women it will be undermanned (pun). You can't put men in those bunks if there's only 10% women available. So you overbuild your barracks and bunkroom capacity to make sure there's enough people to do the job regardless of the gender ratio. That costs more.
I guess we could say "full equality" and go back to single bays and one latrine (head). But we're also going to have to address another cost of the mixed sex mil, that we're studiously avoiding every day from when we first decided women could serve non-combat roles. Tab A fits into slot A and everyone wants to complete assembly because they're going to be young, mostly fit, and hormonal.
Bing up "olympic village condoms" for another example of mixing the young and horny.
Tab A fitting into slot B and slot C is far less a problem because there's no pregnancy from that. Score one for gays in the military here, homosexual sex doesn't typically result in babies.
Cost-benefit.
Do the benefits offset the costs?
Are we being told what the costs and benefits are honestly?