Replies

Disagree. Women have a long and proud history of support service in the military. You have a problem with my aunt, the retired nurse, with service in WWII and Korea, my sister-in-law, a jet repair technician, or our daughter, training for intelligence?

PLEASE read slowly: officials determined it would be "too risky" to allow women into ground combat roles

Which of the three examples you give were in ground combat roles? Further have you any idea what percentage we lose to pregnancy every year, ESPECIALLY when they are deployed and don't care to go?

Yes, I do have a problem with all women in the military. If the direct and undeniable result of their being there was not a gross lowering of standards, quality and morale, then I would only have a problem with them being shoved into combat. Their negative effects are both deleterious and undeniable. For just one of many good sources of non-PC truth read the book, Weak Link.

You have a problem with my aunt, the retired nurse, with service in WWII and Korea, my sister-in-law, a jet repair technician, or our daughter, training for intelligence?

Individual cases do not prove the rule. On the whole, the presence of women in the military does create inefficiencies. Women tend to get sick more often, are harder to deploy, and do not have the physical stamina and strength to match a man (e.g., in jobs that, while open to women, are physically demanding). Finally, pregnancy is a quick ticket home or away from the action.

In each case, the unplanned absence or compromised ability of a woman must be absorbed by the system--and usually by a man.

As a nation we have elected to eat these inefficiencies in a demonstration of political correctness, and because there are likely too few men willing to volunteer to carry the full burden of national defense. It doesn't matter in a real sense, because we will never return to an all-male military; that's just the way it is