Posted on 04/05/2018 7:10:50 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Well,he did succeed at widening the rage gap.
Until moral tanks because the women can't do the job.
My maintainers had a tough, physical duty that required much extreme physical work in temperatures from 100+ degrees to -35 degrees while having to lift or move large, very heavy, objects and also conduct precise tasks at the same time. The few women that were placed in the Branch did not have the muscle or stamina to perform the duty so we had to assign them back on base in the jobs that did not require physical effort. Those jobs were usually rotated so a Maintainer would get a much needed short break from constantly dispatching to the Field.
There was a lot of resentment as those women took up a valuable maintenance position but could not dispatch out to the Field.
They don’t want to fix anything. They just want to perpetuate the problem.
Obama only worried about , Islam ,Gay and Drive Jobs away
I can see some of that, of course.
There are always going to be women who aren’t up to snuff, and I agree with you that there ARE some missions that should be all male. I was almost always serving in a support capacity (Bullets, Beans and Gasoline!) so we had to be ready to travel to the front as that’s where we were hauling the supplies.
But, I’ve also been a Platoon Sergeant, ran a number of Admin Sections, worked for my state’s TAGO, was an Instructor, worked in a Medical unit, ran a TOC and an IT Section and set up and operated Family Assistance Centers during OD Shield/Storm. (’The Gulf War’)
Believe me, I’ve seen (and had to lead them until I could dump them) slacker men, too.
However, MOST people I served with brought a LOT to the table. I don’t EVER remember anyone complaining about the pay. Conditions? Yes. Pay? No, LOL!
Your mileage may vary.
I miss Army Life ever day. Every. Day. :)
It is leftist trope designed to pit people against each other.
In fact, I question the whole premise, that women are paid 70 cents on the dollar, or whatever the current figure is.
Use 70 cents as an example.
If women got paid 70% of what men earn, theoretically, no man would have a job anywhere. Why? Because the businesses would simply hire women for 30% less, save lots of labor costs, by not employing men at all.
As is true of many issues, liberals take some one liner, such as “women are paid less than men”, and do not investigate any of the nuances or complicated forces which make up our labor markets. They have no clue how wages and salaries for jobs are determined in the first place. They simply proclaim “woman are paid less” and say it must be discrimination. No investigation of details, no understanding of where this notion of unequal pay comes from. The liberals never even mention that paying a woman less for the same job is against federal law.
The infuriating thing is that the Left (the ones who have a brain, at least) know this well, but use it as a cudgel nonetheless.
I utterly reject diversity (sexual, racial, cultural, you name it) in the workplace because there is not an iota of evidence that intentional implementations of diversity does anything more than water down the competency level.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.