What you're suggesting here does nothing to further that goal. It creates a lot of needless problems that almost certainly will hamper the effectiveness of our forces in future conflicts.
Honestly, not really. War isn't a game.This is nothing but your typical "boy's club" mentality. It's ridiculous, outdated and stupid.
Setting aside that in fact "social agenda" most certainly matters as we aren't a society that exists for the military, but the other way around, I suppose it is typical for low-rankers to bitch that the higher ups in the military don't know what they are doing. But, then, there are reasons those such as you were/are low rankers.
The level of troops the military needs to enlist varies greatly, mostly often due to whether or not the USA is at war. During Vietnam, the 1st war against Iraq and the 2nd, the military ramped up recruitment (and draft for Vietnam) - and lower standards. In other times, such as now, the military has more potential recruits than it needs - particularly when unemployment goes up - so has increased standards.
ONCE AGAIN, THE MILITARY HAS INCREASED THE STANDARDS FOR ENLISTEES, not the other way around as you lament. The military has increased the standards by what the military most has valued for many decades now.
Who do they enlist at the higher rank? A state wrestling champion? Or someone with ANY bachelor's degree? In fact, if those two enlist at the same time, the person with the BA will be a superior at higher pay than the more "powerful" wrestling champion. Everyone knows that too, but the reasoning is lost to you it seems. Even "in combat," it will be that college grad that will be ordering the wrestling champ what to do.
The military increased or decreased minimal requirements for enlistment, based upon need. The standards are adjusted up and down exactly opposite of what YOU claim the military needs.
At this time the military doesn't need a large number of soldiers, so it has RAISED standards. But the standards they raise and lower are intellectual and educational standards, not pull-up standards. So while you think what made you valuable was physical strength, the military does not - nor has it ever - based it's enlistment standards upon physical strength. It's enlistment standards are based upon level of intelligence and education.
Sure, having a military selection and promotion practice based upon intelligence and education offends YOU - and you RAGE that those in charge of the military does not agree with your view that what makes a good soldier is small brains and big muscles.
So rage on that the military should have 20 mile run and pull up contests to decide who runs the military if that makes you feel better about yourself. But there are reasons why guys like you never call the shots in the military. Guys like you were to follow orders of those big-brain officers telling you want to do with your muscles when you're over the wire they sent you over.
FOR DECADES the military has raised and lowered it standards based upon aptitude and intelligence, not muscle and brawn. And it will continue to do so.
THUS, since more women pursue higher education than men now do - as many men believe than being on the football team is a job qualifier - the military will more and more seek out women, because more women will be more highly educated than men. The military does not have a shortage of muscle-heads. They need brainy people. Either gender. Even in combat. Excluding women reduces the intelligence of the Marines by 50% - and they won't do it much longer.
Last edited by joko104; 11-26-13 at 11:32 PM.
Women can serve in the military now if they so wish. They are simply barred from certain fields because it wouldn't be a good idea for them to be involved there. I haven't seen any evidence to counter-act this claim.
Frankly, we'll probably have robots doing most of our fighting for us within a few decades' time anyway. There's really no point in throwing women in the mud to die to simply prove some completely asinine feminist political point.
There are plenty of jobs out there available to women which require that they use brains, not brawn. The infantry isn't one of them.
Some men are always going to be inclined to want to rape women. They are scum, and there generally aren't very many of them.And declaring they will rape women if in the service to keep women out sure as hell isn't going to work.
However, there are enough of them to put any woman exposed to a certain environment at unnecessary risk.
Frankly, rape by our own soldiers isn't even what I'm worried about here. What about the enemy?