Your replies are just as long - you've taken a bit of my day
I don't think you would be able to point to a single individual in this thread who hates the notion of equal rights for females. As I've pointed out to you a couple of times - quite the opposite.
Data has been produced both in the narrative and statistical form. Thus far you are desperately trying to find ways to ignore it.
That is correct. For example, one guy can sleep with another guy's wife - that is why adultery is illegal in the military, and you can be thrown in prison for it. In fact, actions that are prejudicial to good order and discipline are generally covered under the UCMJ and the unit can have you removed in order to keep you from causing strife.
1. I am not trying to put the blame on women. I am pointing out that them being there causes strife. It's no one's fault, it's just human nature. It's a reality that we all have to deal with.
2. The measuring stick isn't "gender", it's
do you contribute to the ability of a unit to act as an effective combat team. There are a whole list of items that will disqualify you from it - from color-blindness, to asthma, to being an adulterer, to being a woman.
That is incorrect - a unit only has so many billets, the women will
REPLACE men who are already/will be serving. And there absolutely is a trade-off; as multiple people who have
actually witnessed that trade off occur in real life have told you.
....did you miss the last 500 or so posts, as well as your own arguments? You are literally here telling us that our experience doesn't count, and now you claim we aren't even sharing our experiences?
:roll: I couldn't care one way or t'other about tradition, or family structure, or gender equality inside of this because my higher concern is making sure we aren't hindering our combat troops ability to function as a team, thus putting their lives in danger. I find your willingness to disregard the warnings of those who would
actually know that you are putting people's
lives in danger disgusting. I would think that at
least they have earned the decency of being taken
seriously when they make such a claim.
HAH - says the woman who not just a second ago was talking about how you are right because others are misogynists or traditionalists or whathaveyou?
That is incorrect - if you had bothered to actually read the information presented to you before trying to figure out a way to try to discount it, you would have noticed that those statistics for women breaking down
were of young healthy women who had passed physical fitness tests.
Actually she is - it's called a "stress fracture".
Which is irrelevant. So is being wounded - it is still a casualty and a loss of combat power.
8.5% casualties right out the gate is actually pretty serious. And you will notice in the link above which you also tried to dismiss that it's up to about 10-11% now. A battalion commander, for example, whose unit saw 10-11% deployment-ending injuries in training would likely be relieved of command for endangering his mission.
Significantly less than females - I apologize; my wife is asking me to go to bed: I will answer the rest of this on the morrow
But that is incorrect - you are explicitly claiming that we are incorrect, and that women will not in fact detract from unit cohesion in the infantry or become problematic due to greater absence due to medical concerns (to include pregnancy). You are, in fact, making exactly the same
type of observations and claims that you are demanding evidentiary support for from us. Either put up, or admit that the preponderance of evidence thus far presented in this thread supports the position of those who actually know what they are talking about.
And this. Since you are such an expert in our psychology, but apparently are unwilling to deal with the fact that in fact I treat women under my command the same as males, and have, at multiple times in my career, gone to bat for women under my leadership to see them promoted and even put into billets far exceeding their rank because I think they belong there, how about you
describe for us this bogeyman that you insist anyone who disagrees with you must be.