Throughout this thread, you have nothing but say what a problem female military members are to the males.
That is incorrect. I have pointed out where the integration of the genders leads to problems, and pointed out that the combat arms cannot afford the distraction of these problems.
I don't see any trade-offs
You don't
want to see any trade-offs and so you are accusing those of us who have the experience to recognize that there
are trade-offs of perfidy. Look, if you
want the policy -
fine. But pretending that life offers us a free lunch and that there
aren't trade-offs,
especially when you have access to multiple experienced individuals who assure that there are, is using Hope in place of a Strategy. But Hope is not a Strategy and when we forget that in the military, other people pay the price for our mistake in very brutal ways.
I see the military wanting to accept more people.
The military would be accepting
less people under current projections, actually. The military has no intention of recruiting additional people in order to put women in combat arms, I don't think they even have any plans of increasing their recruitment of females - on the contrary, recruitment across the branches that have the highest portion of combat-arms (the Army and Marine Corps) is scheduled to drop sharply. The Marine Corps is going to go from about 202,000 to probably about 167,000(ish).
It isn't true. If those women can pass the same tests as the men, they are just as qualified and in some cases probably more so than a lot of the men.
:shrug: individually they will meet their individual qualifications. If combat were an individual sport, let them on in. But it's not.
As for all of this, you still haven't provided any links to support this. You can "claim" anything you want, and it doesn't make it a fact.
:lol: you want us to "link" our personal experience?
And plenty of them OBVIOUSLY can control themselves and do just fine.
:shrug: It's a margin question. Even the ones who themselves will not directly contribute to a breakdown of good order and discipline are going to have to deal with degraded teams, lost unit cohesion, the drama, cliques, etc.
You are applying the few problem people as if they represent the whole. These instances are RELATIVELY rare, and you cannot deny that.
I do deny that they are relatively rare. They occur in almost every single mixed-gender deployed unit that I have ever seen. I have seen precisely one mixed gender (non-deployed) shop that did not have drama from it, and the female in that one was a lesbian.
I don't know anything about that.
That's right, you don't. Because when it comes to how the military and the infantry actually operate,
you do not know what you are talking about. Now, that's not a bad thing - no one could expect you to. But it
does mean that maybe you should reconsider whether you really want to insist that your
uninformed opinion is so
obviously true that those who
do know what they are talking about are all
lying when they disagree with you on something.
What a ***** response. Oh, now you're using the "woe is me" tactic. Give me a break. Either argue the issue or back out of the thread.
For all I know you aren't even in the military.
:lol: yeah, that dog's not going to hunt for you. There are people on this forum who have known me for a decade now. They were there when I enlisted, when I went to Boot Camp, when I was posting live from Iraq, when I moved to Okinawa, you name it. Fakers don't sound like me - fakers sound like Joko when he's telling us about his buddy 'Rambo Norris'.
That's me and American - he came and picked me up from Dam Neck Annex when I was there for some training, we went to a wine festival.
So yeah. Going with the "well everyone who disagrees with me must be lying" routine... that's not going to work so well for you in this one.
You are
smarter than this, Chris. What gives?