- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Messages
- 8,211
- Reaction score
- 4,179
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Perhaps, rather than penalize women by forbidding them jobs they're qualified for and want to do, men could be held to a certain standard of behavior, and made accountable for gross violations of said standard.
Do you know what the fog of war is? It's both figurative and literal, at least, in my opinion. The literal aspect refers to the unknown elements of warfare; the uncertainty, the ambiguity, whereas the figurative aspect (and this is my opinion) refers to the madness that results from war. Things happen strangely in war zones and not everything is what it seems. I know it's easy to box it in and classify every situation or eventuality with some kind of criteria, but that's never how it works in reality. Not justifying anything, but that's how things are sometimes.
In my humble, humble opinion, it boils down to a simple risk vs. reward scenario.
Reward: The numerical insignificance of females potentially capable of infantry service severely limits the reward inherent to such a policy.
Risk: Introducing the added element of human sexuality into combat units.
The choice is obvious.
"The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently — like the effect of a fog or moonshine — gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."
-- Carl von Clausewitz
After all, there are plenty of women in war zones.
If men's behavior is too "un-nice" to allow female soldiers to share the battlefield with them, then is it really appropriate to allow them around female civilians and their children and elderly?
Children and the elderly die all the time in wars. That's why we should try to avoid wars as much as possible.