Fine. One rule: Don't adjust any standards.
As long as what those standards are, is clear from the get go, that sounds good to me.
They're already clear, and anyone entering a general combat unit or special combat unit knows what they are going in. If they can pass the same muster as everyone else, I think even Shane would be happy to have them along.
I'm a big fan of girls, I'm not a big fan of gender normed PT standards. I'll be happy about it when they raise the female standards to that of males.
That was my point. Sorry, a bit unclear there.
Interesting, two observations:
1) I find it eternally amusing that, whenever this comes up in a news story, it's female Marines who get the photo.
2) Marines are the only branch which recently increased physical fitness standards for females.
Your #1 might just be because the Marines are the only service with sexually segregated basic training, hence the only photos your typical lazy photo editor can find of entirely female formations are those of female Marines.
I'm split. On the one hand, if women want to serve their country who are we to stop them?
On the other hand, I am nostalgic for the time when military service was primarily a man's pursuit. So I think if women serve on the front lines the standards should not be changed, as the others have pointed out. Hold women to the same standards as men and monitor the effect they have on the battlefield in integrated units. If they work out, they work out. If they don't, the ban (or some solution) should be reinstated.
The military should do what gets the job done; the mission has to come first. If women can do the job without compromising the mission so be it. Otherwise things have to change.
I agree in the sense that I, too, am split. If they have the cojones to fight in combat, sign them up. they can certainly take the place of men who cannot. However, I too have always felt better about an "all-male" military. I like the idea that men protect what is theirs, and the women support in whatever way necessary. But anyone, regardless of gender, who signs up for the military, do so knowing full well that they could see combat and they are willing to do if necessary. I also fully agree with the notion that because war has changed dramatically since the WWII era, many women are already seeing combat; and for that reason, they should be fully recognized for it. Obviously, the world is changing, it has been changing for some time now. But there are still things that men should be able to do alone, and they are increasingly growing fewer in number.
You know, there are many, many downsides to this. Rape. Murder. Torture. Kidnapping. Women (just like there are men currently) who think they are ready for combat when they are not. Not that these don't go on now, but they certainly don't happen as much as they will in the future. And the public outcry when these do happen in the future will be far greater for a woman than it will be for a man.
Moreover, I'm not entirely convinced that the female mind is fully capable of handling everything that goes on in war. Not that i have any experience, but war is a terribly gruesome hell, one that many people cannot get away from after it is done. Do we want this for our wives, mothers, sisters, daughters?
Furthermore, I can assure you that no matter how "gender-neutral" you make it, it will never be gender-neutral. The male "overseers" (for a generalized term - they can be a sergeant an officer, company commander, etc, etc) will always let the women get off easier than they will the men. This decision, to me, is one that is great in theory, but in actuality, not good at all. This decision will lead to an outstanding number of unintended consequences socially in the military from here on out. There are many intelligent people (both men and women) out there who I truly believe are fully capable of handling the responsibilities needed in combat. But there are also some very stupid people (both men and women) out there who will honestly not be able to rightfully handle the situation at hand? How is the VA going to handle PTSD? They are having a difficult enough situation with mostly males; they just doubled what was in their in box. If Washington was smart, they would actually interview the people in the field to see how they would feel about it. But no - that would be smart. Just get some lawyers who think they know how to fix things to just screw it up even more.
I guess my final beliefs are this: as a citizen, I agree with it, however, on a personal basis, I am against it. The Constitution should let all men AND women, regardless of any demographics, be equal on all playing fields. But that being said, do not let the slack go on the men to make it equal for the women. If women want to do this, they need to meet all of the standards of the men.
This was a Pentagon move, not Congressional.
True. Thanks for the correction.
1. I get the sense that you mean to say you are nobody to stop them. Damn true.
2. I also get the sense you think policy changes are infinitely reversible. Change something; see how it works; change it back; see how that works. Politics doesn't work like that. People have a kind of political education that almost never changes. There are political ideas whose advancement they serve relentlessly. A kind of frame of mind takes over & people can no longer see things as they were seen before.
3. But what really annoys me is how you talk in cliches. Do you also think in cliches? What is 'the mission'?
How do you mean, it comes first? Surely, what comes first in the American military should be civil control, not succes!
& in reality, surely what comes first is how the top brass think of their careers & occasionally something they think necessary for popular approval or some surrogate thereof, or rarely, for inside loyalty.