But if physical strength matters at all should the military not disregard gender entirely and only allow strength as a qualification? A gender-blind strength-based army is probably going to be something like 80/20 male/female. Put another way, it's true that "combat role" means more than "brute strength is necessary all the time" -- but is having strength ever going to hurt? When lives are at stake I feel like erring on the side of caution is probably for the best. Equality for the sake of equality is all well and good until it costs lives.
Couple things: 1) Physical strength requirements are, like all things military, carefully and concisely laid out for all specialties within the military. That hasn't changed. No one has said it has, no one has said it will. 2) "Combat roles" are not related to strength, they are related to an expectancy of being shot at. Jessica Lynch wasn't in a "combat role" when an RPG blew up her truck in an ambush - she was an equipment specialist in a combat maintenance battalion that was part of a convoy that got lost. So riddle me this: how is a system where women can get blown up by RPGs (Pvt Lynch lost her best friend Lori to a head wound in the same engagement, in which eleven were killed and six were captured) is A-OK by you, but a system in which the "combative" nature of their enrollment verboten? Because that's what we're talking about here - not whether or not women can serve in the military. Not whether or not women can be deployed to a hostile theatre. Whether or not women can: Source This is literally a discussion of whether or not women can be special forces - which already have stringent physical fitness requirements. Rather than a flat "no" the answer is now "you'll have to work for it." Just like everyone else. TL;DR you're not even asking the right questions PS. Armor? Try and tell me women can't drive tanks because they aren't strong enough. Soviet tankers were limited to 5'9" because Soviet tanks were smaller as part of their strategic battlefield plan.be assigned below the brigade level -- a unit of about 3,500 troops -- to fight on the ground. Effectively, that has barred women from infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers and special operations units of battalion size -- about 700 troops -- or lower.
From the Panetta article: Fine. Gender-neutral, gender-blind changes -- these cannot hurt the military if they are followed. But when affirmative action was introduced, if the supporters had been asked, "Will this at all lower the intelligence level of our higher education system by even once substituting someone less intelligent on the basis of his or her race?" -- what would they have said? Apparently I'm not asking the right questions. Here's one: will this at all lower the effectiveness of our military by even once substituting someone less combat effective on the basis of gender? I hope not, and from what you've written I guess you believe it won't.For instance, the defense official said, it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral.
PROTIP: The constitution does not apply to the armed forces. There is no habeas corpus. There is no 1st Amendment. There are none of the niceties we take for granted. So when the AEC tells you it's perfectly safe to charge into a nuclear blast, even when you prove in a court of law they were lying to you they get to say "too bad, so sad, shouldn't have joined the Army." Affirmative action has nothing to do with it - Affirmative Action is all about recognizing that some people face more hardship than others (theoretically). Al Franken's analogy is the best I've found for the theoretical basis for AA: "Women in the military" isn't about "women need a leg up in order to compete with men for military jobs" It's about "women need to not be dismissed by edict." To use the baseball analogy, it's allowing both people to run even though one of them is a girl.Consider two baseball players who tie in a race to first base. However, one runs with perfect form while the other runs awkwardly. Which do you choose? You choose the one who runs awkwardly because when you teach him good form, he’ll run faster than the other player. Black Americans are nothing but awkwardly running baseball players, so affirmative action is justified.
All right. We're worried about two different things here. To twist your analogy, I'm worried that when the running woman gets to first base behind the running man, she'll get chosen anyway. Being naturally cynical, I'm absolutely sure this will happen at some point, and when it does, it will decrease the effectiveness of our military by some iota. I agree that women should get the chance to run -- everyone should (although I find it bizarre that what I'm actually saying is "everyone should get a chance to be killed on foreign soil").
Nothing bizarre about it - you're recognizing that women are entitled to full citizenship. And that's what we're talking about here: the recognition that there is nothing inherently inferior about women. Skills- and strength-based occupations should (and are) remaining skills- and strength-based occupations, but there is no longer an arbitrary reason why half of all Americans cannot try out for those occupations. You see this in terms of affirmative action - which is all about providing opportunities for underserved minorities in order to equalize inequality across socioeconomic strata. This is very much not that. This is about desegregation, pure and simple - this is the National Guard in Alabama so that George Wallace doesn't turn the fire hose on those kids trying to go to high school. Are they guaranteed graduation? Fuck no. But they sure should be guaranteed the opportunity to fail.I agree that women should get the chance to run -- everyone should (although I find it bizarre that what I'm actually saying is "everyone should get a chance to be killed on foreign soil").
All fair. I do think that we sometimes forget that there are things inherently different about women and men, and that sometimes remembering that difference gets twisted into sexism. But perhaps that's a separate discussion. I always enjoy discussing things with you; thanks for the perspective.