Breaking on the wall of equality

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The idea that the US is now going to put women into combat roles has many people on both sides of the issue up in arms, enjoy the pun.

Me? Aside from being opposed to war, I have no problem in seeing a lady take up weaponry. It happens every day in this nation. It happens daily in the small Southern town in which I live. We have ladies in the police department and the Sheriff's department and the state prison. If we are willing to let a woman pack and be part of a law enforcement agency and run the risk of being killed in the line duty, then why object to them serving in the military in combat roles?

A myriad of reasons. Women in LE get to go home at end of shift. Combat troops don't. Hygiene; if you don't think that's a problem, ask some 'Nam combat vet. Average physical ability; on average, men are stronger than women. Beyond average, even the world's strongest woman won't compare to the world's strongest man. There's a reason the world's strength and endurance records are held mostly by men.

And yadda yadda yadda.

Beyond that, women have been part of military forces for as long as the world has seen military forces. So neener, neener, neener.

What this comes down to, at least to me, is equal opportunity. I am firm believer in equality of opportunity. I believe everyone should have the right to try. I believe the rules should also be the same, no modifications whatsoever, if the goal is going to be the same.

If modifications are necessary to let someone try, then the goal should likewise be modified.

Someone here is going to scream that defeats the purpose. The purpose of what, I ask?

Equality! they will scream. That's what you just said you favored! they will yell.

No, I didn't. And while I'm here lemme state, again, for the record I do not believe in equality. It's a nice fantasy to have, but living in the real world as I do, I cannot accept the notion of equality. For instance, my son Jesse has a functional IQ of between 50 and 75. He is not the intellectual equal of a Rhodes Scholar and trying to make the two equal is beyond ludicrous.

I really don't even believe in equality of opportunity. I believe in a qualified equality of opportunity, i.e. when there is an intelligent chance of successfully reaching the goal. I believe it is beyond stupid to let a wheelchair-bound person attempt to compete in the Olympic High Jump trials. Letting that person compete, as I understand the Olympics, means a person who realistically can compete is prevented from doing so.

That's a forced equality resulting in inequality. I object.

But when it comes to women in the military, let 'em I say. Equality of opportunity with an intelligent chance of success. If they can hack it, great. I have interviewed ladies in our military who were in combat situations in everything but what our US military calls a combat engagement. Works for me.  Unfortunately in this case, equality of opportunity also means unequal opportunity to share the pain. Dang that reality! Still, if women are willing to face an expanded set of risks brought on by being part of a war combat force, good'un onya I say.

Fantasy world

The screaming problem with this is women who think they will be equal to men in war are delusional.

Say what, Baker? you ask.

Did you miss it? I said "expanded set of risks." It's that damned PIA thing called reality interjecting itself again. F'dang. Can't escape it.

There ain't no equality. Women prisoners of war are often subjected to different treatment than men. Far be it from me to say women couldn't handle the same treatment as men. But it will be different. Still, if they are willing to run that risk, let 'em. Just don't come howling at me when women are treated differently in combat by the opposition.

There ain't no equality and attempting to force equality is going to break the one forcing it. In this case, gonna be some women broken to pieces they will never conquer.