LarryW
09-08-2017, 04:43
(One day I'll write a book called "My Life Under the Bus" or "Never Mind Me, I'm a Box of Rocks". I'll probably catch hell for this, but what the hell.)
In the whole DoD there's evidence of problems when you put men and women together in close living situations, let alone combat. That was and continues to be a dumb decision. Sexual equality has nothing at all to do with meeting a military objective, and those who think the contrary need to take their heads out of that dark place. Society's embrace of a unisex world in which every biological element is perfectly the same doesn't change a few million years of evolution and happy procreation.
That being said, male and female persons also have different physical capabilities. You can ignore that but you'd be wrong again. That doesn't mean a woman doesn't have a role in fighting and winning a military objective. History is replete with examples contrary to the assumption that women can't be life-takers-and-heart-breakers (French Resistance, Russian snipers at Stalingrad, etc). The challenge for the leadership is finding the way to exploit those potentials to compliment a military victory. (And I don't mean slipping strychnine into the cookie dough or strapping a bomb to her chastity belt.)
What would it require to accommodate a woman (or for that matter a person of small stature)?
Define mission areas where women or persons of a smaller stature can make significant contributions to the objective. Heart often trumps muscle. Leadership has to know how and be able to use the resources they have available. Is that ever NOT the case?
Design equipment and weapon systems that can be managed by persons of a smaller and weaker physical stature. Expecting a woman to manage a 100lbs ruck sack or a .50 cal is stupid, but that person could manage a Remington 700 or a LAW. If you think a woman could never be trained to crawl through bug shit and mud to slit the throat of an enemy then your training plan is worthless and you'd be ignoring a valuable resource.
I tested a shipboard ammunition hold down system using four different sailors aboard ship, two full sized guys, a small guy, and a woman. All had trouble handling the elements of the structure, and that invalidated the design because it was supposed to be handled by all the persons assigned to that space. The woman was average in size but she had the heart of a lion. She wasn't shy of doing her damndest to make the things work as intended.
Systems and missions have to be configured to exploit the resources (materiel and personnel) you have. Leadership has to account for the capability and limitation of those resources. This isn't new. It's not rocket science. Come on, man!
JMHO…
In the whole DoD there's evidence of problems when you put men and women together in close living situations, let alone combat. That was and continues to be a dumb decision. Sexual equality has nothing at all to do with meeting a military objective, and those who think the contrary need to take their heads out of that dark place. Society's embrace of a unisex world in which every biological element is perfectly the same doesn't change a few million years of evolution and happy procreation.
That being said, male and female persons also have different physical capabilities. You can ignore that but you'd be wrong again. That doesn't mean a woman doesn't have a role in fighting and winning a military objective. History is replete with examples contrary to the assumption that women can't be life-takers-and-heart-breakers (French Resistance, Russian snipers at Stalingrad, etc). The challenge for the leadership is finding the way to exploit those potentials to compliment a military victory. (And I don't mean slipping strychnine into the cookie dough or strapping a bomb to her chastity belt.)
What would it require to accommodate a woman (or for that matter a person of small stature)?
Define mission areas where women or persons of a smaller stature can make significant contributions to the objective. Heart often trumps muscle. Leadership has to know how and be able to use the resources they have available. Is that ever NOT the case?
Design equipment and weapon systems that can be managed by persons of a smaller and weaker physical stature. Expecting a woman to manage a 100lbs ruck sack or a .50 cal is stupid, but that person could manage a Remington 700 or a LAW. If you think a woman could never be trained to crawl through bug shit and mud to slit the throat of an enemy then your training plan is worthless and you'd be ignoring a valuable resource.
I tested a shipboard ammunition hold down system using four different sailors aboard ship, two full sized guys, a small guy, and a woman. All had trouble handling the elements of the structure, and that invalidated the design because it was supposed to be handled by all the persons assigned to that space. The woman was average in size but she had the heart of a lion. She wasn't shy of doing her damndest to make the things work as intended.
Systems and missions have to be configured to exploit the resources (materiel and personnel) you have. Leadership has to account for the capability and limitation of those resources. This isn't new. It's not rocket science. Come on, man!
JMHO…