Eske, Star Breaker wrote:
There is an active fight going on to allow women to serve in the exact same capacity as men. It's going to happen, too; the role of women in the military expands almost yearly.
So much for that counter.
Even still, there is a clear and logical rationale for not allowing women to serve in a full capacity: differences in physical strength. It will likely make a difference in lives lost. I understand that. But there isn't a good reason for not allowing homosexuals to openly serve.
So much for that counter.
Even still, there is a clear and logical rationale for not allowing women to serve in a full capacity: differences in physical strength. It will likely make a difference in lives lost. I understand that. But there isn't a good reason for not allowing homosexuals to openly serve.
There is an overwhelming and obvious reason for military personnel to fulfil minimum physical fitness and health standards. It would be fair for front line combat soldiers to have one set height/weight/strength etc rule that the soldier must meet. What-ever gender, whatever race, whatever religion, whatever sexuality, if you meet the physical specs, you're in.
As a woman, I would not be offended if it was the physical specs requirements that kept women as a minority number in the front line. It is not just average height difference. Women and men usually are anatomically different in where their major tendons and veins are situated on their bodies, giving that average %10 difference in strength between the two major sexes.*
*I make this qualification because the increase in Endocrine Disrupting substances from crude-oil derived chemicals has resulted in an increase in inter-sex births to 1 in 1000 in Britain, and probably a similar number in other countries, with higher numbers near the poles due to activities of the natural food-chain.
