I'm actually a bit surprised by the "less accurate" finding. It's one of the few areas where physical strength isn't the primary factor and females in general terms are more receptive to correct instruction than many of their male counterparts who believe they were born knowing how to fire a weapon. I would have thought this would be one area where everyone is "about equal."
I'm still in favor of volunteer females being able to qualify for any area of military service where they can satisfy identical performance standards. If somebody wants to serve, if they are willing to put their own life on the line, anyone who qualifies should be permitted.
But if you cannot carry the fire hose, you aren't much good at a fire and you need to stay out of the way of those persons who can carry the fire hose. That includes quite a few males who cannot satisfy performance standards so that is what genuine "equality" looks like.
That is just one of many reasons why I'm not a Delta operator. Because if just anyone was allowed to do it, and if they came up with special standards for guys who can't carry a lot of stuff for a long time, it sounds like it would be a lot of fun to shoot Bin Laden in the face and stuff like that. So if arduous qualifications such as basic Q, keep me from being a Delta dude, then the ladies who can't meet basic 0311 qualifications need to accept it as well.
I admire all that try, but nobody who satisfies the minimum requirements should have to suffer the liability of somebody who could not. If a bunch of women Marines got killed because they were in a platoon full of Paul Reuben's there would be no end to the outcry that followed.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
Bookmarks