Locobot

I doubt such a bill would pass constitutional scrutiny if a woman decided that she actually did want to serve on the front lines. Who knows? I think this is basically already military policy, women are left behind when entering areas of definite hostility (e.g. Fallujah). I think that this is the impetus behind the bill, or at least I heard as much on the radio. It causes those units who have to leave women behind to be under-staffed (undermanned?? hehe). I suppose it comes down to a definition of "front lines." Such a term is pretty archaic and insufficient to describe the type of warfare we face in Iraq, at least.

The notion that having women on the "front" will cause the men to lose their brains and become inefficient soldiers has been proven incorrect time and again, including in our excursion in Iraq. Also the idea that women are somehow physically less-able than men to conduct almost any task of modern warfare is patently false (ditch digging excepted). Is there a great amount of hand-to-hand combat in going on? Really? That runs counter to my impressions. Women tend to be excellent markspeople and are just as capable as men of being conditioned to squeeze that trigger when required.

There are real physical differences between men and women; I won't deny that. I wouldn't advocate that every job and unit in the military be thrown wide open to women, or something silly like a quota system. But I am in favor of women women taking a wider role in the military and, (here's the kicker) being eligible for selective service (the draft).

Don't you all know a man who is such an whiny weakling that you would be scared to enter a war with them at your side? Don't you all know women who are tough and level-headed enough that you would gladly fight beside them?

Women's Lib is an advancement that our society possesses. The status of women has not progressed as far in many of the cultures we find ourselves pitted against. This is an advantage, we should treat it as such.