âU.S. military leaders on Thursday 01/24/2013 formally lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta saying women have become an “integral part” of the military and have already demonstrated their willingness to fight during the wars of the last decade.â
If this allows for âchoiceâ, then the pursuit of happiness, an unalienable and equal right, is certainly being served. This is not to say that equal rights are a guarantee for, that erroneous conclusion from a struggle that necessarily augurs for equal outcome.
Unanimity of men and women in battle is currently elusive; science may change this, it is as elusive as trying to equate men to women. They are not the same.
The pursuit of happiness is an unalienable right with an assurance of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Factors that favor a mismatch are formidable. Men and woman are not the same or equal in all things. Thus reasonable discrimination is not only justified, it is often prudent.
Good faith positions produce âpointâ and âcounter pointâ in a rational debate. There is a reason for the separation of professional men and women, roller derby, men and womenâs basketball, the Olympian men and womenâs decathlon, boxing and weight lifting.
If the men and women were to compete directly the outcomes are heavily skewed toward a defeat for women. The differences are for the clear minded not a matter of sexism, discrimination or prejudice. The argument is a simple matter of fact, the associated natural and evident discriminatory gender factors, with too few exceptions.
In the arena of gender factors we embrace height, weight, strength and endurance. The âWomenâs Bell Curveâ is to the left of the menâs. In todayâs hostile world, âboots on the groundâ, this might tip the fulcrum of victory to defeat. Every man is genetically programed to protect the âprideâ. To blunt that distraction is futile. Pray tell why Radical Islamist jihadists use women and children as shields. And this begets unbalanced, emotional ârules of engagementâ. Both women and children are sacred or they are not. One cannot prevaricate.
The answer might well be âlet equality of physical and mental warrior prowessâ be the template until science and the intellect makes that irrelevant. There is the serious pregnancy issue, security versus social issue, the unalienable right to life of the unborn, abortion, infanticide versus radical insane progressivism. Never lower the standards of height, weight, strength, endurance and excellence in combat just to appeal to a âsocial consciousnessâ, âsocial justice engineeringâ, and put our nation at risk. The mandate, none the less remains, is anyone who meets these âcombatâ standards are never to be denied.
As âwar toysâ gravitate toward drones, robots and mechanisms of artificial intelligence, the fulcrum balances, may even tip in favor of our feminine intuitive side, also easily attacked as sexism. The capability of the âWizard of Ozâ behind the curtain is more appropriately the skill of the intellect, the ultimate leveler of all other factors of combat, the intellectual competitive capability and the opportunity, more a mental sub-set of wisdom and not an overwhelming physical quality.
This brings to mind Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, a kick-ass performance, the fight with the Queen Alien, the âAlienâ Series, Â is one of the most iconic movie moments ever, the mechanized robotics, the gift of âmore equalâ, a promise of the future, almost wins the day.
In this, not to distant world, within the walls of all possible sequestered safety, there will be no eminent physical edge, only the equal, level field of intelligence and wisdom. Then and only then, in this narrow sliver of exceptional arena of equals, where women and children are safely secured, is there no argument for rational discriminationâŚ..except extinction?
Where possible, take me before mine and yours, the women and children, should I be adequate, another prudent cause for discrimination.