View Single Post
Old 01-04-2013, 01:57 AM   #22
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Err. To put this in perspective, there is a big difference between your career in combat and your career in support. Sergeant, for example, is something most combat guys achieve in 3-5 years. It's closer to 5-9 years for support. 80% of the highest ranking soldiers are from combat careers. It's not that there is a bias, it's that combat careers have priority access to the best schools and training because they need it more. A cook doesn't need sniper school, or master gunner, or air assault, or ranger, or path finder, and a commander is fucking high if he ever sends one; he's less likely to succeed because of the necessary skill sets in training and he'll never use it because he's still a cook. Those schools are the hardest and when looking at two people for promotion, the one who has completed the hard will get it. So aside from this disparity in rank/career field, there is a huge disparity between gender and rank because of it. The army is 15% female, but only 7% of the highest ranking soldiers are female. They're understandably pissed off about it.

So yeah. The question is "Are women worth that risk?"
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote