View Single Post
Old 01-04-2013, 02:27 AM   #24
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Again, to put this in perspective:

Another argument is that the plaintiffs are saying "Well, we do it anyway, but we don't get the benefits from it." It's mostly true. The DoD has indentified that females are an asset to operations in Afghanistan specifically because they are female. There is a big cultural divide in that Afghans don't typically interact with the opposite sex like we do. Combat guys can't talk to the women who the DoD sees as intelligence sources. Their response to this is to take female soldiers, train them to talk to women and gather information, then send them out with combat guys to do that. They're called Female Engagement Teams. So in doing this, they are exposed to some of the same dangers that their combat units who they're attached to are. They won't participate in attacks, but they're exposed to combat in the form of defense when the enemy attacks, be that roadside bombs or whatever.

So they say "If I'm going to be exposed to some danger, why can't I benefit from that like males can?" I think the problem with this is that they equate the danger they with accidentally being in combat with the danger that an infantry fire team faces with intentionally being in combat.
__________________
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