My point is that I can support them and not wish for there to be any barriers in their lives any more than I wish for there to be any barriers in my own daughters lives and still accept that there may be legitimate, practical reasons for those barriers to remain in place (at least at present). I trust in the unbiased professionalism of the modern Army leaders making those decisions who are trying to do what is "right," even if it is unfair to some...even f it is unfair to my daughters. I hope that makes sense to you.
I think that is the crux of the two sides. It appears to me that this is 2 different views. One is emotional, one is practical.
Every parent of a DD would want them to have every right and opportunity that their male counterpart has. This is the emotional side.
The practical side says, wait a minute, I also have a DS and I know without a doubt that my DD could not save him. Our DD is 5'1, her brother is 6'3. Her brother would be required to perform at a different physical level than her, solely based on an XY over an XX genetic marker. Expand that thought to he is not her brother, but someone else's DS. His life is in her hands. She is required to perform at a lower level than any male. How as a parent can you feel comfortable knowing someone else's child died because of this inequity? Would you not wonder if their crew mate was a guy that your child may still be alive. This is not about shooting a gun. This is about physical ability.
Here's my scenario:
A car drives up and you are informed that your DS was killed. They explain his heroic actions of staying in the back to never lose sight of the female member. Can you honestly state that you would not harbor any ill feelings to the military for allowing the female in combat because of PC reasons? Yes, to me it is PC to allow females to perform at lower physical levels. Could you attend the funeral as the parent of the female soldier without wondering if she ran at the male regs maybe there wouldn't have been a funeral? Or at least if she qual'd at their rate you and your DD would know that her physical abilities weren't an issue.
Practicality is different than emotion, unfortunately too many believe they are conjoined.
I loved every second of the AF as a wife, but I will not lie, as a wife who's spouse flew fighters it bothered me when he flew with females. I had no problem or fear that they were not the best of the best. I have met many of them, and I know that the ones that did make it into that world were typically 10x better than the guy. My problem is the discrepancy in physical requirements. Bullet is 5'11 and 190 lbs., because of the physical discrepancy for quals., that female has a lower bar to pass and it was my husband's life in their hands. Our DS is 5'9 and 150 lbs, he is intending to fly in the AF. His stature is comparable to many females, but he will be required to perform at a higher level than any female.
I want someone to finally explain and defend to me why women should be allowed to perform at a lower level when they will be responsible for someone's life. I get you have a DD and want her to have her dream, but her dream has life and death impact. Will you feel her dream was worth it when you see the children of the dead family member because she got in at a lower physical test? That is practicality. Death happens even on training missions.
Sorry, but as a woman, I don't by the BS that we can't run as fast or lift as much. Check out the NYC marathon and you will see that the fastest woman beats out men. It is just BS. If you want to play with the boys than you can do it. The worse thing that ever happened to military women was Shannon Faulkner. She could have been the shinning light to prove her sexist the military is, instead she failed. When you are done checking her out check Jeannie Flynn. She understood the weight she carried and she was our shinning moment. The other was Fifi Malachowski, the 1st female Thunderbird.
