equality in military service.

Anyone that knows me knows that I am a vet, and now those of you that didn't know, now do.

that having been said, i have adopted certain values because of both my service, and because of the  influence of my jrotc instructors, Col. Jones, and Csm Garcia, from high school. i was taught that the army exists to protect the constitution, and the values within the document. I was also taught that double standards are unacceptable, as that is the quickest way to create unjust situations.

Unfortunately, the ideals of the military are not being upheld. We still have a problem with people trying to keep gays and lesbians out of the military they are volunteering to serve in, we keep women from serving in combat arms, and we have diffetent standards for women than we have for men.

The arguments against letting gays and lesbians serve openly usually boil down to one of two equally fallacious arguments. Those arguing to stop them from serving either argue that there will be a 'breakdown of unit cohesion," or cite religious reasons. The first has been dis-proven, as gays and lesbians currently serve, just not openly. The reason that this serves as evidence that the claim is false is that there has been none of the alleged 'breakdown of unit cohesion," and therefore, how could theur service create the alleged result. As for the reasoning of " they might make a pass at me" or " what about sexual assault?" Well, sinse it hasn't happened, it is unlikely to happen just because they are allowed to serve openly.

Another counter to the claims of allowing gays and lesbians to serve  having a detrimental effect is simple crime statistics, which show that sexual assault is predominantly committed by 20 something white heterosexual males, out of proportion to their portion of the population. This includes same gender sexual assault.

As to the religious arguments, the first amendment's establishment clause is pretty specific on that, and it isn't allowed as a reason to bar them from service.

As for a very good reason to allow them to serve, it is the core of military values, a value so vital to the army, that the Drill sergeants wear it as their badge of office, The United States constitution. In the constitution, it states that ALL citizens are guaranteed the full and equal protection under the law. This has NO exceptions, and is one of the few parts of the constitution that is absolute.



Now, as to allowing women to serve in combat arms, I am for it, but with one qualification, the women need to meet all of the standards that the men do, and at the same level as the men. This means that they need to have the same marksmanship scores, the same roadmarches, the same pt standards, everything barring those things that are to prevent sexual harassment and/or hygiene issues.

Women have repeatedly proven themselves to be as professional, dedicated, strong, and tough as the men, we just need to make it so that the standards they are expected to meet reflect that. It is the biased standards that will guarantee a brakdown of cohesion, as it is unjust to allow women to perform duties without proving themselves capable.

This is because it takes a certain personality to do a combat arms job, and this personality has little respect for artificial authority. This is especially true in the armor community, which I was/am a part of. We are a very independently-minded group, an as such, the shiny on your collar has little bearing on the respect you receive, you have to prove yourself to those you serve with before you can have their full respect. Putting women in that sort of unit, without holding them to the same standard puts the m at a disadvantage in regards to earning this respect, as they have to both earn the respect, and overcome the perception, real or otherwise, that she did not earn her position, but was given preferential treatment.

The differing standards for women are not limited to job qualifications, but also to other aspects of life. One example is pregnancy. If a male soldier knowingly and or intentionally commits an act that they know will make them unable to perform their duties, they will be punished for doing so. If a woman gets pregnant, however, she is able to ask for light duties, and is undeployable. Thisresults in women being able to commit the same act as a man, but recieving a different treatment as a result.
Before anyone starts going apeshit over "women's rights," remember, the woman made a conscious, informed decision to enlist, and noone coerced her into enlisting. She made a decision that had an opportunity cost attached, either she can be a soldier with all of the commitments that come with being a soldier, or she can start a family with all of those commitments, but not both as the commitments conflict with one another.
Another double standard is hygiene facilities, women are given preferential treatment when access to showering facilities are limited, while male soldiers have to make do, often with extreme regulations on when and where they are allowed to bathe.

All of these double standards are problematic because the military exists to safeguard the constitution and it's values, but those values are not being applied to the military. It is time to fix these problems and create a better, stronger military.