3 ms·

I can imagine at least two possible reasons for such an approach. First, limitations of the author, who might be better acquainted with those historical periods

I can imagine at least two possible reasons for such an approach. First, limitations of the author, who might be better acquainted with those historical periods rather than the modern ones. Second, and more likely, they are using the periods of US history that everyone agrees were good and glorious to make a point that those great US moments would not be possible without inclusivity. After all, this is an opinion piece in a current debate and not an academic review on a historical development.

ggm 2y ago
Yes. Seems likely. Or, the editor wanted this length and they stopped in medias res. The later period however, might be the most informative for the current situation. The civil rights struggle and how the military reflected it (or not) Putting women into combat roles remains divisive. I haven't served, so I downgrade my own views but I think almost all of the objections are parochial, and wrong. Service people or veterans might disagree.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  > I think almost all of the objections are parochial, and wrong. What is the objective of a military, and specifically of combat units? Is it to accurately reflect the sexual and racial makeup of society or is it to defeat the enemy? Women can play a role in a military but a 55 kg woman will have a hard time moving her 95 kg wounded comrade in arms out of harm's way. She will struggle to march 30 km with a 12 kg SAW on her shoulder while carrying her personal equipment. Men are, on average, stronger and faster. It is highly likely that whatever opponents the military faces are male. These are not 'parochial, and wrong' objections but simple statements of fact. While a female sniper can be just as effective as a male sniper it is highly unlikely for a female marine or commando to be as effective as a male marine or commando since the former does not depend on physical strength or speed while the latter does.
- gostsamo 2y ago
  This is a personal blog with guests, so the editorial policy is not all that strict, I think.

ggm 2y ago

Yes. Seems likely. Or, the editor wanted this length and they stopped in medias res. The later period however, might be the most informative for the current situation. The civil rights struggle and how the military reflected it (or not) Putting women into combat roles remains divisive. I haven't served, so I downgrade my own views but I think almost all of the objections are parochial, and wrong. Service people or veterans might disagree.

hagbard_c 2y ago
> I think almost all of the objections are parochial, and wrong. What is the objective of a military, and specifically of combat units? Is it to accurately reflect the sexual and racial makeup of society or is it to defeat the enemy? Women can play a role in a military but a 55 kg woman will have a hard time moving her 95 kg wounded comrade in arms out of harm's way. She will struggle to march 30 km with a 12 kg SAW on her shoulder while carrying her personal equipment. Men are, on average, stronger and faster. It is highly likely that whatever opponents the military faces are male. These are not 'parochial, and wrong' objections but simple statements of fact. While a female sniper can be just as effective as a male sniper it is highly unlikely for a female marine or commando to be as effective as a male marine or commando since the former does not depend on physical strength or speed while the latter does.
gostsamo 2y ago
This is a personal blog with guests, so the editorial policy is not all that strict, I think.