Also it just really means they can't get medals, specialist positions and promotions related to combat. The combat has been coming to them for some time now.
It has. We've had women not only under fire (and returning fire, despite not being equipped as well as "real" combat troops,) but also being blown up by IED's and the like. They've been out there, living, fighting, and dying beside men, but because they have tits, they're simply not eligible for the same benefits the guys are.
merry_and_silver said:
I'm not pleased to see anybody else in combat. This is not something to celebrate, in my opinion.
Stopping other people from doing things you don't like via discriminatory laws based on their race, sex, or sexual orientation isn't a good thing, in my opinion.
Was it a good thing that women served in German death camps? If not, then you accept the premise that there are some things that nobody should do, male or female.
This is a similar argument to the one so often used against gay marriage:
government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, they say,
so let's not expand it to cover gay marriage, as well.
Which is... okay... except, in the real world, government IS involved in marriage, so when you deny it to gay people based on the above "logic," you're actually endorsing discrimination, and setting up a situation where one group (heterosexuals) are enjoying rights denied to another (LGBT.)
We already have combat troops. That's not likely to change any time soon. And we already have women in the military: also not likely to change any time soon. You might WISH we didn't have need for either, but in the real world, we do. And as of yesterday, in the real world, women were getting a damned raw deal based on nothing more than the fact that they were women.
If this is something to celebrate, then so are the activities of the American military.
Disagree. My stance on this has nothing to do with how much I approve or disapprove of anything the military has done. It's about nondiscrimination.