WOMEN IN THE ARMED FORCES

The decision to put women in the armed forces was based on an agenda, not need. When the US government started putting women in the armed forces, female GIs did jobs previously handled by civilian employees of the armed forces and the difference was the uniforms. Even today, the truth about women in the military is kept under wraps because disclosure of the whole truth could incite public outcry against putting women in the armed forces.

Consider:

• The enormous cost of accommodating women makes it impractical to put women in the armed forces. (Pregnancies, hygiene issues, physical limitations, etc.) For example, GIs getting sick, injured, or wounded is inevitable and a gender-neutral problem, but the enormous cost of transporting numerous pregnant GIs from combat zones or hardship tours to the States or from ship to shore every year is not a gender-neutral problem and is inevitable when the genders are integrated.

• Putting women in the armed forces produces a situation in which female GIs can and do use false accusations and the threat of accusations to gain unfair advantages and special rights, or women receive unfair advantages and special rights because of the possibility of accusations, especially since a mere accusation of harassment, discrimination, assault, etc., by a female GI can be a career breaker for a male GI regardless of facts or lack of hard evidence. (Although affirmative action has enabled some GIs to get away with crimes involving racial differences. Further research is encouraged.)

• Even if they are capable and able-bodied, the inevitable sexual tensions and sexual relationships between members of a military unit or organization have a devastating impact on discipline, morale, cohesion, and effectiveness.