All right. We're worried about two different things here. To twist your analogy, I'm worried that when the running woman gets to first base behind the running man, she'll get chosen anyway. Being naturally cynical, I'm absolutely sure this will happen at some point, and when it does, it will decrease the effectiveness of our military by some iota. I agree that women should get the chance to run -- everyone should (although I find it bizarre that what I'm actually saying is "everyone should get a chance to be killed on foreign soil").
Nothing bizarre about it - you're recognizing that women are entitled to full citizenship. And that's what we're talking about here: the recognition that there is nothing inherently inferior about women. Skills- and strength-based occupations should (and are) remaining skills- and strength-based occupations, but there is no longer an arbitrary reason why half of all Americans cannot try out for those occupations. You see this in terms of affirmative action - which is all about providing opportunities for underserved minorities in order to equalize inequality across socioeconomic strata. This is very much not that. This is about desegregation, pure and simple - this is the National Guard in Alabama so that George Wallace doesn't turn the fire hose on those kids trying to go to high school. Are they guaranteed graduation? Fuck no. But they sure should be guaranteed the opportunity to fail.I agree that women should get the chance to run -- everyone should (although I find it bizarre that what I'm actually saying is "everyone should get a chance to be killed on foreign soil").
All fair. I do think that we sometimes forget that there are things inherently different about women and men, and that sometimes remembering that difference gets twisted into sexism. But perhaps that's a separate discussion. I always enjoy discussing things with you; thanks for the perspective.