The All Things Political Topic - Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one

[Bartimaeus]

Short but salacious article about Mike Pence during the election certification process on the day of the insurrection.

Quote

After being taken to an undisclosed portion of the Capitol during the riot, Pence's Secret Service agents, whom Raskin suspected were reporting directly to Trump's security detail, asked him to enter an armored limousine. The intent, some have theorized, was to drive Pence away from the building, preventing him from certifying the election results, after he had signalled his unwillingness to go against his duties and keep Trump in power.

According to Tim Giebels, the lead agent inside of Pence's security on January 6, Pence repeatedly refused to be evacuated from the Capitol until the election results were certified, The Washington Examiner reported.

"I'm not getting in the car, Tim," Pence said, in response to Giebels' insistence that he enter the armored vehicle. "I trust you, Tim, but you're not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I'm not getting in the car."

Interestingly, it was reported via multiple news outlets on 2021 January 5th (one day before the insurrection) that Republican Senator Chuck Grassley had declared that he and not Pence would be the one presiding over the election process, because "we don't expect him to be there", and that he hadn't made up his mind about if he would certify the results.

https://politicalwire.com/2021/01/05/grassley-says-pence-will-skip-electoral-vote-certification/

If a greater attempt at a coup was ultimately aborted because of Mike Pence refusing to evacuate during an insurrection while knowing that he had to certify the election...well, uh, hats off to you, Vice President.

[Guest]

On 4/21/2022 at 4:12 PM, ShadySands said:

So when I was a wee lad way back in the dark ages of the mid to late 80s and early 90s I grew up with a kid that was very, very obviously different and often had a really hard time because of it.  Just because they were too young to be sexual at the time didn't mean that they and all the rest of the kids didn't pick up on the fact that they were different. I don't know anything about this bill but I do know that they got a lot of support at school from teachers, aides, and counselors and if they had not gotten this their life may have turned out more tragic than it already did, at least last time I heard about them, was probably a decade or more by now, they transitioned and were mostly disowned by their family and a fell into drugs and prostitution.

When I was in the 2nd grade, I went to school with this kid named Bobby. Bobby was clearly gay. Pick a homosexual stereotype, and he checked that box.

I think of Bobby any time the subject of whether or not sexuality is a "choice" comes up. That, and I don't remember what age I was when I formally picked my sexual orientation. Glad I made the right decision though.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Achilles
missing word

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Achilles said:

When I was in the 2nd grade, I went to school with this kid named Bobby. Bobby was clearly gay. Pick a homosexual stereotype, and he checked that box.

I think of Bobby any time the subject of whether or not sexuality is a "choice" comes up. That I don't remember what age I was when I formally picked my sexual orientation. Glad I made the right decision though.

Good point and true, only 5% or so of people who are LGBT are gay because of abuse

The rest are born like that and cant change it even if they wanted to, they can pretend to be straight but thats not the same thing

[Gromnir]

25 minutes ago, Achilles said:

When I was in the 2nd grade, I went to school with this kid named Bobby. Bobby was clearly gay. Pick a homosexual stereotype, and he checked that box.

I think of Bobby any time the subject of whether or not sexuality is a "choice" comes up. That I don't remember what age I was when I formally picked my sexual orientation. Glad I made the right decision though.

y'know, the thing am kinda confused 'bout is the weird preoccupation with indoctrination/wokeness and schools. 

obvious people has been concerned 'bout school indoctrination since before most boardies were born, but we always just assumed such enculturation/socializing were a fundamental quality o' education. in the US, particular 'round the 1960s or so, there were a general and nationwide effort to help kids overcome the baggage o' bigotry they likely had been shouldering 'cause o' past generations o' reflexive and unconscious prejudices. schools were integrated and teachers were encouraged to create classroom environments where races and genders were treated equitable. am curious why so many sudden think educators teaching kids to avoid bigotry along with chemistry and english grammar is unnecessary or even harmful.

am knowing have said this previous, but human brains don't fully develop until teens and as late as mid twenties, and one o' the last stages is the formation o' a personal sense o' moral responsibility and all the rationality and social navigation skills we assume adults should possess, but so few do.  schools get as much if not more chances to help kids develop social and moral as does parents and it would be gross negligent if educators treated schools as a lord of the flies or survival game scenario where other than teaching subject mater and maintaining classroom order, teachers allowed kids to teach themselves social etiquette and differences 'tween right and wrong. humans is by nature predatory social creatures who group for protection and target the weak, 'cause doing so is a good approach to survival. 'course this means kids who is different, weak, or part o' a minority group is likely to be the target o' all those base and vulgar behaviors parents pretend only other kids engage. 

as far as we can tell, perceived complaints o' wokeness in schools is an overt resistance to teachers being reasonable and responsible. generations o' familial and cultural bigotry don't magic disappear if educators take a hands-off approach in schools, promoting a state of nature environment where kids, freed from the immediate supervision o' their parents, make up their own programs o' enculturation and socialization. we want teachers to not only teach subject matter but to model appropriate social behavior, yes?

nevertheless, am getting how this happened. the current gop is 'bout grievance and outrage. working class whites is suffering right along with historical minority groups. those whites struggling to make ends meet are angry and rush limbaugh and steve bannon helped convince those whites that they is the real victims o' racial prejudice. the libs wanna save minorities by punishing whites, or somesuch. white privilege is a hard sell to those caucasians who can't find a decent factory job as did their father or has been in danger o' losing the family farm for decades. in 2022, every time a lib mentions race and in almost any context, the new reflexive reaction from working class whites is outrage, and professional whites is willing to be complicit.

check reactions to the recent Justice Jackson confirmation hearings.  lindsey graham, josh hawley and ted cruz were stoking anger and it failed with most Americans, but that don't mean they failed. those senators were only genuine speaking to those who need outrage. focusing on the Q favorite pedophile angle? point out a public defender defended terrorists? define womanhood? those avenues o' attack were not meant to resonate with white suburban woman, but the gop don't care. the gop needs the trump base to stay outraged, 'cause if they don't stay angry they is gonna realize those lib programs such as infrastructure spending and easing off the trade wars is benefiting them more than were than tax cuts for the rich. the gop is current beholden to maybe ⅓ o' their own party's voters and the recent (complete not surprise) reveals regarding mcconnell and mccarthy make it all too obvious that the gop politicians is all 'bout keeping the base happy regardless o' what they believe is right or good for the republic.

inflation should be enough to sink democrats at the midterms, even if the inflation is at least as much the fault o' trump and his fed appointees as it is biden's spending spree. even so, 2022 republicans don't have a real platform other than outrage and grievance. fiscal responsibility went out the window during the trump years. resisting authoritarians abroad, a gop hallmark since nixon has been replaced by the trumpy bromance with putin, xi and their ilk. trade wars 'stead o' free trade? w/o anything real, the gop needs to keep every voter and the only reason a significant number o' working class voters have for choosing the gop instead o' the libs is anger at socialism (but not real socialism), wokeness (whatever wokeness is) and planned parenthood. 

regardless, am genuine not understanding why woke educators is bad. teachers modeling non bigoted behavior and informing students 'bout historical evils o' government embraced prejudice were good for better than five decades, no? to Gromnir, such educational practices and goals sound positive.

so it goes.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

regardless, am genuine not understanding why woke educators is bad.

I guess is depends on how we're defining "woke". Like its forefather, "political correctness", I think there's a point where "genuine value" gets left behind and jockeying to find the most outrageous position possible becomes the point of the game. Sadly, the latter becomes the punchline and the former is left to the eggheads who care about thing like operationally defining terms.

Is it important to have an honest account of your country's history? Sure. Is it helpful to define it as a caste system? I'm not convinced. Are either of those endeavors on the critical path to fixing the things we need to fix to continue as a species? I'm willing to bet that they are not (hint: root cause of all our ills might not be poverty, but we won't be able to make progress on any of them until we fix that)

My 2 cents

[Gromnir]

40 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I guess is depends on how we're defining "woke". Like its forefather, "political correctness", I think there's a point where "genuine value" gets left behind and jockeying to find the most outrageous position possible becomes the point of the game.

is the crux o' the issue... if there is a real issue. am thinking "the point where "genuine value" gets left behind" is gonna be difficult to identify and highly subjective regardless.  given the nebulous notion o' the complaint, am thinking educators should be given broad latitude and nothing save genuine egregious should be subject to correction. from a rational and reasonable pov, am not seeing as a real issue save for fact that what should be at worst eye-roll fodder has been weaponized.

keep in mind, am thinking the white privilege stuff and the tendency to wanna decry every situation in which women or minorities do not achieve equal representation as deserving to be called racist is harmful. we want firefighters to be minimal capable o' certain feats o' endurance and strength regardless o' gender. reduce physical requirements just to get more women representation in a fire department with less than X% females is so not a win. regardless o' race, we want our doctor to have (better than) minimum qualifications, and if representation o' native americans is too low, we want the problem to be fixed before those native americans become doctors and not at the end o' the process. @Hurlsnot mentioned once how his students seeming saw racism in almost everything and am not sure this is a good trend, particular given how such has been used to polarize our society this last decade. like it or not, 'cause is a democratic republic, minorities need whites to bring 'bout positive changes and if a significant % o' whites increasing see any discussion o' race as adversarial, then change becomes less likely, yes?

even so, the trend o' complaining o' wokeness annoys us more than a little, and perhaps more than hurlsnot students and their ubiquitous perception o' racism. we can work with students being taught to see racism in every phrase or image. however, once you censor and self censor education so that mention o' any race issue which could make students uncomfortable is exorcised (and that is the language being used by a few state laws) the opportunities for enlightenment become far more limited.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Gromnir
spelling errors

[BruceVC]

35 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I guess is depends on how we're defining "woke". Like its forefather, "political correctness", I think there's a point where "genuine value" gets left behind and jockeying to find the most outrageous position possible becomes the point of the game. Sadly, the latter becomes the punchline and the former is left to the eggheads who care about thing like operationally defining terms.

Is it important to have an honest account of your country's history? Sure. Is it helpful to define it as a caste system? I'm not convinced. Are either of those endeavors on the critical path to fixing the things we need to fix to continue as a species? I'm willing to bet that they are not (hint: root cause of all our ills might not be poverty, but we won't be able to make progress on any of them until we fix that)

My 2 cents

Its not just unhelpful, its historically inaccurate to suggest the US was founded only on negative things like slavery, racism and warmongering ( or similar things)

It ignores the nuance and complexity of the myriad of historical factors that contributed towards the success of  the US today 

And when you ignore all these factors you will inadvertently create confusion and  a false narrative of " why are things the way they are today "  and that means you  will never meaningfully address things like inequality because your policies wont have the right information to address the right objective 

[Gromnir]

more trump funny before disinfectant day expires

am recalling our father, a couple years before he died, suffered a transient ischemic attack. while in the hospital post episode, dad were given the test trump describes as a prerequisite for being released.

the fact a trump doctor had this test administered is what should raise questions, but the former guy talks 'bout it as if he received the fields medal or a nobel prize.

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-24/scott-morrison-china-naval-base-solomon-islands-red-line/101011710

"Working together with our partners in New Zealand and of course the United States, I share the same red line that the United States has when it comes to these issues.

"We won't be having Chinese military naval bases in our region on our doorstep."

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Gromnir said:

is the crux o' the issue... if there is a real issue. am thinking "the point where "genuine value" gets left behind" is gonna be difficult to identify and highly subjective regardless.  given the nebulous notion o' the complaint, am thinking educators should be given broad latitude and nothing save genuine egregious should be subject to correction. from a rational and reasonable pov, am not seeing as a real issue save for fact that what should be at worst eye-roll fodder has been weaponized

Indeed it will be...as will "genuine egregious"

I think teaching young people how to view the actions of our country through a mature moral lens is a good thing. I think teaching people that systemic racism exists and needs to be dismantled is a good thing.

I think teaching young people that "words = violence" is a bad thing. I think that teaching young people that it's ok to destroy the lives of people you disagree with is a bad thing.

There are many more examples to cover, both beyond the reference points I've created here as well as in between them. Rational and reasonable people should be able to operationally define "genuine value"...but first we need to value reason and critical thinking and then make them cornerstones of actual education.

Final point here: I have a lot of respect for educators, but they are people too, just like the rest of us. They have their own biases and beliefs. Many of them are heroes. Many of them shouldn't be let anywhere near the levers of power I think you're proposing.

Again, my 2 cents

9 hours ago, Gromnir said:

keep in mind, am thinking the white privilege stuff and the tendency to wanna decry every situation in which women or minorities do not achieve equal representation as deserving to be called racist is harmful. we want firefighters to be minimal capable o' certain feats o' endurance and strength regardless o' gender. reduce physical requirements just to get more women representation in a fire department with less than X% females is so not a win. regardless o' race, we want our doctor to have (better than) minimum qualifications, and if representation o' native americans is too low, we want the problem to be fixed before those native americans become doctors and not at the end o' the process. @Hurlsnot mentioned once how his students seeming saw racism in almost everything and am not sure this is a good trend, particular given how such has been used to polarize our society this last decade. like it or not, 'cause is a democratic republic, minorities need whites to bring 'bout positive changes and if a significant % o' whites increasing see any discussion o' race as adversarial, then change becomes less likely, yes?

Agree with everything you're saying here

I think we will have a "perfect society" when everyone has an equal opportunity to do the thing they WANT to do rather than when all the flavors are doing all the things in equal number. The latter is a) too simplistic a definition for "equality" and b) sadly, the one it seems most everyone is interested in

As for the last part:

“What white people have to do is try and find out in their own hearts why it is necessary to have a 'n-----' in the first place, because I'm not a 'n-----'. I'm a man. But if you think I'm a 'n-----', it means you need it.”  -James Baldwin

9 hours ago, Gromnir said:

even so, the trend o' complaining o' wokeness annoys us more than a little, and perhaps more than hurlsnot students and their ubiquitous perception o' racism. we can work with students being taught to see racism in every phrase or image. however, once you censor and self censor education so that mention o' any race issue which could make students uncomfortable is exorcised (and that is the language being used by a few state laws) the opportunities for enlightenment become far more limited.

I'm probably missing something here. It sounds like you're arguing both for and against wokeness here. Possibly because "wokeness" means different things to different audiences?

[Zoraptor]

5 hours ago, Malcador said:

"Working together with our partners in New Zealand and of course the United States, I share the same red line that the United States has when it comes to these issues.

"We won't be having Chinese military naval bases in our region on our doorstep."

Haha, yes, the story that keeps giving when it comes to cognitive dissonance.

Irony, thy name is, uh, pretty much any western politician espousing the absolute freedom of countries to associate with and chose mutual defence with whoever they like, so long as it's the west and no one else- then wondering confusedly why the rest of the world thinks you're a bunch of arrogant hypocrites...

Though to be honest, I very much doubt we share the same red lines as either the Ockers or Yanks since we get on a lot better with the Chinese than either. Our position would be far closer to "no military bases in the region, full stop (we'll just ignore the US ones all over the place, including here despite ANZUS being defunct)".

Also, the rules lawyer in me notes that Scotty specified no Chinese Naval bases, so he'll be fine with an airbase instead.

[Elerond]

Clearly Australia needs to attack to Solomon Island to ensure that their territory is not threatened, as such actions seem to be acceptable by most of world  

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Achilles said:

 

I'm probably missing something here. 

doubt it. 

as we already noted, am in favour o' educators, by means o' pedagogy and curriculum, teaching their students 'bout the evils o' bigotry and prejudice while simultaneous modeling social behaviors related to those concepts... which as far as we can tell is wokeness from at least the 1960s through today. the fact young people take lessons learned to comical extremes is hardly an argument against educating. solution, if is needed, is more education and not censorship. am just not seeing how this is a real issue. if kids taking an otherwise good idea to comical extremes were a real problem we would need shut down all universities everywhere as there is nothing more foolish than the ordinary undergrad who after a few semesters believes they has unlocked the secrets o' the universe. 

regardless, insofar as to what is routinely being described as wokeness these days, am almost wholly unconvinced o' a problem. takes an extreme degree o' militant adherence and compulsion to some kinda imagined dogma for us to be moved to consider wokeness in education as an issue needing to be addressed. moreover, if the gop and others cannot define wokeness, the bad wokeness such that requires legislation or government interaction to curtail, with enough precision such that the s'posed good wokeness isn't also limited, then am most assured rejecting the current campaign to eliminate wokeness... bad wokeness.

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

our signature is not just for show.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

if kids taking an otherwise good idea to comical extremes were a real problem we would need shut down all universities everywhere as there is nothing more foolish than the ordinary undergrad who after a few semesters believes they has unlocked the secrets o' the universe.

The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure

If you're interested in what academia is telling us, I recommend the above

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

Clearly Australia needs to attack to Solomon Island to ensure that their territory is not threatened, as such actions seem to be acceptable by most of world  

Of course not, don't be silly.

We wouldn't invade, we'd "regretfully deploy peacekeepers from responsible regional powers to protect the legitimate grievances of the people of Malaita who are being brutally oppressed by the Sogavare regime, and restore the democracy and freedom they deserve to the people of the Solomons".

Of course, that's having spent the last decades, uh, sending peacekeepers to protect the legitimacy/ primacy of Guadalcanal and maintain the suppression of Malaita; including under the previous Prime Ministerial reign of, um hmm uh, Sogavare. But let's not mention that, since hopefully everyone won't know about it, and it makes us look bad. Let's also not mention every other time we've asterisked up a small country for our own benefit, like Nauru.

On an unrelated matter I've always wondered why Australia and (to a far lesser extent) New Zealand have a reputation for throwing their weight around and being massive hypocrites in the Pacific. It's really weird.

(If there's a lesson from Ukraine here- apart from how selective the concept of freedom to choose allies is- it's that the Solomons would be very wise to get those Chinese troops in as fast as possible, because we sure as sith are exactly as capable of invading a neighbour as Russia is, so long as we dress it up right)

[Gromnir]

32 minutes ago, Achilles said:

The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure

If you're interested in what academia is telling us, I recommend the above

you are preaching to the choir 'bout coddled millennials or whatever the newest generational label is. am, first and foremost an advocate o' personal responsibility, so the participation trophy mentality and those proclaiming it is more important to be morally right (subjective) than factually correct offends our sensibilities. 'course even Gromnir don't go so far as to suggest an entire generation is facing doom, though am suspecting every new generation needs face such hyperbolic prognostications.

am also gonna observe how qanon and the maga movement undermines the notion that abandoning o' personal responsibility is somehow new or linked to wokeness. grievance and the need to blame libs, foreign nationals, minorities and intellectual elites for societal ills and personal misfortunes is sooooo 1920s-- hardly a new phenomenon and the yet we collective fail to recognize the groundhog day scenario for what it is. 

dunno, perhaps if the maga crowd had teachers who were a bit more woke, we wouldn't be facing events such as:

but am similar not giving the educated libs an out neither as antifa, while hardly the threat imagined by a few boardies, is populated by young and educated liberal minded individuals who believe it is not only ok but is moral right to use violence to silence messages which they decide is wrong.

regardless, while it is unlikely we accept any single source as definitive regarding what the mythic monolithic "academia" is trying to tell "us," we will make it part o' our further education... which is how is s'posed to work; more speech and not less.

HA! Good Fun!

ps am recommending the following: Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925

[Gorth]

3 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

On an unrelated matter I've always wondered why Australia and (to a far lesser extent) New Zealand have a reputation for throwing their weight around and being massive hypocrites in the Pacific. It's really weird.

That was sarcasm, right?

 

(if not, look up the honest government ads for timor leste or west papua on youtube)

 

As for the Solomon Islands, nothing a special military operation couldn't fix. Like putting a western friendly government in power (supported by Australian troops peacekeepers). It's not like corruption would be a novelty for the politicians in Honiara

[Zoraptor]

8 minutes ago, Gorth said:

That was sarcasm, right?

hmm, maybe the slightest scintilla/ smidge/ soupçon of sarcasm, after all one doesn't like to bludgeon the reader over the head with it.

(I always thought the Oceania Football Confederation was a great example- when Australia was in it all the other members consistently voted to do things specifically designed to piss them off because the Ockers weren't shy about thinking it should all be run for their benefit and that everyone else was irrelevant; yet consistently failed to make the finals. Fast forward to after Australia goes into the Asian Confed, and suddenly all the other countries are doing their best to annoy the new big dog that thinks everything should be run for their benefit, New Zealand. Hold qualifiers outside of the international window? Don't mind if I do says everyone; except us...)

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

ps am recommending the following: Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925

I'll check it out. Thanks

[Sarex]

Riots started after the French elections. Two killed so far.

[Chairchucker]

Mention of political correctness brought this to mind.

Broadly speaking, the point Mr Lee seems to be making is that objection to 'political correctness' (insert also 'woke SJWs' or whatever terms are popular these days) seems to be largely driven by people who would very much like to continue to be awful to minorities without consequences, and I agree with his overall point that while they may not be perfect, they are infinitely preferable to what we had before.

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Chairchucker said:

Mention of political correctness brought this to mind.

Broadly speaking, the point Mr Lee seems to be making is that objection to 'political correctness' (insert also 'woke SJWs' or whatever terms are popular these days) seems to be largely driven by people who would very much like to continue to be awful to minorities without consequences, and I agree with his overall point that while they may not be perfect, they are infinitely preferable to what we had before.

 

I dont consider political correctness (PC)the same as "wokeness " or " SJWism" 

PC is normal and understandable. I am opposed to Wokeness and SJWism not because I want to discriminate against minorities but  because its generally inconsistent, historically inaccurate, intolerant,  condescending and most people who claim to be "woke " (not that many people say they woke) just want to hear one side of the narrative and arent interested in a  debate.

[Guard Dog]

This is purely my own opinion here so take it for that. Woke/SJW/PC is all fine and good where it compels us to be more polite to our fellow humans. In that instance it is a positive force. Case in point, a trans man who is obviously male but presents themselves as female. It is perfectly ok even polite to address them as such. Use female pronouns and treat them with the same dignity and respect you'd treat someone who was born female. Or the other way around. But Woke/SJW/PC goes too far when it demands the world acknowledge something true to be false or something false to be true purely because someone "wants" it to be that way. For example that there are no biological differences beyond male and female humans other than their reproductive organs. This is simple false and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that is obstinance that undermines the whole position of the philosophy, even the positive  aspects of it.  

Edited April 25, 2022 by Guard Dog
Speech to text screwed me

[Hurlshort]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

This is purely my own opinion here so take it for that. Woke/SJW/PC is all fine and good where it compels us to be more polite to our fellow humans. In that instance it is a positive force. Case in point, a trans man who is obviously male but presents themselves as female. It is perfectly ok even polite to address them as such. Use female pronouns and treat them with the same dignity and respect you'd treat someone who was born female. Or the other way around. But Woke/SJW/PC goes too far when it demands the world acknowledge something true to be false or something false to be true purely because someone "wants" it to be that way. For example that there are no biological differences beyond male and female humans other than their reproductive organs. This is simple false and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that is obstinance that undermines the whole position of the philosophy, even the positive  aspects of it.  

I'm just not sure where this becomes an issue. Is it bathroom usage? Sports? Where does it really matter to you or I how someone identifies themself? The biology would seem to be a non-issue for the vast majority of people, and yet it has become this huge point of debate. 

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

I'm just not sure where this becomes an issue. Is it bathroom usage? Sports? Where does it really matter to you or I how someone identifies themself? The biology would seem to be a non-issue for the vast majority of people, and yet it has become this huge point of debate. 

Case in point. Military women can perform just as well as men in combat roles. That is mostly true. Women can serve equally well in armor, artillery, aviation, motor transport, etc. Then they go too far and think military women can serve in ANY role as well as a man. That is patently false.  In 2015 the Marines conducted a study that found all male units greatly out perform integrated units. Women in infantry were six time more likely to be injured during training and failed the Combat PFT at 10X the rate of men without "gender norming". That is a nice way to say allowing women lower standards just so they pass. Which is what the Army is doing now. The Marines have, so far, resisted lowering infantry fitness standards but women are failing at such a rate that it is inevitable. 

This is just one example of woke/SJW/PC taking a good thing too far. I can easily provide others