Petty? Women have convinced a nation run primarily by men that they are as strong and tough as men. That's an accomplishment, no matter how dumb you think men can be. Fact : Women are not as strong as men. They are also not as physically tough. They simply lack the density we have. Yet, somehow, they have managed to convince a great deal of people that they in fact are.
For a country that prides itself on the quality and quantity of it's bull****, that right there is the equivalent of mounting Everest.
Uhhh... No, besides a small minority of cultural Leftists who are either completely unqualified to judge such matters, or don't really
care how well women perform in combat, because they view the military as being irrelevant at best, and something which they should actively seek to dismantle at worst, the feminists haven't actually "convinced" much of anyone. There simply happens to be a Leftist President in office at the moment, who basically has absolute control over military policy, because he can and will fire and replace any and every military leader who tries to counter-act his edicts.
He's not called the "Commander in Chief" for nothing, you know. This is one of the downsides of a civilian run military. :roll:
Again, either way, I'm not seeing how on Earth you're making this leap from "semi-effective petty political bulls***ers" to "qualified warfighters." It's a complete non-sequitur.
At the end of the day, modern feminism is a movement born of
privilege and
luxury, nothing less. It exists because our society is comfortable, secure, and (quite frankly)
bored enough that allowing a bit more freedom with regards to gender roles doesn't result in things simply imploding outright, and because our men are civilized enough not to merely smack women down for being uppity, like they do in so many other parts of world. Under more chaotic and uncertain circumstances (like WAR), all of that goes right out the window fairly quickly.
What you're doing here is akin to arguing that since Gandhi was effective at creating chaos in the political order of the British Empire, he'd be effective as a military leader as well. Such a position ignores the fact that the only reason Gandhi was successful to begin with is because the British were moral and civilized enough not to simply shoot his scrawny peace-loving butt outright (or worse). Gandhi's story would have ended far differently if he had lived under the influence of a regime like Rome, the USSR, Nazi Germany, or even modern China instead.
As for infantry officers needing to be as strong, as tough...perhaps even a little MORE so than those they lead...If there are women in that infantry, why can't that still be true? Furthermore, a GOOD leader is not so because they are better at their tasks than those they lead...they are a GOOD leader for an entirely DIFFERENT set of reasons. I have worked with many GREAT female leaders. A leader's primary job is to inspire. All that other ****...is just ****. Bottom line. If the soldiers under you don't respect you because you can't run a mile as fast as they can, or lift as much, then the problem isn't you, it's them. Because that's not a leader's job. If those soldiers have a problem with that simple understanding...remove them. It's what I would do.
Because women aren't "stronger," "tougher," or "more intimidating" than the average combat infantryman
PERIOD. No amount of "leadership" is going to change that. :roll:
Besides even the above, your argument here can be plainly seen to be a lot of word salad that simply ignores reality. That reality is that combat arms pretty much
runs off of testosterone, and male instinct at its very most primitive. It simply happens to be harnessed towards more productive goals, as it is in any number of tea based sports. In that regard, an Infantry Officer is basically like the Quarterback of a football team, or any other generalized sports "Captain." His position only means dick if the people under his command trust and respect him, and that only happens if he is able to pull his weight on equal or better terms than the rest of the team.
This would seem to be common sense, if you ask me. Unfortunately, however, a lot of civilians seem to basically turn their brains off when it comes to anything relating to the military. :roll:
Frankly, combat units are a bit more drastic than even that. Again,
they're made up of trained killers, in highly stressful life or death situations.
When discipline breaks down in such an environment, people die. It isn't always the enemy pulling the trigger.