PANTIES V BOXERS - BRIEFLY

PANTIES V BOXERS - BRIEFLY
by Andy Weddington
Tuesday, 21 April 2015

"Power is not something that can be assumed or discarded at will like underwear." John Kenneth Galbraith

Marine infantryman am I.  

Because of previous commentary, the influx of articles, comments, and queries for further comment regarding women in ground combat (especially infantry and specops) is unrelenting. 

I don't care.

But I do care. 

I am a no-nonsense gent. Direct. Blunt. Truthful. Admittedly, to a fault. I can't help it. But, such an approach minimizes if not precludes confusion. And disaster. Marines know. Nor do I allow emotion to cloud what I say and do. In uniform, subordinates, peers, and seniors alike - gender notwithstanding - got it straight; solicited or not. Tact I practiced. Polish used sparingly as it masks truth. None of that has changed. And will not. Ever.

Believe it or not I have actually (wasted) a little more thought on this women in ground combat nonsense - snapshots between thinking about painting and fly fishing for trout; life's priorities. 

Briefly...

Emotion, not logic, in play. 

Emotion is without rule.

Logic is rule.

Women (in the ground combat debate) are using gender as excuse not as argument. Thus, the whacky concept of gender-neutrality (the [General Martin] Dempsey Rule better tagged the Dempsey Panty Rule). 

Though the debate is most assuredly about equipment.

Women don't carry equipment. Equipment proof.

Women can't carry equipment. Endurance proof.

Men do, and can, carry equipment. Equipment and endurance proof.

Boxers I prefer. 

But so what if some men wear panties - provided they carry equipment. 

With that there cannot be confusion. Though disaster still looms. 

The end. 

Post Script

Some men choose not to wear boxers (nor panties) but go commando. They carry equipment.