Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Olog-hai
Women better be angry at this(feminist included.)

Aside from the oblivious military ramifications, think of the social effects.

1). The hardening attitude of men towards women. If our men sees enlisted women as just another “soldier” and not an more vulnerable member of society. PTSD is already an known effect on our troops, must we instill callous attitude towards women, most of whom do not share the same desire to "hump" large backbacks across hostile terrain while getting shot at

2). Women must be included in the Draft.(14th Amendment) Hey it's only fair. And most important, the line between combatants and civilians will be completely erased, no longer just occasionally blurred.

Women will necessarily seen as an untapped source of manpower(no pun intended) and thus “war material” to be destroyed by our enemies.

All just to advance the goals of a few feminists

10 posted on 01/24/2013 11:16:20 AM PST by RedMonqey ("Gun-free zones" equal "Target-rich environment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RedMonqey

In past wars the weakest and the dumbest. and those with no connections were always assigned to become cannon fodder. Put them out front, they will not be much of a loss. The smart and strong and the rich found ways to stay out of harms way. I am wondering just what will happen to a 5’2” 120 lb lady with an IQ of 90 who can’t type in this modern army? (You know the army still discriminates against those they term overweight.)


12 posted on 01/24/2013 12:26:47 PM PST by cotton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson