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

To: 3Fingas
I brought up the military and the police in particular, because at a moments notice you can go from 0 to war.

Women in the military have various costs; pregnancy, modification of equipment, lowering of physical standards.

Justifying having a entire group, or sex purely do support roles is inefficient, and directs resources. You can't take a female clerk, then send her downrange to lead a raid or ambush. You can with any male marine, the key is interchange, you lose that by having two sexs. Especially now that the battlefield has expanded.

11 posted on 03/12/2013 9:42:40 PM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Theoria

Yes, I would agree that, in the main, the military would be more efficient with fewer women. I think women should largely be limited to stateside support roles. However, I am a realist and that is never going to happen. So, women will be put in harm’s way and it’s just a matter of how much our political/military leadership is willing to make that more probable. Yes, I know the battlefield is expanding. Being in the “rear with the gear” is no longer as safe as it used to be. I do think that opening up combat mos to women will greatly expand that risk and reduce combat effectiveness. So, I oppose that move.


12 posted on 03/12/2013 10:01:32 PM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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