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

To: j. earl carter

Excuse my ignorance, sir, but what combat roles—and we are excluding support jobs here, as outlined in the article— don’t involve strength and endurance?


5 posted on 04/11/2014 4:03:59 AM PDT by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: OldPossum
I have no idea if there are any combat roles that don't involve strength and endurance right now, and I definitely don't know about the future. My point is that I don't think this should be the reason for excluding women from combat.

The reason we should exclude women from combat is because men and women are not equal. As a society, we have decided that men and women should be treated equally under the law. I'm just saying that society should reserve the right to make exceptions to this law, with combat being a good example.

6 posted on 04/11/2014 4:20:18 AM PDT by j. earl carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: OldPossum; j. earl carter
Excuse my ignorance, sir, but what combat roles—and we are excluding support jobs here, as outlined in the article— don’t involve strength and endurance?

Indeed. Please explain.

When I think of combat roles, I think of infantry and heavy machinery. Maybe a woman could drive a heavy armored vehicle, but could she change a heavy armored vehicle tire or do other field repairs if it breaks down?

7 posted on 04/11/2014 4:25:10 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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