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

To: redfreedom

I believe that all should serve not necessarily in combat positions, but if a woman can do the job with NO special accommodations let her. Threaten a woman’s children and see what a combatant she can be.


48 posted on 02/07/2016 5:20:24 AM PST by nclaurel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: nclaurel

“- - - but if a woman can do the job with NO special accommodations let her - - “

I fully agree. But this will never happen in todays culture. It’s not about what people can do without making special accommodations.

The best example I can come up with is our current President, not even remotely qualified for the job, and having to use a teleprompter as a special accommodation. Just think how silly this is, could anyone even remotely imagine JFK or Reagan using a teleprompter???

But getting back to the subject at hand, for a couple decades or so it has been very common to read about a fire department, police department, and the military relaxing standards to allow more women in. This is a special accommodation. This unto itself is sexist.

Someone mentioned Russian snipers of WWII. When a nation is about to be brutally crushed with prisoners shot or burned to death or beheaded, as in the case of what’s going on now in the middle east, many women are indeed taking up arms. In such a case, I’d willingly fight with and depend on a woman determined to kill the enemy just to survive. But until we get that bad off, they should stay out of the combat arms.


61 posted on 02/07/2016 6:51:49 AM PST by redfreedom (Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | 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