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

To: Ohioan
Here was the key passage from the article I posted:

Check out this article, written by a female Marine. It is VERY well written and unsparing.

"...Meanwhile, the argument to maintain the combat exclusion makes itself easily in every aspect...including women in combat units is bad for combat, bad for women, bad for men, bad for children, and bad for the country. The argument for the combat exclusion is provable all the time, every time. Political correctness has no chance against Nature. Her victories are staring us in the face at all times. The men just keep being able to lift more and to run faster, harder, and longer with more weight on their backs while suffering fewer injuries. They just keep never getting pregnant. The combat units have needs that women cannot meet. Women have needs that life in a combat unit cannot accommodate without accepting significant disadvantage and much greater expense. Where 99 percent of men can do the heavy-lifting tasks typical of gunners, but 85 percent of women cannot, there is no gap women need to fill..."

That pretty much sums it up.

15 posted on 01/15/2019 11:01:03 AM PST by rlmorel (Leftists: They believe in the "Invisible Hand" only when it is guided by government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: rlmorel

Agreed, but the strongest argument of all is that the Chivalric code, which this combat integration rejects, is what brings out the “above & beyond” aspect of male heroism. Losing that incentive is irrparable.


18 posted on 01/15/2019 11:07:53 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | 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