Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
Infantry.
There are many, many more "Combat" positions than Infantry today, many of whom do not bear that burden.
Again tho, I should stress, I do not support standards being reduced. I support women who can meet those standards have equal opportunity to bleed and die for our Country as a man does.
What we're doing, in the majority, is effectively a Police Action. Women can be members of the police force, including SWAT, right now, with all the various gear they carry. I have no doubt in our Nation of 330 million, we have many women who can not only meet, but exceed, our standards requirements.
Agree to disagree. It is my opinion that this is an outdated viewpoint reflective of past ways of thinking about gender. The same general line of exclusion that once said minorities were too "dumb" to serve in our Millitary.
If the standards are maintained, I cannot see an objection that is not based on sexism tbqh.
|
There are actually ONLY three branches of the Army considered combat arms - infantry, armor and artillery. Period. These are the areas which had barred women. Of the other (many) branches, women have been eligible for a long time.
Obviously anybody at any time can come under fire. Nurses, doctors and lawyers (yes they are everywhere).
Helicopter pilots can be women.
Truck drivers can be women. Yes they can draw fire. BUT, their primary duty is not that. Everybody is not roaring around the countryside looking for a fiirefight. Less than 25% of a large force is designated to actually fight.
Fighting still requires stamina, mobility and strength. If a women meets the necessary standard - fine. But, I am a "show me" person.