More Than an "Equal Rights" Issue

Article here. Excerpt:

'Amid all the predictable feminist cheering we will no doubt hear about the "barriers" in the military falling now that women can be assigned to fight in ground combat units, there should also be a place for some sober debate and consideration.

There have long been reasons that women have been precluded from such assignments -- reasons that have nothing to do with invidious sexism. Rather, they stem from the physical requirements of the job, and the imperative of keeping our soldiers safe.
...
When women work in close combat with men, if they struggle to meet the physical demands of their tasks, that doesn't just put them in danger -- it also endangers the men who serve alongside them.  If the Obama administration determines that an "insufficient" number of women are serving in the newly-opened positions, will we see the kind of "gender norming" that has occurred elsewhere in the military with less-than-stellar results?

I stand second to no one in believing in gender equality.  But equality doesn't always mean "sameness," especially when indulging a feminist obsession ends up needlessly endangering lives, and undermining the effectiveness of the US military.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The average woman has 2/3 the physical strength as the average man. People of both sexes develop physical abilities/strength via exercise. There is no reason why women can't work out with a strength-adding regimen to meet the requirements of the job.

When feminists say, even if they argue that it'd be bad for men, that women shouldn't be in combat roles because they're physically weaker than men, I call bullsh*t. And I'm doing it here again.

Like0 Dislike0