Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Women in Combat roles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BrownArmy" data-source="post: 1084369" data-attributes="member: 18225"><p>I think it's just fine.</p><p></p><p>Women are already in combat roles, taking fire, firing on adversaries, etc.</p><p></p><p>Women in the Armed Forces have always pulled a lot of weight, more so in the last decade, but since they've been 'officially' denied combat roles (even though they're very much in combat), they've thus been 'officially' denied promotions within the ranks.</p><p></p><p>And let's be frank, no one's trying to change the requirements for a particular position.</p><p></p><p>If you're not strong enough, etc, you can't get the job.</p><p></p><p>This is the same for men.</p><p></p><p>There are a lot of men who are a lot stronger than me...I'm stronger than a lot of men...I'm stronger than a lot of women.</p><p></p><p>There are also A LOT OF WOMEN WHO ARE A LOT STRONGER THAN ME, WHO WANT TO BE COMBAT SOLDIERS.</p><p></p><p>You're going to deny them, why?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Soooo...since women can't 'officially' be in combat, then there will be no sexual impropriety, correct?</p><p></p><p>Give me a break. No one's banning men from the military for sexual impropriety.</p><p></p><p>Men and women already serve in very close quarters in the Armed Forces.</p><p></p><p>'Officially' allowing women to go into combat (which is a ridiculous distinction, since they already very much do) won't change a single thing on the ground vis-a-vis living arrangements, etc.</p><p></p><p>These women want to fight for this country, possibly die for this country. They're already doing it, this is just a nomenclature change, and maybe some of these women will get a raise.</p><p></p><p>I'm all for it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BrownArmy, post: 1084369, member: 18225"] I think it's just fine. Women are already in combat roles, taking fire, firing on adversaries, etc. Women in the Armed Forces have always pulled a lot of weight, more so in the last decade, but since they've been 'officially' denied combat roles (even though they're very much in combat), they've thus been 'officially' denied promotions within the ranks. And let's be frank, no one's trying to change the requirements for a particular position. If you're not strong enough, etc, you can't get the job. This is the same for men. There are a lot of men who are a lot stronger than me...I'm stronger than a lot of men...I'm stronger than a lot of women. There are also A LOT OF WOMEN WHO ARE A LOT STRONGER THAN ME, WHO WANT TO BE COMBAT SOLDIERS. You're going to deny them, why? Soooo...since women can't 'officially' be in combat, then there will be no sexual impropriety, correct? Give me a break. No one's banning men from the military for sexual impropriety. Men and women already serve in very close quarters in the Armed Forces. 'Officially' allowing women to go into combat (which is a ridiculous distinction, since they already very much do) won't change a single thing on the ground vis-a-vis living arrangements, etc. These women want to fight for this country, possibly die for this country. They're already doing it, this is just a nomenclature change, and maybe some of these women will get a raise. I'm all for it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Women in Combat roles
Top