5 ms·
In the forces there are: a) Plenty of roles for women to do that don't involve the kind of 'direct combat' type scenarios we may have concerns over. and b) Th
by sonnyblarney 8y ago
In the forces there are:
a) Plenty of roles for women to do that don't involve the kind of 'direct combat' type scenarios we may have concerns over.
and b) That they are effectively just as good as men.
Only a small portion of fighting forces actually 'fight'.
The argument remains 'should women be in front line combat' - but my point is that in reality, it's kind of moot. We don't even need that kind of debate in order to have women broadly in the forces.
- x220 8y agoSo if women get drafted, they will mostly fill non-combat roles and push more men into combat roles? Jesus, no thanks.
- pseudalopex 8y agoWhy would the total number of draftees increase?
- chongli 8y agoThat's how things are now. Presumably, if there were a general draft, then the situation may be different. I don't know if it would ever be as awful as the Normandy invasion but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoI'm not actually taking a stand on 'women in combat' one way or another at all. I'm saying that for 90% of roles 'gender doesn't matter' really. So it's 90% a 'moot point'. Without taking a stand on the issue ... I believe that in reality if there were a relatively major conflict today, women would be getting close to the lines but not on front line units for the most part. Pretty much every other role they would do.