Quote:
|
Originally Posted by soezgg
3. Since the Armed Forces are way too big to admit personell on a case-by-case basis, they have to rely on generalizations and the little certainties in life:
a. Despite what you see on Alias, a 110 lb female cannot kick down a door.
b. Generally, women have less muscle mass and endurance. So when it comes to carrying a wounded Soldier 5 kilometers to a safe and open space for a MEDEVAC before you get shot by local rebels, I would put my money on a male.
c. There are all sorts of...well...medical issues that present themselves when women are in the field too long.
|
That definitely made me think things through again.
I believe points A and B would require a physical exam though. As long as those tests were passed than, I do not see that being a problem. I tend to not believe test results of any sort though, so I am still up in the air.
I am not sure if this is the right thing to do but:
I am going to take Mike?s side of the debate.
I follow his reasoning perfectly. I am not going to reiterate it; you can read it for yourself.
Soezgg is the first person to argue why women should not be allowed in the draft. It seems that most everybody who has posted has supported women in the draft. The debate about whether they should be there or not has been overlooked.
If I am wrong about this, it?s probably because I quickly skimmed many of the long posts between Bill and Mike.