![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Women in combat
May. 13th, 2005 02:24 pmFrom the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002.html?nav=hcmodule
The upshot: women are more and more being put in combat situations, despite official policy barring women from combat, and a measure passed by a House subcommittee that would further limit the role of women in the Army.
Various interviews in the article indicate that many if not most military women are willing and even eager to assume combat roles.
Not that I'd personally ever want to join the army, much less engage in combat. But if that's what these women want to do, why not let them? Because of some archaic chivalrous prudery? Stupid conservative discriminatory insensitive congressional jerks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002.html?nav=hcmodule
The upshot: women are more and more being put in combat situations, despite official policy barring women from combat, and a measure passed by a House subcommittee that would further limit the role of women in the Army.
Various interviews in the article indicate that many if not most military women are willing and even eager to assume combat roles.
Not that I'd personally ever want to join the army, much less engage in combat. But if that's what these women want to do, why not let them? Because of some archaic chivalrous prudery? Stupid conservative discriminatory insensitive congressional jerks.
