In response to:

Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

traitorbill Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:58 AM
What I remember most from my days in the Army happened when I was going through the training to get my Expert Field Medical Badge. In one exercise 4 people had to carry a dummy on a litter across an obstacle course. I was carrying the litter in from with a women Captain. Suddenly, she handed me her post, saying that she had to guard the perimeter. This wasn't part of the exercise. She just wasn't strong enough to do her job. Later, when informed that another women Captain had washed out, she said that no everyone could earn the medal, and that is what made it prestigious. You cannot lead or assist men in combat if you cannot physically hang with them. The army isn't some lab to experiment with gender equity issues. Sorry, but that's
SpaceVegetable Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 2:43 PM
Muscles are not everything. In roles where they are the main need, then sure, make certain that the same parameters are met by both genders. But there are a lot of roles that don't depend on brute strength.
traitorbill Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:58 AM

Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).

First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy—namely Muslims—then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies. I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Joy...