Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan
The “female war leader” referenced did not engage in actual combat. She walked the walls of a fortress under siege to keep her fighters’ spirits up.

Sort of like Patton, Eisenhower, Washington, and any other contemporary General, methinks! You are grasping at straws. What good would it do to have your men dying on the front lines but leave the gates of the castle open?

37 posted on 05/27/2011 7:04:37 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: afraidfortherepublic

The article claimed she was a physical fighter. The difference is between fighting and directing the fighters.

And, BTW, the war leaders of the day generally fought personally in the front lines. They had to, if they were to keep the respect and allegiance of their notoriously insubordinate noblemen.

There is no reason why a woman could not be just as effective as a general in today’s world as a man. At the level of Force Recon Marines, the rough equivalent of a medieval warrior in physical strength and toughness required, very few females can hang.

To take my analogy of the NFL a bit farther, there is no physical reason a woman can’t be a winning head coach. Nobody in their right mind (including a female coach) would put a woman in the line (or anywhere else on the field, for that matter).

And Patton, Eisenhower, Washington and most other contemporary generals made their way to that eminence during a career where they were in the thick of combat multiple times. Except Ike, who was never really in combat.


39 posted on 05/27/2011 11:09:13 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson