Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan

Read it all an d it liberal screed. You can’t point exactly the position she takes. It is feel good nonsense and contrary to her deflecting strength it’s simple...the strength qualifications for makes are set in stone. If you can’t back it your out. Her closing statement too was nonsensical hog wash. It’s like comparing apples to bananas. Take a position...strength in combat are X qualifications...either the writer clearly takes a position that females can meet the Marine Corps strength qualifications or not.


56 posted on 05/22/2014 6:28:00 PM PDT by Jarhead9297
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Jarhead9297
Success for women should not mean being viewed, contrary to reality, as interchangeable with men in all things.

I think you are seriously misreading what she is saying.

The article discusses the claims that women should be treated as interchangeable with men for combat purposes, and then comprehensively refutes it.

69 posted on 05/22/2014 6:58:08 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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