Should “Men are stronger” bar women from combat roles?
“No women in combat,” said President Bush. “We’ve got women flying choppers and women flying fighters, which I’m perfectly content with.” Why does Mr. Bush apparently think it’s OK if female troops risk death and in fact sometimes even die in military service, but not OK if they engage in direct-ground combat roles? Perhaps, while he can handle the idea of some women getting killed, he doesn’t relish the idea of women getting killed in the same horrific number the men do. Or perhaps, like many people, he disdains the idea of women serving in the more physically demanding direct-ground combat roles because he believes men are stronger than women and hence more competent as warriors.”Women don’t belong in combat, because men are stronger.” –Bill O’Reilly, O’Reilly’s Radio Show, February 28, 2007 “The most often cited reason for continuing to exclude women from combat,” writes Jesse Leavenworth in at Courant.com, “is their physical strength, compared with men.” But can we really say “men
