The NY Times Upfront Sisters in Arms by James Dao
The main idea of this article is that the Pentagon has just got rid of the long going ban on women fighting on the front lines and there is a lot of talk about weather or not that was the right choice to make or not.
Details/evidence from the text is that according to history it's been many years that women have not been able to go on the front line because of many issues men had such as women being mothers and if they were to die then how would her kids feel? or many other important aspects of the sort so men weren't keeping women off the frontline to be jerks but they were doing it because they didn't want women to get hurt or even killed but women on the other hand were and still are willing to die for their country just as much as men. Another detail from the text is how they described the acts of bravery women performed when they were under attack and even when men fell either wounded or killed and women would be seen dragging them to safety and fending for themselves even though they weren't supposed too.
In my opinion I find this to be a positive thing because allowing women to show they're bravery and strength is just another step to having equality in America and in the future I see our army growing stronger and having more numbers now that they're having a further out reach to more people adding on to the masses of trained, prepared, even experienced soldiers we have.
To my knowledge there is no connection I can make to this. However this article has helped me to think more deeply of the topic because I only found out that the pentagon was allowing women to fight just 2 days ago so before that I had no knowledge of them even considering allowing them in but now they're able to fight for our country aswell as men and I'm writing this blog about it so I'm well caught up.
My question is how do you think this change will effect the future of the U.S army? Will this change help the Forces or possibly detract from them a bit?
Details/evidence from the text is that according to history it's been many years that women have not been able to go on the front line because of many issues men had such as women being mothers and if they were to die then how would her kids feel? or many other important aspects of the sort so men weren't keeping women off the frontline to be jerks but they were doing it because they didn't want women to get hurt or even killed but women on the other hand were and still are willing to die for their country just as much as men. Another detail from the text is how they described the acts of bravery women performed when they were under attack and even when men fell either wounded or killed and women would be seen dragging them to safety and fending for themselves even though they weren't supposed too.
In my opinion I find this to be a positive thing because allowing women to show they're bravery and strength is just another step to having equality in America and in the future I see our army growing stronger and having more numbers now that they're having a further out reach to more people adding on to the masses of trained, prepared, even experienced soldiers we have.
To my knowledge there is no connection I can make to this. However this article has helped me to think more deeply of the topic because I only found out that the pentagon was allowing women to fight just 2 days ago so before that I had no knowledge of them even considering allowing them in but now they're able to fight for our country aswell as men and I'm writing this blog about it so I'm well caught up.
My question is how do you think this change will effect the future of the U.S army? Will this change help the Forces or possibly detract from them a bit?
Good post: 95.
ReplyDelete