Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And if ONLY those women joined, that wouldn't be an issue, would it? But what percentage of women are capable of that? And what percentage would you want us to allow?
There's still the unsanitary environment causing an issue around certain times of the month.
Really, I wonder how many solders could lift as much as these women..
My dad was in the army, and he couldn't lift even 100kg over his head, where I am able to military press 100kg, and I'm a university student...
I'm not sure strength should be a defining characteristic, but in reality a 200 pound man is likely stronger than a 200 pound woman, as is a 300 pound man ect. Matter of fact there are many men that weigh in excess of 200 pounds in top physical shape while most women over 200 pounds would be fat.
That aside hand to hand combat is not a very common thing these days & a 10 year old can shoot an M4 very effectively. Now if a soldier had to tote around an M1 or M14 it might be different.
Anybody eligable to vote should be eligible to serve & if we were to start a draft then they should be draftable. If you want or have a say in our country then you should be ready & able to defend it.
Kinda weird hearing TK say women should be protected, in the past I'v seen him say that they & anyone else are pretty much disposable.
By and large the physical standards have nothing to do with job performance. If there's a need for physical standard that relates to job performance then it will be in the rating. You see those today in the ratings that require particular physical stamina or strength.
What comes out of boot camp has nothing to do with job performance. Putting in criteria that don't directly relate to job performance is just discrimination. You might as well require blue eyes or skin color.
The reason women got lower physical standards in basic, was because they weren't going to have to face a combat situation.
If they want to be in a combat situation, then they should have to meet the higher standard.
I'd even go as far to say, let the men who are in basic meet the lower, current female standard, if they are entering a non-combat roll.
Actually a few women, especially Chiefs, might clean up some of the banter on a sub.
LMAO!!
It gets worse the longer they're out to sea...and the women often have worse minds than the men.
Besides, if my Sailor were on a sub,I would hate to have to snatch a female servicemember bald if one of those....women..... had been messing with him while underway. Or vice versa. Then there'd be a bald-headed woman and a castrated Sailor.
Wanna make it equal? Use all-women submarines. The divorce rate in the military is high enough.
It gets worse the longer they're out to sea...and the women often have worse minds than the men.
Besides, if my Sailor were on a sub,I would hate to have to snatch a female servicemember bald if one of those....women..... had been messing with him while underway. Or vice versa. Then there'd be a bald-headed woman and a castrated Sailor.
Wanna make it equal? Use all-women submarines. The divorce rate in the military is high enough.
This kind of argument, would also exclude gays from getting on the sub. It's not an argument.
This kind of argument, would also exclude gays from getting on the sub. It's not an argument.
Except that they're already on subs...women arent. Also, gay men dont get pregnant. Women do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.