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.
Hmm, one poster has explained that "... Most women do not have the mental capacity ...".
I think that statement sums a lot of men's attitude on the matter.
The DOD does allow many policies where females are given exceptions to regs.
1- PRTs are reduced,
2- advancement is often accelerated for females,
3- and many 'special' considerations are given to females.
During my 20 year Active-Duty career every instance where women "... whined or used their femininity for some advantage ..." it was the men in proximity that allowed it to happen.
You are randomly selecting comments to fit an argument. I think everyone agrees that Leadership must do a better job. You are arguing about something that everyone already agrees.
I have a suggestion. Set up a test. Make the women who want to do this serve in an all women's unit, and test their effectiveness for 5 years. Then see how it works. Putting them in mixed units would mean that the men will shoulder a large share of the burden to compensate for female weaknesses. Sports ought to give anyone enough proof that women cannot compete with men on an equal basis if physical strength is a factor.
^^^
One of the world's strongest military, if not THE strongest, will lower their standards, what a shame.
Imagine if this mentality was applied in other jobs out there. Anybody could become a doctor regardless of not qualifying like those who studied more than 10 years and have many years of experience.
Also, let it be known that prior to this, a few months back, the Marines allowed a couple of women officers to go through infantry officers course and neither was able to complete it. I think they made it a couple weeks. And the officers, in the Marine Corps, are unofficially held to a higher fitness standard so these women were likely in better shape than your average enlisted women. They are officially held to a higher standard at the point of entry. OCS candidates must be already be able to complete a whole PFT prior to admission, while enlisted must complete was is essentially a half PFT before going to recruit training. Infantry training includes going on force marches for ungodly miles with ungodly weight on your back. The strength isn't as much a factor ( though still a big one ) as endurance is.
Women can perform admirably in combat. I've seen it. Every Marine, regardless of sex or MOS, are trained in basic infantry skills. This training is added to and reinforced throughout their career. So I know women can fight. The thing is when the firefight is done, the other MOSs go back from whence they came while a grunt has an inordinate number of tasks to do at it's conclusion probably followed by standing post and another patrol.
SpecFrce aside (I know he's Recon), I wonder how many of you know the training and living conditions of being a grunt. As before you say a lot of guys couldn't do it, if a male is able to graduate from recruit training then he can be trained and developed to be infantry. The same can't not be said for females. Even the few that could would atrophy quicker. The only way to possibly prevent is to make the female standard higher, but that's not "fair" either. But maybe we should stop worrying about "fair" and worry about what's right.
Truthfully, I would like to see women make the cut, I am positive there are woman out there which could complete the course, if the Navy has female EOD operators (which falls under the SOC family tree), clearly some women can hold there own throughout training. Women possess roles in combat presently, hefty roles I might add. I may not be an immediate fan of the women I have witnessed in combat however I am routing for them! I want them to succeed.
Truthfully, I would like to see women make the cut, I am positive there are woman out there which could complete the course, if the Navy has female EOD operators (which falls under the SOC family tree), clearly some women can hold there own throughout training. Women possess roles in combat presently, hefty roles I might add. I may not be an immediate fan of the women I have witnessed in combat however I am routing for them! I want them to succeed.
We have them as well, ten to be exact. Things like this while I think the repeal is a good thing. Like I said, my one caveat is infantry. I know there are women who can, but it's so small that the cost benefit would be miniscule:
"WASHINGTON — In his first interview since the Pentagon opened ground combat jobs to women, the commandant of the Marine Corps said some occupations may ultimately remain closed if only a small number qualify. The Marines will not lower physical standards for certain specialties, Gen. James Amos told USA TODAY. "We can't afford to lower standards," he said. "We can't make adjustments on what's required on the battlefield. "That's not why America has a Marine Corps," he said.... Article continues above.
Before a deployment; as you ascend down a ladder through the first half-ton steel pressure-hatch, then transfer to the next ladder as you ascend further down through the second half-ton pressure-hatch, into the pipe within which you will spend the next 100 days. Traveling under ice, up rivers and into harbors, and around the world, you focus much more on your abilities and the task ahead. More so than the gender of your crewmates. [I did it many times]
So long as all crew is qualified, supplies are loaded, then your ready to spend 3 - 1/2 months sealed inside that pipe.
Someone's ability to bench-press is not at issue.
Can you function for the duration of the deployment, without phone calls, without letters or TV, without a doctor, with only the things you have brought with you, and stay focused?
Deployments have fires, floodings, hydraulic ruptures, electrical mishaps, and every sort of industrial accident.
A lot of men are weenies who can not take it. Such is life.
Training must be strenuous enough to filter out most of the weenies. Regardless of gender.
It makes no difference if you operate a Nuclear reactor, monitor gravity vectors for navigation, or cook the meals, crew must be competent under pressure for months at a time. That is why they pay us the big bucks.
Bottom line people...
The standards for strength, numbers, systems, industrial base, supply chain and all that.....are the standards FORCED on us by our ENEMIES! In order to ensure our national survival, we need to be vastly superior to any potential enemy at all times. Anything that weakens or potentially weakens our forces our resolve or stance must be absolutely avoided.
If women want equality they should be men. They're not. The so-called “gender equality” political movement is an utter waste of time and is indicative of noting more than the tyranny of “public funding”, meaning if some institution receives public money, it’s subject to every type of politically, morally and economically irresponsible social engineering experiment, threat of actual negative outcomes be damned.
Equality is a LEGAL definition, equal treatment under the LAW, equal punishment for equal crime. Men and women are NOT the same they simply cannot be in any non-legal way “equal”. XY and XX. No amount of training, political organizing, hormone therapy or surgery is ever going to change that. Women are NOT held to the same standard. They do think and act differently. The enemy is going to know this. They'll know that the women on the other side of the wire ARE weaker, that they do NOT have to meet the same physical standards as men. The enemy will know that statistically the women are smaller, lighter and can't lift as much, run as fast or as far or take as much filth terror or punishment. Sure...there are the outliers the oddities say 1 in 100,000. Are we really going to turn the whole system on its ear to "entitle" the 1/100,000th butch woman who is itching for a chance to kill some enemy soldier in order to make her career? Apparently so, this administration simply reeks with the desire to undo every long-standing American institution and to what end? Support their political base? Well, that’s not reason enough.
I heard it time and time again from the women I knew in the service….”we don’t have to do all that “army” stuff, we’re non-combatants, we’re support troops, engineers, truck drivers….To which I reply B.S.!!!!! The State Department, President, Mainstream Media, they do NOT decide whether or not you are a combatant. The ENEMY decides if you are a combatant or not, and that changes day to day, moment to moment. Time and time again I’ve seen the result of all this stupidity, this “revolutionary politics” in action.
The women have nicer showers. The women have nicer housing, cleaner toilets, they whine and get away with whatever they want, total lack of respect for higher rank and authority. The shaved headed tattooed’ EOD women on my FOB, they NEVER saluted, ever, guess they were too busy smoking their cigars. When the tent-camp got inundated with torrential rains…the women moved into better drier tents….the rest of us stuck it out….fixed our own problems improvised and overcame. The girls simply moved into better tents. Well, what happens when those tents aren’t there? What then? And consider this, more than once, I told some of them one day, more that once the following has happened…. think about what you’re going to do when someone bursts into your CHU (room) at 0200 wearing full battle-rattle and they say;
……“Get your gear and follow me!!!”….
…Well….what are you going to do?....Whine? Cry? Ask what for? You KNOW where you would be going in that situation right? TO THE FIGHT! Nobody cares that you’re a “clerk” or whatever. Situations like this happen all the time, each and every battle and each and every war we have ever fought. The women don’t even belong in half the places they are NOW, putting them into combat units just adds to the idiocy…..
It depends. Artillery, armor, etc. perhaps. Infantry? Definitely not. I do not think we have the fortitude to carry on a war where women are being killed at the same rate as men. If the times comes when we need to reinstate the draft, would you be in favor of drafting women? People who want to pretend that men and women are the same are doing just that: pretending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Army_Guy
You know, that's the thing that gets me and I agree with you. Every time this comes up, there is always someone who says they knew some chick who was in better shape than most guys or some chick who was in a support by fire position and held her own. But it's exactly what you said, those are minorities, they're outliers and the % of women who are capable of doing that is much less than men.
No one has even touched on the emotional toll that combat takes on you. What's going to happen when they air a video of a woman beheaded after she was beaten and raped? Still want that equality?
IMO, it will destroy the chemistry in a unit. She's around guys who won't get sex for months, she won't get sex for months, either. She has sex with someone or a couple of guys and bad things happen: pregnancy, disease, you lose a Soldier and they're not replaced quickly or easily.
Are women going to be part of selective service?
Are they going to get rid of the gender specific PT scale so all women are on the same scale as men or are they going to lower the male standards? If they increase all the women to men standards, I guarantee you most women will fail and would be put out or never eligible for the military. The pushups and pullups will get them. Why? Because they lack the upper body strength and you kinda need that when you're in combat.
The social experimentation in the military needs to stop.
We are here to fight and win wars, not worry about feelings or giving out opportunities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilksFavoriteCookie
I don't like the idea and think it's a facade. Most women do not have the mental capacity nor the athletic ability to complete such a task. Not being an ass, it's scientifically/ biblically proven that a female's body was constructed for different purposes aka reproduction. Call it a double standard, but women are meant to be protected, not run straight into the lion's den.
I don't think any father would approve of their little girl actually partaking in modern warfare. This is easy to put on paper, but once the bodies start rolling in and bbc news starts leaking images of mutilated female corpses......American society treasures their women toooo much. I'd prefer if the miltary elevated their status by giving them more senior positions. Military might is not only shown through brawn, but wit too. It's about time all women realize that male and female are not/were never meant to be equals. Each gender has their own strengths and weaknesses.
These.
There are so few women who will qualify that the expense of training them and having more than 90% wash out by today's standards will make this a costly mess. Thus, standards may be lowered, and we are all in more danger. Like women firefighters who cannot lift a person to safety because strength requirements have been lowered. Who do you want to pull your unconscious body from a burning building? Who do you want protecting our country in war? It's a boondoggle.
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.
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.
