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.
You know what?
If there are actual physical requirements that are necessary in the field of combat, then EVERYONE should be held to the same standard. Men and women.
Let 'em in and let 'em fight. But they have to be able to pass muster. And muster should be something relevant to the job.
Agreed. I'm a woman who is stronger than MANY of my male friends. I'm over 6' tall and regularly moved feed bags growing up that were over 100 lbs.
If a woman can pass the physical requirements I see no reason to stop her from being in combat and given the exact same opportunities as the men.
But it is a big deal to the men fighters. Doesn't that mean anything. When i was in the army i would not have wanted female soldiers with me, nor would almost anyone there. Doesn't what WE want mean anything?
No, what you want means nothing.
Your a man and the rights and desires of women are more important than yours.
Throughout history women have played a part in combat in one way or another. Personally I think putting them on the front lines with men would be a mistake. Many if not most frontline combat positions absolutely require muscles that women just don’t have. If there are women out there who can meet exactly the same standards as the men who fill out our combat units, then more power to them. But history suggests that what will most likely happen is someone will sue and either the courts or the Congress will force the military branches to make their training programs easier for women to pass. In combat, that liberal attitude could get women killed. It could also result in a physically weaker and less successful ground force. Remember "affirmative action"? Are we sure this won't work the same way? Rather than lifting up people who could use help developing their skills and careers, affirmative action has the opposite effect, dragging down entire programs and industries. Women on the front lines who are not strong enough to do the work could have the same effect.
Men and women actually have the same muscles, there are differences in size and how well strengthened they are, I know plenty of small men who can't lift much of anything, or run more than a block, and I used to weight train with very strong, well developed women who could wipe the floor with an average male.
It's been made very clear that the women who apply for combat positions will be required to meet the same physical requirements as a male applicant, and show they are 100% capable of doing the job, and women in the military don't want it any other way. Women don't want requirements lowered to an unsafe level any more than men do. Not every man can meet the requirements for many positions either, we don't lower requirements for those men and women don't expect requirements will be lowered for them either, the difference is men are always allowed to apply and be considered, they are never barred from trying only because of gender, this is a real problem that is finally being fixed.
This is not the same as affirmative action. Women in the military are not asking for special treatment, women are not being given jobs, they are simply demanding the equal right to apply for these jobs because it's unconstitutional to deny anyone a job based on gender alone, if they cannot meet the requirements they will work harder and try again, or move on to something else if they never qualify, plenty of military men try for certain jobs/units and fail, there are no grounds for a lawsuit. In general the women who will apply for these jobs are career military who plan to dedicate their lives to military service and simply want the same opportunities to advance in the military based on skill and competency, these women will uplift our military, not drag it down.
We don't need a bunch of Sandra Fluke's out there engaging the Taliban or any enemy in hand to hand combat if it came to it. They would get slaughtered. Having women on the front lines in combat is a terrible idea
Did she volunteer for the military?
Do you follow her life that closely?
Having crazy men on the front lines is at least as insane.
Last edited by chielgirl; 01-26-2013 at 02:44 AM..
You know what?
If there are actual physical requirements that are necessary in the field of combat, then EVERYONE should be held to the same standard. Men and women.
Let 'em in and let 'em fight. But they have to be able to pass muster. And muster should be something relevant to the job.
And who said that they won't?
Making things up to support your unfounded claim? Priceless.
Man hater, are you? Young men are forced to register for selective service. Ladies are not, yet. If it stands young ladies will be forced into combat if there is ever a draft. And make no mistake, a draft is something that may happen again, and has throughout US history. Then it is no longer a volunteer situation (choice) for young ladies, and will become an ugly spot for the US to find itself sending young ladies into combat by force, and this is exactly what will happen by law.
But, as I posted earlier there is a flip side to this in that some calmer heads down the road may see what lies ahead if a draft is instituted or have the foresight in reducing a foolish military expansion that may escalate out of control that may cause the introduction of a draft.
Boys will be boys, I suppose.
I prefer men; they're more mature.
You call me a man hater, yet you denigrate WOMEN.
There is no draft; men and women VOLUNTEER for the military.
Period.
Calmer heads who feel that all WOMEN must be protected and cared for by men to support your belief that women are less than?
How do you account for abuse in the secular side?
Because someone is a female does not make her a lady, it makes an adult a woman.
Jeez, at least get your definitions straight, dictionary.com is a good start. Lady | Define Lady at Dictionary.com
Last edited by chielgirl; 01-26-2013 at 03:02 AM..
We don't need a bunch of Sandra Fluke's out there engaging the Taliban or any enemy in hand to hand combat if it came to it. They would get slaughtered. Having women on the front lines in combat is a terrible idea
not all women are sandra fluke, for crying out loud.
that said, we are going in the wrong direction with this entire conversation. our foreign policy seems entirely clueless to me, anyway. we arm the enemies of our friends, and we change friends with almost every administration. remember when the taliban was our "friend" when they fought the soviets?
why is it that our leaders are hoping to put yet more americans in harm's way? shouldn't we be going the other direction as a country? is this direction beneficial to the safety of american citizens in general?
if we put any money into the military, it should be for developing defensive capabilities and i would see that as a gender neutral category. instead, we fight over which groups get to be put in danger zones in FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
and there is this, with all the civilian layoffs coming:
Pentagon laying off 46,000 staff
The US defense department says it has begun laying off most of its 46,000 civilian employees, as automatic defense budget cuts loom in March.
so we are going to be laying off civilians and ramping up a bigger foreign military?
yeah, good times.
Last edited by floridasandy; 01-26-2013 at 05:33 AM..
I have no problem with women in infantry combat units, but only if each woman allowed in is able to meet to present requirements for infantry - no watering it down. Women are already in combat - just not infantry combat units......and yes, there is now no reason that women should not be required to register with the Selective Service. Equal rights = equal responsibility
I have no problem with women in combat, provided they can pass the same exact tests as the men. If more than 50% can't pass muster, then that's too bad. As for everything else involving troop morale, we'll have to wait to see what happens. We can all be doom and gloom about it, but I believe I read a lot of similar excuses from the usual suspects on here regarding gay servicemen. The sky hasn't fallen since then, I doubt it will now
And who said that they won't?
Making things up to support your unfounded claim? Priceless.
Actually, it was Congress that said that women do not have to meet the same requirements as men for the same MOS. They call it "gender norming".
Quote:
Male Marines must complete a fifteen-mile march carrying a forty-pound pack and weapons in five hours, while women must march ten miles with twenty-five pounds and no weapons in three and a half hours. The U.S. Marine Corps also has used a hand grenade that only 45 percent of females can throw far enough so they are not injured by its explosion.
Liberal political correctness in the military will only result in getting more military personnel killed, which I suspect is the real reason behind this inane move.
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.
