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.
Yes, and there is something new going on with that. The military has not had trouble quickly slimming down obese young men before--the male phenotype is amenable to losing fat and gaining muscle at that age.
Now they're encountering a different kind of obesity that is for some reason far more difficult to reduce and maintain the reduction. I've got some off-the-cuff theories about that, but it's a real "thing."
My husband was talking about this not too long ago. There are a lot of theories, none which bode well for the future. This may be the first American generation with a shorter lifespan than the one before it.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
My husband was talking about this not too long ago. There are a lot of theories, none which bode well for the future. This may be the first American generation with a shorter lifespan than the one before it.
However, since combat jobs are no longer closed to females, which is the reason the Supreme Court gave as justification for why it is not discriminatory to just draft males, able bodied females need to be added to the draft pool. Equal is equal, on the bad as well as the good, after all. So, maybe that will help.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
However, since combat jobs are no longer closed to females, which is the reason the Supreme Court gave as justification for why it is not discriminatory to just draft males, able bodied females need to be added to the draft pool. Equal is equal, on the bad as well as the good, after all. So, maybe that will help.
I adamantly disagree. Beyond my previous objections I would be radically opposed to a drafting of my S/O. Would remove my right to procreate before shipping out. That or she would just be made ineligible by getting pregnant, just like I imagine a majority of other draft age females.
Would also cause severe population growth issue if we are losing a large percentage of breeding age women as casualties. Populations cannot remain healthy while killing off women.
See if they do better or worse than all male units.
Issue solved
I'm willing to bet they will give the men a run for the money.
Who goes to spring them if they are captured? Another all female unit? The daughter of a friend of mine is a Marine. She is close to 6' tall and not frail. She and her "wife" - another Marine - have sleeves of tats and look like they want to be tough but how would they do in full gear in a street battle?
You want to make policy based on 2 out of the slightly over 74,000 women in the Army?
400 women applied for Ranger School
138 passed the initial pre-course training
19 made it into the Ranger Assessment Phase
8 made it into the actual course
2 passed
Normal males passage rate of actual course is 42-52%, although oddly it was under 25% (94 out of 381) for this one cycle. One of the lowest in Ranger School history, although, gosh darn almost the same as the female graduation rate (2 out of 8). Strangely the three classes leading up to this one were also significantly lower:
Hmmm.... Imagine that.
The problem that they are trying to resolve is not about women needing to be integrated into combat arms. The problem they are trying to resolve is opportunity.
The military, rightfully so, gives an advantage in promotions to those that have served in combat arms and have been in combat.
This creates a glass ceiling where women, who have been recruited to serve over decades, cannot get past certain points.
This is what they are trying to resolve. Even if the vast majority of women cannot meet the requirements at least providing opportunity goes a long way toward equity.
When I was younger I did not think we needed women in the military but I now believe we do need them. Maybe not now, but when the economy is good and they are unable to reach recruitment levels.
If we just a exclude women from serving we will run into state funded discrimination. It is not an easy problem, there is no easy solution.
The problem that they are trying to resolve is not about women needing to be integrated into combat arms. The problem they are trying to resolve is opportunity.
The military, rightfully so, gives an advantage in promotions to those that have served in combat arms and have been in combat.
This creates a glass ceiling where women, who have been recruited to serve over decades, cannot get past certain points.
This is what they are trying to resolve. Even if the vast majority of women cannot meet the requirements at least providing opportunity goes a long way toward equity.
When I was younger I did not think we needed women in the military but I now believe we do need them. Maybe not now, but when the economy is good and they are unable to reach recruitment levels.
If we just a exclude women from serving we will run into state funded discrimination. It is not an easy problem, there is no easy solution.
It's not an exclusion from "serving," but it may mean, if they want to go into a combat specialty (which is not the same thing as being in combat) they may have to go into a service where they validly make it--Air Force or Navy instead of Marines, for instance.
There are scads of female aviators these days. The Air Force selected its fifth female U-2 pilot a few months ago--and a look at her record strongly suggests the primary reason is to get her prepared for a star (which is what happens for males who are being so groomed). The Air Force has had a female general officer selected as a Major Command commander...with not even a pair of wings on her chest.
I was barred from the begining from being a pilot because I wear glasses (and this was decades before LASIK); that would have required me to seek the Army instead of the Air Force if I wanted a combat specialty. So it's merely a matter of going where the opportunity is.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 09-14-2015 at 04:51 PM..
Who goes to spring them if they are captured? Another all female unit? The daughter of a friend of mine is a Marine. She is close to 6' tall and not frail. She and her "wife" - another Marine - have sleeves of tats and look like they want to be tough but how would they do in full gear in a street battle?
This is the argument against women in combat arms. It would crush morale.
The problem that they are trying to resolve is not about women needing to be integrated into combat arms. The problem they are trying to resolve is opportunity.
The military, rightfully so, gives an advantage in promotions to those that have served in combat arms and have been in combat.
This creates a glass ceiling where women, who have been recruited to serve over decades, cannot get past certain points.
This is what they are trying to resolve. Even if the vast majority of women cannot meet the requirements at least providing opportunity goes a long way toward equity.
When I was younger I did not think we needed women in the military but I now believe we do need them. Maybe not now, but when the economy is good and they are unable to reach recruitment levels.
If we just a exclude women from serving we will run into state funded discrimination. It is not an easy problem, there is no easy solution.
It's not discrimination if they can't perform to the same standards. Those 2 did. Two out of 74,000. Those odds in a disease would make it rare enough that it would be considered an orphan disease.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
It's not discrimination if they can't perform to the same standards. Those 2 did. Two out of 74,000. Those odds in a disease would make it rare enough that it would be considered an orphan disease.
Yeah, that disease "argument" would not fly in court.
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.
