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.
1968 to 1969 I spent one year as a combat medic with the 1/18th First Infantry Division in Vietnam and half that time was spent in the bush.
Most of the time we would head out for three to four day patrol missions but once we were out for 21 days getting just one change of clothes (nobody wore underwear it was to hot) of clothes but all our water went for drinking.
I didn't carry 70 lbs but more like 50. An M-16 with 12 magazines of 18 rounds each (medics did not have to carry as much as the troops), a medical aid backpack with maybe 20 lbs and then two one gallon bladder bags of water with two or three additional canteens. I was down in the delta (III Corps) where there was water water everywhere but not a drop you would dare drink. I carried 20 lbs of just water and there were times I wish I had another gallon.
When it is 100 degrees with high humidity (felt like the humidity was 100% which it wasn't) the amount of water you need is staggering. So maybe I did carry more than 50 lbs... I never weighed it.
Total misery.
In the bush, especially the free fire zones, you could expect zero in terms of privacy. There wasn't any. If you had to take care of business you didn't wander far.
The bigger question should be is an active role in combat what we really want for the women of our country?
Shouldn't that be up to the women of your country?
Set objective qualifications; and the men and women who meet or exceed these qualifications should be allowed to do whatever the task is.
The problem comes when someone wants to change an objective measurement to create more inclusiveness of a certain class, in this case women; and subjective qualifications in which there is no measurement other than someone's opinion.
Set objective qualifications; and the men and women who meet or exceed these qualifications should be allowed to do whatever the task is.
The problem comes when someone wants to change an objective measurement to create more inclusiveness of a certain class, in this case women; and subjective qualifications in which there is no measurement other than someone's opinion.
I sort of agree. Although I also think that those objective measurements aren't actually objective most of the time and could benefit from some tweaking ON A REGULAR BASIS. Just because something has been that way forever doesn't mean it's any good. Whenever we humans come up with to measure other humans you can bet there is a whole lot of personal crap in the formula that doesn't need to be there.
I sort of agree. Although I also think that those objective measurements aren't actually objective most of the time and could benefit from some tweaking ON A REGULAR BASIS. Just because something has been that way forever doesn't mean it's any good. Whenever we humans come up with to measure other humans you can bet there is a whole lot of personal crap in the formula that doesn't need to be there.
The crème of the crop make it. Why are you so jealous? That's called life.
I think a good example of why women are simply not suited for many jobs, combat, firefighter, police officer--is the women's olympic hockey team. They practice against 13 and 14 year old boys because that is their physical level at their peak. They are no match for 15 and 16 year old boys, and those boys are not good enough to be olympians ever. That is how far above physically men are over women naturally.
I was going to respond to your ridiculous post, but I'm sure there are many women in here that are far superior to you in every aspect of life that will come in here and kick your chauvinist azz, so I need not bother...
I am not saying they stand out in a crowd as physical giants. Matter of fact, most of these meathead bodybuilders who claim they have 3% body fat perhaps will never make it in the Force Recon unit.
My brother was only 180lb when he was an active duty Marine. He is 6 feet tall. It doesn't take just muscles to be a force Recon, it takes mental capacity as well.
I have never served ONE day in the military, so I am not going to talk like I've been in the combat zone. But I don't believe a 15 year old boy and a 50 year old men can be put in combat zone regardless how strong they are.
Undeniably, some women might handle combat as well as some men. But that is true of some 13-, 14- and 15-year-old boys, and some 50- and 60-year old men. Yet we do not draft boys or men that age or send them into combat. Is this invidious discrimination based on age, or ageism?
Wow you covered a wide range. The average soldier reflects the average citizen of the nation they are from.
Elite soldiers are just that elite and are no more comparable to the average soldier than the average woman is comparable to an Olympic athlete.
Old men v.s young boys? An old soldier brings with him his years of experience hence Generals who are north of 50. Young boys may have energy but lack experience to properly use it.
I have met 50 year old soldiers from other countries and I'll say this they would but some of young bucks to shame.
Women should have the right to prove themselves either fit or unfit for duty. I am 100% sure that I wouldn't want some DC politician who never served to make an arbitrary decision based on gender.
Uh--NO. They don't practice against 13 and 14 year old boys. They practice against HIGH SCHOOL boys. My twin boys, who are 16, are both about 6' tall and weigh around 180 (and it's solid muscle). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/sp...anted=all&_r=0
If you're referring to the Albert Midget Hockey League, it's a HIGH SCHOOL league. That's who the Canadians practice against. Read the link. The US women's team schedules against top High School teams as well.
As for the rest, if a woman can do the job, why not? That's not an "activist" approach. They're already doing many of those jobs now--this just formalizes it for promotions and advancement.
You are right, and I once saw the Princeton University Womens Hockey team man-handle a boys high school team in a scrimmage. The girls in the WNBA would hold their own against many Div 3 Men's basketball teams as well.
In general terms , sure men are stronger then women. But that's not to say that some women are not stronger then some men.
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.
They're already doing many of those jobs now--this just formalizes it for promotions and advancement.