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.
If a woman qualifies for a position under the same standards as a man, you did not take part in their evaluation, you've never served with that person, yet you take a position, essentially prejudging them based upon no other criteria than their sex... that's pretty much the definition of gender discrimination.
wow Gender discrimination
I guess there is no reason to discuss this subject.
Judging someone based on physical characteristics is not gender discrimination when those physical characteristics are required to complete specific tasks.
Unless you think the NBA is discriminating against women by not allowing them to play.
The NBA dreamed that Cheryl Miller was a little bit bigger and faster. Just as soon as a woman is better than that top 12 a team can employ she will be on a roster.
Any high school team full of 18 year old men would take her if the state and school board allowed it.
Looks like those who claimed that the military was lowering standards went to the next step as that is no longer a valid argument, here you have 2 women that did everything that was asked of them to qualify yet now we have people on here setting up new standards. I don't see how they can get around being female, that's a tough one to pass.
There have been men that washed out of this program and if you listened to the press conference with the 2 women you would have heard their praise from fellow classmates. Maybe some should offer their consulting services to the Army?
They should be able to go into active duty. They proved they can do it. It seems like a chance for photo ops more than anything else based on the current rules.
I don't see the big deal? 2 women were able to pass Ranger school and we're supposed to just lose our minds? Great job, but 99% of women will continue to fail combat arms training until the bar is inevitably lowered to ensure that we have reached an "appropriate level of diversity to foster a high level of effectiveness."
Good job to these women but women are still not psychologically, emotionally, mentally, or physically suited to combat arms and the surest way to destroy our combat readiness is to make combat arms co-ed.
There is no compelling need or reason to put women in combat other than to satisfy our craven SJW-driven need for "diversity." It is one thing to force diversity down the throat of some bland corporate office but we're putting our national security at risk chasing this bizarre ideological agenda our nation is so determined to chase.
Yeah the National Review, that's not an unbiased source or anything.
I would rather be in combat with a male ranger than a female ranger. And the majority in the military agree that they would rather have their fellow combat troops be male.
It is not like we are running out of people to take the course and fill these roles. Especially at a time we are drawing down our military. If we were facing a larger threat, especially one that could compromise our actual borders my tune would change. But we are no where near that point.
I'm sure 60 years ago white soldiers said they would prefer to serve with white soldiers. The point is not to compare the situations but realize that times change. People will either adapt or they will be tossed out of the way.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,386,383 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Looks like those who claimed that the military was lowering standards went to the next step as that is no longer a valid argument, here you have 2 women that did everything that was asked of them to qualify yet now we have people on here setting up new standards. I don't see how they can get around being female, that's a tough one to pass.
There have been men that washed out of this program and if you listened to the press conference with the 2 women you would have heard their praise from fellow classmates. Maybe some should offer their consulting services to the Army?
I took one look at their faces and know that there would not be a snowball's chance in Hell either one of them could take me one on one.
I hate to say it but I'd destroy either one of them...and I knew guys growing up that could take both of them at once.
Why do you lefties need to get so sorry with your agenda? Why do women need to be "equal" with men in everything? It's quite pathetic how sick in the head the left is with their ****.
I took one look at their faces and know that there would not be a snowball's chance in Hell either one of them could take me one on one.
I hate to say it but I'd destroy either one of them...and I knew guys growing up that could take both of them at once.
Why do you lefties need to get so sorry with your agenda? Why do women need to be "equal" with men in everything? It's quite pathetic how sick in the head the left is with their ****.
Why do you believe that everyone in favor of this is a liberal? Here's a hint, I am anything but a liberal. I just believe everyone should be given a fair chance regardless of what some macho man thinks. In other words, I am a real conservative.
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.
