Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-19-2015, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Elysium
12,308 posts, read 8,035,517 times
Reputation: 9123

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Only thing I'm answering is above:
You are wrong, he would be there, that height and weight scale is there as a basic standard. If you are a weight lifter (or just pure muscle), and can pass the body fat test and are under body fat % you can still be in the military.. I have a body builder friend that is 5'5 and 250lbs...just saying...
And BTW, that height and weight chart was from an insurance company from the early 1940's and has never been changed...
No need for mental gymnastics. Just back the weight off for gear that won't be shed if you're dragging someone under fire. And I am for females in special forces .I don't think line infantry units should waste time trying to find the one percenter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2015, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,974 posts, read 25,911,628 times
Reputation: 15474
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Training and doing are two very different things.

Mixed gender units are out performed by male only units every time. Mixed gender units also have lower survivability.

One Army study focusing on Operation Iraqi Freedom found women are almost twice as likely to suffer from non-combat related disease and injuries and are twice as likely to be medevac’d out of the theater of operations. Historical non-deployment rates for women are three to four times than that of men. Women suffer many times the rate of stress fractures and ACL injuries. All of this hurts combat readiness and increases costs. That we will still be able to defeat vastly inferior opponents is beside the point — more of our soldiers will die and our combat units will be less capable.

Putting Women in Combat -- Ineffective, Terrible Idea | National Review Online

From the same article
A Royal Society of Medicine study on the British military found that that injuries skyrocketed for women “when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits.” The end result was that women were eight times more likely to be discharged with back pain, tendon injuries, and stress fractures than their male counterparts. Indeed, many studies show that rigorous training only widens the gap between men and women.
Do you have a study that backs up your contention, not that many women on the front lines in Iraq and none in Afghanistan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 05:00 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,784,028 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Do you have a study that backs up your contention, not that many women on the front lines in Iraq and none in Afghanistan.
The article linked talks about unit readiness and surviability. I don't want to copy and paste more for fear of copywrite rules since I have already used a couple of paragraphs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 05:39 PM
 
7,575 posts, read 5,293,251 times
Reputation: 9441
I suggest that you read that actual study, it isn't as absolute as the National Review sets out to make it appear.

PS-I don't doubt that there are significant physical handicaps that women will face. Many will fail and others will succeed, but we've heard these arguments and studies before when they were applied to African Americans or women as fighter and attack helicopter pilots. For me, time and the women who choose this path will prove who is right and who is wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...aper_Final.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 05:46 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,784,028 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
I suggest that you read that actual study, it isn't as absolute as the National Review sets out to make it appear.

PS-I don't doubt that there are significant physical handicaps that women will face. Many will fail and others will succeed, but we've heard these arguments and studies before when they were applied to African Americans or women as fighter and attack helicopter pilots. For me, time and the women who choose this path will prove who is right and who is wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...aper_Final.pdf
I'm not saying their isn't a role for women in the military. Just when it comes to MOS that require large amount of strength and high physical demands need to be limited to men. Being a pilot and similar roles are fine for women. The expanse of women in some areas is already too broad in my opinion. I believe being the most effective at the proposed goal should come before gender integration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 05:54 PM
 
46,186 posts, read 26,914,971 times
Reputation: 11078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
No need for mental gymnastics. Just back the weight off for gear that won't be shed if you're dragging someone under fire. And I am for females in special forces .I don't think line infantry units should waste time trying to find the one percenter.
No need to cipher what I'm saying, it was pretty clear....the guy I'm talking about was not with gear....it was actual weight, hell I am 5'10 and have NEVER made the weight limit, but since I retired after 21 years in the Army, I must have made the body fat percentage....right?

I also agree with there is no reason to try and find the 1%er.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 06:07 PM
 
7,575 posts, read 5,293,251 times
Reputation: 9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
I'm not saying their isn't a role for women in the military.
I know exactly what you are saying.

Quote:
Being a pilot and similar roles are fine for women.
As I recall the arguments against women pilots were about the same as the arguments that you are making now.

Quote:
The expanse of women in some areas is already too broad in my opinion. I believe being the most effective at the proposed goal should come before gender integration.
Well this is where I fall, I think of all the ground combat units that women have a place it is in the special forces. Maybe not for every mission, but there are in my opinion numerous missions where a capable woman would be a definite asset.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 06:21 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,784,028 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
I know exactly what you are saying.



As I recall the arguments against women pilots were about the same as the arguments that you are making now.



Well this is where I fall, I think of all the ground combat units that women have a place it is in the special forces. Maybe not for every mission, but there are in my opinion numerous missions where a capable woman would be a definite asset.
Arguments against women pilots were about what happens when they are ultimately captured and how it impacts the war effort. Just look what happened when Jessica Lymch was captured and everyone got all worked up about it compared to many others who had been captured. Americans don't like seeing bad things happen to pretty white women.

The amount of time a women would be of a benefit to special forces over a man is incredibly small, they would be a detriment way more often or they would be an asset. The time and resources needed to train would be better spent on a man frankly. Everyone keeps talking about training women soldiers which is such a remote possibility in the first place. Not to mention that if female fighters needed to be trained they would already be adjusted to working with men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,611 posts, read 26,267,081 times
Reputation: 12633
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Good job. Nothing like congratulating people for a job well done.

Absolutely nothing.



PC military...nuff said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 10:03 PM
 
31,913 posts, read 14,898,997 times
Reputation: 13560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Govie View Post
I wonder how much they relaxed their rigorousness on the physical fitness side of it.


2 women pass Army Ranger School, first female graduates - AOL.com
Are you kidding. Sorry to disappoint you but there are women who can go one on one with a man kick their ass lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top