BREAKING NEWS: Military to open combat jobs to women (CNN)

[kcran567]

A trained woman can fight hand to hand (to a certain degree) with a man, same goes for shooting a gun and humping a 100 lbs pack in triple digit heat.


Can they do it on an equal level? no.


Will they suffer higher attrition and injuries? yes.


Will there be morale problems and potential for sex related shenanigans, yes.


In a perfect world is it a bad idea, yes.


The bottom line is they'll just lower the standards for women and they'll get their way in just like female cops, firefighters,etc.

 

[Lauge]

.....they'll get their way in just like female cops, firefighters,etc.

And of course, history has clearly shown female cops and firefighters to be a terrible idea :

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

.....they'll get their way in just like female cops, firefighters,etc.

And of course, history has clearly shown female cops and firefighters to be a terrible idea :

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Cops aren't soldiers and neither are fire firefighters. it not an equal comparison. Not by a long shot. When cops carry that kind of load in that kind of heat for months on end far away from civilization we can talk about it, even then a cop isn't locating closing with and destroying an enemy or be hunted by enemy soldiers.


There is no civilian equivalent to military combat arms.

 

[Lauge]

Cops aren't soldiers and neither are fire firefighters. it not an equal comparison. Not by a long shot. When cops carry that kind of load in that kind of heat for months on end far away from civilization we can talk about it, even then a cop isn't locating closing with and destroying an enemy or be hunted by enemy soldiers.


There is no civilian equivalent to military combat arms.

Agreed. My point was that statement ("....they'll get their way in just like female cops, firefighters,etc.") was irrelevant. Both, as you point out, because cops and firefighters have little in common with combat troops, but also because (as with cops and firefighters) women "getting their way" is not automatically a bad thing.

I also completely agree that performance standards should not be lowered simply to allow this or that group into particular jobs, whether it's men wanting to become nurses, women wanting to become soldiers or atheists wanting to become bishops. If somebody can do the job, and wants to, I say let them.

Personally, though, I am in favor of "mixed" (male/female) units, where appropriate! One of my first jobs was as a teaching assistant at a Danish university, and my observation there was that mixed-gender groups generally (generally!) performed better than "same-gender" groups. And yes, this was a civilian teaching establishment, not a combat unit, I do acknowledge that.

Also on a side note, Denmark suffered its first female combat casualty in Afghanistan a year or so ago. Was it tragic? Yes. Were there hues and cries in Denmark for the immediate withdrawal of Danish troops? Yes. Were these reactions worse than when a male Danish soldier was killed? No.

Regards & all, and enjoy the upcoming weekend,

Thomas L. Nielsen

Luxembourg (expat Dane)

 

[Lauge]

Let's not even begin to talk about all of the rape allegations that are thrown around willy nilly becuase someone got yelled at.

Actually, let's do begin to talk about that, shall we: Source please?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[bobbymike]

Its just a good thing we don't have 11 years of recent combat experience to use in making our assessment. This is all just theoretical, like PAKFA Vs. F-22. No one really knows what prolonged 21st century infantry combat will look like... :

So here is our paradox

we make things even and cull a large majority of women throughout the military (not just combat arms), keeping training as realistic as possible

or we lower standards (im sorry we won't "lower" them we will "change" them) to unrealistic levels, so more people pass.

If it was the first option I would be fine with that, but it won't be. Its odd too because no one takes a hard look at the Navy SEALs and says "hey you sure don't pass many people, have you thought about making it so more people pass?"



The Q angle

Who wants to see what happens when we throw 130 lbs on?

http://www.cusjc.ca/catalyst/?p=833

from an article about ACL injuries being more common in females in the high impact, heavy load arena of... soccer?!

Ever been to a women's basketball tourney? My sister plays in a woman's league 70 to 80% wear knee braces no lie.
And to OBB post about all women units attacking and scaring the Muslim men here's what America really does when confronted by politically sensitive issues
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/army-removes-crosses-steeple-from-chapel.html

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Let's not even begin to talk about all of the rape allegations that are thrown around willy nilly becuase someone got yelled at.

Actually, let's do begin to talk about that, shall we: Source please?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

If anecdotes, personal accounts, and "Cool Story Bro"s all count I have tons of these stories.

It is extremely difficult to get any bearings on what really happens because there is usually one persons word against anothers.


The book the kinder gentler military outlines many of the problems already encountered but the largest issue by far, is female victim hood. Its culturally implied that the men are always the aggressors--Men do not get sexually harassed or manipulated its that simple. Women need to be protected and sheltered. Civilians also don't realize the rules and regulations already in place that hamper proper bonding (the unit kind, not the sex kind) I knew a female Marine who was reprimanded for being alone with 7 other male marines watching a movie in the barracks. An NCO happened by and saw here alone. There are rules about how many males a single female can be around. She violated them and was written up. The concern over sexual assault, rape, or other incidents overwhelmed the need for her to bond and be accepted by her unit. I'm not even going to get into hazing, and why it exists, and why they are trying (and will always fail) to put a stop to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Flinn_incident

The Tailhook scandal was very quick to blame all the men but it never detailed exactly what the women were up to which was just as raunchy, but it didn't fit the narrative of men=bad and they need taming. (ironically there were 7 men who also claimed sexual harassment during the tail hook scandal, but that never made the headlines)

The aftermath of the scandal was not without controversy. Many conservatives and retired officers alleged that in ending the careers of over 300 officers, the Clinton administration had gone far beyond punishing wrongdoers and had used the scandal as a pretext for carrying out a purge of the officer corps.[11]

Former Navy Secretary Jim Webb, speaking at the Naval Academy said, "When the Tailhook investigation began, and certain political elements used the incident to bring discredit on naval aviation as a whole, and then on the Navy writ large, one is entitled to ask... Who fought this? Who condemned it? When a whole generation of officers is asked to accept ... the destruction of the careers of some of the finest aviators in the Navy based on hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations, in some cases after a full repudiation of anonymous charges that resemble the worst elements of McCarthyism ... what admiral has had the courage to risk his own career by putting his stars on the table, and defending the integrity of the process and of its people?"[12]

Another former Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, "condemned the Clinton White House for imposing policies of 'political correctness' on the navy and the Senate Armed Services Committee for impeding the career advancements of officers linked to the 1991 Tailhook sexual assault scandal. It is 'terribly damaging to the very fiber of the Navy as an institution, this continuing attack from so many quarters'... Officers were victims of media 'character assassination.' Following what should have been a minor story, he said, '14 admirals have been cashiered, 300 naval aviators have been driven out of the Navy or their careers terminated.'"[13]
Writing in Reason, Jack Kammer said "This is not to deny that some unsuspecting women were caught in activities they understandably found offensive. But after Lieutenant Paula Coughlin captured the media with her unquestioned, though questionable, claim that she was among the truly unsuspecting and offended ones, women's activists began to spin Tailhook like a top. Following their success with the Dreyer incident, they insisted that the drunken aviators in Las Vegas represented a widespread culture of oppression and hostility toward military women. How did the Navy defend itself? By hoisting a white flag."
Many officers raised the case of decorated Blue Angels commanding officer Bob Stumpf, who was denied promotion and retired simply for having gone to Tailhook '91 to receive an award.[14] Stumpf himself has decried the post-Tailhook climate and its effect on morale and readiness: "[T]he essence of that warrior culture has been severely diluted in this decade. Politically inspired social edicts enforced since Tailhook '91 have rendered a ready room atmosphere so different now that it is nearly unrecognizable... Pilots are hampered in their ability to train as warriors by the policies of their senior leaders. They are faced with social experimentation and double standards in training. Experienced pilots are forced to qualify certain trainees who may or may not demonstrate established quality standards. This leads to distrust and resentment, two powerfully harmful factors in terms of unit morale, and thus military effectiveness."[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal

The problem with sexual harrassment and rape stats is that probably more than any other statistic they fail to show the "truth"-- what is falsely reported, and what is of course never reported is truly anyone's guess.

Aboard ship suddenly becoming pregnant means the female is in serious trouble. At that point the man she has been having relations with for months "suddenly" raped her. Because she is now a victim of rape, she is protected under the law and daddy is in big trouble. So it can be used to save your own skin, the incentive to lie is pretty extreme.


The time, money, effort, and energy that goes into all this. Its mind boggling. I had a major tell me that 85 percent of what officers do is try to fix family/marriage problems. I have a feeling that very soon thats going to get knocked toward about 100 percent. There simply won't be time to train for war and lead Soldiers/Marines.

Lets just look at the equation. And lets think about what is "fair"

If we take my 70 percent vs 40 percent success rate (and 40 is being generous, because that study says the number is actually closer to about 30) and then we decide is that worth it?

Some will say yes of course, its for equality afterall if we yield just one good female infantrygal its worth it! Ok, but what if in getting that 40-30 percent we permantaily injure about 25 percent initially and another 10 percent of those females that make it past Infantry training. Is it still worth it?

When you stand in front of that female class of 100 ladies do you include in your "not all of you are going to make it" speech "and 35 percent of you will be permanatly injured even those that make it through training, that an ACL injury takes about a year and a lot of hard work to recover from, and the VA is already overloaded and overfilled and you will spend the rest of your life in and out of there never getting the help you need?" do you mention that only 30 percent of men fail compared to 60 percent for females and that their chance of stress fracture are 5 times that of males? What do you tell them? and at what point do you feel that knowingly putting so many people through harmful training in a culture that emphasizes SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY at all times is wrong? how many women are you willing to grind up to ensure that they get "their chance?"

I am sure tax payers will take the easy route --Survey questions:

"in an age of fiscal austerity and smaller budgets, should the US military pay more, and be less efficient to get the same results?"

Ha! obviously not!

"should the military pay extra time money and attention seeing that women get equality in combat arms"

YES!!! such an obvious answer-- equality sister!

"Should money be taken from other programs and combat readiness degrades as a result?"

Uhhhh......maybe which programs....?

"Is it acceptable that women should suffer more injury, and more permanant injury so they can help their careers?"

No! That is wrong! That is wrong! There outta be a law!

"is it acceptable, that a female who does not opt for combat arms even though it is now open and she has declined to participate, should be promoted less"

Well.... I ....

Well guess what, those are all hard realities. and its really easy to say "its all worth it" until the bill comes do.

Soldier A has a 70 percent chance of passing. Soldier B has a 30 percent chance of passing. Soldier A has a 10 percent chance of being injured, 5 percent permanant. Soldier B has a 30 percent chance of injury, 15 percent permanant. Soldeir A costs blank amount. Soldier B cost blank amount and more. Which soldier should we fund with our taxdollars? Survey says?


When I went to bootcamp we had 2 recruits out of 80 not graduate with us. They were injured and graduated with another platoon at a later date. We picked up 2 replacements the day after. so we graduated with 80. That was simple. 1 in 40 injured, and none permanent? Now that is anecdotal but talking with FeMars that is a rare as hell story. Extra precautions must be takes with females and they were all too happy to show me the techniques they used in boot camp to try and stay healthy, even then the odds were lousy.

What is fair?

Is it fair that we should introduce a divisive force so we can all get promoted at the same rate? Is it fair that women in combat arms will have a double standard applied for the simple fact that equality means destruction or very very short term returns? What is fair? when you have to hump 96lb arty shells as fast as you can because you are doing a final protective fire, and the females in the battery can't keep up putting fewer rounds out and forcing those still able to work harder, and possibly costing the lives of those in desperate need of an FPF? is that fair?

Is there an element of a "he Man woman haters club" in combat arms? You betcha. Does that mean there aren't extremely valid reasons why we don't want women in combat arms, and one of those reasons so many are against it is because they will bear the brunt of the failure and even their lives lost? You betcha.

Its funny that we mention cops and firefighters. I often ask people so if your house catches on fire, or an armed criminal shows up you want the first responder who just barely passed right? The guy they had to bend the standards down to ensure he makes it? The guy who if it was up to his peers they would have purged a long time ago? "oh heavens no!!" they tell me. "why is that?" I ask "I want my life in the hands of the best!!"

No way!? You mean you were all for equality until your life hung in the balance and then suddenly you wanted only the best of the best? Thats amazing!

My final thought. Should this "fairness" and "career mindedness" (CMC General Al Gray said in the early 1990's that the biggest threat to the Marine Corps was careerism, putting one self before the mission and the men, but i digress) only be applied to women?

I know 2 Navy SEALs. I also know 3 exceptional young men who would have made excellent SEALs-- if not for injury. You know what helps your career? having Navy SEAL on your resume. Thats money right there. Should my 3 friends have been allowed to stay in SEAL training citing career opportunity? Should BUD/S have lowered their standards and allowed them to stay in despite the fact that the medical staff said they were no longer capable of being able to perform?

How about the exceptionally weak kid that goes to the recruiter and wants to be a Marine? does he get special preference too? How about a 350lb fat guy who wants to be a soldier? Or how about a Marine who loses his legs in an IED and is no longer combat capable. Can he stay in? We gotta be fair here. Can't go discriminating against wheel chair people just because they can't drive a tank right? How about a 45 year old man who just retired from his regular job and always wanted to be a soldier? Can we let him in? If he fails the tests, can we just let him in anyway, or create a separate old man test to ensure he passes? Amongst native Americans here in the states long hair is seen as a sign of manhood and maturity, must you have his head shaved in boot camp? Is that fair to him? Is that fair to the others who would have rather kept their hair as well? How about a guy with massive gambling debts? OK that he has extremely confidential information and a mountain of debt and threats coming his way? How about 23 year old with terminal cancer who always wanted to be a pilot? We let him in too right? we just write him an exception for all the flying school he misses getting treatment and you just cross your fingers he has learned enough about piloting before you step onto his C-17? I'm sure hes fine, and besides the litany of medicines he is on, barely have any side effects... Just because your ASVAB score says you can barely set a micro wave oven timer is no reason why you should not be a "nuke" working on a shipboard reactor. Nukes make a lot of money. Great career there. What could go wrong? The man has a dream.

The bottom line is the military IS NOT equal opportunity. They can and do discriminate. Military candidates are medically pre screened, and exceptions are rare and impossible in many cases. When injuries occur or in some cases are discovered in training they personnel are reassessed and if the problem is severe enough they are sent home.

The military definition of fair is an equal set of standards applied universally for the benefit of the whole and the accomplishment of the mission. The civilian defnition applies to the individual and the individuals goals above all else. And that's the problem. What is fair? If asked Civilians will say that its the individual, the military will say its the group. (there are exceptions of course) Its a cultural thing. Its why we take single minded selfish civilians and put them through training that emphasizes team work, and ideals larger than oneself like sacrifice for the good of those around you, or the mission. Speaking of doing things you would rather not be forced to do for the greater good, Females must now register for Selective Service correct? All things being equal now. Can males now participate in other gender seperated sports? Can a male now destroy the field in female track and field events? Equality cuts both ways. Can a male now opt for a female PFT if it helps his career? The only thing better than a perfect 300 score is a 410 on the female PFT.

 

[bobbymike]

TT another great post.

I want to see no more gender separation especially in sports there should be a pre-qualifying for the Olympics where men and women compete together with the finalists going to the 'official' Olympics.

What you say other than maybe archery and some shooting events there are NO women at the Olympics in fact in most events they didn't finish in the top 100? What? male high school track athletes beat most Olympic women.

How about hockey with full contact? News headline, "Three more women badly injured in gender neutral hockey game" I live in Canada and we have, always in competition with America, the world's best women's hockey, get that WORLD'S BEST, they lose to Bantam AAA teams boys age 13 and 14.

Remember the TV show America Gladiators? The strongest women on that show could bench 265lbs, or at least said she could and I guarantee it was - just from her look and voice, etc - steroid enhanced. I am an average guy 6'2" 225lbs and could bench 405lbs in my prime and all my friends could beat her easily. So sick of this politically correct crap.

AND this is friggin combat in the defense of the nation there are no do overs. Gender equality is and will always be a one way street.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/coed-combat-units_697822.html?page=2

Great article I think written fairly with good statistical evidence and should end any debate as to whether this is a good idea.

 

[Arjen]

From Time Battleland, some medical data:

Women in Combat: Vive a Différence

From the BBC:

During the Iraq and Afghan wars, US female military personnel have worked as medics, military police and intelligence officers, sometimes attached but not formally assigned to frontline units.

Firmly put in harm's way, but because not formally assigned to frontline units, the Combat Exclusion Policy was legally honoured.
Some more from the same source:

One of the most high-profile female combat veterans in America is US Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat who lost her legs when the Army helicopter she was piloting in Iraq was shot down. On Thursday, she quipped on NBC's Today show: "I didn't lose my legs in a bar fight. I'm pretty sure I was in combat."
Restrictions were first eased a year ago, when the Pentagon opened up 14,500 roles, closer to the frontline, which had previously been off limits to female personnel.

 

[Justo Miranda]

They probably sent what they had at hand

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

From Time Battleland, some medical data:

Women in Combat: Vive a Différence

FTFA

Standards must be met, but there will be pressure to ensure enough women qualify so there’s not only one or two in a 150-troop company.

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/01/25/women-in-combat-vive-a-difference/#ixzz2J88n9E2H

There is your problem. The brits, the US, and Canada are throwing out numbers like 1 in 100 and 1 in 130. So one or two is what should be the statistical norm, but its not politically acceptable so they will apply pressure or change standards to ensure that candidates that would have previously been dismissed get through. a one percent success rate is not a statistic a smiling general can give congress. hell even 30 percent would be considered "bad" by most congress critters.

Now that women are in combat arms and we are banishing all these evil standards the ladies have 6 months to one year before they are measured to the male PFT standards right? gotta be fair.

So in 2016 we will have a General go before congress and say "Things are going great! We have a 1 percent success rate with the women in combat arms, zero percent in special forces. and we have sent 70 percent of our women in other branches of service home, and those that remain are struggling to get promoted, Its equality, and we would be more than happy to do it again"

"thats not the equality we wanted" congress will say.

If it were that easy if it was just a matter of "we have one standard now, make it or leave and that goes for males and females" I wouldn't have a single complaint. Right now we have to bend the standard in basic training just get an "acceptable" number of females through entry level training. As it stands right now females are getting promoted at a faster rate than men, without the combat arms according to the pentagon. even without combat arms and lowered standards women are having twice the rate of injuries that men are.

There is an old saying I like to remember (It gets a little hard to follow--so pay attention)

What accomplishes the mission is good, what gets in the way is bad.

(Read it again if you didn't quite pick up on it the first time.) Thats the best advice in the world that no one takes. I mean "duh" right? Its so simple but I want you to stop and think about how rarely organizations and individuals follow this. Women in combat arms doesn't even "Create more problems than it solves" Because there wasn't a problem to begin with. The problem was "sure America has one of the best combat forces in the world that has been cutting its teeth the last 11 years, but there are not enough women involved" Oh ok. So you are happy with the work, but not who is doing the work? For all its been through American Combat arms is not broken. It doesn't need to be "fixed" Are we in desperate need of change in combat arms? Have our men been letting us down tactically now need a full review and revised standards to find out how to accomplish missions in the future?

Its the old government saying, if it aint broke fix it til it is. :

Women in the military has not been going smoothly and they just decided to double down rather than look at fixing what they have and taking then looking at the next logical step.

 

[Orionblamblam]

And to OBB post about all women units attacking and scaring the Muslim men here's what America really does when confronted by politically sensitive issues

There's what we *do* do, and there's what we *should* do. Call me a dreamer, a wild-eyed optimist, but I yearn for an America that is willing and able and eager to open up a can of Lovecraftian nightmares on those who would threaten us. And if, as in the current case, that can of nightmares comes in the form of something that would *not* offend any real man (armed women), but would transform jihadis into gibbering vegetables... hell, that sounds like not only a good and wise long-term strategy to drag that chunk of the world into the vicinity of the 21st century, it also sounds like a party!

 

[Arjen]

From the Economist's Democracy in America blog:

See Jane shoot by W.W. | HOUSTON
WOMEN will soon be eligible for combat positions in the American military. The Pentagon's announcement that it will overturn its rule against women serving on the front lines has drawn praise from editorial boards as an important step toward equality of the sexes. For example, the New York Times says:
<blockquote>The Pentagon’s decision to end its ban on women in combat is a triumph for equality and common sense. By opening infantry, artillery and other battlefield jobs to all qualified service members regardless of sex, the military is showing that categorical discrimination has no place in a society that honors fairness and equal opportunity.</blockquote> Of course, not everyone is so thrilled. Allen West, an Army veteran and former Republican congressman, surely speaks for many:
<blockquote>GI Jane was a movie and should not be the basis for a policy shift. I know Martha McSally, have known women who are Apache and Cobra helicopter pilots, and served with women who were MPs, but being on the ground and having to go mano y mano in close combat is a completely different environment.</blockquote> <blockquote>I completely disagree with this decision and can just imagine all the third and fourth order effects and considerations for implementation, such as standards for training. Unless the Obama administration has not noticed we are fighting against a brutal enemy and now is not the time to play a social experiment with our ground combat forces. President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, should be focused on sequestration and the failure of his policies in the Middle East. This is the misconceived liberal progressive vision of fairness and equality which could potentially lead to the demise of our military.</blockquote> Later, speaking with Anderson Cooper on CNN, Mr West had this to say:
<blockquote>I have to tell you, if this is the case, then why do we have separate hockey leagues? Women should be out there playing ice hockey with the guys in the NHL. We should not have a WNBA. I can’t shoot a three-pointer, but there are ladies who could certainly take me to the hoop. Maybe they should be competing with Kobe Bryant.</blockquote> Mr West's comment on CNN seems to me to help explain why his worries are greatly overblown. The Army is an enormous operation with upward of 1.4m active personnel. Of those, 237,000 fill combat posts currently closed to women. That's less than a fifth of all posts, but 237,000 is nevertheless a very large number of people. In contrast, there are at most 450 players in the NBA at any given time. If a woman were able to perform at NBA standards, there is absolutely no reason she should not be allowed to play. Now suppose there were 237,000 players in the NBA. Are there 237,000 men in America who are better at basketball than Tina Charles, the 2012 WNBA MVP? I think not.
The Ironman triathlon is among the most grueling sporting events in the world. Leanda Cave, the 2012 international women's champion, came in 46th overall. That was good enough to put her ahead of 1,419 male competitors, which is to say, almost all of them. (The fellow Ms Cave finished just ahead of does not look a slouch.) What about fighting mano y mano against a "brutal" enemy? My guess is that Ronda Rousey, the Strikeforce women's bantamweight champion, is more dangerous in close quarters than most Taliban insurgents. Of course, few women have the endurance of Leanda Cave, or the martial-arts prowess of Ronda Rousey. But then neither do many men. In most sports, the best men outperform the best women, but the best women outperform almost all men. Of course, it doesn't take testosterone to pull a trigger. Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a Soviet sniper during the second world war, is credited with over 300 kills. The Nazis surely would have preferred a Soviet army with no such female combat troops.
That Tina Charles would absolutely humiliate Allen West in a game of one-on-one is no reason she should play in the NBA. However, that women of Ms Charles' phenomenal physical calibre would outshine many current combat troops on the battlefield obviously is a reason they should be eligible for combat posts. That will make the quality of America's combat troops better. The relevant standards need not be lowered. If such outstanding women can't rise to the level of performance required of Navy SEALs or Army Rangers, then they should not be SEALs or Rangers. It's really rather simple, isn't it?

 

[bobbymike]

What a biased asinine article totally misses the point. Guess what there are probably a couple hundred thousand male basketball players better than everyone in the WNBA. I could probably find 10,000 playing street bal in LA. Also as I mentioned the Canadian womens hockey team, the best in the world gets beat by 13 year old boys. Also yes the WNBA player could beat Allen West at basketball and Allen West could kick the sh** out of her in hand to hand combat.
Secondly the triathlete story misses the point I guarantee that every guy the woman beat could physically kick her ass in a fist fight or go to the gym and lift WAY heavier weights than her.
This is complete BS, make the military better. Combat arms is maybe the last meritocrisy on earth, if anyone believe this has anything to do with capability they are delusional it is about equality and damn the results. The lefts dream is to weaken every American institution that represents our glorious past, becasue they see America's past and full of hatred, imperialism and racism. They want to tear down America and remake it into some socialist utopia.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

ational women's champion, came in 46th overall. That was good enough to put her ahead of 1,419 male competitors, which is to say, almost all of them. (The fellow Ms Cave finished just ahead of does not look a slouch.)

So in combat where "second place is DEAD last, she came in 46th! Wow!!! what an exception that tries to pass it self as the rule! If we allow combat units to only take championship/elite level female athletes then I am cool with those women. its the other 99.99 percent I worry about. You know the vast majority non elite level gals. Lets just make that a rule right now.

The very fact that we have womens champions tells me we judge them differently, unless of course 46th place makes you a "champion". If it wasn't divided by male and female, if we were equal and there was only Champions and 2nd and 3rd place, 46th wouldn't even be on the radar. Next thing I know you will be telling me that the iron man not only seperate by gender but by age groups as well. If the guy who came in 45th place is 50 years old should we allow 50 years old to sign up for the Rangers? we can play this game all day:

Well, Lew Hollander's temple is 81 years old and still fit to compete in Ironman triathlons—a grueling sport consisting of a 2.4-mile swim, 112-mile bike ride and a 26.2-mile run all in one day.

In 2011, Hollander became the oldest Ironman finisher at the World Championships in Kona, Hawaii, but even in the oldest age division, he has some strong competition.

Fellow 81-year-old France Cokan is just as fierce a competitor as Lew, and the two have been battling for years. Their rivalry is as friendly as it is ruthless, with both leaving everything they have in their aging bodies out on the course. The one who crosses the finish line at the bitter end takes home the spoils of victory.

Do I need to point out that the Iron Man has no event that is pure upper body strength? How does she place if she has to do 5 strict pull ups between events? or push ups? The USMC requiring pull ups, and the Army requiring push ups in their PFTs. Seeing as you only need your arms for the swim, if a Ironman with no hands finishes 47th should the military drop its discriminatory policy against the disabled?

What about fighting mano y mano against a "brutal" enemy? My guess is that Ronda Rousey, the Strikeforce women's bantamweight champion, is more dangerous in close quarters than most Taliban insurgents. Of course, few women have the endurance of Leanda Cave, or the martial-arts prowess of Ronda Rousey. But then neither do many men. In most sports, the best men outperform the best women, but the best women outperform almost all men.

The problem with this is when we start training the men to the same level they quickly surpass the females by and large. Thats something I bring up often. If we give the women an additional 6 months to prep they do as well as the men, if we give the men 6 months to prep they once again surpass the females, and not by a little either. Will a female cage fighter beat an average Joe to a pulp? Yep! but an average male cage fighter is a different story.

Of course, it doesn't take testosterone to pull a trigger.

Very true, if only combat arms was just about pulling triggers. (which by the way is what Convoy duty, and combat flying, and MP duty is, which is what they are doing now, cases where the vehicles are doing a lot of the lifting) Testosterone is critical to muscles mass, and muscle recovery, and the bottom line is the men produce more, unless of course a gal is chemically altering herself behind the scenes, but as long as we are using exceptions to prove the rule, why not point to female body builders who take steroids and other hormonal enhancements as proof that certain women have more than certain men!! of course once we boost theirs with steroids and additional hormones they once again leave the women in the dust!

That Tina Charles would absolutely humiliate Allen West in a game of one-on-one is no reason she should play in the NBA. However, that women of Ms Charles' phenomenal physical calibre would outshine many current combat troops on the battlefield obviously is a reason they should be eligible for combat posts. That will make the quality of America's combat troops better. The relevant standards need not be lowered. If such outstanding women can't rise to the level of performance required of Navy SEALs or Army Rangers, then they should not be SEALs or Rangers. It's really rather simple, isn't it?

If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? It would be so painfully obvious that they can do it, that the military wouldn't have to fund all these studies that show the differences in abilities now would it? We wouldn't need separate standards already since everyone is so interchangeable.

Here are some ground rules that every civilian should know before they open their mouths, and its important to get them out there because so few civilians have ever served in the military that they sometimes think the worlds are the same and thats just not the case. Not by a long shot:

The military is responsible for all medical care, this is paid for by the taxpayers. Its also the reason when one of my fellow Marines was diagnosed with anemia, he was instantly discharged because he was no longer able to do his job and when only be a tax burden. However:

That tax burden now shifted to the Veteran's Administration, which will provide him care, most likely for life. Not it doesn't just apply to my friend. It applies to anyone who get injured in the service (combat or not). the VA recently stopped accepting claims for hearing loss, because it is so common everyone in the service could be on the VA and the system is already notoriously slow and unwieldy as it is.

The military and the VA, try to pick healthy candidates, with medical tests and prescreening. There are a myriad of things (asthma in many cases is an instant dis qualifier for example) I have seen Marines discharged for sleep walking (something that doesn't show up on tests but appears later) Any medical or personal problems, or criminal issues or even tattoos can be cause for not being allowed to join the military. This all comes from the idea that the military is investing in a person and they don't want to get someone who will be more trouble than they are worth. the military and the VA (both of which are the US government, funded 100 percent by tax payers) are responsible for your care and treatment, for life is necessary. which is one reason why when females already get injured at twice the rate of men, and the government must pay not only more money, but also hire more staff and build more aid stations, its kind of a BFD. which brings us to:

The military is not constitutional: They tell you what to wear, how to cut your hair, apply restrictions, are subject to military justice, discriminate based on sex and age and disability, and can not be sued. To join the military you forgo your constitutional rights. The military has the right to descrinate because they are taking 100 percent responsibility for you. Believe you me, businesses would hire very differently if they were the ones fronting millions of dollars and 100 percent of your medical (for life if you were hurt.) they would start to get rather picky.

the 70 percent solution: Over worked officers are taught that if a solution is 70 percent good than it is acceptable. Women do not fit into that category. According to the studies done the women fall into about a 30 percent capable of average males in physical strength

The Unit Burden: When someone is sick or at the infrimy the military can not call a "temp agency" and get a replacement. We do not have "bench players" we can go to . If we have a job that requires 30 people and 5 of those people can't do the job and 3 more are at the base hospital (again) we now have 22 people taking up a 30 person burden. Just for the record when a unit loses 1/3 of its strength it is considered "combat ineffective" (fun fact) That work must get down, so find something light for the weaker people, and for the strong people you get to work extra. Isn't fairness fun? If you think that "light duty commandos," and sick call rangers, and other sick lame and lazy people aren't well noted in their units you are being nieve, and the retribution can be very unpleasant. when the same names keep coming up those people get penalized or purged)

Pregnancy: War is a young man game, unfortunetly the same can be said for young women and babies. When a female leaves for pregnancy do we get a replacement? When we she is back from pregnancy do we dislocate the replacement? If the replacement is a male who is actually more capable can we keep him? When she leaves do we lose a critical part of our team that we were depending on? is that fair to him? after he just spent 6 months proving himself to his peers?

The social aspect: There is a reason that the military prefers and preaches teamwork. every part is vital, every piece matters and in that bizarre "for want of a nail" or "butterfly effect" consequences can grow all out of proportion to the problem. So when a group of reservists misreads a GPS and gets ambushed in Al Nasiryia and a bunch of them are killed or captured in an ambush, others have to risk their lives to rescue them. The weakest link is a very serious thing in the military. When a 6 man special forces team is discovered and in combat the "slowest" of them had still better be pretty god damn fast, because hell is coming fast. When one of those people goes down, lets say its a female who in trying to keep up exhausts herself and passes out. Two members of the team must now carry her and not very fast and the teams fire power has been cut to 50 percent. See how the details matter? When a platoon is moving through mountains and someone can no longer keep up with their 100lbs of gear, no one can rescue you male or female. You have to carry your own burden and you have to keep up. No one is going to take a 175 lb burden so you can keep going with just 25 lbs.

And if you are thinking Hey TT, enough with this physical fitness crap, you mean man pig! The army has directly tied physical fitness to combat readiness and battlefield survival.

Finally, first place wins, second place dies. It is not enough to "get by" on the battlefield. It is not enough to "survive" on the battlefield. The military's job is to fight and WIN wars. It is not a socialist society dedicated to its own survival and average returns. It must win. If that means losing 70 percent to win. Then that is what it does. IT seeks out and destroys the enemy.

What if we applied the same rules to a pilot? Lets say that people named steve were previously kept out of certain military positions. Now steves are allowed and in an effort to promote them and compensate for the previous Steve discrimination, a Steve who is below average in the old standards has the standards changed just for him, and barely qualifies to become a C-17 pilot. Steve is below average and all the other pilots know it, but they are not allowed to point that out because he is a Steve. Anyone who goes against steves risks their careers so everyone just carries on. But one day to no one surprise steve screws up and crashes his aircraft into a control tower killing himself, his crew, the tower crew and his 47 passengers along with wrecking the tower and destroying the aircraft at a cost of millions of dollars. Was that fair? Was that fair to the tax payers who payed for his training and all the property he destroyed? Was it fair to all the people that he killed? Finally was it fair to him? Was it fair that steve was clearly never really able to do this but we felt he knew what was best, when he clearly didn't?

When a female doesn't have the strength to throw a grenade outside its effective lethal radius is it fair that we "let her try anyway" In the off chance she might pull it off, even though she failed in every practice throw all morning? Is it our job to protect sub standard soldiers from themselves and others? Nah just pass the buck. Say she did it and hope it never comes up again. Gotta pass her! This is how it has to happen until the Army can invent smaller, easier to throw, and less explosive grenades-- ITs their fault really. Hopefully when she reports to her unit we continue the lie, and indeed that people are aware it is a lie. How deadly would it be if we issued her grenades to throw and we actually thought that "she wouldn't be here if she couldn't do it." Hopefully she tells the people around her she isn't capable of this before she kills herself and others.

I think it absolutely telling that the people who have done combat arms, that have been to war in multiple countries and multiple conflicts are saying this is an atrocious idea-- and yet their words and first hand experience are ignored. That myriads of studies and even personal experience and even the fact that most sports are still very segregated, have absolutely no bearing in the conversation? That we are using exceptions, and other extreme slim chances to try and prove the rule? one percent chance of success for an average return is a poor investmen of tax payer dollars. When we invest in the one percent solution for Navy SEALs or Delta Force its worth it because we get the worlds top operators world class killers, We would never invest such money on such small odds for so low a return with the myriad of other problems created in the meantime as we do with females in combat arms.

If budgets and time were infinite I would say why not but they are not and the budgets are shrinking.

 

[bobbymike]

Another great post TT. I remember a few years ago a radio host was making fun of female boxers and one phoned in and challenged him to a fight. He was not a boxer but using just his size and strength threw her around the ring until the crowd started booing and throwing things at him..I guess they didn't like equality after all.

Am I a chauvenist becasue I think women by and large are different and should be protected and are in one important respect more important than men, they can bear children, then I am a chauvenist.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I remember a few years ago a radio host was making fun of female boxers and one phoned in and challenged him to a fight. He was not a boxer but using just his size and strength threw her around the ring until the crowd started booing and throwing things at him..I guess they didn't like equality after all.

wait a second, you mean when that lady told me

Ronda Rousey, the Strikeforce women's bantamweight champion, is more dangerous in close quarters than most Taliban insurgents.

She might be wrong!? The cool thing about the Taliban though is that they always play by MMA rules, and respect the cage and the referee, they are also real gentlemen when it comes to fair fights and especially women, these are not the kind of fellas that would pull an underhanded trick to avoid losing to a woman. I think when we arrange this fight. it should be in Taliban territory at 10,000 feet, and she should have to live in the field away from proper rest, nutrition, and gym equipment in a cave for months to keep things fair. after all when we fight the taliban we do it in Afghanistan, they don't fight in gyms at sea level Massachusetts. I mean the Taliban don't get such perks, nor do they get world class coaches, or doctors, or proper hygiene. We will be fair and pick a fighter of equal weight too. No fair if we get some 200 lb guy and have them fight.

We can have our fight and see how it goes. We will see who is "more dangerous." There are no rounds either. We fight until someone dies. I grew up at 5,000 ft, and even walking at 11,000 ft got me light headed. Of course thats where the taliban lives and works. and I am male, and have a larger heart and better cardiovascular capability. And of course the MMA has never had any steroid use or issues in that area. No sir.

Lets flip this around.

What if a male is consistently denied his chance to join the military because he can not meet the minimal Physical fitness standards for males, yet he can place average on the female standards? Should he be denied his chance to serve based on his gender? He is told that he is too weak to serve and yet 15 percent of the military is female, and he can make that requirement. it is unacceptable except for the 15 percent of the military population where it is acceptable? He doesn't want to go into combat arms, just wants to be a helicopter pilot.

Why are you denying his chance to serve because he is a boy?

From a Female Marine:

I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?

Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

- Sentry

 

[Arjen]

Combat Exclusion Policy:

Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.

Combat Exclusion Policy is dead.

In part because military leadership realised it could no longer be upheld: female military personnel already *is* attached to 'units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground'. Not enough men are enlisting for the military to meet their personnel needs, women are willing to enlist. Nominally following the policy by not formally assigning these women soldiers to combat units is detrimental to leadership credibility - a policy being flouted raises legitimacy issues about all other policies. Other motives are in play to abolish CEP, but de facto impossibility to uphold the policy should be reason enough for its revisal or abolition.

I agree it takes exceptional qualities to join the infantry, qualities more likely to be found in men, significantly less in women, but abolishing CEP is not just about women joining the infantry, it's about fulfilling all ground combat functions. CEP categorically denies assignment to women 'to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground'. Strict adherence to CEP would lead to an immediate shortage of personnel. Higher pay or other incitements to enlist could ease that problem. I don't know. Instead, women soldiers are now involved in combat.

A minor point: triathlon participants often use total-immersion swimming, in which legs are hardly used. As in all competition swimming, weak upper body strength means no chance of winning.

 

[2IDSGT]

Combat Exclusion Policy:

Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.

Combat Exclusion Policy is dead.

In part because military leadership realised it could no longer be upheld: female military personnel already *is* attached to 'units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground'. Not enough men are enlisting for the military to meet their personnel needs, women are willing to enlist. Nominally following the policy by not formally assigning these women soldiers to combat units is detrimental to leadership credibility - a policy being flouted raises legitimacy issues about all other policies. Other motives are in play to abolish CEP, but de facto impossibility to uphold the policy should be reason enough for its revisal or abolition.

I agree it takes exceptional qualities to join the infantry, qualities more likely to be found in men, significantly less in women, but abolishing CEP is not just about women joining the infantry, it's about fulfilling all ground combat functions. CEP categorically denies assignment to women 'to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground'. Strict adherence to CEP would lead to an immediate shortage of personnel. Higher pay or other incitements to enlist could ease that problem. I don't know. Instead, women soldiers are now involved in combat.

A minor point: triathlon participants often use total-immersion swimming, in which legs are hardly used. As in all competition swimming, weak upper body strength means no chance of winning.

Brigade level??? On our 2nd tour, we had plenty of 'em all the way down to battalion level on our tiny little shithole FOB; though I suppose they were technically *attachments*. I was in headquarters platoon by then, and whenever my company needed ammo, I drew it from a female SGT who was supposed to be a cook (that job had been contracted out). Of course, a lot of us were doing jobs outside our MOS (I was also in charge of the NBC shit).

 

[Lauge]

I could probably find 10,000 playing street bal in LA.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Also as I mentioned the Canadian womens hockey team, the best in the world gets beat by 13 year old boys.

Source?

I guarantee that every guy the woman beat could physically kick her ass in a fist fight or go to the gym and lift WAY heavier weights than her.

Fine. Care to back that "guarantee" up with some actual evidence?


Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[Arjen]

Meanwhile, from Battleland, women soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan: http://nation.time.com/2013/01/28/american-amazons-hiding-in-plain-jane-sight/

 

[bobbymike]

I could probably find 10,000 playing street bal in LA.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Also as I mentioned the Canadian womens hockey team, the best in the world gets beat by 13 year old boys.

Source?

I guarantee that every guy the woman beat could physically kick her ass in a fist fight or go to the gym and lift WAY heavier weights than her.

Fine. Care to back that "guarantee" up with some actual evidence?


Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Yes I am going to find 10,000 guys in LA while you wait haha you're funny. But do you doubt that I could given enough time? Have you watched California High School games? I think there are 250,000 (no I don't have a source) that play and I bet anyone could play WNBA and that is just in Calif.

As for hockey I have watched games at the Calgary Olympic training center in Canada is that 'source' enough for you and the boys aren't allowed to hit the girls. I will admit the women often win these games after they stopped playing Midget Boys 15 to 17 year old where they never won. And of course you are missing the point becasue these are ADULT women, the best in Canada, playing boys if we were to compare NHL players playing full contact it would be an absolute slaughter.

As for the third sorry I have not physically tested the men she beat to test my hypothesis, but simple averages say that about 96% of them will be taller, stronger and more muscular (Yes it is not 100% as I stated you got me oops)


I just don't understand why as civilized people we want this, as I asked before will we 'feel better' about oursleves as a society if thousands more women are killed and maimed in war? Is that how we measure ourselves as an advanced society. Maybe the UN could add a statisitic and rank nations who have the most women killed in combat as the most equal, fair and just societies on earth.

To make another connected point, I DON'T WANT this for men either if it can be prevented. I don't want men to be killed and maimed and brain damaged by IED's in war if it can be helped.

 

[Arjen]

I just don't understand why as civilized people we want this, as I asked before will we 'feel better' about oursleves as a society if thousands more women are killed and maimed in war? Is that how we measure ourselves as an advanced society. Maybe the UN could add a statisitic and rank nations who have the most women killed in combat as the most equal, fair and just societies on earth.

I suspect some national pride on the part of the women enlisting is involved. I also suspect many of the women involved would take a dim view of being denied the opportunity to join combat units.

To make another connected point, I DON'T WANT this for men either if it can be prevented. I don't want men to be killed and maimed and brain damaged by IED's in war if it can be helped.

I agree.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I just don't understand why as civilized people we want this, as I asked before will we 'feel better' about oursleves as a society if thousands more women are killed and maimed in war? Is that how we measure ourselves as an advanced society. Maybe the UN could add a statisitic and rank nations who have the most women killed in combat as the most equal, fair and just societies on earth.

I suspect some national pride on the part of the women enlisting is involved. I also suspect many of the women involved would take a dim view of being denied the opportunity to join combat units.

I'm sure there is some that, but there is also the "because we have to prove we can" and frankly that is horse crap.

I have said it before and I will say it again: I am all for equality. Lets have equal standards across the board --This will result in:

70 percent of females being out of the military within a year.

1 percent of whats left in combat units.

And no female promotions, in promotions that take PFT/CFTs into account. In the USMC if you don't turn in a first class PFT (225 or above) You don't get promoted. Women have been getting promoted because they score highly on the double standard female versions. In order to even graduate from OCS, you must turn in a first class PFT. So very few women would even get a chance to serve, let alone a chance to serve in combat arms.

Required birth control for the first enlistment term-- I know, I know, if you don't like it there is the door, and here is your Administrative Separation. Go have babies on your own dime and time.

So what we are doing is "breaking barriers" in some areas and leaving the barriers in most areas. Double standards on top of double standards. I am more than willing to have women in combat arms (even though it will cause more problems, and cost more money) providing they meet the Male Standards. They are joining the MEN not the other way around. One Standard. One. Not two in some cases not one with an asterisk

I am not nieve I understand that women have been engaged in combat oversees and have been fighting and dying. However it is not the same as Combat Arms. just because you play on a really good weekend football team doesn't suddenly mean you are Manchester United, even when you buy the same shoes and wear the same jerseys.

One of the concepts that has been floated is separate physical tests to get into units. This is actually bad news for females. One of the advantages of the PFT is that it is a run, pull ups, and sit ups. None of that is weight bearing. No swimming. No vertical jump. No fireman's carry. If I am a female I want to get into to a combat unit for promotion purposes punch my ticket and get out, and things heavy weights and big jumps will keep me out of that. I want to get in on a great PFT (hopefully with double standards) Have the men accept my limitations and conform to them "I'll get that heavy box maam, you take this light one" and I go and get it done. Get my ticket punched and some photo ops with a politicians that show I can do it and hooray for fairness and move on with the spoils.

Whats would be bad is A standard Male PFT. (much harder to score high on that) And then a unit/MOS test that is max Push ups or 200 lb bench press, Heavy Dead Lift, Firemans carry, 80 LB 10K hump over broken terrain for time etc. But If I was in the infantry that would be what I would test. In which case very few women will even make it past the test let alone hang out long enough for the men to pleasantly ignore them.

We are talking about a wholly different animal. In Combat arms being strong like bull, clever like fox, and tough like bear are how you are judged. You can't earn respect as a leader or a follower if you are constantly borderline. What Female NCO who barely completed the PT this morning can sit one of her male subordinates down and counsel him on his poor performance on yesterdays hike when she couldn't finish herself and expect to be taken seriously? We can order these men to do a lot but accept you as one of their own? no. Respect you? No. We can't order that.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Not enough men are enlisting for the military to meet their personnel needs, women are willing to enlist.

Thats Horse crap. The USMC not only was constantly able to keep its combat arms supplied with men, but expanded its size and still had to turn away applicants. So many Marines wanted to fight in Iraq that may not get the chance, that the CMC created a policy where you only needed to express yourself in a letter to be sent, and they were overwhelmed with requests. Combat Arms has been well supplied with men, and amongst officers is still considered the number one destination. So no combat arms in the USMC has never been for want of a few good men.

I assume it is the same in the Army, and of course elite units like the PJs and SEALs and Delta have never been short of applicants.

Nominally following the policy by not formally assigning these women soldiers to combat units is detrimental to leadership credibility

No. I can tell you right now from first hand experience military leaders that are going along with opening combat arms to women have lost credibility though.

If you mean civilian leadership maybe?

- a policy being flouted raises legitimacy issues about all other policies. Other motives are in play to abolish CEP, but de facto impossibility to uphold the policy should be reason enough for its revisal or abolition.

I agree like how women are excluded from combat arms, work less, get the same pay and are promoted at a faster rate. Lets take a serious look at legitimacy. trust me being barred from combat arms wasn't even close to the biggest "do as I say not as I do" credibility fiasco the US Military has been neck deep in since the early 1990s

Again the US Military still hasn't even figured out how to deal with the same female/male problems that rear their ugly heads on a daily basis and this is the last issue that hurts their credibility? Thats funny. Its not leadership screwing their subordinates. Its not another hum drum sex scandal. Its not Women getting promoted at faster rates then men DESPITE the fact that they were not allowed in combat arms (remember the whole basis for this was they weren't getting promoted like the guys) ITs not that so many of them oddly become pregnant at the worst possible time, (on deployment, pre deployment.) Its not that less is expected of them. Its not sexual harrasment and sensitivity training. A horrible procurement system. gag orders. UTIs in females. DADT.

Oh no its females in combat arms.

Its not rifles that jam on reflex, that fire rounds too small to have proper effect, Its not women getting injured and being available less for work, and that the women aren't expected to do the same work when they are around. Murky ROEs. Radios that never work, Its not that many courses and schools have been watered down, or gaming the numbers to ensure promotions for females, or prostitution rings, or adultery, or sex for stripes, or false accusations to save careers, or even something as simple as flirting your way out of trouble.

Its not the loss of good junior officers who get so sick of the system they refuse to stay. overworked VA, Fat Staffs, Height and weight standards that make no god damn sense, Promotion regardless of success or failure. Its not systemic failures that have become obsessed with "metrics" but only when it favors them. Its not the opinion surveys that then don't get released when the troops disagree with leadership (the USMCs Women in combat survey still hasn't been released... I wonder why? The commandant was so sure it would prove his theory) Uniform merry go round, torture, drone strikes, Severe lack of realistic training, basic training that doesn't train basic skills. Black Berets. purges, Layers and layers of authorization for a single air strike. Pulling back attacks for political reasons (Fallajuh) that result in more dangerous battles ahead (Fallajuh II) Abu Gharib, Loss of a Nuclear Weapon in the Dakotas, missile cones to Taiwan, 8 out of 10 army divisions getting a failing readiness grade in 1999, witch hunts, a failure to deploy 4 Apaches, predictable tactics that result in death and destruction, Power point, power point, power point, video conferencing, lack of adaptability to changing environments,

Its not ignoring battlefield lessons that only further casualties, Its none of these things.

Its not the effect of toxic chemicals that effect reproduction in females, Traditions being broken, increased micro management to prevent scandal. Relaxed damage control standards. looks over substance. inappropriate relationships. Getting a nice 6 figure salary from the company who's system you endorsed before retiring to work for them, Complete and utter career destruction at the rumors of impropriety, broken marriages, broken homes, disruption of morale and unity, careerism, selfishness, lack of proper body armor, 24 Navy Captains relieved last year alone. Curfews. Drinking restrictions. Bronze stars for showing up, Its not the eased PT or the lack of basic military courtesy or discipline, during wartime(!), lack of seriousness on suicide or PTSD, adoption of camo uniforms that do not work, Glow belts for everything!! Its not this:

Its the gal on the right not being able to be a grunt. : thats where military leadership "lost credibility" and threw all of its other "brilliant" decisions away as a result.

It would be sad if it wasn't so funny. And if you think that the males in Combat Arms suddenly feel that the last bit of double standard or unfairness has been removed from the military after all their other problems have been so perfectly solved, restoring their faith in leadership by removing the last problem you live in a land I wish I could go to. In order to hurt credibility you have to have a little bit left to lose and whatever was left is long gone in places like the USMC, where General Mattis has been asked to leave (he is a living legend) and we are (pure coincendence) "rolling over and playing dead" on females in combat arms. To say about 90 percent of the Marine Corps is Unhappy with the decision is an understatement.

please its such a mass of contradiction, and hypocracy, that surreal is the best way to describe it. The USN for example just made it a rule that sailors and officers can not drink past ten, even in their own domiciles. So if a LT. comes home after a hard day puts the kids to bed after dinner and has a glass of wine with his wife at 2200 before bed he is in violation of orders. Yeah, ok. but we are worried people will stop taking leadership seriously regarding women? Its not the colonel screwing some E-3 fresh out of high school behind his wifes back that is hurting his credibility, its women in combat. Colonel was a nice guy if not for that, and his little girlfriend has been moving right along the ol rank structure. She must be an excellent soldier to keep getting promoted so fast...



Lets start small-- Universal PT Standard, Females must conform to the male standard. they have one year. or they are gone. Next step, First Term Birth Control, First Term Marriage ban (Guys and Girls) Lets see how the females do on the physical standards. and revisit combat arms in 18 months with the 30 percent of females who are left. and go from there. Lets as you hint, remove and clean up all the other hypocracy until women in combat is the last one giving us trouble.

 

[Lauge]

Yes I am going to find 10,000 guys in LA while you wait haha you're funny.

Yeah, I'm a regular Jeff Dunham.

But do you doubt that I could given enough time?

Yes, I do.

Have you watched California High School games?

No. Your point?

I think there are 250,000 (no I don't have a source) that play and I bet anyone could play WNBA and that is just in Calif.

You “bet”? OK, I'll take that bet. Now prove it.

As for hockey I have watched games at the Calgary Olympic training center in Canada is that 'source' enough for you....

No, seeing as how this merely replaces one impossible-to-verify statement with another impossible-to-verify statement.

….and the boys aren't allowed to hit the girls.

And you think this gives the girls an advantage?

And of course you are missing the point becasue these are ADULT women, the best in Canada, playing boys....

I think the point is that if the very best adult women hockey players in Canada (or any other nation) lost to a bunch of kids in a straight-up game, then surely this would have made the news, with video clips on YouTube and everything (hint: link), right? Especially if this happened in a high-profile venue like the Calgary Olympic Training Center.

As for the third sorry I have not physically tested the men she beat to test my hypothesis, but simple averages say that about 96% of them will be taller, stronger and more muscular (Yes it is not 100% as I stated you got me oops)

That may be so, although since you haven't tested the men, I wonder where the 96% comes from? Seeing as how we're not dealing with “simple average” people, but with someone very specific.
Furthermore, your original post stated that 100% of the men would be able to “kick her ass in a fist fight or go to the gym and lift WAY heavier weights than her”. Nothing there about “taller, stronger and more muscular”. I concede that a point could possibly be made for weightlifting, but as far as ass-kicking is concerned, one does not necessarily follow from the other.

I just don't understand why as civilized people we want this, as I asked before will we 'feel better' about oursleves as a society if thousands more women are killed and maimed in war? Is that how we measure ourselves as an advanced society. Maybe the UN could add a statisitic and rank nations who have the most women killed in combat as the most equal, fair and just societies on earth.

Well, fair enough, but if in the end it boils down to feelings and opinions, I think the women should have a say. After all, nobody said equality was nice.

To make another connected point, I DON'T WANT this for men either if it can be prevented. I don't want men to be killed and maimed and brain damaged by IED's in war if it can be helped.

Agree 100%.



Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[Arjen]

We are talking about a wholly different animal. In Combat arms being strong like bull, clever like fox, and tough like bear are how you are judged. You can't earn respect as a leader or a follower if you are constantly borderline. What Female NCO who barely completed the PT this morning can sit one of her male subordinates down and counsel him on his poor performance on yesterdays hike when she couldn't finish herself and expect to be taken seriously? We can order these men to do a lot but accept you as one of their own? no. Respect you? No. We can't order that.

This says something different.

Army Major Christopher L’Heureux, for example, was a company commander in a Stryker brigade in Iraq in 2005-06 when he changed his mind on women in combat. His change of heart came on Oct. 11, 2006, when an explosively-formed penetrator – an especially-deadly kind of IED – blew up one of his Strykers in the Baghdad’s Rusafa neighborhood, just across the Tigris River from the U.S. Embassy:
<blockquote>The fuel cells are on the outside in the back and they catch on fire. There are four people in the back; Nick Sowinski who is sitting in the hull. Next to him is LT Bernard Gardner who is outside the back hatch. Those two are closest to the blast.
On the other side of the vehicle is a guy named SSG Beam out the other hatch as well as [Specialist] Van Wirt. The EFP rings Gardner’s bell and he doesn’t know which way is up; the compartment is full of smoke. The driver and gunner get out; they’re fine. Beam loses his leg below the knee, just above the ankle but his wits are completely about him. He is thinking completely crystal clear.
Gardner screams, “Get out of the hatch!” He’s kind of spastic and he’s bell is rung. Beam was the opposite and was like, “Sir, calm down. I can’t get out. We have to get the hatch open. The hydraulics are busted right now. The vehicle is on fire. We can’t get the damn door open.”
Sowinski is a six-foot-one guy and with all of his kit on he has to weigh 250 pounds.
Van Wirt is about a buck-20 maybe 100 pounds at five-foot-one or two; she’s pretty short.
Sowinski was non- responsive…
They also take small arms fire from a roof top about 100 meters away.
The vehicle behind them pulls up and start laying suppressive fire. They drop the ramp and come out. By this time the driver and gunner come out and try to get the damn door open and it’s on fire. The fuel cells are literally right there in the back of the Stryker anyway. The finally get the hatch down and the first few people — Beam and the lieutenant — are pulled out.
Van Wirt, all 100 pounds of her, pulls Nick Sowinski out of this burning vehicle with her weapon. Getting in and out of the vehicle with all of your kit on is difficult enough on its own, especially if you add smoke, fire, and the chaos of getting shot at and bullets pinging off the outside of the armor but she does it anyway.
She pulls him out of this burning vehicle!
She’s just f—ing awesome!
She pulls him out of this burning vehicle, which is amazing in itself. As she’s dragging him back she’s shooting one-handed with her M-16 towards the bad guys; completely phenomenal!
…Nobody knows he’s dead until I meet them at the CSH [combat support hospital]…
Van Wirt is basically unscratched…
It changed my opinion about where women ought to be in the fight…after this I just thought it didn’t really matter. When the chips are down, a good Soldier is a good Soldier and it doesn’t really matter.
She was just phenomenal…
She was a lab technician.</blockquote>

[/l]​

Just before noon on Mar. 20, 2005, Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester’s Kentucky Army National Guard unit engaged in a 25-minute firefight with the enemy that earned her the Silver Star, the nation’s third-highest award for battlefield valor. She was the first woman to be so recognized since World War II, and the first-ever cited for close-in combat. Her 10-member MP squad, including another woman, was aboard three vehicles providing protection for a convoy of 30 tractor trailers heading south through Hester’s sector on Route Detroit near Salman Pak.



“While traveling on ASR [Alternate Supply Route] Detroit approximately 50 AIF [anti-Iraqi forces] ambushed the convoy with heavy AK47 fire, RPK heavy machine gun fire, and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) from the southwest side of the road at 1140 hours,” her Silver Star citation reads. “The AIF were utilizing irrigation ditches and an orchard for the well-planned complex attack.”
Gunfire from the nearby orchard ignited the convoy’s first trailer, forcing it to stop – and halting the rest of the convoy in the middle of the kill zone. “The next thing I remember was Sergeant Hester and I laying down fire against the insurgents running through that field, the ones who were left in the orchard,” Sergeant Dustin Morris said. “We may have been there 10 to 15 minutes.”
Staff Sergeant Timothy F. Nein, who also earned a Silver Star that day (later upgraded to a Distinguished Service Cross), paired with the 5-foot-4 Hester to kill the final four insurgents in an irrigation ditch alongside the road. “We need to charge these guys,” he recalled thinking. “I thought we were all going to die there.”
Hein continued:
<blockquote>So Sergeant Hester and I rolled into the canals and, just before we did, there was a guy who was up by the vehicles – and I believe she shot and killed him. We went to the canals and basically she was behind me the whole time. One of the things we always talked about was that if we had to go head-to-head with somebody, always try to keep our body armor square with the bad guy: that way we had the best ballistic protection from our vest. We stayed squared up.

</blockquote>

The pair crept along a ditch, tossing grenades and firing their M-4 rifles at the enemy, who was firing back with AK-47s.
<blockquote>I stepped off to the left and she shot two 203s, but she couldn’t get them low enough because they were about 50 meters in front of us at that time. I told her we just had to keep on going and so we started throwing grenades and shooting our M-4s. She would shoot over my right shoulder while I prepared the grenade to throw it, or I would be shooting while she threw a grenade. I had three grenades when I left that morning. I’d already thrown one. I threw two more in the canal off my vest and she had two on her as well. I threw one of hers and she threw one of hers.
Basically five or 10 minutes into the canal system we’d killed the four guys.</blockquote>

In fact, the unit killed 27 insurgents, without losing a single soldier. Hester, 23 at the time, “engaged and eliminated 3 AIF with her M-4 rifle,” her Silver Star citation reads.
Those interviewed for this Army project generally did so while attending school at Fort Leavenworth. Few sergeants attend, and Hester was not interviewed. But she summed up her feelings about those who say women don’t belong in combat shortly after the Army awarded her the Silver Star. “It kind of makes me mad,” she told the Washington Post. “Women can basically do any job that men can.”
But some just need proof.

[/q][/q]

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

[/color]Well, fair enough, but if in the end it boils down to feelings and opinions, I think the women should have a say. After all, nobody said equality was nice.

The military is all about feelings, opinions, saying what you think, and equal opportunity for one and all of course. :

In case you havn't been paying attention to the thread, what other people in the military think matters too. Like if 3 out 4 people think the 4th person isn;t qualified to do their job and puts others in danger, maybe we should do what is fair for the other 3? What is fair? What is equal? And doesn't all have to do with the plumbing between the legs.

Again the military is not about individualism and it is certainly not about individual "rights" It is at all times an interconnected group where rights are sacrificed at the door and the mission is the common goal even at the cost of life and health.

I once had a female airmen(woman) tell me that the difference between a Marine and a USAF person. "If you order a Marine to step on a mine he will do it without thinking, but if you order an air force person to step on the mine, they will think!"

I guess that was supposed to be some kind of huge insult or check mate that would shut me up for good. I responded "Hun, I don't care what is going through your head as you step on that mine"

Again what if a male can't meet the male standard, but can meet the female standard why should he be denied his chance to serve? "Nobody said equality was nice" But the boy deserves his chance. Why should his gender play any role?

We have to be unfair to someone. We have to be unequal to someone. So who should it be? and the answer if we are really talking about true gender blind equality shouldn't have anything to do with male/female.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

We are talking about a wholly different animal. In Combat arms being strong like bull, clever like fox, and tough like bear are how you are judged. You can't earn respect as a leader or a follower if you are constantly borderline. What Female NCO who barely completed the PT this morning can sit one of her male subordinates down and counsel him on his poor performance on yesterdays hike when she couldn't finish herself and expect to be taken seriously? We can order these men to do a lot but accept you as one of their own? no. Respect you? No. We can't order that.

This says something different.

Army Major Christopher L’Heureux, for example, was a company commander in a Stryker brigade in Iraq in 2005-06 when he changed his mind on women in combat. His change of heart came on Oct. 11, 2006, when an explosively-formed penetrator – an especially-deadly kind of IED – blew up one of his Strykers in the Baghdad’s Rusafa neighborhood, just across the Tigris River from the U.S. Embassy:
<blockquote>The fuel cells are on the outside in the back and they catch on fire. There are four people in the back; Nick Sowinski who is sitting in the hull. Next to him is LT Bernard Gardner who is outside the back hatch. Those two are closest to the blast.
On the other side of the vehicle is a guy named SSG Beam out the other hatch as well as [Specialist] Van Wirt. The EFP rings Gardner’s bell and he doesn’t know which way is up; the compartment is full of smoke. The driver and gunner get out; they’re fine. Beam loses his leg below the knee, just above the ankle but his wits are completely about him. He is thinking completely crystal clear.
Gardner screams, “Get out of the hatch!” He’s kind of spastic and he’s bell is rung. Beam was the opposite and was like, “Sir, calm down. I can’t get out. We have to get the hatch open. The hydraulics are busted right now. The vehicle is on fire. We can’t get the damn door open.”
Sowinski is a six-foot-one guy and with all of his kit on he has to weigh 250 pounds.
Van Wirt is about a buck-20 maybe 100 pounds at five-foot-one or two; she’s pretty short.
Sowinski was non- responsive…
They also take small arms fire from a roof top about 100 meters away.
The vehicle behind them pulls up and start laying suppressive fire. They drop the ramp and come out. By this time the driver and gunner come out and try to get the damn door open and it’s on fire. The fuel cells are literally right there in the back of the Stryker anyway. The finally get the hatch down and the first few people — Beam and the lieutenant — are pulled out.
Van Wirt, all 100 pounds of her, pulls Nick Sowinski out of this burning vehicle with her weapon. Getting in and out of the vehicle with all of your kit on is difficult enough on its own, especially if you add smoke, fire, and the chaos of getting shot at and bullets pinging off the outside of the armor but she does it anyway.
She pulls him out of this burning vehicle!
She’s just f—ing awesome!
She pulls him out of this burning vehicle, which is amazing in itself. As she’s dragging him back she’s shooting one-handed with her M-16 towards the bad guys; completely phenomenal!
…Nobody knows he’s dead until I meet them at the CSH [combat support hospital]…
Van Wirt is basically unscratched…
It changed my opinion about where women ought to be in the fight…after this I just thought it didn’t really matter. When the chips are down, a good Soldier is a good Soldier and it doesn’t really matter.
She was just phenomenal…
She was a lab technician.</blockquote>

[/l]​

Just before noon on Mar. 20, 2005, Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester’s Kentucky Army National Guard unit engaged in a 25-minute firefight with the enemy that earned her the Silver Star, the nation’s third-highest award for battlefield valor. She was the first woman to be so recognized since World War II, and the first-ever cited for close-in combat. Her 10-member MP squad, including another woman, was aboard three vehicles providing protection for a convoy of 30 tractor trailers heading south through Hester’s sector on Route Detroit near Salman Pak.



“While traveling on ASR [Alternate Supply Route] Detroit approximately 50 AIF [anti-Iraqi forces] ambushed the convoy with heavy AK47 fire, RPK heavy machine gun fire, and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) from the southwest side of the road at 1140 hours,” her Silver Star citation reads. “The AIF were utilizing irrigation ditches and an orchard for the well-planned complex attack.”
Gunfire from the nearby orchard ignited the convoy’s first trailer, forcing it to stop – and halting the rest of the convoy in the middle of the kill zone. “The next thing I remember was Sergeant Hester and I laying down fire against the insurgents running through that field, the ones who were left in the orchard,” Sergeant Dustin Morris said. “We may have been there 10 to 15 minutes.”
Staff Sergeant Timothy F. Nein, who also earned a Silver Star that day (later upgraded to a Distinguished Service Cross), paired with the 5-foot-4 Hester to kill the final four insurgents in an irrigation ditch alongside the road. “We need to charge these guys,” he recalled thinking. “I thought we were all going to die there.”
Hein continued:
<blockquote>So Sergeant Hester and I rolled into the canals and, just before we did, there was a guy who was up by the vehicles – and I believe she shot and killed him. We went to the canals and basically she was behind me the whole time. One of the things we always talked about was that if we had to go head-to-head with somebody, always try to keep our body armor square with the bad guy: that way we had the best ballistic protection from our vest. We stayed squared up.

</blockquote>

The pair crept along a ditch, tossing grenades and firing their M-4 rifles at the enemy, who was firing back with AK-47s.
<blockquote>I stepped off to the left and she shot two 203s, but she couldn’t get them low enough because they were about 50 meters in front of us at that time. I told her we just had to keep on going and so we started throwing grenades and shooting our M-4s. She would shoot over my right shoulder while I prepared the grenade to throw it, or I would be shooting while she threw a grenade. I had three grenades when I left that morning. I’d already thrown one. I threw two more in the canal off my vest and she had two on her as well. I threw one of hers and she threw one of hers.
Basically five or 10 minutes into the canal system we’d killed the four guys.</blockquote>

In fact, the unit killed 27 insurgents, without losing a single soldier. Hester, 23 at the time, “engaged and eliminated 3 AIF with her M-4 rifle,” her Silver Star citation reads.
Those interviewed for this Army project generally did so while attending school at Fort Leavenworth. Few sergeants attend, and Hester was not interviewed. But she summed up her feelings about those who say women don’t belong in combat shortly after the Army awarded her the Silver Star. “It kind of makes me mad,” she told the Washington Post. “Women can basically do any job that men can.”
But some just need proof.

[/q][/q]

Damn! I guess the army can just burn all those studies they did that said that only 1-100 women were capable of such feats and go to a universal standard now!! And all the women that choose not to go into combat arms or deploy can be judged just as harshly as the men. Of course last page I posted a story by a female Marine that said the opposite, but opinions are funny. Science says women can't do things that men can, and men can't do things that women can.

Arjen you and I are on the same side. I'm all for Equality. FULL EQUALITY. not Equality in some areas while double standards in others. Lets have full equality and let the chips fall where they may. the problem is that will elimainate 70 percent of the females in the US military. Not what I would call a victory for feminism but it is painfully fair and indeed equal. One could even make the case that in the story above, that she was only allowed to remain in the military thanks to double standards that allowed her to be where she was. So what is the military to do? Ignore standards in case they are incorrect (remember the US Marines told Audie Murphy he was too small to be a Marine, he joined the army and showed a little guy could be a one man army) Or eliminate a double standard and enforce a single standard that would have eliminated the female soldier above?

I am very happy for the lady above, She did great! Adrenalin is some amazing stuff. What concerns me is when she isn't on a Stryker and has lug around 130 lbs of gear on that 100 lb frame and then is asked to do what she did above after a few months of bad nutrition and little rest. Does she even last that long to even show her heroic capability in the future? I wish Combat Arms was just combat. I really do. I wish it was like star trek and you could just "beam" to where you needed to be. But it turns out a big part of combat arms is just getting there. In place like Iraq with lots of streets and roads its easier. Afghanistan? not so much.

 

[Lauge]

Well, fair enough, but if in the end it boils down to feelings and opinions, I think the women should have a say. After all, nobody said equality was nice.

The military is all about feelings, opinions, saying what you think, and equal opportunity for one and all of course. :

I like to think that I have been paying attention

That was why the "if" was there in the sentence: "....if in the end it boils down to feelings and opinions....".

Again what if a male can't meet the male standard, but can meet the female standard why should he be denied his chance to serve? "Nobody said equality was nice" But the boy deserves his chance. Why should his gender play any role?

I actually meant "equality" in a quite literal sense. As in "same standards for everyone", whether male, female, transgender or genetically engineered dolphin. And that isn't "nice". And if (if) a woman qualifies for combat duty and gets herself injured or killed, then that's not nice either. But that's equality for you.

We have to be unfair to someone. We have to be unequal to someone. So who should it be? and the answer if we are really talking about true gender blind equality shouldn't have anything to do with male/female.

Precisely, as per the above. And if someone can't meet the realistic, minimum requirements (whether for combat troops, a civilian office job or a gig as a circus clown) and is disqualified as a consequence, then personally I don't see that as being "unfair" or "unequal" to anyone.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[bobbymike]

So unfair all these men who don't even get to go to
To the Olympics even though they would be woman's
World record holders

Men's Events Event Men's A Men's B Woman’s WR

Men's 100 metres

10.18

10.24 10.49

Men's 200 metres

20.55

20.65 21.34

Men's 400 metres

45.30

45.90 47.60

Men's 800 metres

1:45.60

1:46.30 1.53.28

Men's 1500 metres

3:35.50

3:38.00 3.50.56

Men's 5000 metres

13:20.00

13:27.00 14.11.15

Men's 10,000 metres

27:45.00

28:05.00 29.31.78

Men's Marathon

2:15:00

2:18:00 2:15:25

Men's 3000 Steeplechase

8:23.10

8:32.00 8.58.81

Men's 400 metres Hurdles

49.50

49.80 52.34

Men's High Jump

2.31

2.28 2.09m

Men's Pole Vault

5.72

5.60 5.06m

Men's Long Jump

8.20

8.10 7.52m

Men's Triple Jump

17.20

16.85 15.50m

Men's Javelin Throw

82.00

79.50 72.28m

The men’s columns are just to QUALIFY for the Olympics.
Like I posted previously I personally am tired of the “Animal Farm” let’s all be equal but some of us are more equal than others.

 

[bobbymike]

Of note Obama gives interview and was asked about the National Football League, he basically said we should feel a little guilty that we enjoy watching these huge strong men bashing each other and injuring each other. Maybe if we feel guilty enough we will demand changes to the game.

As your daughter goes off to get blown to pieces by an IED, something doesn't compute

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Precisely, as per the above. And if someone can't meet the realistic, minimum requirements (whether for combat troops, a civilian office job or a gig as a circus clown) and is disqualified as a consequence, then personally I don't see that as being "unfair" or "unequal" to anyone.

And if the minimum requirements are lowered to below realistic standards? The US military has yet to have a single standard since the introduction of females into the service... why would this suddenly be different? What happens when hey "redefine reality"?

That is the other element of this. The political element. That is the reason the men are freaking out. the UK, US, and Canada all say we will get 1 out of every 100 females into a male fitness standard. 1 percent. What happens when the realistic standard is seen as "sexist" because it fails 99 percent of women? How low do we have to get the bar to make a more palatable 15 percent? or 30 percent?

Its pretty much a given that as soon as women were allowed into combat arms the standards are either going south to accommodate them or a separate standard is to be created. both are potentially fatal to those around them. If they were not ok with 70 percent of women failing the male PFT, thus creating a second standard, why would they be ok with 99 percent failing and not creating a seperate standard? And these are just in "average" units. What about the Rangers? Or SEALs or Delta were even above average and elite levels fail? What happens when in 10 years we still don't have a female SEAL?

I assume if women were so equal and just as capable we would have switched to a universal standard years ago. And yet we haven't, why? Is it because a 70 percent failure is unacceptable to civilian authorities? if 70 percent is unacceptable, why would 99 percent be acceptable? What happens when very very few females even bother to try out? Is the military just being sexist? Is their a conspiracy to keep them out?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Of note Obama gives interview and was asked about the National Football League, he basically said we should feel a little guilty that we enjoy watching these huge strong men bashing each other and injuring each other. Maybe if we feel guilty enough we will demand changes to the game.

As your daughter goes off to get blown to pieces by an IED, something doesn't compute

The man is all about the irony. He's basically king of the hipsters.

 

[Lauge]

Precisely, as per the above. And if someone can't meet the realistic, minimum requirements (whether for combat troops, a civilian office job or a gig as a circus clown) and is disqualified as a consequence, then personally I don't see that as being "unfair" or "unequal" to anyone.

And if the minimum requirements are lowered to below realistic standards?

Well, then they're no longer realistic.

What happens when hey "redefine reality"?

The same thing that always happens when you redefine reality to suit a particular purpose.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[bobbymike]

Maryland educators are launching an assault on normal childhood behavior. In Talbot County, Maryland, two boys aged 6 were recently suspended for pretending their fingers were guns while playing cops and robbers during recess. This comes just after another 6-year-old at a Montgomery County school was suspended for the same thing. These suspensions were later reversed, but why are they happening in the first place? They seem to be part of a larger effort to condition our kids to reject guns and the Second Amendment.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/smallschools-push-disarm-minds-our-children/#ixzz2JLubcGjI

But 12 years later we will send them off to fight in a war.

 

[bobbymike]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/01/17-percent-of-male-marines-would-leave-corps-if-women-join-combat-ranks/

If 17% of Marines quit as Hilary said in the Bengazi hearings, "What difference would it make"

 

[Ray]

I may have missed it but I did not find any mention of the 'draft' anywhere in the thread. If the ladies want to serve in combat positions, then all women should have to register for the draft just like all 18 year old boys. Yeah, I know, the draft hasn't been used in ages. As I understand it, the draft registration requirement still exists. I would expect some serious bitching about that one. Let those open-minded politicians' little girls have to sign up and the attitudes might change. My daughter is beyond draft age, would probably have been a decent troop, seriously good shot with a rifle but there is no way that I want her to see combat.


Ray

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I may have missed it but I did not find any mention of the 'draft' anywhere in the thread. If the ladies want to serve in combat positions, then all women should have to register for the draft just like all 18 year old boys. Yeah, I know, the draft hasn't been used in ages. As I understand it, the draft registration requirement still exists. I would expect some serious bitching about that one. Let those open-minded politicians' little girls have to sign up and the attitudes might change. My daughter is beyond draft age, would probably have been a decent troop, seriously good shot with a rifle but there is no way that I want her to see combat.


Ray

I agree 100 percent. Equal is equal.

ATTENTION, UNDOCUMENTED MALES
& IMMIGRANT SERVICING GROUPS!

Selective Service does not collect any information which would indicate whether or not you are undocumented. You want to protect yourself for future U.S. citizenship and other government benefits and programs by registering with Selective Service. Do it today.

If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then you must register with Selective Service. It’s the law. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday.

http://www.sss.gov/default.htm

Yes Illegal immigrants are expected to register but not American Females.