Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Waitone on May 27, 2012, 05:48:45 PM
-
It was bound to happen at some point. Females will be "permitted " to attend Ranger school.
So I guess the question at this point is how will the standards be affected.
I'll refrain from comment because I'm a male chauvinist sexist pig. I am also a hard nose when it comes to dealing with reality and this particular gambit smacks of ideological delusion the likes of which normal humans rarely see.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814
-
If they can handle the current standards more power to 'em.
-
If they can handle the current standards more power to 'em.
Agreed. I've no problem with women trying for slots in Ranger school, or for SEALS, etc - but the standards applied must be based on the job requirements, not on whether the applicant's genitals dangle or are stored in the body cavity. If a woman can drag a "wounded buddy" the requisite distance in the requisite time, run fast enough, do pullups rather than the "bent-arm hang", then let 'em try out for the school (and complete it, if they can). Don't lower the standards just to say, "We've got Female Rangers now!"
-
It was bound to happen at some point. Females will be "permitted " to attend Ranger school.
So I guess the question at this point is how will the standards be affected.
I'll refrain from comment because I'm a male chauvinist sexist pig. I am also a hard nose when it comes to dealing with reality and this particular gambit smacks of ideological delusion the likes of which normal humans rarely see.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814
Just like with the rest of the Army, there will be two standards: the real one and the new wholly inadequate & debased one when no women recognizable as women manage to attain the real standard.
This is just a precursor to women in the combat arms. Remember, when the muslim fanatic killed a bunch of our folks at Ft Hood, the POS general was more worried about duh-versity than soldiers' lives.
-
Don't know about Rangers, but I've definitely seen women who hacked it as infantry or as drill instructors and were quite recognizeable as women. Whatever that means.
-
If they can handle the current standards more power to 'em.
Agreed. No double standards. If women can hack the standard, they should be able to do whatever they please. If they individually can't, they should wash out like anyone else.
-
Does the Army have a different and easier physical fitness standard for women like the Marine Corps?
-
Does the Army have a different and easier physical fitness standard for women like the Marine Corps?
They did when I was in.
-
Does the Army have a different and easier physical fitness standard for women like the Marine Corps?
For run and pushups, yes. Sit ups, no.
-
I fully expect it will include an absolute double standard. These girls won't be "GI Jane".
-
I fully expect it will include an absolute double standard. These girls won't be "GI Jane".
The police had a curious take on this over here. After years of complaints about double standards for male and female applicants, they put men and women on the same standard. Previously, men had to run 2 kilometers in 9 minutes 30 seconds, women in 10 minutes. Now both men and women have to make it at 10 minutes 15 seconds IIRC :facepalm:
-
And shall America, tomorrow, be engaged in a war with a nation that does not have women in the combat arms, that nation will lose lopsidedly.
-
There's a part of me that wants to jump up and say, "Wait a minute, so if I can't do 50 push-ups as fast as you or as easily as you, I can't be as good of a soldier as you?" Because I can't do 50 push-ups like you can, but I don't know many men who can handle crisis, deal with pain, keep moving through anything that's thrown at them, or maintain their resolve like SEVERAL women I know. All of which are key ingredients in a good soldier. But the key word there is soldier, not Ranger or SEAL.
Our special forces are among the best in the world because of the standards we set to be inducted into them. If ANYONE can't hack it, they don't belong. Period.
-
Sorry, but even basic combat soldiering requires a basic level of fitness. If you can't hack it to the same physical level as the men, you shouldn't be allowed on the pointy end of the stick.
I have no problem with women being allowed into a combat role. I have a real problem with the standards being lowered for it.
-
Um, so with the whole "no women recognizable as women thing" are we talking just about Rangers? The whole "just like the rest of the Army seems to indicate that no "women recognizable as women" could meet male standards in "the rest of the Army."
'Cause I am entirely capable of exceeding the men's ages 17-26 minimum PFT standard for the USMC. Or I was several months ago, haven't been working out much lately. I haven't looked at Army standards. I'm 33 and have it on good authority that I am recognizable as a woman. Feel free to poll those APS-ers I've met in person.
Actually, I made damn sure I could meet a male standards because of a couple similar threads a couple years back. In the interim, I've become a lot less certain on a whole lot of things, and see both sides of this issue, but I don't like feeling weak, so once I got my 5k time under 27, I put a bit of effort into rounding out my training to ensure I could meet the USMC standard. For 17-26 y.o. men. Yeah, sorry, I squeak in there with just a couple points to spare. I don't meet the standards military.com recommends for Ranger school candidates. I haven't tried.
Israel's experience seems to be a pretty positive one. A lot of the negative arguments--not here, but some of you gentleman have been having this conversation on fb--seem to revolve around "American guys can't treat women servicemen the same way they treat their male colleagues." That is a ludicrous argument, to which the only reasonable response is "get over it." Although I have noticed a certain entrenched sexism in some career military guys of the worst kind--not rational arguments about physical difference and standards, but "I'm in charge here because my junk dangles; you are subject to my whims." Obviously there is jackassery everywhere, but it makes sense that that sort of character would be attracted to the perceived macho-ness of the military. The "we can't treat you like people" argument seems to come in third, right behind "Women can't cut it" which is clearly debatable, and "women's standards shouldn't be easier to meet." I tend to agree with that one.
I think the bent-arm hang thing is silly, because being able to do a couple pull-ups seems much more likely than running a minute faster pace in the course of military duty. Obviously, that is just a guess. I also think it's silly because it wasn't that hard for me to do it, and I've had my left shoulder surgically repaired twice. Perhaps they are trying to avoid causing injuries, rather than weakening the standard? I understand that the Army has revamped much of their physical fitness program to reduce injuries.
But on the whole issue of a different standard for women, there's a pretty valid parallel with different standards for older people. It seems clear that a 28 minute or faster 3 mile run is not inherently vital; if it was, why would guys over 26 not have to meet the same standard as everyone else? Seems that the goal is for physical fitness, and the objective criteria for meeting that standard vary with sex and age.
But then there's also research that suggests that women feel more pain than men proportionate to injury/illness. (Child-bearing is an exception due to massive amounts of hormones that increase endurance.) Obviously, this is very difficult to measure objectively, but it is a potential argument against having women in elite combat units.
-
Sorry, but even basic combat soldiering requires a basic level of fitness. If you can't hack it to the same physical level as the men, you shouldn't be allowed on the pointy end of the stick.
I have no problem with women being allowed into a combat role. I have a real problem with the standards being lowered for it.
I did not say or imply that any standards should be lowered or that basic levels of fitness should be changed. In fact, I believe I said the exact opposite - that they should not be lowered or altered.
That said, every individual has different strengths and weaknesses. A good leader recognizes them and uses them accordingly.
-
A little personal experience with "flexible" standards.
This was about 1991 or early '92.
Navy fitness standards were of course less strenuous for females.
Part of a submarine squadron includes a submarine tender ship for our intermediate maintenance activity (IMA) to handle things that can't be done routinely on the boat. This includes things like making and repairing lockers and shelves (tin benders), and things like repairing the RADAR absorbent material (RAM) coverings on the ice caps on our hydraulic masts.
Of course anytime you have multiple organizations working together somebody has to be top dog. Well, it came to pass at the time that the IMA won out and insisted that their personnel would remove and re-install our ice caps when they had to go in for repair.
During one of our upkeep periods I requested the RAM on my ESM mast be replaced.
On a friday afternoon the tech from the IMA managed to drag the ESM mast ice cap down to the ship and promptly informed me the SHE needed ships company to install it as it was too heavy for her to work with. Remember that the IMA was the ones that insisted they their people do the install work.
Initially I was agreeable to help her out, hell we were all on the same team, and was getting things set up to reinstall the cap until I inspected it and saw that the new RAM covering was already damaged from her beating it around and was ready to peal off.
I informed her that the work was defective and I would not allow it to be installed. She went psycho on me and informed me and the ships duty officer that we were engaging in sexual harassment and she was going to report me. She took the cap back to the tender. I got a duty relief and went up to discuss the problem with the Electronics Material Officer (EMO, her direct superior) about the problem.
She had gone straight to him and reported me for sexual harassment telling the EMO that I wouldn't let her install the cap because she was female, I actually saw her written statement, it was in interesting work of fiction.
I went to the EMO's office as he was about to unleash the fires of hell on the SOB that had wronged his tech.
I explained my reason for not allowing the cap to be installed and also informed him that she had insisted that we re-install it. I also informed him that while I had been willing to help intsall it the problem wasn't her or the need to help her but that there was a defect in the RAM coating. We went to their shop and he verified my complaint.
It just so happened that the IMA EMO and I were members of the same motorcycle club but didn't know what the others job was till then. Had we not had that connection I have absolutely zero doubt that I wouldn't have had the opportunity to challenge her accusation until I was already on my way to Captains Mast (article 15). And with the way those things worked at the time, since I had been accused that meant that I was guilty, zero tolerance for sexual harassment don't you know.
-
Is that a standards problem? It looks like a lying problem and a lack of due process problem. =|
The trouble with stories like that becoming an argument against women in the military is that when you use it to argue against women in the military, it's less "women aren't capable" and more "women are perfidious bitches." The trouble is that there's never a shortage of perfidious bitches. They are hardly universally female, though. And females are far from universally perfidious bitches.
Of course, it's mostly the women who leverage the "due process doesn't apply here if I use the magic words" gambit. That's a procedural problem and a definitional problem. It is one that tends to crop up mostly where women are involved, but hey, drowning mostly crops up where is water. Still think we should keep the stuff around.
-
I was in the surface fleet around the time RKL is talking about. And things were just as bad there.
Not sure if that mentality has changed yet, being that the military does NOT like adapting to new realities.
Personally, I have zero problems with women in any role in the service, so long as they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise really doesn't make much sense...
-
Personally, I have zero problems with women in any role in the service, so long as they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise really doesn't make much sense...
I have a problem with women in most roles in the service, even if they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise doesn't really make much sense to me.
Women, in general, are not able to meet the physical standards set to weed out unfit men. There are a very few number of women who can still meet the same standard.
Now I know this is a VERY controversial thing to say, and it can be very hard to accept, but, in my experience (and a significant number of scholarly studies) men act differently when they are around women. Thus, I would prefer just one sex be involved in a military setting. Since, on average, men are more physically capable, I prefer that sex to be men.
Sometimes men acting differently is a good thing. Men can be less violent when a woman is around. Men can be less boorish when a woman is around.
However, men can also be jealous, petty and distracted by the fairer sex. They also have a tendency to drop other considerations (even the primacy of the mission) to respond to a female in distress. Some studies think this is biological programming.
For that reason, women should not be in the military, especially not combat. Combining the sexes creates significant distractions that make our men and our units less capable.
Now, as to Micro's point, yes, we would likely still have the greatest military in the world and still be capable of dealing with any threat. We would simply be trading a few more soldier's lives for greater diversity.
And, given that the most important value of any culture is diversity, isn't it worth it?
-
Just sayin
https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10151440109895715&set=a.232638210714.181716.65907730714&type=1&theater
-
I fully expect this thread to devolve into ignorance, and be locked. But i'll get my two cents in before it does.
BridgeRunner is definately recognizable as a woman. If she can pass the PT standards, i don't see why other women can't.
The problem is, in the Army there are MANY women who can not pass the male PT standards. Many of these women not only aren't removed from service, but rather EXCEL, because A.) Promotion packets are still heavily weighted by your APFT score, and B.) An abysmal score for a male is a damn good score for a female.
I have always said that I have no problem with women in hard charging combat roles as long as they can maintain the standard.
It has been my experience, both stateside and in combat, that a HUGE chunk of them can not maintain the same standard as their male counterparts.
The military needs to DECIDE what the APFT is for. If it's a measure of physical fitness, then fine... I get the differing standards.
However, in an infantry capacity, it's not just a measure of general fitness. It's a measure of whether or not an individual can , for example, march a huge distance with a lot of gear, then still assault a building afterward. That's why EVERYONE at ranger school has to pass at the 18-21 age group standard, regardless of age.
The male standard.
If women attend the school, they need to do the same. MALE 18-21 standard.
-
For that reason, women should not be in the military, especially not combat. Combining the sexes creates significant distractions that make our men and our units less capable.
1. Human beings are not statistics. If a given, specific woman, Jane E. Doe, can pass the physical and pass the various tests which actually measure the aptitude of an individual for military service, she should serve. It does not matter what the average woman is capable of, as you're not looking for average.
2. In actual fact, women have been serving in the military for decades, and in combat since at least WW2. IT's only for American women that this is somehow new. These women (And the forces they served in) do not, in actual combat have a record of military failure that separates them from men-only units.
-
1. Human beings are not statistics. If a given, specific woman, Jane E. Doe, can pass the physical and pass the various tests which actually measure the aptitude of an individual for military service, she should serve. It does not matter what the average woman is capable of, as you're not looking for average.
2. In actual fact, women have been serving in the military for decades, and in combat since at least WW2. IT's only for American women that this is somehow new. These women (And the forces they served in) do not, in actual combat have a record of military failure that separates them from men-only units.
People aren't statistics. Statistics are EXTREMELY useful, especially when the numbers of women who have both the inclination and ability to outperform the very fit men in the military number in the hundreds out of a population of ~300 Million.
For those hundreds of women, we will be making our force less prepared because we will screw up the dynamic of an all-male unit, unless you dispute my point that men act differently in the presence of women.
Secondly, many other countries already have women in their military service. We could easily adapt and do the same. We will likley still have the greatest fighting force on earth. We'd just lose a few more lives than previously. After all, what's a few hundred more lives in the pursuit of diversity?
Besides, who in their right mind would make such a big fuss over just a few hundred people?
-
People aren't statistics. Statistics are EXTREMELY useful, especially when the numbers of women who have both the inclination and ability to outperform the very fit men in the military number in the hundreds out of a population of ~300 Million.
Why do they need to be performing better than said "very fit men"? Is it not sufficient that they perform as well as they do?
For those hundreds of women, we will be making our force less prepared because we will screw up the dynamic of an all-male unit, unless you dispute my point that men act differently in the presence of women.
A highly irrelevant fact. It's irrelevant how 'men' act because you are not enlisting men. You're enlisting the specific men and women who are serving. It's the role of training and discipline to get people to act not naturally, but the way they were trained to act.
Secondly, many other countries already have women in their military service. We could easily adapt and do the same. We will likley still have the greatest fighting force on earth. We'd just lose a few more lives than previously. After all, what's a few hundred more lives in the pursuit of diversity?
Has the performance of these militaries declined in a measurable way after the introduction of women into the armed forces, and in a way that can be directly attributed to that?
-
...there's never a shortage of perfidious bitches.
Now if that ain't sig-worthy...
-
Larry, women like that make the rest of us look bad, there's no question. And she should have been court-martialed out for her actions.
When I was recruitment age, I was in phenomenal shape, was an expert marksman, and scored a 98% on the ASVAB. I was told by a very surly Army recruiter that it would be a cold day in hell before a woman picked up a rifle, served on a ship, or flew a fighter in his U.S. military. I've thought about him often over the years and wondered how he was enjoying the cool temps.
I may not have qualified, but I would have liked the opportunity to see if I could have - with no alteration of the standards.
-
Why do they need to be performing better than said "very fit men"? Is it not sufficient that they perform as well as they do?
A highly irrelevant fact. It's irrelevant how 'men' act because you are not enlisting men. You're enlisting the specific men and women who are serving. It's the role of training and discipline to get people to act not naturally, but the way they were trained to act.
Has the performance of these militaries declined in a measurable way after the introduction of women into the armed forces, and in a way that can be directly attributed to that?
1. You're right, I should have said "as well as". The numbers do not significantly change.
2. Can you tell me how you aggregate training methods to be applied to thousands of people that don't use "statistics"?
3. ...are you now asking me for statistics to back up my assertion? I thought people weren't statistics?
-
The issue, I think, is that something is clearly wrong with how WE train our men AND women in the military.
Because (and these are FACTS)
A.) OUR military men act differently in the presence of women
B.) MANY military women can not and do not perform to the same standard as men.
-
1. You're right, I should have said "as well as". The numbers do not significantly change.
The military fitness test does not require men to be exceptionally fit. It requires them to be generally well fit.
I am a man of very below average fitness, yet I could do most of it rather well (this I know because the IDF fitness test is broadly similar).
3. ...are you now asking me for statistics to back up my assertion? I thought people weren't statistics?
You are making a specific, falsifiable, claim: that military performance will be degraded by the presence of women in the military, and that this will inevitably occur.
In what way has the performance of the U.S. military, the IDF, the Soviet military, been degraded by the presence of women therein that can actually be detected and you can report to me?
-
The issue, I think, is that something is clearly wrong with how WE train our men AND women in the military.
Because (and these are FACTS)
A.) OUR military men act differently in the presence of women
B.) MANY military women can not and do not perform to the same standard as men.
The answer is simple, in my mind. Not easy, but simple:
1. Research - this should be happening in any military force any way, all the time - what the physical, fitness, and training requirements are for the various branches of the armed forces, and for the people who serve therein. Develop standards based on that:
"We want tank crews to be able to drive tanks, maintain the tanks (shifting 80-kilo parts about to clean them, disassembling heavy tank equipment, etc.), load them with shells, etc. We also want crewmen to fit comfortably in the tanks. Therefore, we should have a training course lasting X months. To check if people are available for service on board the tanks, make sure that they can pass a physical test (X pushups, Y situps, run X miles).
2. Make out tests based on what we discovered in 1. "Every recruit must do X pushpups, Y situps, run X miles. Nobody who fails this test, man or woman, will be allowed to serve on our beloved tanks."
-
The answer is simple, in my mind. Not easy, but simple:
1. Research - this should be happening in any military force any way, all the time - what the physical, fitness, and training requirements are for the various branches of the armed forces, and for the people who serve therein. Develop standards based on that:
"We want tank crews to be able to drive tanks, maintain the tanks (shifting 80-kilo parts about to clean them, disassembling heavy tank equipment, etc.), load them with shells, etc. We also want crewmen to fit comfortably in the tanks. Therefore, we should have a training course lasting X months. To check if people are available for service on board the tanks, make sure that they can pass a physical test (X pushups, Y situps, run X miles).
2. Make out tests based on what we discovered in 1. "Every recruit must do X pushpups, Y situps, run X miles. Nobody who fails this test, man or woman, will be allowed to serve on our beloved tanks."
On this, we can agree. However, in the US Military, this is what has historically happened.
1.) These are the standards for our soldiers to serve in XXXX job. Doesn't matter what the female standards are, because females aren't allowed into this job.
2.) ZOMG we have to let females into this job.
3.) OK, fine. They can do it.
The problem in the US military is that the service's physical standards have never (and likely will never, given the climate and the amount of bellyaching that will happen) been the same for males and females.
-
You are making a specific, falsifiable, claim: that military performance will be degraded by the presence of women in the military, and that this will inevitably occur.
In what way has the performance of the U.S. military, the IDF, the Soviet military, been degraded by the presence of women therein that can actually be detected and you can report to me?
Snark aside, I cannot provide such statistical proof as we have no control group, no ceteris paribus conditions upon which to base the comparison. Too many other changes happened to make any such claim.
There are, however, several studies that show that men respond differently when a female is in danger than when a male is in danger.
-
I have a problem with women in most roles in the service, even if they can do the job and meet the standards. Doing otherwise doesn't really make much sense to me.
Women, in general, are not able to meet the physical standards set to weed out unfit men. There are a very few number of women who can still meet the same standard.
Now I know this is a VERY controversial thing to say, and it can be very hard to accept, but, in my experience (and a significant number of scholarly studies) men act differently when they are around women. Thus, I would prefer just one sex be involved in a military setting. Since, on average, men are more physically capable, I prefer that sex to be men.
*blink*
I was in a mixed MOS, Commo is not a combat arms specialty. Never mind you can get attached to any unit in the US Army. And of course, the radio geek is never targeted by enemy forces. So I have six years of experience with combat and non-combat units. It's not discussed, but we already have women in combat roles. Just not on paper. Medics, MPs, commo geeks, mechanics, etc tend not to work entirely in garrison in modern warfare. Only way to keep women out of combat is to bar them from military service.
Short story long, some hack it. Some don't. Blue falcons are blue falcons.
I had two officers I remember that were worth a damn. One was a female Lt. Yes, once in a while, stuff happened. A very young enlisted soldier made a very crude comment about her appearance, and began enumerating certain thoughts that were illegal and not very polite. Could have written him up, but I provided him counseling that gave him a better understanding of military courtesy. I hit him at the base of the skull with the butt of an M16, loaded a mag, loaded a round, switched to three round burst and then put the muzzle against his eye. I then calmly explained that what was and was not appropriate conduct of junior enlisted personnel with reference to verbal comments towards officers, period. He assured me he had learned his lesson and would not be disrespectful towards superior officers in the future. AFAIK, he did not repeat it afterwards.
Bad behavior. Senior personnel correct. Life moves on, Makattak. Believe it or not, this has occurred since the Roman Legions. Officers and NCOs failing to proper instruct and LEAD their troops is a failure on their part. I will concede that the military has often binded the hands of officers/NCOs with rules written by bureaucrats with no field experience, often as extreme reactions to officers/NCOs doing something stupid.
On the flip side...
Is that a standards problem? It looks like a lying problem and a lack of due process problem. =|
The trouble with stories like that becoming an argument against women in the military is that when you use it to argue against women in the military, it's less "women aren't capable" and more "women are perfidious bitches." The trouble is that there's never a shortage of perfidious bitches. They are hardly universally female, though. And females are far from universally perfidious bitches.
Of course, it's mostly the women who leverage the "due process doesn't apply here if I use the magic words" gambit. That's a procedural problem and a definitional problem. It is one that tends to crop up mostly where women are involved, but hey, drowning mostly crops up where is water. Still think we should keep the stuff around.
No, it is the same issue. Respectfully, the "due process doesn't apply here if I use the magic words" is not due to the military more often than not. Their civilian masters set the tone on that. Short story long (again), some people in the military did some dumb things and civilian brass basically told the military to override due process as the default option. Because the civilian population often weighs social engineering over near term military effectiveness.
Yes, it likely will get folks killed. That is entirely acceptable to those that support social engineering. Honestly, they're probably right but only the long term will bare that out. I would prefer folks that support social engineering own up to it, however.
I personally believe that women should be allowed any job they bloody well please. As long as they do the job, to the same exact standard. Problem is, that will not be allowed, and there will be a dual standard. This is doubly damning. Because the competent females are (and should be) viewed with suspicion until otherwise proven. And you have blue falcon females that get significantly more leeway than should be allowed. These are the natural consequences, which social engineering supporters should acknowledge if they are pushing for inequality.
In the long run, it'll mostly sort itself out. You'll always have people doing stupid things.
The issue, I think, is that something is clearly wrong with how WE train our men AND women in the military.
Because (and these are FACTS)
A.) OUR military men act differently in the presence of women
B.) MANY military women can not and do not perform to the same standard as men.
One is false, the other is vague.
"Our military men" means all males in the military act differently in the presence of women. Uh, yea, if one male doesn't, you statement is false. (Metaphorically raises hand) There. False. "A percent of males that I cannot accurately describe act differently in the presence of women" would be accurate, but I wouldn't see the point unless you alleged (or somehow proved) it was a sufficiently high number to be problematic. Or that is it problematic. You may or may not be right. However, calling something "fact" or "truth" does not make it fact or true. That requires proof, preferably with rigor.
The second is I'm gathering intentionally vague. Many is any number more than one, and entirely subjective. If two military women were unable to perform to the same standard as men, you'd be factually correct and entirely dishonest. Are you trying to allege that the majority of females in the military are unable to meet the standard? A rough guess would be 5-10% of soldiers, male or female, are extremely good, 80+% are "good enough" and a 5-10% should be canned. Difference is, if it's a dude, he's seen as incompetent. If it's a chick, females are seen as incompetent.
Plenty of males don't meet the standard either, dude. Hell, I thought roughly a quarter of my class in Basic should have been weeded out.
-
Is that a standards problem? It looks like a lying problem and a lack of due process problem. =|
The trouble with stories like that becoming an argument against women in the military is that when you use it to argue against women in the military, it's less "women aren't capable" and more "women are perfidious bitches." The trouble is that there's never a shortage of perfidious bitches. They are hardly universally female, though. And females are far from universally perfidious bitches.
Of course, it's mostly the women who leverage the "due process doesn't apply here if I use the magic words" gambit. That's a procedural problem and a definitional problem. It is one that tends to crop up mostly where women are involved, but hey, drowning mostly crops up where is water. Still think we should keep the stuff around.
The root of the problem was that she couldn't physically do the job required of her. In her mind the reason she couldn't do the job was because this evil male wouldn't let her.
It is a verifiable fact that men are generally on average larger and stronger than women.
It is also a fact that there are jobs that require a certain level of physical strength to perform.
When a minimum physical standard is determined to be a requirement for a given job then it doesn't matter what the persons gender is so long as they can perform to that minimum standard.
The problems arise when in the name of fairness and political correctness and gender equality those physical standards are "adjusted" only for women so that women can also do the same job as men.
If we as a country and culture decided that we are indeed going to treat men and women equally in the armed forces then certain cultural things will have to change.
My military experience was 20 years ago so things may have changed some since then but as women generally expect/demand some deference to their gender from men in civilian life, military women do as well, it is a cultural bias. If that deference isn't given then things like harassment, discrimination, hostile work environment, and other nasty things start flying around and peoples careers go down in flames.
But if some people want to get all butt hurt when those of us with actual experience in the area of how women in the military actually works out tell it like is well that's to bad. Sometimes life isn't fair or politically correct.
-
Rev, wasn't drawing a line between military and civilian rules. It's clearly a political issue, pushed by civilian pressures. And that kind of thing is present in most large orgs, although fewer tend to get killed in business, at least directly.
Was stating that the problem in RKL's case was a failure of process--however and whoever developed/influenced the processes. The problem wasn't that the arguable person involved was female, but that she was able to dishonestly avail herself of a faulty process.
-
*blink*
One is false, the other is vague.
"Our military men" means all males in the military act differently in the presence of women. Uh, yea, if one male doesn't, you statement is false. (Metaphorically raises hand) There. False. "A percent of males that I cannot accurately describe act differently in the presence of women" would be accurate, but I wouldn't see the point unless you alleged (or somehow proved) it was a sufficiently high number to be problematic. Or that is it problematic. You may or may not be right. However, calling something "fact" or "truth" does not make it fact or true. That requires proof, preferably with rigor.
The second is I'm gathering intentionally vague. Many is any number more than one, and entirely subjective. If two military women were unable to perform to the same standard as men, you'd be factually correct and entirely dishonest. Are you trying to allege that the majority of females in the military are unable to meet the standard? A rough guess would be 5-10% of soldiers, male or female, are extremely good, 80+% are "good enough" and a 5-10% should be canned. Difference is, if it's a dude, he's seen as incompetent. If it's a chick, females are seen as incompetent.
Plenty of males don't meet the standard either, dude. Hell, I thought roughly a quarter of my class in Basic should have been weeded out.
OK, MANY of our military men then. I've observed it in country, it's true.
Same with the second statement. Many of our women cannot meet the male physical standards. This data I've arrived at by seeing and compiling APFT results (where a lot of the pushup scores are in the teens and 20s, nowhere near passing by the male standards, and seeing the run scores that are also above what a male can do)
I've also seen the times on ruckmarches and other stuff, at a battalion level.
I'm not sure how you can call my claim false.
-
An interesting read:
http://thesoldiersload.com/2012/05/24/women-do-not-belong-in-the-infantry/
-
*blink*
I was in a mixed MOS, Commo is not a combat arms specialty. Never mind you can get attached to any unit in the US Army. And of course, the radio geek is never targeted by enemy forces. So I have six years of experience with combat and non-combat units. It's not discussed, but we already have women in combat roles. Just not on paper. Medics, MPs, commo geeks, mechanics, etc tend not to work entirely in garrison in modern warfare. Only way to keep women out of combat is to bar them from military service.
Short story long, some hack it. Some don't. Blue falcons are blue falcons.
I had two officers I remember that were worth a damn. One was a female Lt. Yes, once in a while, stuff happened. A very young enlisted soldier made a very crude comment about her appearance, and began enumerating certain thoughts that were illegal and not very polite. Could have written him up, but I provided him counseling that gave him a better understanding of military courtesy. I hit him at the base of the skull with the butt of an M16, loaded a mag, loaded a round, switched to three round burst and then put the muzzle against his eye. I then calmly explained that what was and was not appropriate conduct of junior enlisted personnel with reference to verbal comments towards officers, period. He assured me he had learned his lesson and would not be disrespectful towards superior officers in the future. AFAIK, he did not repeat it afterwards.
Bad behavior. Senior personnel correct. Life moves on, Makattak. Believe it or not, this has occurred since the Roman Legions. Officers and NCOs failing to proper instruct and LEAD their troops is a failure on their part. I will concede that the military has often binded the hands of officers/NCOs with rules written by bureaucrats with no field experience, often as extreme reactions to officers/NCOs doing something stupid.
Bad behavior is only one of the problems I am concerned about. Men protect women. Whether it is coded into our DNA or merely a product of our culture, the natural inclination for men is to put the welfare of a female above their own.
It may be possible through significant conditioning to suppress that instinct (or learned behavior- I'm betting instinct though.) I do not know what unintended consequences will arise should the military succeed in suppressing that instinct, but I also think that given there is very little benefit (*I would say no benefit, but I'll cede that people will feel better about themselves) to allowing women into combat and combat situations, I would rather the military not experiment with supressing said instinct when we know very little about the costs.
And that's not "bad behavior" that is non-optimal behavior (at least non-optimal if we are foolish enough to put women into battle when there is currently no need to do so) that can get a soldier or a unit killed. That is not even dealing with the issues of fraternization or other such problems.
-
in a civilian job when we lower standards to hire a woman no one dies
"women are perfidious bitches"
YES
-
I should also note that I'm quite certain that the military will do no such thing as suppressing men's instincts and the plan is simply to ignore all the problems that arise from combining the sexes.
-
I should also note that I'm quite certain that the military will do no such thing as suppressing men's instincts and the plan is simply to ignore all the problems that arise from combining the sexes.
This is precisely my concern.
Done RIGHT, the integration of women in combat roles could work.
Done RIGHT.
What will happen instead, is that women will be allowed to get through infantry school passing the female APFT, will be given allowances on long field problems to get showered and cleaned up while their male counterparts stay out and suck it up, and will be treated differently. The methods of maintaining discipline in an infantry unit will very quickly lead to a woman crying "unfair" and claiming that she is being hazed, mistreaded, etc, even though it's an accepted and proven way to maintain control of an infantry soldier and his buddies. This will create problems not only by lowering the "toughness" standard that is applied to nearly every infantry unit (for example, many infantry units will put you on remedial PT for not scoring 270 on the male standard), but also by creating resentment amongst the males who will almost certainly perceive such things as "the chain of command being soft on those females."
This is a terrible thing to happen in a military unit, ESPECIALLY one that's destined for close combat.
-
An interesting read:
http://thesoldiersload.com/2012/05/24/women-do-not-belong-in-the-infantry/
Yes. It's also plain wrong, as I've posted about before.
I do not know what is wrong with their training program that these women cannot do a six-mile hike without heavy guns and ammo. But it has nothing to do with them being women. How do I know that?
I know that because IDF's Caracal Battalion is composed entirely of women, and these women are all volunteers, and at the completion of their course they must walk a 7.5 mile hike, with their own machineguns, gear, etc. (there are no men to carry it for them).
There may be reasons why women should not be able to serve in the military. Their physical fitness is not one of them.
-
Yes. It's also plain wrong, as I've posted about before.
I do not know what is wrong with their training program that these women cannot do a six-mile hike without heavy guns and ammo. But it has nothing to do with them being women. How do I know that?
I know that because IDF's Caracal Battalion is composed entirely of women, and these women are all volunteers, and at the completion of their course they must walk a 7.5 mile hike, with their own machineguns, gear, etc. (there are no men to carry it for them).
There may be reasons why women should not be able to serve in the military. Their physical fitness is not one of them.
It may not be one of them for an israeli female. It is one of them for an American female. Cultural differences are not easily overcome. It has nothing to do with the training program, Fort Benning's program is very effective. The non-infantry MOS BCT standards are much different, and women as a whole STILL have much higher washout rates in BCT than their male counterparts.
Source: being a drill sergeant in a co-ed BCT post
I would wager that making an entire battalion of american combat troops out of females would be a much different task.
For comparison, though, Infantry school requires a 25 mile roadmarch at the end. I believe this may have been shortened to JUST 18 now that we wear body armor through the whole thing, and the "eagle run" which is a 40 minute 5 miler. Show me a battalion of American women who are willing and able to do that, and I'm all for it. However, the reality of the US military reflects something entirely different.
-
This is precisely my concern.
Done RIGHT, the integration of women in combat roles could work.
Done RIGHT.
What will happen instead, is that women will be allowed to get through infantry school passing the female APFT, will be given allowances on long field problems to get showered and cleaned up while their male counterparts stay out and suck it up, and will be treated differently. The methods of maintaining discipline in an infantry unit will very quickly lead to a woman crying "unfair" and claiming that she is being hazed, mistreaded, etc, even though it's an accepted and proven way to maintain control of an infantry soldier and his buddies. This will create problems not only by lowering the "toughness" standard that is applied to nearly every infantry unit (for example, many infantry units will put you on remedial PT for not scoring 270 on the male standard), but also by creating resentment amongst the males who will almost certainly perceive such things as "the chain of command being soft on those females."
This is a terrible thing to happen in a military unit, ESPECIALLY one that's destined for close combat.
I agree with this post entirely. Smart thing to do would probably be single sex units. If they pass, they pass. If they don't, they don't. We waste more cash per F-22 or F-35 than an entire infantry battalion would cost for a couple years.
-
I agree with this post entirely. Smart thing to do would probably be single sex units. If they pass, they pass. If they don't, they don't. We waste more cash per F-22 or F-35 than an entire infantry battalion would cost for a couple years.
Perhaps I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm also willing to bet there's a lot more usefulness in an F22 or F35 then the just for S's&G's of an all female battalion.
-
Perhaps I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm also willing to bet there's a lot more usefulness in an F22 or F35 then the just for S's&G's of an all female battalion.
Going out on a limb, I highly doubt that. If an all-female battalion simply got used to mow lawns and rake dirt at some FOB, they'd be more combat useful than the entire F-35 program. My impression that raking dirt and operating a floor buffer is more important than combat. Because I spent more time cleaning and raking dirt than I EVER did learning how to kill people and break things.
Think we've spent $300+ billion on the F-35, with no combat deployments. Actually, don't think there has been a single F-22 combat deployment either? That's another $100 billion, and has a problem with cutting off the oxygen in flight.
-
Going out on a limb, I highly doubt that. If an all-female battalion simply got used to mow lawns and rake dirt at some FOB, they'd be more combat useful than the entire F-35 program.
Given the F-35 program, you're probably right now that I think about it.
-
Given the F-35 program, you're probably right now that I think about it.
Let me put it this way. Contractor A forgot to include the weight of the wiring in the F-35 when they gave it to Contractor B. When you use those numbers to put the engine in an aircraft, that is a problem. This single issue cost the equivalent of a battalion's annual budget for the next hundred years.
Your original comment is more insulting than you probably meant it to be, Lupinus.
-
Now if that ain't sig-worthy...
I do feel a sig coming on. I think I'll use the whole thing though. =D
-
I am a man of very below average fitness, yet I could do most of it rather well (this I know because the IDF fitness test is broadly similar).
Boris, I do believe you are significantly over-estimating average fitness, at least in the US. One factor that may be driving this standards issue is that an increasing proportion of prospective recruits are too fat. A good many of these are inactive. Americans aren't all fat, lazy slobs--but that is an area of American preeminence.
In what way has the performance of the U.S. military, the IDF, the Soviet military, been degraded by the presence of women therein that can actually be detected and you can report to me?
Ah, so it's not only Israeli women who are not recognizable as women, but Russian women too. It's mostly American women who are categorically unfit for arms. Mostly because American men purportedly can't handle American women working hard and taking risks and getting hurts.
Seems to me this speaks at least as much to the fitness of American men as American women.
-
The root of the problem was that she couldn't physically do the job required of her. In her mind the reason she couldn't do the job was because this evil male wouldn't let her.
Ok, well, I think "wrong and slightly loony" is on the charitable side.
It is a verifiable fact that men are generally on average larger and stronger than women.
Yep. I'm stronger than most women, and I'm less strong than most men. But I'm as strong as a man who is deemed capable of serving in the US military.
Men under thirty are generally stronger than men over thirty. Do you advocate cutting off enlistment age at 26? That's where the physical fitness standards start relaxing. Obviously there's an investment-in-training issue in terms of keeping people on past their optimal strength--but for how long?
It is also a fact that there are jobs that require a certain level of physical strength to perform.
Yes. And there are women that can perform those jobs better than some military men. It's just not about sex.
When a minimum physical standard is determined to be a requirement for a given job then it doesn't matter what the persons gender is so long as they can perform to that minimum standard.
I think just about everybody who has commented here has said that.
The problems arise when in the name of fairness and political correctness and gender equality those physical standards are "adjusted" only for women so that women can also do the same job as men.
That too. I am in agreement.
If we as a country and culture decided that we are indeed going to treat men and women equally in the armed forces then certain cultural things will have to change.
That too. I think everyone here agrees that things like the "flexed arm hang" are stupid and cause problems. It seems to me the only military advantage in being able to dangle helplessly in the air for a period of time is if there's a shortage of convenient targets.
My military experience was 20 years ago so things may have changed some since then but as women generally expect/demand some deference to their gender from men in civilian life, military women do as well, it is a cultural bias. If that deference isn't given then things like harassment, discrimination, hostile work environment, and other nasty things start flying around and peoples careers go down in flames.
I've only worked where I've worked, and it may be that those areas are not average, but this has not been my current experience. Not remotely. Example: Last week, my employer wanted 10+ hour days. I have to pick up kids from daycare before it closes, so I can't ordinarily work more than 8-1/2 hours or so. I did not get a pass on working the extra hours because I'm a woman/mother. I got in at 8:30, left at 3:30 to spend close to two hours picking up kids and shuttling them across town to relatives and driving back to work so I could work until 9 or 10 to try to get to twelve hours on the clock.
While we're validating gender stereotypes, there's this notion that men are more competitive than women. Yeah, well, I'm a lawyer...there's some competitiveness. I've never had a classmate or colleague back down from getting an edge over me because I'm a woman. I've sure as hell never attempted to suggest it, not only because it would be stupid, but because I'd be laughed out of the office. I was bumped from a competition to alternate because I am not a man--more women than men placed high in the competition, and we decided to go for gender-balanced teams to get an edge in competing. The mix of campuses and sexes was such that I got bumped.
I had a kid the last week of the term. Yes, my male teammates were generous and agreed to come to my house to prep for our mock trial the night I got home from the hospital, which was the following morning. And yeah, I showed up in heels and a suit. Because that's what you do. Some chick in California took the bar exam while she was in labor, had the kid an hour after she'd finished. Pretty much, my experience has been that women had better make damn sure that they work as long if not longer than men, as hard if not harder, etc.
But if some people want to get all butt hurt when those of us with actual experience in the area of how women in the military actually works out tell it like is well that's to bad. Sometimes life isn't fair or politically correct.
Yeah, y'know, I noticed that. A lot. I also haven't noticed anyone disagreeing with you on the problems with current policy. But I also noticed that it's the misogynists here who are showing signs of butthurtedness, as expressed by increasingly circular logic, restatement of fallacy, and generalized snark.
-
Cultural differences are not easily overcome.
Especially not when so much effort is put into maintaining them.
-
Men protect women. Whether it is coded into our DNA or merely a product of our culture, the natural inclination for men is to put the welfare of a female above their own.
ROFLMAO.
-
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=60+Fordham+L.+Rev.+309&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=8599395f28e679df69c2d31f5c2a2bbd
http://www.military.com/military-fitness/fitness-test-prep/physical-fitness-test-standards
-
http://womeninthemilitary.military.com/882/lifting-ban-women-combatcarefully/
-
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=60+Fordham+L.+Rev.+309&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=8599395f28e679df69c2d31f5c2a2bbd
I say again, ROTFLMAO.
Surely you're aware that the words "law review" are synonymous with the words "fantasy land"?
-
Surely you're aware that the words "law review" are synonymous with the words "fantasy land"?
irony alert
-
Surely you're aware that the words "law review" are synonymous with the words "fantasy land"?
irony alert
Yep. When the choice is between ironic and moronic, I'll usually go with ironic.
Hell, when the choice is between *anything* and ironic, I'll usually go with ironic.
-
Not me. I love the stupidz
-
Yeah, y'know, I noticed that. A lot. I also haven't noticed anyone disagreeing with you on the problems with current policy. But I also noticed that it's the misogynists here who are showing signs of butthurtedness, as expressed by increasingly circular logic, restatement of fallacy, and generalized snark.
Really? Name calling already?
-
Really? Name calling already?
Ah, c'mon, that's not name calling, that's a characterization. A fairly civil one too. I was right proud of how I cleaned that one up.
-
Who's misogynist?
-
Anyone who's experience in the US military leads them to believe that women in certain roles in the US military would be problematic can't be motivated by anything but a searing hatred of women, obviously. Just like folks who think life begins at conception.
And while we're at it, if you oppose illegal immigration the only possible reason is because you hate non-whites. And if you oppose expanding the fed.gov's licensing and subsidy powers in a ham handed attempt at social engineering acceptance of homosexuality you obviously just have a pathological fear of gays. Only possible explanation, really.
I love the arguments where the only possible reason anyone could oppose you is because of what a vile and terrible human being they are. Sure does make it unecessary to refute their actual arguments, and that's a huge time saver.
-
Misogyny does not mean "searing hatred of women".
-
I should also note that I'm quite certain that the military will do no such thing as suppressing men's instincts and the plan is simply to ignore all the problems that arise from combining the sexes.
This is perhaps confirmed by the number of women who, now that they are out of the military, are suing the military for not having acted appropriately (or at all) upon complaints of rape while said women were in said military. The number of incidents is high enough to be indicative of a significant problem ... if the numbers were allowed to stand. Thus, the solution arrived at by the military has been to accuse the accusers, classify the reports as false or unproven, and insert organization head deeply in sand.
-
I have to ask this: what is the benefit of placing women in combat and combat situations?
I believe there are significant costs. What benefits are there to outweight these costs?
-
Your original comment is more insulting than you probably meant it to be, Lupinus.
My apologies
-
Were "women in combat roles" or "women in the military" financial investment opportunities, they would be dismissed out of hand for their significantly lower ROI (return on investment) relative to the alternative. It just plain takes more investment to get an equally performing product/soldier out at the end of the process when you start with a woman. Also, operating costs for women are greater and (if one insists on the male standard) it doesn't scale up.
If you want hard data, many studies have been done on injury rates (while training to the current, lesser female standard), washout rates for the various training programs, readiness rates for deployment, time spent on physical profile (~light work/training load due to physical reasons), etc., etc.
An automotive analogy might be the purchase of a mid-1970s Brit or Italian sport coupe to be your commuter car, grocery getter, and family transport. It does all the mundane functions of such an auto worse than a Honda Accord or Ford Taurus. It costs more to keep on the road. Its reliability blows chunks. Yet, some folks make it it work for them. They pour more resources into it for non-monetary reasons. They get some sense of satisfaction being a zebra in a herd of horses. Good for them. May the blue smoke always stay firmly embedded INSIDE their electrical components.
The problem with doing something similar for the military, is that the investments are tax dollars and men's lives. I am not OK with that, since those are my tax dollars and it maybe my son's life in the future who may pay the marginal cost for some folk to get a sense of satisfaction.
All in all, calls for such social engineering are a sign of poor stewardship of our tax dollars by our elected, appointed, and hired officials.
-
Surely you're aware that the words "law review" are synonymous with the words "fantasy land"?
Now that's sig worthy!
-
Misogyny does not mean "searing hatred of women".
??? It would be a degree of misogyny....
To wit, someone who had a "searing hatred of women" would be considered a misogynist. Someone who dislike women but who did not carry it to an extreme, would also be a misogynist. Sherlock Holmes, the fictional detective, would be considered an example of the second.
Not ... quite ... sure ... what ... your ... point ... is. ???
-
Um, so with the whole "no women recognizable as women thing" are we talking just about Rangers? The whole "just like the rest of the Army seems to indicate that no "women recognizable as women" could meet male standards in "the rest of the Army."
No.
BR, I am no stranger to exceptionally fit & disciplined women. Before I enlisted in the Army, I trained with pro & competitive amateur female athletes (as well as similar male athletes).
Professional:
Body building
"Fitness"
Tennis
(Nationally) Competitive Amateur:
Olympic weightlifting
Power lifting
Triathalons
Kickboxing
So, it is not like I have no experience with how young, healthy, genetically gifted, and exceptionally disciplined women can train up to their potential. Make no mistake, these were Sixth Sigma(1) women(2). Likely no more than 100,000 of them in America, today, if we are lucky.
Of the many such women I met & trained with, a grand total of one might have been able to cut it at my unit(3) without biochemical enhancement. If we leave anabolic steroids, HGH, stimulants, and some other performance-enhancing drugs on the table, shift that number from one to to ten.
Yeah, if we are willing to get our most fit and able gals to use large amounts of illegal, performance-enhancing drugs; "women in the military" would still likely be un-doable from a sheer population numbers standpoint. Might be do-able as a stunt, though, kinda like Kadaffy's female bodyguard unit.
Which brings me to the "no women recognizable as women thing." Large doses of roids & HGH have both short-term & lasting effects. Increased muscle mass/recovery is only one. Toss into the mix a deeper voice, more & thicker body hair (to include the face), enlargement of the genitalia, and acromegaly (not an exhaustive list). Seen it happen to men and women who thought the price worth it. The men carried it off better than the women, aesthetically-speaking.
Try not to go, "ewww!":
http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/anabstereff/anabstereff.html#3
Let me translate from medicalese into English:
"clitoris hypertrophy" = "Looks like she has a dick."
Speaking of roids & HGH, they are used quite a bit in the SOF units. The more rarefied, the more juice. This is at or near professional sports level performance. Heck, one of the guys I went through RIP with had played major league baseball(4). Some guys feel the need for the edge. Some really do need it to operate at that level. I feel like I am living up to my sig line when I write that women are not going to be competitive at this level of performance.
(1) Top 0.00034%
(2) WRT athleticism & discipline
(3) 75th RR
(4) If you consider baseball players athletes, unlike Tom Sellick.
-
No.
I don't disagree with anything in your post, except the quote above. Your post addresses your unit. I was speaking about the rest of the Army. I am highly skeptical that a woman, much less women, could successfully serve as a Ranger.
-
The point is inclusion, not the equivalent competency. We all know that. Liberalism is about wishful thinking.
-
I have to ask this: what is the benefit of placing women in combat and combat situations?
I believe there are significant costs. What benefits are there to outweigh these costs?
Maintaining a high-quality, all-volunteer military in the face of shifting demographics, including the rise of obesity and the red/blue state polarization that has resulted in increasing segments of American culture rejecting the military as a potential career choice. This is the same reason for not disallowing enlistment on the basis of one's preferences in sexual partners.
That, of course, mostly answers the question "why have women in the military." However, many women may not consider the military because of their perceived status as secondary to the mission which may translate as less significant.
Opening combat MOSs to women could combat this perception and increase the both the number and the quality of female recruits. It might to argued that even women who would enlist anyway could have an increased attitude of equality and therefore equal responsibility. I'm not arguing this, because that requires a more intimate knowledge of the psychology of military women than I possess. But it is a possibility.
-
...complaints of rape while said women were in said military....
Couldn't be!
We have it on good authority that American men protect women.
-
Going out on a limb, I highly doubt that. If an all-female battalion simply got used to mow lawns and rake dirt at some FOB, they'd be more combat useful than the entire F-35 program. My impression that raking dirt and operating a floor buffer is more important than combat. Because I spent more time cleaning and raking dirt than I EVER did learning how to kill people and break things.
Think we've spent $300+ billion on the F-35, with no combat deployments. Actually, don't think there has been a single F-22 combat deployment either? That's another $100 billion, and has a problem with cutting off the oxygen in flight.
Way too much truth in that. More or less true of some units.
Men under thirty are generally stronger than men over thirty. Do you advocate cutting off enlistment age at 26? That's where the physical fitness standards start relaxing. Obviously there's an investment-in-training issue in terms of keeping people on past their optimal strength--but for how long?
Men under 30 have better recovery times, but male peak strength performance usually peaks mid-30s. If you want to read good literature about the interplay between strength/performance vs recovery, the MLB steroid mess is fascinating. Specifically, look at Barry Bond's career and the hard data as to where top MLB players peak and then degrade. Steve Sailer is a good generalist resource and place to start.
Yeah, y'know, I noticed that. A lot. I also haven't noticed anyone disagreeing with you on the problems with current policy. But I also noticed that it's the misogynists here who are showing signs of butthurtedness, as expressed by increasingly circular logic, restatement of fallacy, and generalized snark.
See, this is why we can't have anything nice reasonable discussions. Playing the race/misogyny/hater card is a sign of a losing argument.
I don't disagree with anything in your post, except the quote above. Your post addresses your unit. I was speaking about the rest of the Army. I am highly skeptical that a woman, much less women, could successfully serve as a Ranger.
My comments regarded training only. Actual shots-fired-in-anger is likely to be a mite more demanding than training.
I have to ask this: what is the benefit of placing women in combat and combat situations?
I believe there are significant costs. What benefits are there to outweight these costs?
The only benefits are political and accrue to the left. "Pour encourager les autres(1)" in the violent sense. See what they can do to the military? If they can do that to them, what can they do to us or me?
Nothing more sophisticated than a mobster breaking some dude's kneecaps for non-payment.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pour_encourager_les_autres
"As they arrive in England, they see an admiral (based on Admiral Byng) being shot for not killing enough of the enemy. Martin explains that Britain finds it necessary to shoot an admiral from time to time "pour l'encouragement des autres" (to encourage the others)."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pour%20encourager%20les%20autres
-
BridgeRunner, I really am not sure what side of this argument you fall on.
One one hand, you say that women aren't suited to roles such as Rangers (I would add infantry and Special Forces to that list)
then on the other hand you say there are benefits to women in the military, which I and many others here certainly do not dispute.
I think you may agree with me and not know it.
I'm not trying to be snarky or provoke you. I appreciate the fact that your level of fitness and your gender make you very qualified to discuss this issue
-
Men under 30 have better recovery times, but male peak strength performance usually peaks mid-30s.
See, my misgiving in making those comments was endurance as opposed to strength, what with ultra-runners tending to peak in their 40's--possibly a consequence of the long training/acclitimization period most people need for running 50+ miles, but seems I've read about endurance peaking much later.
I'll accept the factual issue with my argument--was just basing it off the various military fitness standards.
See, this is why we can't have anything nice reasonable discussions. Playing the race/misogyny/hater card is a sign of a losing argument.
With all due respect to your valid point, I'd like to point out that that was a response to accusations of "butt hurt." I don't feel much obligation to play fairer than my opponents.
My comments regarded training only. Actual shots-fired-in-anger is likely to be a mite more demanding than training.
I defer to Micro's experience.
-
The only reason I haven't commented yet on women in actual shots-being-fired situations is because my sample size is too small.
The training aspect, however, I have loads of experience with.
-
Fitz, if there are two sides, I'm on neither one. One some aspects of the argument, I have pretty firmly held opinions. On others, I have some ideas that are less fully formed.
I lose patience with some of the less reasonable arguments on both sides. I also am impatient with some (not all) of the military culture arguments, because they are often used to justify unnecessarily bad behavior and unreasonable and dangerous prejudices.
-
Fitz, if there are two sides, I'm on neither one. One some aspects of the argument, I have pretty firmly held opinions. On others, I have some ideas that are less fully formed.
I lose patience with some of the less reasonable arguments on both sides. I also am impatient with some (not all) of the military culture arguments, because they are often used to justify unnecessarily bad behavior and unreasonable and dangerous prejudices.
Fair enough.
I guess I just prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to servicemembers lives. I recognize that this is a bias I have, and am unlikely to overcome.
Regarding culture, however, I think maybe the reason you lose patience with some of those arguments is because you lack experience with the issues involved. I don't think it makes your arguments any less valid, but perhaps you might feel differently if you had a direct connection to the culture in an infantry unit
Hazing the new guy, using foul language and things that would be considered "mistreatment" in the civilian world can be effective tools when building a warrior.
-
Couldn't be!
We have it on good authority that American men protect women.
:facepalm: You are far too smart to play dumb.
Maintaining a high-quality, all-volunteer military in the face of shifting demographics, including the rise of obesity and the red/blue state polarization that has resulted in increasing segments of American culture rejecting the military as a potential career choice. This is the same reason for not disallowing enlistment on the basis of one's preferences in sexual partners.
That, of course, mostly answers the question "why have women in the military." However, many women may not consider the military because of their perceived status as secondary to the mission which may translate as less significant.
Opening combat MOSs to women could combat this perception and increase the both the number and the quality of female recruits. It might to argued that even women who would enlist anyway could have an increased attitude of equality and therefore equal responsibility. I'm not arguing this, because that requires a more intimate knowledge of the psychology of military women than I possess. But it is a possibility.
(1) Is there a current enlistment problem necessitating an increase in potential volunteers?
(2) Exactly how many women capable of passing the requirements for infantry soldiers are there and how many have an interest in volunteering? Will that number be significant enough to outweigh the costs?
(3) And, since we all know that the requirements will not be the same for females as it will be for males, is it worth getting lower quality soldiers in exchange for a larger pool? And, if so, why not simply lower the requirements for males to the female level and avoid the other problems?
-
:facepalm: You are far too smart to play dumb.
(1) Is there a current enlistment problem necessitating an increase in potential volunteers?
(2) Exactly how many women capable of passing the requirements for infantry soldiers are there and how many have an interest in volunteering? Will that number be significant enough to outweigh the costs?
(3) And, since we all know that the requirements will not be the same for females as it will be for males, is it worth getting lower quality soldiers in exchange for a larger pool? And, if so, why not simply lower the requirements for males to the female level and avoid the other problems?
1) Most certainly not. In fact, we're CUTTING soldiers from our ranks.
2) No idea. I suspect there aren't many... this is solely based on my experience as a drill sergeant training troops. There were very few that would have raw PT scores or road march capability that would be considered "acceptable" in an infantry unit.
3) No. Not in the infantry, rangers, etc. I strongly object to lowering of standards for combat arms MOSs, REGARDLESS of the reason, be it letting women in, softening up on our trainees, whatever.
-
:facepalm: You are far too smart to play dumb.
Interestingly, that's the second time in recent history that someone here has stated that a woman is too smart to have said something she is quite demonstrably not too smart to have said. Iirc, that thread was ultimately closed for excessive woman-bashing.
But no, use of sarcasm is neither a measure nor a reflection of relative intelligence.
[/quote](1) Is there a current enlistment problem necessitating an increase in potential volunteers?[/quote]
Do you usually advocate for military basing its long-term policy on its current needs? There have been troop shortages in recent history.
-
But no, use of sarcasm is neither a measure nor a reflection of relative intelligence.
That may have been sarcasm, but it misrepresented my point willfully to do so.
Do you usually advocate for military basing its long-term policy on its current needs? There have been troop shortages in recent history.
No, I don't. What long term problem will be sufficiently addressed by adding females to the pool of volunteers given:
(3) And, since we all know that the requirements will not be the same for females as it will be for males, is it worth getting lower quality soldiers in exchange for a larger pool? And, if so, why not simply lower the requirements for males to the female level and avoid the other problems?
-
Interestingly, that's the second time in recent history that someone here has stated that a woman is too smart to have said something she is quite demonstrably not too smart to have said. Iirc, that thread was ultimately closed for excessive woman-bashing.
But no, use of sarcasm is neither a measure nor a reflection of relative intelligence.
(1) Is there a current enlistment problem necessitating an increase in potential volunteers?
Do you usually advocate for military basing its long-term policy on its current needs? There have been troop shortages in recent history.
Considering that even during the shortages in recent history, infantry MOSs in the Army as a whole (and Ranger billets) have not been in any kind of critical shortage status, I'd say there's little to no personnel need that justifies the inclusion of women into combat arms MOSs
-
An update that goes into more detail on Ranger physical requirements along with historical what-iffing with different standards.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=2861
-
That may have been sarcasm, but it misrepresented my point willfully to do so.
It did not misrepresent your point. It contradicted your point. Because your point is wrong.
We've all agreed that when speaking of averages, men and women have some inherent differences. Assuming your thesis is correct that these difference go beyond muscle mass and body shape/size and that there are certain traits more intrinsic to average men and certain traits more intrinsic to average men, we should probably recognize that being "protective" is not a male trait. It's arguably a female trait.
Male traits may include: Highly aggressive, territorial, sexually dominant. If you want to strip it down to hard-wired traits, men don't protect women. They dominate them.
But it's not all about hard-wired traits. Most lawful men dominate "their" woman/en to the degree negotiated between them (generally non-verbally). They've figured out that sex is more fun when it's consensual, for a variety of reasons ranging from affection to not going to jail. But the whole "men protect women" thing not only bullshit, but it also reinforces the idea that men's will takes precedent over women's will.
The idea that men are inherently protective of women--whether the woman in question wants/needs to be protected or not--is an attempt to justify a man satisfy his lust for dominance by demanding that a woman submit to his will.
You know how most people are are kinda' opposed to the increasing militarization of police, and the attitude that "civilians" are not like them, but are different and subject to the whims of the police, because the police are the arbiters of law and order and you WILL submit to the will of the police, no matter how unlawful, because they're the (heavily armed) arbiters of law and order?
Yeah...me too.
But in my world, you're arguing that it's good to foster and reinforce that attitude in men towards women. Particularly military men towards women.
No, men don't inherently protect weaker people like women and children. Men inherently dominate them. When men don't keep their inherent dominance within the bounds of acceptable behavior, depending on the degree, that might be called rape. It might also be called "protecting you whether you want it or not, because that's just the way we are."
If, of course, we are going to accept that there are inherently male and female traits. I'm gonna go with on average, there are.
No, I don't.
So, what you're saying is, you deliberately made a spurious argument in an attempt to "win" a conversation, despite the clear irrationality in the argument?
Ok. Just so long as we're clear on that.
-
Jesus christ, can we get back to the *expletive deleted*ing topic and stop with the *expletive deleted*ing dumb *expletive deleted*it?
-
Jesus christ, can we get back to the *expletive deleted* topic and stop with the *expletive deleted* dumb *expletive deleted*?
Why the *expletive deleted*ck should we do that?
-
Regarding culture, however, I think maybe the reason you lose patience with some of those arguments is because you lack experience with the issues involved. I don't think it makes your arguments any less valid, but perhaps you might feel differently if you had a direct connection to the culture in an infantry unit
Nah, I couldn't be more clear earlier today which of those arguments I lose patience with, because I was on my phone, and then the work I'd been waiting for showed up. Pretty much the ones I lose patience with are the ones that are irrational and/or self-contradictory. See above.
Especially when the user then retreats into "it's a military thing, you wouldn't understand." Well, yeah, I would or could understand a military thing. What I have a problem with is using "it's a military thing you wouldn't understand" to avoid the issue.
Kinda' like how I lose patience with my friend who insists that men aren't "allowed" to have an opinion on abortion because they don't have uteruses. It's an avoidance tactic, not an argument.
Hazing the new guy, using foul language and things that would be considered "mistreatment" in the civilian world can be effective tools when building a warrior.
That's not what I was referring to. I have no problem with foul language or non-lethal, non-seriously-injurious hazing. I'm not necessarily opposed to gender-based language or hazing in that context.
I was alluding to stuff like rape.
-
Jesus christ, can we get back to the *expletive deleted* topic and stop with the *expletive deleted* dumb *expletive deleted*?
If a women can hack it, then she should be allowed to hack it, and if the men can't deal with the "little women in DANGER " then clearly he can't hack the *expletive deleted*it.
I may not be in this little circle of inclusion since I didn't serve, but, as I have overies and boobs, I AM a person that may be judged worthy of determining what a women is and is not potentially capable of, and history backs me up.
Plenty of women are capable of handling the stress and emotional hardship of war as a soilder.
Based on that, well, like I said, if she can hack it on the PT, then let her fight.
-
I said the same thing. BW, you are turning this into the typical bullshit. Women will of course be able to hack it, because the "woe is me, women are mistreated " crowd will ensure the standards will fall.
BW, you not only have ignored much of what I said, but you took an innocent attempt by me to establish some rapport, and turned it into "Fitz is avoiding the issue"
Rape has nothing at all to do with combat standards, and is incompatible with military service. Abhorrant behavior has nothing to do with anything I've talked about.
What I'm hearing now is "you don't want women in combat, you must be pro rape"
Really read my posts. You have not.
And no... you can't understand or appreciate much of what I've talked about. Its not avoidance, its fact.
I'm finished with this thread. I'm sick to death of every single gender issue turning into "men are pigs, we're all equal, you must be rapists if you disagree"
I'm truly sorry, bw, that you've been soured on men. I'm even sorrier that it has warped you so.
*expletive deleted* rape ... really? What the *expletive deleted* does rape have to do with the topic?
This is why you wouldn't hack it in the infantry. The "woe is me" *expletive deleted* that creeps into every thread you participate in betrays an insecurity and attention mongering mindset that would immediately get you shunned in infantry school or an actual combat arms unit.
Every single thread you participate in goes to *expletive deleted*
Mods, do your jobs.
-
Ummmm... Fitz, actually, I think I just agreed with you. Like, get subject back on topic and since we have the same veiw on the subject, them I guess that would make us allies in this debate.
-
Ummmm... Fitz, actually, I think I just agreed with you. Like, get subject back on topic and since we have the same veiw on the subject, them I guess that would make us allies in this debate.
Apologies, I misread your post.
I agree with it.
If women can hack it, then let them do it.
My vast experience with female trainees tells me otherwise. And, as said above, my definition of "hacking it" absolutely does not include lowering standards, which will happen. I was angry and read straight through BWs and into yours. Apologies.
-
I said the same thing. BW, you are turning this into the typical bullshit. Women will of course be able to hack it, because the "woe is me, women are mistreated " crowd will ensure the standards will fall
Yes, you did. I haven't actually disagreed with anything you've said, I don't think.
Rape has nothing at all to do with combat standards, and is incompatible with military service. Abhorrant behavior has nothing to do with anything I've talked about.
Yes. I know.
I wasn't talking about what you were talking about. I was talking about what mackattack was talking about.
What I'm hearing now is "you don't want women in combat, you must be pro rape"
I can't help what you're hearing, I can only control what I'm saying. But be assured, it ain't that.
Really read my posts. You have not.
Yes, I have. Now read mine. Especially the bits where I haven't disagreed with you
And no... you can't understand or appreciate much of what I've talked about. Its not avoidance, its fact.
Congratulations. You have found something to say that I disagree with.
I'm finished with this thread. I'm sick to death of every single gender issue turning into "men are pigs, we're all equal, you must be rapists if you disagree"
Y'know, it's touching how much you care about my opinion. It's too bad that you haven't bothered to read what my opinion actually is.
It is possible to use the words "rape" and "men" in the same sentence without stating that men are rapists.
I'm truly sorry, bw, that you've been soured on men. I'm even sorrier that it has warped you so.
O rly? If we're gonna make this personal, I've actually been soured on girlymen who demand that I dominate the relationship in all ways. How clear a picture do you want me to paint for you of my preferences for dominance in men? Be warned, in involves leather goods.
But however much I appreciate dominance in a man, I don't think that these issues are all that simple.
*expletive deleted* rape ... really? What the *expletive deleted* does rape have to do with the topic?
I dunno. Ask Hawkmoon, he raised it.
This is why you wouldn't hack it in the infantry.
O rly? I didn't have the opportunity to try because I was crazy as *expletive deleted* when I tried to enlist, and on top of that I had a ripped up shoulder. Pretty sure that having a dick doesn't give potential recruits a pass on those things.
The "woe is me" *expletive deleted* that creeps into every thread you participate in betrays an insecurity and attention mongering mindset that would immediately get you shunned in infantry school or an actual combat arms unit.
Could be. But see, I went to law school...there are actually all kinds of different subcultures, and even ones that aren't yours carry some validity.
Every single thread you participate in goes to *expletive deleted*
:-*
Why don't you go take a hot shower and have a drink? You need to calm the *expletive deleted* down.
Mods, do your jobs.
Why no, you're not dealing with an uncomfortable situation by being aggressive and attempting to dominate AT ALL.
Btw, ibtl :angel:
-
Ok, so we're not rapists. We just LOVE to dominate, and don't take care of women, etc etc.
Your man hate is mind boggling
You didn't get the chance to "try" to join the infantry because the infantry still is closed to women.
This thread is not about women joining or not joining the military.
It's about sending them to ranger and/or infantry school.
Leather goods?
Oh look, another "look at me" comment.
So surprised.
-
Apologies, I misread your post.
I agree with it.
If women can hack it, then let them do it.
My vast experience with female trainees tells me otherwise. And, as said above, my definition of "hacking it" absolutely does not include lowering standards, which will happen. I was angry and read straight through BWs and into yours. Apologies.
It's alright. Sometimes the personal attacks and "OMG! Outrage!!1!" around here is enough to set anyones teeth on edge.
I think more American women could hack it if our culture didn't raise them (and men) with such insane mixed messages.
The sex intergration of the military has coencided a lot with the increasing "everyone is special" ideals and the so called womens lib insainity. Instead of going in with the understanding that, admide the lower levels you are not suposed to be a special little butterfly, they go in with the idea that because they are diffrent, they are special. Men get a lot more of that trained out of them, but the women don't, because they do have those damn double standards as well as other specail considerations.
I think I would like to see how many of those special considertions we could wittle away and see what happens when men and women are forced to deal on the exact same level. It could be benificial, and at the very least, would be an interesting social experiment.
-
I have been TOLD by senior folks at military bases to "watch how I talk around the females"
But sir, I thought I was supposed to treat em the same!
Guess not.
Spend some time at a gender integrated TRADOC post and you will see why we have a problem. For every 10 solid, outstanding female soldiers, there's another 10 that are skating by because THEY. ARE. ALLOWED. TO.
Say what you will about male shitbags, but they are fewer and farther between in the infantry, and we NEED to keep it that way.
-
Ok, so we're not rapists.
I know. But isn't it awesome how you managed to be offended by that?
We just LOVE to dominate
Um. Yeah. Sorry dude, what's good for the goose and all that. We're gonna talk about sexually-based traits, dominance is just about the key male trait.
Your man hate is mind boggling
Only to those with easily boggled minds
You didn't get the chance to "try" to join the infantry because the infantry still is closed to women.
Was. When did this hit? This week?
And you're talking of the American military. I've got a former classmate in the IDF.
This thread is not about women joining or not joining the military.
Oh, ok. So RKL's post that I responded to was about ranger or infantry school?
Didn't know they had those in the Navy. Live and learn.
Leather goods?
Oh look, another "look at me" comment.
Hey, it's not like I posted pics ;/
Wait a sec. I thought you were done with this thread? Wtf, man!
-
I've already discussed (and you've already ignored) the cultural differences. your friend in the IDF is irrelevant.
And yes, the 11 series MOS is still closed to women here in the US Army. So, again, your statement about "i couldn't try because blah blah blah" is also irrelevant.
-
I have been TOLD by senior folks at military bases to "watch how I talk around the females"
But sir, I thought I was supposed to treat em the same!
Guess not.
Spend some time at a gender integrated TRADOC post and you will see why we have a problem. For every 10 solid, outstanding female soldiers, there's another 10 that are skating by because THEY. ARE. ALLOWED. TO.
Say what you will about male shitbags, but they are fewer and farther between in the infantry, and we NEED to keep it that way.
I think just elimanating the skaters and shitbags of both gender would be more effective. Of course, that falls into "easier said them done".
-
I think just elimanating the skaters and shitbags of both gender would be more effective. Of course, that falls into "easier said them done".
Well, we were working on it. The army recently tightened a lot of the discipline standards, and the PT standards are now quicker to get you kicked out if you don't meet em.
One step forward, two steps back I guess.
But what do I know. i'm a misogynist who imagined the higher failure rates, discipline problems, and abysmal performance in mixed gender IET units.
-
I've already discussed (and you've already ignored) the cultural differences. your friend in the IDF is irrelevant.
To my options for military service? Not really.
I promise, you actually don't define my reality. No matter how pissed you get at your computer.
And yes, the 11 series MOS is still closed to women here in the US Army.
This week. >:D
So, again, your statement about "i couldn't try because blah blah blah" is also irrelevant.
Only to the irrational mind. My sex still had jack *expletive deleted*it to do with my not enlisting.
-
Wow. this is just... RICH
Reading the article again... and a linked page. These gems:
Each class in the remainder of FY 13 will receive five to eight women, and the treatment, mentoring, nurturing and ultimate success of those female candidates will be intensively managed by the Chief of Staff and the Sergeant Major of the Army, not to mention civilian appointees.
How many male ranger trainees get this level of attention from the Office of the Chief of Staff?
The RTB has not been directed that all female candidates must pass regardless of performance, and Ranger Instructors will retain a limited ability to dismiss an individual underperforming woman from the course, as long as "enough" women remain to please the higher-ups. But they will have to justify every dismissal to the highest levels of command, who have made their intention clear.
Yeah.... this is great.
Hooray equality
I believe one of my original posts on the subject said that "Done right, women in combat arms could work, but the military will drop standards"
here it comes.
Those of you who haven't served, as much of an ahole as I may be for saying this, do not quite comprehend just what happens when standards drop.
I have seen it first hand, it ain't pretty.
-
To my options for military service? Not really.
I promise, you actually don't define my reality. No matter how pissed you get at your computer.
This week. >:D
Only to the irrational mind. My sex still had jack *expletive deleted* to do with my not enlisting.
I never said your sex had anything to do with it. I said it was irrelevant, because again, I'm not debating the merits of women in the military. As the 11 series MOS is still closed to you, your reasons for not joining are irrelevant to the discussion.
And, since this thread is about women attending the US army ranger school, again, your friend is irrelevant to the discussion.
Where exactly did I say that anything about your gender had to do with you not enlisting?
Irrational? I still can't even figure out what the *expletive deleted*ck you're talking about. Your arguments seem to have no connection to anything I've discussed, you continue to quote me and then either fail to address the quoted point, or go off on a tangent on a point I haven't even debated.
-
Wow. this is just... RICH
Reading the article again... and a linked page. These gems:
How many male ranger trainees get this level of attention from the Office of the Chief of Staff?
Yeah.... this is great.
Hooray equality
=(
See, THIS is the kind of BS that dissuaded me from joining back when it would have worked. I do not, now or ever, understand how underpreforming and getting special consideriations qualifing a women to pass is NOT the sexist thing to do. ???
-
=(
See, THIS is the kind of BS that dissuaded me from joining back when it would have worked. I do not, now or ever, understand how underpreforming and getting special consideriations qualifing a women to pass is NOT the sexist thing to do. ???
You know what's funny, the service I see the LEAST of this kind of *expletive deleted*it from (although admittedly from an outsiders perspective as I only work with them peripherally) is the Coast Guard.
-
I still can't even figure out what the *expletive deleted* you're talking about.
No *expletive deleted*, sherlock. There's an innate difference between us that can cause that.
Your arguments seem to have no connection to anything I've discussed
Thoughts. I haz them.
We're not all sycophants.
I'm not here to say yea or nay to your thoughts. I'm kind of a free agent here.
you continue to quote me and then either fail to address the quoted point, or go off on a tangent on a point I haven't even debated.
Zomg! Tangents! On APS! How the *expletive deleted* could that happen?
-
No *expletive deleted*, sherlock. There an innate difference between us that can cause that.
Thoughts. I haz them.
We're not all sycophants.
I'm not here to say yea or nay to your thoughts. I'm kind of a free agent here.
Zomg! Tangents! On APS! How the *expletive deleted* could that happen?
I have no problem with tangents, but you take it to an absurd degree.
And quoting folks, then going onto a tangent, makes it look like you're arguing with no one in particular.
-
makes it look like you're arguing with no one in particular.
Bingo!
I'm so glad you've noticed.
-
Bingo!
I'm so glad you've noticed.
OK, so if you want to go off on a tangent, why quote people then respond inappropriately to their posts?
And why all the unnecessary snark?
I don't know what's happened to you BW, but you've become unpleasant to talk to.
I used to quite enjoy your posts, and discussions with you.
Whatever. Proceed.
-
This thread has become a big ball of WTF!?...
-
You know what's funny, the service I see the LEAST of this kind of *expletive deleted* from (although admittedly from an outsiders perspective as I only work with them peripherally) is the Coast Guard.
I think (and mind, I live in a landlocked area) they get less public exposure, thus less starry eyed idiots in their ranks. People who want to work and do the damn job are more commen in those feilds then the attention seekers and slobs.
-
This thread has become a big ball of WTF!?...
It's a gender debate. How on earth could you think it wouldn't? :lol:
-
Found this also...
It appears, at least, that the Marine Corps is doing it RIGHT:
However, it could also be that the new, UNIVERSAL standard will be lower than the current. Time will tell.
Additionally, new functional fitness tests are being developed to help Marine Corps leaders determine how women and men perform in, and cope with, various combat tasks. The goal is to establish “gender-neutral” physical fitness standards. Details are scant, but the Marine Corps’ Training and Education Command is looking to purchase a variety of new equipment specifically for these tests, suggesting the tasks associated with them will closely mimic combat-essential duties such as operating and moving heavy weaponry, and carrying casualties from the battlefield.
The Marine Corps defines gender-neutral physical standards as being identical for men and women, rather than weighted — or “gender-normed” — like those applied in the service’s annual Physical Fitness Test. During the PFT, women can earn a minimum or maximum score with fewer repetitions and a slower run times than their male counterparts.
This suggests that women wanting to serve in ground combat units will be given the shot to do so only if they can keep pace with their male counterparts. Standards would likely evaluate Marines not as women and men, but simply as infantrymen, tank crewmen or artillerymen, for example.
-
OK, so if you want to go off on a tangent, why quote people then respond inappropriately to their posts?
A tangent has to be tangential to something, doesn't it? I mean, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a tangent. It would be a big ball of wtf. =)
And why all the unnecessary snark?
Because I think it's funny that you've gone completely ape-*expletive deleted* about stuff I've said that you largely agree with, simply because I've used slightly different words than you. And because you haven't bothered to read it before throwing a temper tantrum about your best guess at what it might have said.
I don't know what's happened to you BW, but you've become unpleasant to talk to.
Well, you did indicate something along the lines of me being a severely defective human being, possibly approaching psych-bitch levels.
That can put a damper on conversational pleasantness.
Not that I didn't try. I did assure you explicitly that I wasn't actually saying any of the ZOMG FEMINAZI stuff I didn't actually say.
I used to quite enjoy your posts, and discussions with you.
Ah. So then it's probably too bad you've decided to bad-mouth me repeatedly on fb and on here. If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath for any delightful conversation in the near future.
Unless, of course, you wanted to apologize or something crazy like that.
Whatever. Proceed.
So, are you actually done? Cause that's at least the second time you've washed your hands of this thread. Possibly the third. I lost track.
-
A tangent has to be tangential to something, doesn't it? I mean, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a tangent. It would be a big ball of wtf. =)
Because I think it's funny that you've gone completely ape-*expletive deleted* about stuff I've said that you largely agree with, simply because I've used slightly different words than you.
Well, you did indicate something along the lines of me being a severely defective human being, possibly approaching psych-bitch levels.
That can put a damper on conversational pleasantness.
Not that I didn't try. I did assure you explicitly that I wasn't actually saying any of the ZOMG FEMINAZI stuff I didn't actually say.
Ah. So then it's probably too bad you've decided to bad-mouth me repeatedly on fb and on here. If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath for any delightful conversation in the near future.
Unless, of course, you wanted to apologize or something crazy like that.
So, are you actually done? Cause that's at least the second time you've washed your hands of this thread. Possibly the third. I lost track.
[/quote
]
Saying "proceed" isn't washing hands. But then again, I didn't expect you to read my posts, you haven't done so thus far.
Apologize? My effort to establish a bit of understanding with you was met by idiocy. You REALLY should re read what I've posted.
In addition, if you're referring to the last bout of verbal sparring we did a while back, i believe I attempted to apologize. I can't recall, and really don't even remember which thread it was in.
Slightly different words? ...
LOL.
K
-
To put it another way........................
-
Found this also...
It appears, at least, that the Marine Corps is doing it RIGHT:
However, it could also be that the new, UNIVERSAL standard will be lower than the current. Time will tell.
I always knew the Marines where the cool guys. :cool:
-
To put it another way........................
You forgot a dead horse for the kicking...
-
But then again, I didn't expect you to read my posts, you haven't done so thus far.
Not disagreeing with them is not exactly the same thing as not reading them.
Apologize? My effort to establish a bit of understanding with you was met by idiocy.
ROTFLMAO. To which effort do you allude, exactly?
In addition, if you're referring to the last bout of verbal sparring we did a while back, i believe I attempted to apologize. I can't recall, and really don't even remember which thread it was in.
Does the phrase "once burned, twice shy" mean anything to you? See, I don't actually hate men. I don't actually even hate you. But I've figured out that you have a spazz-out point set ludicrously low. If I can't reasonably avoid hitting it, well, game on. I'm not going to stop thinking because sumdood is gonna yell at me on the internet about stuff I haven't said.
-
Not disagreeing with them is not exactly the same thing as not reading them.
ROTFLMAO. To which effort do you allude, exactly?
Does the phrase "once burned, twice shy" mean anything to you? See, I don't actually hate men. I don't actually even hate you. But I've figured out that you have a spazz-out point set ludicrously low. If I can't reasonably avoid hitting, well, game on. I'm not going to stop thinking because sumdood is gonna yell at me on the internet about stuff I haven't said.
Which effort? Well, for starters, the piece you quoted before you told me I was avoiding the argument.
My spazz out point isn't actually as low as you say it is. You, however, have a way of triggering it. Is that my problem or yours? Who knows? All i know is this: many, many threads you participate in all end up going the same direction, and it's irritating. I'm not the only one who thinks so, by the way (since we're going the high school route here, why not)
And, these things you didn't say... well, let's just say that at times you (likely deliberately) infer things that are unsaid.
-
This thread has become a big ball of WTF!?...
Yup.
-
Just to pile on.
Some of ya'll need to un *expletive deleted*ck the butt hurt. Seriously get the sand out of your ass.