(September 10, 2015 at 10:30 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: As far as I'm aware, the women who passed the Army rangers test went through the same test as the men. It sort of makes your whole argument void.

Of course there are women who can do it, but they are few and far between. 

The fact is that women aren't held to the same standards as men, by a long shot, when it comes to the general military. I won't have so much of an issue if they tested the individual instead of the gender, and tested for specific roles... some of which might be more advantageous for women. 

On the argument of disunity. Even if some women meet the same standards, the fact is that something like 90% of all women in the military are sexually harassed at some point and 40% are raped at some point. With the exception of physiological ability and marksmanship, disunity is the single worst thing to have in combat.

(September 10, 2015 at 10:48 pm)SmootherPebble Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 10:30 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: As far as I'm aware, the women who passed the Army rangers test went through the same test as the men. It sort of makes your whole argument void.

Of course there are women who can do it, but they are few and far between. 

The fact is that women aren't held to the same standards as men, by a long shot, when it comes to the general military. I won't have so much of an issue if they tested the individual instead of the gender, and tested for specific roles... some of which might be more advantageous for women. 

On the argument of disunity. Even if some women meet the same standards, the fact is that something like 90% of all women in the military are sexually harassed at some point and 40% are raped at some point. With the exception of physiological ability and marksmanship, disunity is the single worst thing to have in combat.

The general military doesn't go into combat. From military.com

Quote: About 80 percent of the jobs in the military are non-combat occupations.

So I don't really get your point. The very few girls who have made it into combat positions did go through the same tests as the men. The ones who didn't go into combat did not because it's not necessary for their made up bullshit jobs, same with most of the men in the military. It seems like you are basically arguing for the system that exists now. You don't need to be able to run a whatever minute mile to file paperwork.

So now if we could somehow convince the women to stop getting sexually harassed and raped we could do away with this disunity problem.

(September 10, 2015 at 11:00 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 10:48 pm)SmootherPebble Wrote: Of course there are women who can do it, but they are few and far between. 

The fact is that women aren't held to the same standards as men, by a long shot, when it comes to the general military. I won't have so much of an issue if they tested the individual instead of the gender, and tested for specific roles... some of which might be more advantageous for women. 

On the argument of disunity. Even if some women meet the same standards, the fact is that something like 90% of all women in the military are sexually harassed at some point and 40% are raped at some point. With the exception of physiological ability and marksmanship, disunity is the single worst thing to have in combat.

The general military doesn't go into combat. From military.com

Quote: About 80 percent of the jobs in the military are non-combat occupations.

So I don't really get your point. The very few girls who have made it into combat positions did go through the same tests as the men. The ones who didn't go into combat did not because it's not necessary for their made up bullshit jobs, same with most of the men in the military. It seems like you are basically arguing for the system that exists now. You don't need to be able to run a whatever minute mile to file paperwork.

I'm well aware, you don't need to list off facts. I was in the military myself for 3 years. 

Read the content again. This has nothing to do with women in the military, it has to do with women in front line combat roles. Women have been in the US military since the American Revolution and have had the legal right to for about 60 years.

I don't have a problem with a capable woman being able to write her own ticket, but I'd warn any woman considering the military about the rape/sexual assault/sexual harassment statistics in all the branches. It's criminal, the complacency at the unit-commander level, in so many cases.

(September 10, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I don't have a problem with a capable woman being able to write her own ticket, but I'd warn any woman considering the military about the rape/sexual assault/sexual harassment statistics in all the branches. It's criminal, the complacency at the unit-commander level, in so many cases.

Totally agreed. It's asinine.

(September 10, 2015 at 11:11 pm)SmootherPebble Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 11:00 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: The general military doesn't go into combat. From military.com


So I don't really get your point. The very few girls who have made it into combat positions did go through the same tests as the men. The ones who didn't go into combat did not because it's not necessary for their made up bullshit jobs, same with most of the men in the military. It seems like you are basically arguing for the system that exists now. You don't need to be able to run a whatever minute mile to file paperwork.

I'm well aware, you don't need to list off facts. I was in the military myself for 3 years. 

Read the content again. This has nothing to do with women in the military, it has to do with women in front line combat roles. Women have been in the US military since the American Revolution and have had the legal right to for about 60 years.

So to go into broken record mode, those women have to pass the same tests as the men. The women in the general military do not. So your whole point is nonsensical.

Now that that has been covered for the 3rd time, I'm going to go off on a tangent. There have been women in combat in the military for a long time, just not in our military. The soviet union deployed female troops in world war two against the Germans and by all accounts from the Germans themselves, the women performed very well and were some of the most feared and fanatical troops that the Russians had. Most women are not cut out to be Army Rangers but then again, neither are most men. Some people act as though the very essence of being male somehow means they can pick up someone from combat with thousands of pounds on them and then carry everyone through a firefight. This is bullshit. Most people, men and women, are in terrible shape. Some men like to act like being male makes them something special. Not really, the army is full of out of shape rapists who are too dumb to get real jobs and contribute to society.

(September 10, 2015 at 11:18 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 11:11 pm)SmootherPebble Wrote: I'm well aware, you don't need to list off facts. I was in the military myself for 3 years. 

Read the content again. This has nothing to do with women in the military, it has to do with women in front line combat roles. Women have been in the US military since the American Revolution and have had the legal right to for about 60 years.

So to go into broken record mode, those women have to pass the same tests as the men. The women in the general military do not. So your whole point is nonsensical.

Now that that has been covered for the 3rd time, I'm going to go off on a tangent. There have been women in combat in the military for a long time, just not in our military. The soviet union deployed female troops in world war two against the Germans and by all accounts from the Germans themselves, the women performed very well and were some of the most feared and fanatical troops that the Russians had. Most women are not cut out to be Army Rangers but then again, neither are most men. Some people act as though the very essence of being male somehow means they can pick up someone from combat with thousands of pounds on them and then carry everyone through a firefight. This is bullshit. Most people, men and women, are in terrible shape. Some men like to act like being male makes them something special. Not really, the army is full of out of shape rapists who are too dumb to get real jobs and contribute to society.

Uh, also broken record, no. 

The special forces are different, this should be obvious. In regards to front line combat service-members, the minimum standards are different for men and women... this constitutes the far reaching majority of all combat service-members.

---

In fact, public and congressional pressure exists on the Marines, currently, in regards to lowering the physical fitness standards for women in combat roles.

(September 10, 2015 at 9:46 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(September 10, 2015 at 9:31 pm)KUSA Wrote: Anyone that wants to perform a job must meet the minimum requirements for it.

Agreed.

But if they qualify they shouldn't be restricted from it due to gender.

This is how I've always felt.

When I served, there were males who, if the shit hit the fan, would undoubtedly end up being... how does one put this delicately? Let's just say there were many males I would not wish to share a foxhole with.

(September 10, 2015 at 9:46 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Not up on any military combat duties. Do all require the same level of physical abilities? Do they all need the same abilities in case one goes down (not able to perform) the next available can step in?

I don't know what the standards are today. When I was in (1987-1993), the standards of physical fitness scaled according to age and gender (that is, older males had a more lax standard than young, and females had a more lax standard than males of the same age).

However, females were not allowed in combat positions.