I'm a female and I'm entirely in favour of equal rights,
but EQUAL does not necessarily mean SAME.

You love your children EQUALLY, but each may not benefit from the SAME treatment.

If a male chauvinist beat a woman up,
and when questioned why, replied that she mouthed-off to him,
and that's what he would do to a guy who mouthed-off,
and she wants gender equality,
you'd say that he is confusing EQUALITY with being the SAME.

Which officer is more valuable to the team?

A male officer who is not that good at physical combat or endurance,
but who is very talented at strategy and logistics,

or another male officer who has no head for strategy or logistics,
but who is big and strong and fast?

the point is, in the military, BOTH are valuable.

They are of EQUAL value, nominally...but not the SAME, at all.

Everyone must meet the minimum requirements,
and the minimum requirements should not be lowered
just to accommodate political correctness.

Man or woman, if you CAN heft a 180 lb dead weight over your shoulder and carry it out of a burning building,
then you get the job.

Man or woman, if you CANNOT, then you don't.

There are also men who are not as strong as some women.

This actually ties into another thread, IMO;
the thread, 


" Clerk Defies Supreme Court, Refuses Gay Marriage Licenses "


If a Christian cannot sign off on marriage licenses, then she shouldn't be the county clerk.

Again, it is not discrimination against the religion, per se.

I think it is an important distinction:

There is refusing to hire someone because they belong to a religion,
even when that religion poses NO problems in the workplace,
and you as the employer are able to accommodate their dress and their required holy observational days off;

vs

refusing to hire someone because there is an impediment that prevents that person from doing the job you specificially need to hire someone to do....regardless of what the CAUSE of the impediment might be.

A quadriplegic man cannot  work as an active firefighter.

A muslim woman cannot work as a stripper.

In neither case, is the employer discriminating against a person with disabilities, or against a person's religion;

in both cases, the employer found the applicants had an impediment to doing the job they needed someone to do.

It is the fact that there exists an impediment to doing the job position that needs to be filled,
regardless what the CAUSE of that impediment is.

^Very well said MTL

---

Here's an interesting article from Marine Times: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/mi.../71632666/

I haven't seen any evidence here that women shouldn't be allowed in combat, or that women are not capable of it. That's because there is no such thing as women. There are individuals who are male and individuals who are female, and some of each try to become soldiers. There are also different jobs within the military, which should have different minimum requirements, as has already been discussed. No one in their right mind would say that a woman should be held to different requirements than a male applying for the same job; that is sexism in the guise of "political correctness", and serves neither female nor male soldiers. If you speak to female athletes who apply for the jobs that are currently only open to male athletes (because, let's be honest, almost nobody here would qualify for those jobs either), they do not want the standards lowered, either. The two female Rangers are a case in point.

The entire OP and thread are about differential standards for male soldiers and female ones. And yes, that is harmful to the military and to the unit integration.

The rape argument is unworthy of discussion; it is no more to the point about their capacity to be equal members of a combat unit than it is to the point that racists didn't want black members in white units in the 1940s, when the military was ordered desegregated. It also ignores that men are commonly raped in the military, as well, and even though it's not at the same astounding rate that it occurs for women, the numbers are still shocking and significant. It speaks to a military culture that needs to change drastically, and that is all.

The reason I bring up the "there is no such thing as 'women' but only females who become soldiers" line is that you cannot describe individuals as comprising a general category, and then apply the average number to the individual, because it does not apply to that individual. To show why, let's ignore gender and violence for a moment, and talk about rocket science:

The average IQ of a person is 100, and 90% of the population is between 90-110 IQ. Only one out of ten people is outside that range, and since only half of those are above that range, only 5% of people have 110+. I have an IQ in the 150 range, so I might qualify to become an astrophysicist or engineer for NASA... but I would first have to pass a rigorous set of tests, including a huge amount of differential calculus and other mathematics, applied physics, chemistry, etc. Rightfully so! I know from personal experience that, smart as I am, I have enough difficulty with certain kinds of advanced mathematics (my brain is more "tuned" to verbal comprehension and pattern-seeking than to calculating) that I would be a poor fit for a job at NASA/JPL. But if I did somehow manage to take the exams and join the team at NASA, the very last thing that should matter is that I belong to a category (human beings) that, in general, is 95% incapable of even beginning to qualify for the basic requirements for that job. Of the remaining 5%, only about 20% of those really qualify, so about 1% of the population, and even among that 1% of the population, very few actually make it because the requirements are (rightfully) stringent.

Should I accomplish all those things, only to be told at the end that "in general", men are not qualified for that job, I would be horrified. If I found that I had been held to lower standards for entry because I belong to any particular sub-group (say, "those with penises") of humanity, I would be even more appalled. The same exact situation applies to women in combat. I would rather have Rhonda Rousey at my side in hand-to-hand combat than a copy of myself-- why? Because she could kick my ass, hands down, even though I am in great shape and have studied martial arts since I was five years old. Her vagina doesn't enter into this equation.

How did this conversation become about IQ? Seriously?

Human's aren't robots in the fact that IQ does not correlate with an increased ability to perform tasks. What about work ethic? What about enjoying the niche your in? This has next to nothing to do with IQ outside the fact the someone with a higher IQ has a greater likelihood of figuring out that task faster than someone else who is passionate with a high work ethic but a significantly lower IQ.

I DO work for NASA/JPL, in part. I was a straight C student in highschool and studied Aerospace Engineering because I liked things that fly and go fast. That was it. I got a 28 on the ACT and have only been IQ tested once, in elementary school... and that was somewhere around 130. But it doesn't matter. What matters is passion and drive with a little bit of "pre-ordained" ability, so to speak.

(September 11, 2015 at 1:17 am)SmootherPebble Wrote: How did this conversation become about IQ? Seriously?

Human's aren't robots in the fact that IQ does not correlate with an increased ability to perform tasks. What about work ethic? What about enjoying the niche your in? This has next to nothing to do with IQ outside the fact the someone with a higher IQ has a greater likelihood of figuring out that task faster than someone else who is passionate with a high work ethic but a significantly lower IQ.

I DO work for NASA/JPL, in part. I was a straight C student in highschool and studied Aerospace Engineering because I liked things that fly and go fast. That was it. I got a 28 on the ACT and have only been IQ tested once, in elementary school... and that was somewhere around 130. But it doesn't matter. What matters is passion and drive with a little bit of "pre-ordained" ability, so to speak.

You missed my point. It's not "about IQ"; I was comparing IQ and related "mental ability" with an eye to qualifying for a NASA/JPL job (kudos to you!!) to "athletic ability", in terms of qualifying for a job as a soldier.

The point was about comparing the mean to the exceptional, when discussing an exceptional job.

Read again!

---

(September 11, 2015 at 1:35 am)ignoramus Wrote:

---

---

Yes, I want the pretty one:



...who is going to haul my ass out.

That's a shot of Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver, when they were at West Point.

Rangers Lead the Way! Hoo-ah!!

I read that the American military were finding women in the army increasingly useful because of a lot of action went on behind the front lines with insurgency. So even though the female soldiers were not on the front line they still ended up in combat. And in Islamic states a lot of women won't talk to men who are not family.

Anyway, what about the Iraqi kurds fighting Isis? Half of those soldiers are women.

(September 11, 2015 at 3:29 am)I_am_not_mafia Wrote: I read that the American military were finding women in the army increasingly useful because of a lot of action went on behind the front lines with insurgency. So even though the female soldiers were not on the front line they still ended up in combat. And in Islamic states a lot of women won't talk to men who are not family.

Anyway, what about the Iraqi kurds fighting Isis? Half of those soldiers are women.

Ironically, the thing that made women so useful to US combat units has led Afghanistan to have entirely-female units, and even among American soldiers (according to Yakherder, a combat vet on the TTA forum), they are known as fierce fighters and devoted professional soldiers.

Even the USMC, the most notorious "boy's club" in the US military, has quietly begun to field female combat teams. Quote:

"One thing's for sure: The female-engagement teams are redefining war — transforming women into pivotal influencers on the front lines."

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

Yeah, problem is we assign different requirements for women, but the people they're fighting don't. The taliban won't demand less because you're a woman, but for some reason our militaries do. Always boggled my brain exactly why that is.

*edit, sorry, just read the thread and realised I can't use the term "women". Change it to "females" then I guess, I'm sure the less pedantic of you will get my post.

I think that for ages we were driven to war, to protect hour homes, the castle of our wives. The knight in shining armour routine.

It takes time to resolve the confusion, so I think women can be as deadly as men in combat.