(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.
When the news broke about the two women who passed the ranger training, there was a piece written by a female Marine (that I now can't find ) discussing the inequality of female standards and how that is potentially contributing to the number of injuries that women receive during the training leading to them washing out. She (the article author) suggested that if women's baseline standards weren't dumbed down because they're guuuUUUuuurlz and if they were given sufficient time to train to meet those baseline standards, more women might be physically able to endure the training requirements of groups like the rangers.
(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.
Exactly. Women have a vital role to play in warfare.
Ashley's War by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon
http://www.amazon.com/Ashleys-War-Soldie...ey%27s+war
Quote:In 2010, the Army created Cultural Support Teams, a secret pilot program to insert women alongside Special Operations soldiers battling in Afghanistan. The Army reasoned that women could play a unique role on Special Ops teams: accompanying their male colleagues on raids and, while those soldiers were searching for insurgents, questioning the mothers, sisters, daughters and wives living at the compound. Their presence had a calming effect on enemy households, but more importantly, the CSTs were able to search adult women for weapons and gather crucial intelligence. They could build relationships—woman to woman—in ways that male soldiers in an Islamic country never could.
The question for me isn't whether women should or shouldn't be allowed in combat situations, it's how best to prepare them to meet the demands of combat when they find themselves in those situations. It might be that all-women combat teams needs to be set up. It may be that women require a longer span of training to get their bodies into the required physical condition. I don't know the solution, but wholesale banning them is, I think, short-sighted. Women in the military will find themselves in combat situations so the military needs to find the best way to train them so they're ready.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.