Wombat
Yes but blacks weren't given lower fitness standards to get into the military then expected to complete the same tasks. If women were allowed to serve in combat, then their fitness level must be the same as the males.Stubbee wrote:
Love all these answers from you 'modern males'. A lot of your arguments reminds me of the arguments made 60 years ago against the integration of blacks in to combat roles. Just as silly now as then.
If a person wants to server their country on the front lines, it should not matter where their reproductive organs are located.
There must be an election coming up.
this is where i have the problem... although some of the women i've seen serving are bigger than the menLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
Yes but blacks weren't given lower fitness standards to get into the military then expected to complete the same tasks. If women were allowed to serve in combat, then their fitness level must be the same as the males.Stubbee wrote:
Love all these answers from you 'modern males'. A lot of your arguments reminds me of the arguments made 60 years ago against the integration of blacks in to combat roles. Just as silly now as then.
If a person wants to server their country on the front lines, it should not matter where their reproductive organs are located.
i just don't think it's a good idea to have different qualification levels for each gender
Here's a link to a .pdf version of the Army Physical Fitness Test score card. http://www.usma.edu/dpe/testing/apft_sc … 705%29.pdfkrazed wrote:
this is where i have the problem... although some of the women i've seen serving are bigger than the menLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
Yes but blacks weren't given lower fitness standards to get into the military then expected to complete the same tasks. If women were allowed to serve in combat, then their fitness level must be the same as the males.Stubbee wrote:
Love all these answers from you 'modern males'. A lot of your arguments reminds me of the arguments made 60 years ago against the integration of blacks in to combat roles. Just as silly now as then.
If a person wants to server their country on the front lines, it should not matter where their reproductive organs are located.
i just don't think it's a good idea to have different qualification levels for each gender
You need to score a minimum of 60 points in each of the following events: Pushups, Situps and a 2 mile run.
For a 24 year old male you need a minimum of:
Pushups - 40
Situps - 50
2M run - 16:35
For a 24 year old female you need a minimum of:
Pushups - 17
Situps - 45
2M run - 19:36
As you can see there is a drastic step down for the requirements of a female vs those of a male. Until those standards are the same I will never trust any female to perform a physically demanding task like being an infantryman is.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
In other countries women are used a whores. Luckly we don't have them doing that, but my problem is the whole if they are captured. They realize its going to be really bad.
Its one thing to tell a family that their son is dead, but to tell them their daughter died...wow.
Its one thing to tell a family that their son is dead, but to tell them their daughter died...wow.
Same thing for firefighters...JohnG@lt wrote:
As you can see there is a drastic step down for the requirements of a female vs those of a male. Until those standards are the same I will never trust any female to perform a physically demanding task like being an infantryman is.
Same standards (and there are some women who exceed them btw).
There always will be those that exceed them. If they can meet or exceed the current male requirements I don't really have an issue with them serving in combat roles. Heck, they already are serving in combat roles as MPs patrolling the streets of Baghdad etc. What I don't agree with are lowering the standards so more can meet them. For a desk job? Who cares. For an infantry grunt doing foot patrols in a combat zone with a full loadout? She better be equal to or better than her male peers.Harmor wrote:
Same thing for firefighters...JohnG@lt wrote:
As you can see there is a drastic step down for the requirements of a female vs those of a male. Until those standards are the same I will never trust any female to perform a physically demanding task like being an infantryman is.
Same standards (and there are some women who exceed them btw).
And yes, I would transfer those same requirements over to fire departments as well. It's not fair to their peers otherwise.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-09 18:32:22)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Why not? I think women and gays should be allowed to serve in whatever roles they qualify for.
As far as Wild Land Fire Fighting. Women have to meet the same requirements that males do.JohnG@lt wrote:
There always will be those that exceed them. If they can meet or exceed the current male requirements I don't really have an issue with them serving in combat roles. Heck, they already are serving in combat roles as MPs patrolling the streets of Baghdad etc. What I don't agree with are lowering the standards so more can meet them. For a desk job? Who cares. For an infantry grunt doing foot patrols in a combat zone with a full loadout? She better be equal to or better than her male peers.Harmor wrote:
Same thing for firefighters...JohnG@lt wrote:
As you can see there is a drastic step down for the requirements of a female vs those of a male. Until those standards are the same I will never trust any female to perform a physically demanding task like being an infantryman is.
Same standards (and there are some women who exceed them btw).
And yes, I would transfer those same requirements over to fire departments as well. It's not fair to their peers otherwise.
I know the County/City Fire Departments here require females and males preform the same the tests and meet the same physical requirements.
As far as Women go in Combat.
No.
As MOST of you don't have the mental ability to understand but 95% of women just don't come equiped with the Warrior Ethos.
Some have that mental capacity, as aslong as they can meet or exceed male standards.. let 'em do it.
You don't have to agree with every decision Stalin made you know.Turquoise wrote:
Why not? I think women and gays should be allowed to serve in whatever roles they qualify for.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
huh?JohnG@lt wrote:
You don't have to agree with every decision Stalin made you know.Turquoise wrote:
Why not? I think women and gays should be allowed to serve in whatever roles they qualify for.
So does that mean you think they should be allowed if they can pass the same requirements as the men or lower requirements?Turquoise wrote:
Why not? I think women and gays should be allowed to serve in whatever roles they qualify for.
Everyone should face the same requirements and be given the same privileges if they pass them. That is equality.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
So does that mean you think they should be allowed if they can pass the same requirements as the men or lower requirements?Turquoise wrote:
Why not? I think women and gays should be allowed to serve in whatever roles they qualify for.
Aside from Israel, Stalinist Russia was the only nation to widely employ women in combat roles in modern history.Turquoise wrote:
huh?JohnG@lt wrote:
You don't have to agree with every decision Stalin made you know.Turquoise wrote:
Why not? I think women and gays should be allowed to serve in whatever roles they qualify for.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That sounds like something Stalin did right then.JohnG@lt wrote:
Aside from Israel, Stalinist Russia was the only nation to widely employ women in combat roles in modern history.Turquoise wrote:
huh?JohnG@lt wrote:
You don't have to agree with every decision Stalin made you know.
Go join the Army, try on the gear an infantryman wears and then come back and tell me that you want a 5'0 90 lb woman next to you in a trench if you get hit.Turquoise wrote:
That sounds like something Stalin did right then.JohnG@lt wrote:
Aside from Israel, Stalinist Russia was the only nation to widely employ women in combat roles in modern history.Turquoise wrote:
huh?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Who says that the Army has to be gender integrated? You could have units separated by gender and with different missions tailored to each one's strengths and weaknesses.JohnG@lt wrote:
Go join the Army, try on the gear an infantryman wears and then come back and tell me that you want a 5'0 90 lb woman next to you in a trench if you get hit.Turquoise wrote:
That sounds like something Stalin did right then.JohnG@lt wrote:
Aside from Israel, Stalinist Russia was the only nation to widely employ women in combat roles in modern history.
I realize that the Army is currently integrated by gender, but it doesn't have to be. Besides, if a small woman like the one you mentioned is somehow able to pass the same requirements as men much larger than her, then you have 2 possibilities.
1) You have nothing to worry about because she's just as competent as you.
2) The requirements aren't what they should be.
OK, I'm confused.S3v3N wrote:
As far as Women go in Combat.
No.
As MOST of you don't have the mental ability to understand but 95% of women just don't come equiped with the Warrior Ethos.
Some have that mental capacity, as aslong as they can meet or exceed male standards.. let 'em do it.
You do not want women in combat, but if they can meet the standards, then it's fine...
No but yes?
___________________________
Heck one of my friends competes in triathalons. If a woman can best an Ironman, I think she can handle running around in the heat with gear...
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-09-09 20:12:44)
I think he was saying yes to those who could whistand the stresses of battle, the ones who have the Warrior Ethos.
Its not a question about running around in the heat with the gear.RAIMIUS wrote:
OK, I'm confused.S3v3N wrote:
As far as Women go in Combat.
No.
As MOST of you don't have the mental ability to understand but 95% of women just don't come equiped with the Warrior Ethos.
Some have that mental capacity, as aslong as they can meet or exceed male standards.. let 'em do it.
You do not want women in combat, but if they can meet the standards, then it's fine...
No but yes?
___________________________
Heck one of my friends competes in triathalons. If a woman can best an Ironman, I think she can handle running around in the heat with gear...
Its the question about killing somebody.
You will all say Yes, In the moment of truth I will take another person's life..
But will you?
But i'm on the Fence with this one..
No .
I don't care if they meet our requirements
I don't care if they meet our requirements
...WMs..SEREMAKER wrote:
No .
I don't care if they meet our requirements
*shudder*
I can't count how many guys I've chased from brig back to base for meeting with their lawyer over messing around with a non-nco wmS3v3N wrote:
...WMs..SEREMAKER wrote:
No .
I don't care if they meet our requirements
*shudder*
Conscription is illegal.Lai wrote:
IMO women should be allowed in active combat roles, but never conscripted. Personally, I would have issues with fighting against a woman or have one fighting "for" me, but I wouldn't dare deny her her right to do so. I would never even so much as ask her to fight though. Physically I think most of the old arguments have fallen down anyway in this era of button pressing and lightweigth automatic weapons.
Anyway, imo if they pass all the physicals they can do what they like. If men feel or act differently around women, then its the men's problem not the women's. Maybe the military should be only women then?
As been said the IDF works fine, the women in non combat roles works fine, I see no reason for them to fail at combat.
Exactly the same 'morality' is experienced in something like 98% of males, yet through training you can desensitise anyone into killing instinctively.S3v3N wrote:
Its not a question about running around in the heat with the gear.
Its the question about killing somebody.
You will all say Yes, In the moment of truth I will take another person's life..
But will you?
But i'm on the Fence with this one..
Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-09-09 23:52:39)