women in combat

[NikkiD]

Minimum physical "standards" for the armed services have been lowered to accomodate women; to enable them to conform to a "standard", and to deal with the female attrition rate (deemed "unacceptable") seen initially.

This, in order that women might claim physical "equality".

There have been resultant instances of the same lowered standards being applied now to the male contingent.

Now, I am all for females being allowed to do absolutely anything they are truly able to do, mentally OR physically, BUT:

If I were wounded and immobile on the front line, I would hope to be forgiven for cursing whatever authority was responsible for my "rescuer" being 5'4", and 120 lbs.

We recently had 5 people die in and around an Atlanta courthouse owing to a particularly defective brand of enlightened far-sightedness which dictated an unshackled 6' 1", 200-odd-pound ex-college linebacker be guarded by a 50-year-old grandmother (the bailiff) who was about 5' tall, and weighed about 110 pounds.

He disabled her, took her weapon, and started killing people; oddly enough, the grandmother/bailiff was the only one who survived direct contact with this madman.

I hope no one thinks ill of me for thinking something is wrong with this; how is it that the impetus for equality comes to preclude any semblance whatsoever of simple logic?

If the standards have to be lowered for women to join, then the military becomes weakened.

If a man must complete an obstacle course in 5 minutes, climb a 10 foot high wall, be able to easily lift 200 pounds or be cut from training, any woman who cannot meet these standards should also be cut from training. The standards were set for a reason - so that those who passed the training would be able to deal with whatever was thrown at them in combat situations. By lowering standards for women, they've allowed sub-standard soldiers to hold positions they have no right to be in. Same set of rules for all I say.

As far as an elderly female bailiff - to me what I said above applies to any job, regardless of gender, race, religious belief. If you're not fit to do the job, you should be let go, or never hired for it in the first place. Unfortunately in our society, the discrimination card gets played far too often. The excuse "I wasn't hired because I'm (fill in the blank)" is a term civil rights lawyers relish. Can you imagine the uproar if this bailiff had been dismissed from her job on the grounds that she wasn't strong enough, or was too old? Some lawyer somewhere would have been rubbing their hands in greed thinking about the lawsuit they could file on her behalf. She should never have held a job like that in the first place, and is now indirectly responsible for the deaths of five people.

BTW - What's wrong with 5'4"??? I dream of being 5'4" j/k

[JPaul]

Minimum physical "standards" for the armed services have been lowered to accomodate women; to enable them to conform to a "standard", and to deal with the female attrition rate (deemed "unacceptable") seen initially.

This, in order that women might claim physical "equality".

There have been resultant instances of the same lowered standards being applied now to the male contingent.

Now, I am all for females being allowed to do absolutely anything they are truly able to do, mentally OR physically, BUT:

If I were wounded and immobile on the front line, I would hope to be forgiven for cursing whatever authority was responsible for my "rescuer" being 5'4", and 120 lbs.

We recently had 5 people die in and around an Atlanta courthouse owing to a particularly defective brand of enlightened far-sightedness which dictated an unshackled 6' 1", 200-odd-pound ex-college linebacker be guarded by a 50-year-old grandmother (the bailiff) who was about 5' tall, and weighed about 110 pounds.

He disabled her, took her weapon, and started killing people; oddly enough, the grandmother/bailiff was the only one who survived direct contact with this madman.

I hope no one thinks ill of me for thinking something is wrong with this; how is it that the impetus for equality comes to preclude any semblance whatsoever of simple logic?

Someone once said

"Yup,

Provided a person is consistently capable of doing the job and does not require any allowances made for them then I have no problem with that."

I cannot better that sentiment.
__________________

[vidcc]

J2

As we have basically said no allowances should be made. If they meet the standards men have to then there is no problem.

To the court case I don't think that woman should have been alone with the suspect, but then I don't think that a solitary male guard should have been used..even one of comparable size...the situation required at least two guards..... but what if this case involved a female guard that was 6'6" and 250lbs (all lean meat) and the suspect was 5' ? is that a situation where a woman's size is a disadvantage?

[Busyman]

J2

As we have basically said no allowances should be made. If they meet the standards men have to then there is no problem.

To the court case I don't think that woman should have been alone with the suspect, but then I don't think that a solitary male guard should have been used..even one of comparable size...the situation required at least two guards..... but what if this case involved a female guard that was 6'6" and 250lbs (all lean meat) and the suspect was 5' ? is that a situation where a woman's size is a disadvantage?

Men are typically stronger then woman.

Size has very little to do with it.

A man at 5'9" is most likely stronger than a woman at 6'1".

The very few alpha females would be able to make it in the military I presume.

[vidcc]

Men are typically stronger then woman.

Size has very little to do with it.

A man at 5'9" is most likely stronger than a woman at 6'1".

The very few alpha females would be able to make it in the military I presume.

I guarantee you that there are many many women smaller than you that could kick your ass, pull your head off and spit down your neck.

[Busyman]

I guarantee you that there are many many women smaller than you that could kick your ass, pull your head off and spit down your neck.

Men are typically stronger by nature.

Your statement is irrelevant.

[JPaul]

Built different, for explosive bursts of strength.

It's not an opinion, it's anna natomy thing.

[GepperRankins]

my oppinion. women can't carry the kit as efficiantly as men because of their natural build and strength, this would be a hinderance in battle, or out of it even.

i reckon this may be influenced by the fact that a dead women = more propaganda points for the anti-war nuts than dead man.

and meh to any women offended by chivalry. it's just how humans work

[vidcc]

I agree, however, given that particular stipulation, I would be surprised if women could achieve 20% qualification, and as I noted earlier, this, as a common rate of attrition, is not likely to attract female candidates in numbers sufficient to satisfy the intellectual elite/feminists/sympathizers; they would demand a higher "success" rate.

If no physical allowances are made, the female contribution would be relatively insignificant, statistically, and of little consequence in the field.

OK so you say the recruitment rate will be low... is a low rate justification for stopping it altogether? We are desperately down on recruitment targets at a time when we need people.

I believe the feminist agenda is equality, not "special treatment"... i do realise that the agenda has been twisted by opponents.

I don't understand a mentality that would reject qualified people of ability based on gender or even sexual preference

[JPaul]

Obviously any of this would only count for those who are likely to go into combat.

I see no reason why the armed forces should not recruit people for other positions, who do not need to be able to go into combat. For some jobs a fit mind is more useful than a fit body.