# Women are too weak physically to serve in combat



## ginscpy

tell me im  wrong 

There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass

Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won


----------



## whitehall

We know women don't have the upper body strength. It's a given and it's the way God made humans. The question is why liberals think it's only fair that American women get the same chance to be killed, maimed in combat or be taken prisoner as men? I don't get it.


----------



## ginscpy

USA is a nation of 300 million.

Notlikewe are hard-up for manpwer


----------



## Douger

My GF can kick the shit out of 70 or so percent of murkin males her age. She is 5/3 and around 120#.


----------



## ginscpy

whitehall said:


> We know women don't have the upper body strength. It's a given and it's the way God made humans. The question is why liberals think it's only fair that American women get the same chance to be killed, maimed in combat or be taken prisoner as men? I don't get it.



Women simply don't have the   physical  stenghtforcombat.

I was better than at least 80 of women when I wemt throught  the draft bs


----------



## Tank

If all the police were women, I'd start robbing banks


----------



## Mr. H.

Women can pull a trigger just as fast as they can diddle their middle. 
Nuff sed. 

I (heart) babes in uniform.


----------



## ginscpy

We would never  have won  The Biug One withouth Rosie the Rivator


----------



## ginscpy

Women cant fight-simple as that  

Standard were lowered (DUMBED _ DOWN ) after thedraft  was abolished and the volunteer military replaced it


----------



## ogibillm

my wife's serving. she could kick your ass


----------



## ginscpy

Well maybe she should - considereing i m 58 years old.

When I was 19 would probably be another matter


----------



## ogibillm

ginscpy said:


> Well maybe she should - considereing i m 58 years old.
> 
> When I was 19 would probably be another matter



i very much doubt it.

and i wasn't just talking physically. i can guarantee she's a better soldier than you could dream of being in just about every way.


----------



## Truthmatters

whitehall said:


> We know women don't have the upper body strength. It's a given and it's the way God made humans. The question is why liberals think it's only fair that American women get the same chance to be killed, maimed in combat or be taken prisoner as men? I don't get it.



maybe on an average you are right.

I have always had upper body strength that blew people away.

Its an average NOT a set in stone rule.

Ask Mohamad Alis daughter about it.


----------



## ohiomomma

If we're being honest, I weigh about 125 right now, I'm 36, I was in the Army in my early 20's and probably weighed less then that and sadly I agree. Most of the girls I went in with couldn't do the mandatory 6 push ups and wound up in PE for an additional few weeks before moving on....I personally had NO upper body strenth. HOWEVER, there were a few hard *sses that had no problem and even kicked a few male butts, I just wasn't one of them. HOWEVER...I have dead on AIM with a rifle....that doesn't require upper body strength....My rifle was named Beethoven  I still miss the lil guy  And I've got my sharp shooter pin to prove it. So while my upper body strenth sucks, hand me a rifle and I'll do just fine


----------



## Unkotare

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong






Can I tell you that you are a drunken old idiot?


----------



## Unkotare

Truthmatters said:


> [
> 
> I have always had upper body strength that blew people away.





Um....yeah....sure...


----------



## geauxtohell

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won



You are such a dipshit on this matter.  The women in combat right now have something more important than physical fitness that you did not when you were of fighting age:  a willingness to go.  

I knew many a hard woman I would have loved to trade in my infantry platoon for some of the perpetually weak and soft "never did anything but play video games my whole life" men who were rubber stamped through basic and sucked up an enormous amount of our time in actually toughening them up.  

I'll say one thing though, women should be held to the same physical standards as men on the PT test and the military needs to start getting draconian on enforcing physical fitness standards.

You are paid to be a soldier.  That means you are paid to be in shape and time is allocated every day to work out.  There is no excuse.


----------



## Truthmatters

Do you really think I care wether you bel;ieve me or not?


Im over 50 now and its fading.


I used to be able to do what many of my friends could not do.


There are women in the world like that.

Dont you agree?


----------



## ginscpy

Unkotare said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I tell you that you are a drunken old idiot?
Click to expand...


Look in the dictionary for def of "NOBODY" 

what you are


----------



## Unkotare

Truthmatters said:


> Do you really think I care wether you bel;ieve me or not?
> 
> 
> Im over 50 now and its fading.





Oh it's fading now...I see....ok...


----------



## Unkotare

ginscpy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I tell you that you are a drunken old idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look in the dictionary for def of "NOBODY"
> 
> what you are
Click to expand...



What's for breakfast today, Cooter? Jack? Beam? The home made stuff? Y'aaahooooooo!


----------



## Truthmatters

Unkotare said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think I care wether you bel;ieve me or not?
> 
> 
> Im over 50 now and its fading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it's fading now...I see....ok...
Click to expand...


and what do you think you gain by being suck a dick to everyone?


Do you believe their are women who have greater upper body strength than normal?


----------



## Unkotare

Truthmatters said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think I care wether you bel;ieve me or not?
> 
> 
> Im over 50 now and its fading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it's fading now...I see....ok...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe their [sic] are women who have greater upper body strength than normal?
Click to expand...



I believe there are some tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, minority of women who can pull a 747 with their teeth or bench press a Bison. I also believe that has nothing to do with this topic or the fabricated fantasies of your imagined 'glory days.'


----------



## AquaAthena

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won



I'd feel very secure sharing a foxhole with CaliforniaGirl.....


----------



## Unkotare

AquaAthena said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd feel very secure sharing a foxhole with CaliforniaGirl.....
Click to expand...




Would you feel secure enough to have it filled with scented oils and to film whatever sensual displays of mutual support took place?


----------



## CMike

Women should not be in combat.

Not only does it endanger their lives. It endangers the lives of the people in the unit.


----------



## CMike

It seems that women don't have a willingness to go.

If they increased the standards for women, a signficant number wouldn't pass, and that wouldn't placate the liberals.

The funny thing is that enlisted women don't want to be in combat.

Center for Military Readiness | Women in Combat

_According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), quoting a study done by the Rand Corporation in 1998, only 10% of female privates and corporals agreed that &#8220;women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men.&#8221;  [1] 


The Army Research Institute (ARI), in a series of surveys since 1993, also found that most military women want nothing to do with combat assignments.  In 2001, for example, Question #60 in the ARI &#8220;Sample Survey of Military Personnel&#8221; asked military people whether women should be assigned to direct ground combat (DGC), which was defined as&#8221; engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew-served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force&#8217;s personnel.&#8221;  [2]


ARI asked whether current policy &#8220;should be changed so that females can also be &#8216;involuntarily assigned&#8217; [to combat units]&#8221;  [3]   The results, which should have given the Army pause, indicated that only one-tenth of enlisted women (10%) wanted the Army to force female soldiers into combat units on an involuntary basis. _



geauxtohell said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a dipshit on this matter.  The women in combat right now have something more important than physical fitness that you did not when you were of fighting age:  a willingness to go.
> 
> I knew many a hard woman I would have loved to trade in my infantry platoon for some of the perpetually weak and soft "never did anything but play video games my whole life" men who were rubber stamped through basic and sucked up an enormous amount of our time in actually toughening them up.
> 
> I'll say one thing though, women should be held to the same physical standards as men on the PT test and the military needs to start getting draconian on enforcing physical fitness standards.
> 
> You are paid to be a soldier.  That means you are paid to be in shape and time is allocated every day to work out.  There is no excuse.
Click to expand...


----------



## geauxtohell

CMike said:


> If they increased the standards for women, a signficant number wouldn't pass, and that wouldn't placate the liberals.
> 
> The funny thing is that enlisted women don't want to be in combat.
> 
> Center for Military Readiness | Women in Combat
> 
> _According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), quoting a study done by the Rand Corporation in 1998, only 10% of female privates and corporals agreed that &#8220;women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men.&#8221;  [1]
> 
> 
> The Army Research Institute (ARI), in a series of surveys since 1993, also found that most military women want nothing to do with combat assignments.  In 2001, for example, Question #60 in the ARI &#8220;Sample Survey of Military Personnel&#8221; asked military people whether women should be assigned to direct ground combat (DGC), which was defined as&#8221; engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew-served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force&#8217;s personnel.&#8221;  [2]
> 
> 
> ARI asked whether current policy &#8220;should be changed so that females can also be &#8216;involuntarily assigned&#8217; [to combat units]&#8221;  [3]   The results, which should have given the Army pause, indicated that only one-tenth of enlisted women (10%) wanted the Army to force female soldiers into combat units on an involuntary basis. _
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a dipshit on this matter.  The women in combat right now have something more important than physical fitness that you did not when you were of fighting age:  a willingness to go.
> 
> I knew many a hard woman I would have loved to trade in my infantry platoon for some of the perpetually weak and soft "never did anything but play video games my whole life" men who were rubber stamped through basic and sucked up an enormous amount of our time in actually toughening them up.
> 
> I'll say one thing though, women should be held to the same physical standards as men on the PT test and the military needs to start getting draconian on enforcing physical fitness standards.
> 
> You are paid to be a soldier.  That means you are paid to be in shape and time is allocated every day to work out.  There is no excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I don't care who it upsets.  This isn't a political issue.

I am also not interested in the soldiers who were somehow deluded into thinking they were joining an organization that exists to fight wars to somehow avoid combat.

On the modern battlefield there are no longer any "non-combat MOS's" and you are safer in an Infantry unit that knows how to fight then driving a truck.  

If the leadership is going to integrate everything, which at this time there are no plans to do, they are going to have to get serious about readiness.  That means separating the men and women who are using the Army purely as a paycheck and benefit machine.  

That being said, I know there are plenty of women who could hack it, and I am going to get a good chuckle when the first woman completes Ranger School and shows up at her unit with a tab and someone tries to tell her she can't hack combat.  

At any rate, it's a leadership issue.  Jessica Lynch wasn't captured because she was a woman.  She was captured because her piss poor leadership allowed her patrol to leave the wire with dirty and non-functioning weapons.


----------



## CMike

This is purely a political issue. The only reason to put women in combat is to make the ultra-feminists happy.

Other than that it's bad for the military and ultimately the country.


----------



## KissMy

I know a woman who has pulled off clandestine spy operations in Iran that no man ever could. Bush begged her to go back towards the end of his term & offered her over $500k for a few months of service. She turned him down. Women can be a very valuable military asset.


----------



## California Girl

CMike said:


> Women should not be in combat.
> 
> Not only does it endanger their lives. It endangers the lives of the people in the unit.



I actually agree. While I am, indeed, quite a fearless, and pretty tough individual... my issue is the same. That it puts the lives of the rest of the unit at risk. D


----------



## California Girl

AquaAthena said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd feel very secure sharing a foxhole with CaliforniaGirl.....
Click to expand...


I'd protect you.


----------



## California Girl

KissMy said:


> I know a woman who has pulled off clandestine spy operations in Iran that no man ever could. Bush begged her to go back towards the end of his term & offered her over $500k for a few months of service. She turned him down. Women can be a very valuable military asset.



That's not the same as front line combat though.


----------



## BDBoop

Does Israel know about this?


----------



## MikeK

Douger said:


> My GF can kick the shit out of 70 or so percent of murkin males her age. She is 5/3 and around 120#.


How did you derive that absurd statistic?


----------



## Againsheila

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won



I do not believe they should "dumb down" the tests.  I'm certain at least some women would pass without the test being "dumbed down".


----------



## earlycuyler

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won



They lowered the physical test for them when I was in the Navy, but as far as I know not the academic stuff. As far as whooping some ass, there are some tough broads out there.
I wonder what thees ladies would say if asked about it.


----------



## KissMy

MikeK said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My GF can kick the shit out of 70 or so percent of murkin males her age. She is 5/3 and around 120#.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you derive that absurd statistic?
Click to expand...


*From TV*


----------



## California Girl

Againsheila said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe they should "dumb down" the tests.  I'm certain at least some women would pass without the test being "dumbed down".
Click to expand...


You need to consider the source of the comment. Ginspy is hardly the most rational and truthful poster. In his mind, they dumbed down the tests. In the real world, no. They just changed the rules for physical fitness... which I disagree with.


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a woman who has pulled off clandestine spy operations in Iran that no man ever could. Bush begged her to go back towards the end of his term & offered her over $500k for a few months of service. She turned him down. Women can be a very valuable military asset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the same as front line combat though.
Click to expand...


"Front line combat" doesn't really exist anymore.  

The battlefield is immediately outside the wire.  

As I said before, you are safer with an Infantry unit that knows how to fight then a supply unit that does not.  Given the choice, the insurgency will target the supply unit and generally not pick a fight with a unit it thinks can maneuver on it.  

I witnessed this first hand.


----------



## MikeK

While there are exceptions, women are neither physically nor psychologically designed by Nature to endure the rigors of sustained combat.  Any attempt to alter that reality is an ill-advised feminist effort.


----------



## geauxtohell

Againsheila said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe they should "dumb down" the tests.  I'm certain at least some women would pass without the test being "dumbed down".
Click to expand...


The correct term is "lowered the standards". 

This becomes an issue in an Infantry unit if a soldier can't carry their load.  It puts the whole unit in danger.  

Again, another thing I experienced first hand.  

What are you going to do when you are on patrol and someone simply quits on you or won't/can't go any further?

You can't leave them and you can't buttstroke them.

In my instance, it was a man that quit on me.  

I have no problem with women in the Infantry, but they need to be held to the same physical standards as the men.  That ensures that they at least have the physical ability to complete a mission.  

Heart is a whole other issue, but that is hardly gender specific.


----------



## MikeK

earlycuyler said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They lowered the physical test for them when I was in the Navy, but as far as I know not the academic stuff. As far as whooping some ass, there are some tough broads out there.
> I wonder what thees ladies would say if asked about it.
Click to expand...

Those women are extreme exceptions and are analogous to male ballet dancers.


----------



## Si modo

MikeK said:


> While there are exceptions, women are neither physically nor psychologically designed by Nature to endure the rigors of sustained combat.  Any attempt to alter that reality is an ill-advised feminist effort.


And you base that hooie on what evidence?

If a woman can pass the SAME physical requirements as a man, then THAT woman is physically capable of handling the same.  True, far more men will pass than women, but many women can pass.

I'd put my psychological strength for stressful situations, chronic and/or acute, up against any man, and likely win.  I'd bet that sort of psychological strength is not gender specific at all, either.

As far as their being in combat, I'm pretty sure they already are for most practical purposes.  And, as far as having no gender consideration for combat, I leave that decision making up to those putting their lives on the line.  That is NOT the politicians or any non-military special interest groups.


----------



## The Infidel

Truthmatters said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know women don't have the upper body strength. It's a given and it's the way God made humans. The question is why liberals think it's only fair that American women get the same chance to be killed, maimed in combat or be taken prisoner as men? I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe on an average you are right.
> 
> I have always had upper body strength that blew people away.
> 
> Its an average NOT a set in stone rule.
> 
> Ask Mohamad Alis daughter about it.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on this.... not all women can be judged with a "broad" brush...sorry. 

I do however think they should not be on the battlefield where they can possibly be taken as a POW. The fact that there is a girl or should I say woman being held will affect us guys differently than if it is a guy being held. We as men (most of us anyway) want to try to protect the females amoung us, and it may affect the decisions made to get them back.

There is a need for them to serve though... just not out on the battlefield. 

This is just one mans opinion and I mean no disrespect toward our fighting women. They are braver than I was.... I never joined, so big props to you gals!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Having served with women in the Army, I can testify firsthand experience they can handle themselves without any problems.  Those argue otherwise are either Christians In Name Only are anti-feminists.


----------



## earlycuyler

MikeK said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They lowered the physical test for them when I was in the Navy, but as far as I know not the academic stuff. As far as whooping some ass, there are some tough broads out there.
> I wonder what thees ladies would say if asked about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are extreme exceptions and are analogous to male ballet dancers.
Click to expand...


Test that theory. Go to an MMA studio and tell the woman you see in there that. Pleas post video.


----------



## The Infidel

KissMy said:


>



She used to be so pretty....

She used resemble my wife...






My wife is still hawt... cant say as much for Linda


----------



## CMike

Yes. That's why they don't have women in combat.

And if any country needs the manpower (so to speak) it's Israel.





BDBoop said:


> Does Israel know about this?


----------



## MikeK

earlycuyler said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> They lowered the physical test for them when I was in the Navy, but as far as I know not the academic stuff. As far as whooping some ass, there are some tough broads out there.
> I wonder what thees ladies would say if asked about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those women are extreme exceptions and are analogous to male ballet dancers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Test that theory. Go to an MMA studio and tell the woman you see in there that. Pleas post video.
Click to expand...

As I said there are exceptions to the rule, some of which are notable.  There certainly are outstanding butch dykes and drag queens.  But generally speaking the average woman is no match for the average man in activities of a military nature, nor are they expected to be, nor should they be.  Heterosexual women are feminine by their essential nature and the idea of engaging in typically male activities is repulsive to them.  As the father of three very normal girls, now married women and two of them mothers, I lay claim to some level of expertise on the subject.  

I accept that most women will strenuously disagree.  And I know that most men will let them believe whatever they wish to just to shut them up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The average man and average woman both trained in the military arts will do equally well.  The technology and required mastery of it have changed much of the dynamics.  She won't have to stick a knife in you and saw away, MikeK, she will merely shoot you in the back of the head at night using a sniper infrared scope.

Heck, my 22-year old Marine niece can take you hand to hand if that is how you want to go out.


----------



## Dragon

This is ridiculous.

The military, including combat roles, has different jobs each with its own requirement. Some do require considerable upper-body strength. Does that mean women should be banned from those roles? No. It means that anyone who can't pass a test showing they have enough upper-body strength should be excluded from them. Do that honestly, and more men will pass than women -- because on the average, men do indeed have more upper-body strength. But you make that decision on the basis of the test, not on the basis of gender prejudice. Some women are much stronger than most men.

The only reason to exclude women from combat roles is gender prejudice.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MikeK, some men do not have the upper body strength, some women do.

I have served with all kinds.

Yes, the women what it takes, and you disagreeing with reality means only that you are disagreeing with what is.  It is what it is.


----------



## Douger

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oHGjTsvWLE&feature=related]Laila Ali vs Suzy Taylor Full Fight + Interview (HQ) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Douger

MOUNTAINS CLIMBED « Gineth Soto


----------



## aplcr0331

JakeStarkey said:


> Having served with women in the Army, I can testify firsthand experience they can handle themselves without any problems.  Those argue otherwise are either Christians In Name Only are anti-feminists.



You served in the infantry with women? 

Define this: "can handle themselves without any problems" Meaining what exactly? Handle themselves physically? Like with the PT test? Or in hand to hand training? So they pair up females with males in training and the women handle themselves that way? 

What branch of the military did you serve in and what is your MOS?


----------



## aplcr0331

JakeStarkey said:


> The average man and average woman both trained in the military arts will do equally well.  The technology and required mastery of it have changed much of the dynamics.  She won't have to stick a knife in you and saw away, MikeK, she will merely shoot you in the back of the head at night using a sniper infrared scope.
> 
> Heck, my 22-year old Marine niece can take you hand to hand if that is how you want to go out.



Women cannot currently be snipers. So they most certainly will not be shooting people in the back of the head with an infrared scope.


"The average man and average woman both trained in the military arts will do equally well" - Will do equally well at what? 

How big is your 22 year old Marine neice? What is her MCMAP belt?

I skipped over this whole thread so let me back up and say this: I think women should be allowed to serve in combat. Providing they can pass the required physical requirements at the same level as guys. In other words if a 200PFT score is required to pass ITB/SOI then women should have to have that same score based on the same scale.

Are you arguing that women and men are the same physically? That they can both (taking your average guy and average woman) perform at the same levels during combat?


----------



## aplcr0331

Women boxers and women MMA fighters have nothing to do with women in the military.


----------



## Warrior102

ginscpy said:


> *tell me im  wrong
> *
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won



OK - You are wrong. 

I served beside COUNTLESS women who I was proud to serve with.


----------



## Luissa

aplcr0331 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average man and average woman both trained in the military arts will do equally well.  The technology and required mastery of it have changed much of the dynamics.  She won't have to stick a knife in you and saw away, MikeK, she will merely shoot you in the back of the head at night using a sniper infrared scope.
> 
> Heck, my 22-year old Marine niece can take you hand to hand if that is how you want to go out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women cannot currently be snipers. So they most certainly will not be shooting people in the back of the head with an infrared scope.
> 
> 
> "The average man and average woman both trained in the military arts will do equally well" - Will do equally well at what?
> 
> How big is your 22 year old Marine neice? What is her MCMAP belt?
> 
> I skipped over this whole thread so let me back up and say this: I think women should be allowed to serve in combat. Providing they can pass the required physical requirements at the same level as guys. In other words if a 200PFT score is required to pass ITB/SOI then women should have to have that same score based on the same scale.
> 
> Are you arguing that women and men are the same physically? That they can both (taking your average guy and average woman) perform at the same levels during combat?
Click to expand...


Are you saying the average guy and average woman would serve in combat? I would hope not.


----------



## Unkotare

aplcr0331 said:


> Women boxers and women MMA fighters have nothing to do with women in the military.





Bad example in any case.


----------



## CMike

And notice how the women are fighting other women, not men. 





earlycuyler said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> They lowered the physical test for them when I was in the Navy, but as far as I know not the academic stuff. As far as whooping some ass, there are some tough broads out there.
> I wonder what thees ladies would say if asked about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those women are extreme exceptions and are analogous to male ballet dancers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Test that theory. Go to an MMA studio and tell the woman you see in there that. Pleas post video.
Click to expand...


----------



## CMike

No they don't. I was into martial arts for a while.

Women lack the physical strength that men have. 

Strength matters in fighting. 

Perhaps she might not fight with a stick, but she needs to be able to pick up a large, heavy stick, and carry it. 





JakeStarkey said:


> The average man and average woman both trained in the military arts will do equally well.  The technology and required mastery of it have changed much of the dynamics.  She won't have to stick a knife in you and saw away, MikeK, she will merely shoot you in the back of the head at night using a sniper infrared scope.
> 
> Heck, my 22-year old Marine niece can take you hand to hand if that is how you want to go out.


----------



## High_Gravity

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won



I bet any woman in the service can beat the piss out of you boy.


----------



## High_Gravity

CMike said:


> Yes. That's why they don't have women in combat.
> 
> And if any country needs the manpower (so to speak) it's Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Israel know about this?
Click to expand...


I thought the IDF did have women in combat?


----------



## WinterBorn

If there is a need for upper body strength for a given job in the military, set a standard and make people show they are qualified.

Women have shown themselves to be just as capable in the endurance tests which provide far more information about the ability to serve in combat.

A sniper has to carry a rifle and gear.  But they do not carry them in their arms, but in a pack, so the weight is carried by the lower body (if done right).

Besides, very little modern combat requires massive upper body strength.  Go and watch Navy SEALs train.  You will see very few big bruisers on those squads.


----------



## Luissa

CMike said:


> No they don't. I was into martial arts for a while.
> 
> Women lack the physical strength that men have.
> 
> Strength matters in fighting.
> 
> Perhaps she might not fight with a stick, but she needs to be able to pick up a large, heavy stick, and carry it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average man and average woman both trained in the military arts will do equally well.  The technology and required mastery of it have changed much of the dynamics.  She won't have to stick a knife in you and saw away, MikeK, she will merely shoot you in the back of the head at night using a sniper infrared scope.
> 
> Heck, my 22-year old Marine niece can take you hand to hand if that is how you want to go out.
Click to expand...


I can pick up a human being many times a day, I am sure if a woman is trained she can pick up a large heavy stick and carry it.


----------



## Truthmatters

AquaAthena said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd feel very secure sharing a foxhole with CaliforniaGirl.....
Click to expand...


People dont stop trying to kill you because you bitch alot.

In war that is useless


----------



## Sunshine

Truthmatters said:


> Do you really think I care wether you bel;ieve me or not?
> 
> 
> Im over 50 now and its fading.
> 
> 
> I used to be able to do what many of my friends could not do.
> 
> 
> There are women in the world like that.
> 
> Dont you agree?



One wold have to know your friends to answer that question.


----------



## Sunshine

ginscpy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I tell you that you are a drunken old idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look in the dictionary for def of "NOBODY"
> 
> what you are
Click to expand...


Fill in the blank:  

I am _______________'s bitch.

a.  Nobody
b.  Somebody


----------



## Sunshine

Si modo said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> While there are exceptions, women are neither physically nor psychologically designed by Nature to endure the rigors of sustained combat.  Any attempt to alter that reality is an ill-advised feminist effort.
> 
> 
> 
> And you base that hooie on what evidence?
> 
> If a woman can pass the SAME physical requirements as a man, then THAT woman is physically capable of handling the same.  True, far more men will pass than women, but many women can pass.
> 
> I'd put my psychological strength for stressful situations, chronic and/or acute, up against any man, and likely win.  I'd bet that sort of psychological strength is not gender specific at all, either.
> 
> As far as their being in combat, I'm pretty sure they already are for most practical purposes.  And, as far as having no gender consideration for combat, I leave that decision making up to those putting their lives on the line.  That is NOT the politicians or any non-military special interest groups.
Click to expand...


When I was doing hospital work, I saw wirey little women fight so wild and hard it would take half a dozen men to subdue them.  I have also seen big strapping men taken down by two little women and be unable to get up.  Somehow the bulk of a large man is not well coordinated enough to be as agile and quick as the wirey little body of a woman.  It was always somewhat amazing to watch.


----------



## Sunshine

Truthmatters said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd feel very secure sharing a foxhole with CaliforniaGirl.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People dont stop trying to kill you because you bitch alot.
> 
> In war that is useless
Click to expand...


How would you know?


----------



## Old Rocks

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won



LOL.  There was a major migration in this nation, from about 1843 to the 1870s. It was a 3000 mile trip across an untamed continent in wagons, most often drawn by oxen. Guess which sex has the best survival rate on that crossing? In spite of childbirth deaths. 

Grew up in ranch country where women often worked just as hard as men. They may be physically smaller, and not quite as strong for their size, but they amply make up for that in their ability to work together for a common goal. 

Dumbing down the tests to get women to pass? Are you serious? My observation from nearly seven decades of life is that the opposite is probably true.


----------



## whitehall

ginscpy said:


> We would never  have won  The Biug One withouth Rosie the Rivator



Rosie was a civilian.


----------



## Unkotare

Sunshine said:


> Somehow the bulk of a large man is not well coordinated enough to be as agile and quick as the wirey little body of a woman.






It would be a very bad idea for little women to bet their health and safety on that calculation.


----------



## Mr. H.




----------



## aplcr0331

Sunshine said:


> When I was doing hospital work, I saw wirey little women fight so wild and hard it would take half a dozen men to subdue them.  I have also seen big strapping men taken down by two little women and be unable to get up.  Somehow the bulk of a large man is not well coordinated enough to be as agile and quick as the wirey little body of a woman.  It was always somewhat amazing to watch.



These are really bad examples. 

The wirey little woman is a "patient" i.e. customer in the hospital. Those dozen men weren't trying to beat her up. They were trying not to hurt her so that she could receive whatever care she was at the hospital to receive in the first place. 

Where did you see a strapping man get taken down by two little women? A demonstration? In some TMA dojo where they teach *wink* *wink* women focused self-defense?


----------



## aplcr0331




----------



## osa519

Well since it is the time for them to join the combat, I would for them to undergo the same PFT standards males do, I do not want to hear that their bone structure are different or they have weaker upper body strength because I am pretty sure the're female body builders out there in the world. If you can't do it you can't join. The Military is cutting back on its service members saying only the ones with high scores and fitreps can stay in. So are we going all female now? Because last I check in the USMC women have a lower physical standard test then males which means they are offered to do less then their male counterparts and get better scores to help them get promotions as well as a better fitrep.
If we really want to make our military better we can start with making the females undergo the same Fitness test. "Just because you are a Lady Police Officer and the Academy gives you a break doesn't mean the criminals would too." - Former Marine/State Trooper Fredd from my home town Houston, TX.

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-gender-specifications-all-military-fitness-programs/Px1S3Mby
If you want to help make a difference please help Sign his petition! PLEASE.


----------



## osa519

OOWEE Female Martial arts so tough...
I am pretty sure the bad guys have weapons.
A bullet through her head is whole new mind fuck for the grunt who fell in love with her.


----------



## Luthor

mentally and emotionally women are stronger, superior to men


----------



## Unkotare

Luthor said:


> mentally and emotionally women are stronger, superior to men




Someone's trying to get laid...


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> Luthor said:
> 
> 
> 
> mentally and emotionally women are stronger, superior to men
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone's trying to get laid...
Click to expand...


Yes, and doing it that way never works. Women very rarely throw a fuck to kiss asses and brown nosers.


----------



## MikeK

JakeStarkey said:


> The average man and average woman both trained in the military arts will do equally well.  The technology and required mastery of it have changed much of the dynamics.  She won't have to stick a knife in you and saw away, MikeK, she will merely shoot you in the back of the head at night using a sniper infrared scope.
> 
> Heck, my 22-year old Marine niece can take you hand to hand if that is how you want to go out.


I will agree with you that females can perform well as snipers, as was amply demonstrated in the defense of Stalingrad.  But while I've never been in combat I have heard enough about it from those who have, beginning with my own father, to know that women are neither physically nor psychologically adaptable to the the rigors of sustained engagement in typical ground warfare.  

In the Marine Corps of the fifties our Women Marines were trained in the use of light infantry weapons, which they were perfectly capable of using and using well under last resort circumstances.  But it was commonly known they were in no way capable of enduring the hardships of even peacetime field maneuvers (forced marches, high-ground assaults, etc.) because they'd been put to the test more than once.  They were our lady Marines ("BAMS"), we respected them, and they did their jobs very well.  But in the Marine Corps of the fifties the notion of assigning women to combat line companies would not be taken seriously -- by either gender.

What I see happening to this generation of Americans is an effective feminization of the male.  The very notion of having women serve in armed combat while there are able-bodied men lounging in the safety of home is extremely offensive to me, and I am sure to most if not all men in my age category.


----------



## aplcr0331

IF they can pass the same standards that Males have to, then they can serve in combat jobs. 
IF we make it mandatory for every female to register for selective service, then they can serve in combat jobs.

American males are pussies. Look how many in here post about how their "girlfriend" "niece" "some women I know" is a complete badass and could beat up any male around. Just because you are a pussy and can get taken by a woman does not mean you should project your pussiness onto the rest of us. 

Less than 1% of the able-bodied female population (and I'm being generous with that) could take on most average sized able-bodied men and have any sort of chance. Too many hollywood movies, too many fake martial artist blowing sunshine up your collective ass, too much wishing it were true so it must be true pie in the sky "feelings" masquerading as real life.

How many females will volunteer and pass the training? Who is pushing this? I'm all for it, the unintended consequences of this will be outstanding. And, it will be fun to see women in an infantry unit. I don't want to see staged videos of some female running an obstacle course, or shooting a rifle. I want to see her after a 25 mile forced march carrying a combat load. I want to see her after 10 days in the field eating only MRE's and sitting on an ammo box over a hole dug in the ground to shit in. I want to see her get into fights with other soldiers in the infantry (because that is what we do in infantry units when we are bored). I want to see her be on her period and continue on as normal in any of the above situations.

Woman are different than men. And, unless you are gay this is a good thing. Men like women because they are soft, intelligent, feminine, sweet and caring. If I wanted to spend time with a badass muscle bound lunk head who smashes beer cans on their head I'd just be gay. Quit trying to be something you are not ladies. You have value other than being as much like a guy as is possible (especially since most just try to cherry pick the good stuff and ignore the negatives of maleness). 

Let 'em serve. But quit taking your special case of the one-off "badass" chick you know and multiplying her times a million and saying most females are like that.


----------



## rdean

All women are just too weak.  Everyone knows that.







Bodybuilding.com - Tina Chandler: Female Bodybuilding Interview Of The Month, September 2011


----------



## aplcr0331

rdean said:


> All women are just too weak.  Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bodybuilding.com - Tina Chandler: Female Bodybuilding Interview Of The Month, September 2011



THAT'S what you consider a woman? Sure, that is very natural...again taking a .001% female and multiplying by a million does not make most women like that. 

Gross.


----------



## Unkotare

aplcr0331 said:


> American males are pussies.




Where are you from?


----------



## Unkotare

rdean said:


> All women are just too weak.  Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bodybuilding.com - Tina Chandler: Female Bodybuilding Interview Of The Month, September 2011




Once again you're too stupid to realize what you're doing, but choosing that picture only goes to show how ignorant you are.


----------



## aplcr0331

Unkotare said:


> aplcr0331 said:
> 
> 
> 
> American males are pussies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you from?
Click to expand...


Washington. Lived in Southern California, Portland, OR, Baltimore, MD and Biloxi, MS. 

If the shoes don't fit you don't have to wear 'em.


----------



## ABikerSailor

The Infidel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know women don't have the upper body strength. It's a given and it's the way God made humans. The question is why liberals think it's only fair that American women get the same chance to be killed, maimed in combat or be taken prisoner as men? I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe on an average you are right.
> 
> I have always had upper body strength that blew people away.
> 
> Its an average NOT a set in stone rule.
> 
> Ask Mohamad Alis daughter about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you on this.... not all women can be judged with a "broad" brush...sorry.
> 
> I do however think they should not be on the battlefield where they can possibly be taken as a POW. The fact that there is a girl or should I say woman being held will affect us guys differently than if it is a guy being held. We as men (most of us anyway) want to try to protect the females amoung us, and it may affect the decisions made to get them back.
> 
> There is a need for them to serve though... just not out on the battlefield.
> 
> This is just one mans opinion and I mean no disrespect toward our fighting women. They are braver than I was.... I never joined, so big props to you gals!
Click to expand...


Your last sentence is the most telling.  You never joined, so you really don't have any idea of what women are capable of on a day to day basis in the military.

Me?  I've served 20 years in the U.S. Navy, and during my service, I saw many women who were just as fit, and just as strong as many of the men around them.  Shit, when I was PRT coordinator in Newport RI, I saw many of the women score just as well as the men when it came to pushups and situps, but then again, my command made PRT one of our top priorities and did it for 2 hours/day, 3 days a week, with members being encouraged to work out on their own.

My personal opinion?  If a woman can pass her PRT (Physical Readiness Test) with an excellent or better, she should be allowed to serve in combat.  If she wants to do a "G.I. Jane" and join the SEALs like Demi Moore did in the movie?  I'm all for it, but she has to be at the SAME level of fitness as those around her.  If she washes out, she washes out, just like many of the guys do.

I joined the military in 1982, and a few years later, they were not only allowing women on things like sub tenders, but they started to integrate them onto full fledged warships (Aegis cruisers, destroyers, carriers, etc), by the mid 90's.  Strangest thing I ever saw on a training cruise was seeing a female pilot walking down the passageway (first time I saw one), and now?  Squadrons and carriers have a significant amounts of females on their muster lists.

If a woman can deploy on a carrier or a full fledged warship, why shouldn't they be allowed in combat as well?


----------



## ABikerSailor

osa519 said:


> OOWEE Female Martial arts so tough...
> I am pretty sure the bad guys have weapons.
> A bullet through her head is whole new mind fuck for the grunt who fell in love with her.



You know..................most women in the military won't date the guys from their own commands, because they're smarter than that.

Most military men (if they're smart) won't date the women in their command either, too many chances for bullshit that could hurt morale.

And................in the Navy at least, if 2 people from the same command do happen to fall in love and get married, one of them has to transfer to another command within 24 hours.  You can't have a husband and wife serving in the same command.

Never served, did ya?


----------



## Unkotare

aplcr0331 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aplcr0331 said:
> 
> 
> 
> American males are pussies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Washington. Lived in Southern California, Portland, OR, Baltimore, MD and Biloxi, MS.
> 
> If the shoes don't fit you don't have to wear 'em.
Click to expand...




So, you're American, right?


----------



## aplcr0331

ABikerSailor said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit, when I was PRT coordinator in Newport RI, I saw many of the women score just as well as the men when it came to pushups and situps - Note that you said "score" here. Of course they can score as good as the males, they have lesser standards. In order for a male to max out the PRT they need: 105 Curl-ups, 87 Push-ups, and a 8.5 minute mile and a half run time. Females only need: 48 Push-ups, and a 9:47 minute mile and a half run time. I do give the Navy credit since females have to do the same amount of curlups as the Males.
> 
> If a woman can deploy on a carrier or a full fledged warship, why shouldn't they be allowed in combat as well? - As a Marine I've never been on a full fledged warship but I was on the USS Belleau Wood and having served as a machinegunner during our current conflict(s) I can tell you that there is a pretty big difference between being on a ship and serving in combat as an infantryman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite what I said above, I think that woman should serve in any combat MOS they want to as long as they pass the exact same standards. That's it.
> 
> I just want to see how many actually _want _to do it, and actually _can _do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## aplcr0331

Unkotare said:


> aplcr0331 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washington. Lived in Southern California, Portland, OR, Baltimore, MD and Biloxi, MS.
> 
> If the shoes don't fit you don't have to wear 'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're American, right?
Click to expand...


Yep, 3rd generation. And, yes I'm a male. And to answer your next question; yes I am...big-time.


----------



## rdean

aplcr0331 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> All women are just too weak.  Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bodybuilding.com - Tina Chandler: Female Bodybuilding Interview Of The Month, September 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT'S what you consider a woman? Sure, that is very natural...again taking a .001% female and multiplying by a million does not make most women like that.
> 
> Gross.
Click to expand...


The military never said they would take ever women nitwit.  Just like they wouldn't take you.  And a quick peek explains why:


----------



## Sunshine

Objectors are not worried women will fail.  They are worried women will succeed and best them.


----------



## aplcr0331

rdean said:


> aplcr0331 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> All women are just too weak.  Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bodybuilding.com - Tina Chandler: Female Bodybuilding Interview Of The Month, September 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT'S what you consider a woman? Sure, that is very natural...again taking a .001% female and multiplying by a million does not make most women like that.
> 
> Gross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military never said they would take ever women nitwit.  Just like they wouldn't take you.  And a quick peek explains why:
Click to expand...


Hahaha, that is a goddamn funny picture. I don't have that much hair on my chest but you got me pretty close.


----------



## AquaAthena

ABikerSailor said:


> My personal opinion?  If a woman can pass her PRT (Physical Readiness Test) with an excellent or better, she should be allowed to serve in combat.  If she wants to do a "G.I. Jane" and join the SEALs like Demi Moore did in the movie?  I'm all for it, but she has to be at the SAME level of fitness as those around her.  If she washes out, she washes out, just like many of the guys do.
> 
> 
> ^^ Agreed!


----------



## Unkotare

aplcr0331 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aplcr0331 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Washington. Lived in Southern California, Portland, OR, Baltimore, MD and Biloxi, MS.
> 
> If the shoes don't fit you don't have to wear 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're American, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, 3rd generation. And, yes I'm a male. And to answer your next question; yes I am...big-time.
Click to expand...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3VphK9AMk]Not that there's anything wrong with that - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## aplcr0331

Unkotare said:


> aplcr0331 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're American, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, 3rd generation. And, yes I'm a male. And to answer your next question; yes I am...big-time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3VphK9AMk]Not that there's anything wrong with that - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Hahaha, that was funny timing. Awesome


----------



## Connery

This pretty much sums up my perspective whether women are physically able to serve in combat. They should if they can cut the mustard; same goes for men.

"...the fact that other militaries across the world have found that with proper training and necessary adaptations, women can complete the same physical tasks as men. In the 1970s, the Canadian military conducted trials that tested womens physical, psychological, and social capacity for combat roles. The results informed the final decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to remove Canadas female combat exclusion. After similar tests, Denmark also lifted its combat ban in the late 1980s. 

The physical fitness argument, which tends to focus on differences between average male and female bodies, is also undermined by the fact that women who join the military tend to be more fit than the average American. Additional training and conditioning further decrease the gap between female and male service members, and evidence indicates that women usually benefit substantially from fitness-training programs. More to the point, performance is not necessarily determined by gender; it is determined by other attributes and by an individuals determination to reach physical prowess. *To put it bluntly, there are physically fit, tough women who are suitable for combat, and weak, feeble men who are not*."
Let Women Fight | Foreign Affairs


----------



## RightNorLeft

Maybe im getting to old and/or old fashioned, but I was raised to open the doors for women, let them enter first and that you protect them. 
  Im sure there are women that can make the grade and as connery aptly posted that there are men that cant. Still theres that nagging instinct that was instilled in me that its my function to make sure the women are ok first. Like I said that might be an old fashioned long gone value.


----------



## rdean

AquaAthena said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion?  If a woman can pass her PRT (Physical Readiness Test) with an excellent or better, she should be allowed to serve in combat.  If she wants to do a "G.I. Jane" and join the SEALs like Demi Moore did in the movie?  I'm all for it, but she has to be at the SAME level of fitness as those around her.  If she washes out, she washes out, just like many of the guys do.
> 
> 
> ^^ Agreed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


----------



## MikeK

rdean said:


> All women are just too weak.  Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bodybuilding.com - Tina Chandler: Female Bodybuilding Interview Of The Month, September 2011


If this steroid-imbued anomaly has somehow managed to qualify as a genitally correct female, _she_ is as far from the farthest example of what a woman is as it gets.  

Entirely too much emphasis is being placed on the physical aspect of combat readiness.  I believe there is a far more critical component in the overall makeup of a capable combat soldier than his physical strength and it is something which simply is not present in the essential nature of the average woman.  That component is the *natural inclination* which is responsible for the fact that 98% of all violent behavior is effected by men -- not women.  

Women, because of their fundamental purpose in Nature, are designed by Nature to be gentle and nurturing, not violent.  And while there are exceptions, the average (normal) woman is repulsed by the kind of violent conduct and generally crude behavior which comes easily to men.  Therefore they simply are not suitable for prolonged life in the field under arms.  And for those who seek an identifiable biological cause of this particular difference it's called testosterone -- aka the _warrior chemical._


----------



## Politico

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong



You're wrong.

Oh and my grandma worked in one of those plants humping munitions all day. She was stronger than you ever were on your best day on the wagon.


----------



## ABikerSailor

MikeK said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> All women are just too weak.  Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bodybuilding.com - Tina Chandler: Female Bodybuilding Interview Of The Month, September 2011
> 
> 
> 
> If this steroid-imbued anomaly has somehow managed to qualify as a genitally correct female, _she_ is as far from the farthest example of what a woman is as it gets.
> 
> Entirely too much emphasis is being placed on the physical aspect of combat readiness.  I believe there is a far more critical component in the overall makeup of a capable combat soldier than his physical strength and it is something which simply is not present in the essential nature of the average woman.  That component is the *natural inclination* which is responsible for the fact that 98% of all violent behavior is effected by men -- not women.
> 
> Women, because of their fundamental purpose in Nature, are designed by Nature to be gentle and nurturing, not violent.  And while there are exceptions, the average (normal) woman is repulsed by the kind of violent conduct and generally crude behavior which comes easily to men.  Therefore they simply are not suitable for prolonged life in the field under arms.  And for those who seek an identifiable biological cause of this particular difference it's called testosterone -- aka the _warrior chemical._
Click to expand...


Really?  Women aren't violent?

Quick question sportcheck..................ever seen a cat fight (a fight between 2 women)?

I'm guessing not, because of the bullshit you've posted.


----------



## MikeK

ABikerSailor said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> All women are just too weak.  Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bodybuilding.com - Tina Chandler: Female Bodybuilding Interview Of The Month, September 2011
> 
> 
> 
> If this steroid-imbued anomaly has somehow managed to qualify as a genitally correct female, _she_ is as far from the farthest example of what a woman is as it gets.
> 
> Entirely too much emphasis is being placed on the physical aspect of combat readiness.  I believe there is a far more critical component in the overall makeup of a capable combat soldier than his physical strength and it is something which simply is not present in the essential nature of the average woman.  That component is the *natural inclination* which is responsible for the fact that 98% of all violent behavior is effected by men -- not women.
> 
> Women, because of their fundamental purpose in Nature, are designed by Nature to be gentle and nurturing, not violent.  And while there are exceptions, the average (normal) woman is repulsed by the kind of violent conduct and generally crude behavior which comes easily to men.  Therefore they simply are not suitable for prolonged life in the field under arms.  And for those who seek an identifiable biological cause of this particular difference it's called testosterone -- aka the _warrior chemical._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Women aren't violent?
> 
> Quick question sportcheck..................ever seen a cat fight (a fight between 2 women)?
> 
> I'm guessing not, because of the bullshit you've posted.
Click to expand...

If those hair-pulling and scracthing outbursts are what you think of in relative terms as violence one can only wonder what kind of a "biker" you are.  

I'm talking about _violence,_ such as occurs in armed combat, or on the streets of some urban neighborhoods, which ends up in hospitals and morgues, not angy outbursts that rarely call for medical attention or homicide investigation.

I suggest you research crime statistics for percentages of how many males vs females are charged with violent crimes -- and I'm not talking about those _cat fights_ that seem to impress you (and maybe a few other "bikers").


----------



## High_Gravity

MikeK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this steroid-imbued anomaly has somehow managed to qualify as a genitally correct female, _she_ is as far from the farthest example of what a woman is as it gets.
> 
> Entirely too much emphasis is being placed on the physical aspect of combat readiness.  I believe there is a far more critical component in the overall makeup of a capable combat soldier than his physical strength and it is something which simply is not present in the essential nature of the average woman.  That component is the *natural inclination* which is responsible for the fact that 98% of all violent behavior is effected by men -- not women.
> 
> Women, because of their fundamental purpose in Nature, are designed by Nature to be gentle and nurturing, not violent.  And while there are exceptions, the average (normal) woman is repulsed by the kind of violent conduct and generally crude behavior which comes easily to men.  Therefore they simply are not suitable for prolonged life in the field under arms.  And for those who seek an identifiable biological cause of this particular difference it's called testosterone -- aka the _warrior chemical._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Women aren't violent?
> 
> Quick question sportcheck..................ever seen a cat fight (a fight between 2 women)?
> 
> I'm guessing not, because of the bullshit you've posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If those hair-pulling and scracthing outbursts are what you think of in relative terms as violence one can only wonder what kind of a "biker" you are.
> 
> I'm talking about _violence,_ such as occurs in armed combat, or on the streets of some urban neighborhoods, which ends up in hospitals and morgues, not angy outbursts that rarely call for medical attention or homicide investigation.
> 
> I suggest you research crime statistics for percentages of how many males vs females are charged with violent crimes -- and I'm not talking about those _cat fights_ that seem to impress you (and maybe a few other "bikers").
Click to expand...


A woman in my city recently bludgeoned one of her girlfriends to death with a blunt object, and strangled her 2 young children to death. Thats pretty fucking violent.


----------



## High_Gravity

Woman arrested for triple homicide in Homewood | CBS42.com


----------



## Unkotare

Human beings generally are capable of and inclined towards violence.


----------



## MikeK

High_Gravity said:


> Woman arrested for triple homicide in Homewood | CBS42.com


I'm sure there are more than that one example, because there are exceptions to every rule.  But the rule is what you'll find if you research available crime statistics.  

Incidentally, forcible rape is a very common violent crime.  How many women forcibly rape men vs the opposite circumstance?


----------



## High_Gravity

MikeK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woman arrested for triple homicide in Homewood | CBS42.com
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there are more than that one example, because there are exceptions to every rule.  But the rule is what you'll find if you research available crime statistics.
> 
> Incidentally, forcible rape is a very common violent crime.  How many women forcibly rape men vs the opposite circumstance?
Click to expand...


Not many, I get your point, but we don't have that many men joining the Military anymore. The reality is we have had women in combat since we started the war on terror in 2001 because we don't have the large Military we used to have, women in the Army and Marines exchanging gun fire with Iraqis and Talibs while we have plenty of able bodied men just sitting around Stateside, it is what it is. Since we don't have the manpower its all hands on deck, regardless of what sexual organs you have. We don't have enough men to protect the women in the Military anymore.


----------



## MikeK

High_Gravity said:


> Not many, I get your point, but we don't have that many men joining the Military anymore. The reality is we have had women in combat since we started the war on terror in 2001 because we don't have the large Military we used to have, women in the Army and Marines exchanging gun fire with Iraqis and Talibs while we have plenty of able bodied men just sitting around Stateside, it is what it is. Since we don't have the manpower its all hands on deck, regardless of what sexual organs you have. We don't have enough men to protect the women in the Military anymore.


Which is why we need to reinstate the draft -- but this time impose regulations which cannot be circumvented by people like Limbaugh and the sons of the wealthy and politically powerful.

If the draft were still active, do you think Bush could have gotten away with invading Iraq?  Were it not for the threat of conscription we might have remained in Vietnam for another twenty years, just like we probably will remain in the Middle East indefinitely.  It was the threat of conscription that fueled the Vietnam protest and forced an end to it.  A lesson was learned and that lesson is why the draft was suspended.  The corporatocracy realized they couldn't get away with it anymore. 

Our sons are wising up and are not falling for the enlistment lures, now the corporatocracy is after America's daughters.  This is very bad policy and it ensures continuation of these _oil wars._


----------



## Michelle420

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won



"some" women are too weak, so are "some" men.

Do you think the military will automatically put all women into combat zones?


----------



## RightNorLeft

MikeK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not many, I get your point, but we don't have that many men joining the Military anymore. The reality is we have had women in combat since we started the war on terror in 2001 because we don't have the large Military we used to have, women in the Army and Marines exchanging gun fire with Iraqis and Talibs while we have plenty of able bodied men just sitting around Stateside, it is what it is. Since we don't have the manpower its all hands on deck, regardless of what sexual organs you have. We don't have enough men to protect the women in the Military anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we need to reinstate the draft -- but this time impose regulations which cannot be circumvented by people like Limbaugh and the sons of the wealthy and politically powerful.
> 
> If the draft were still active, do you think Bush could have gotten away with invading Iraq?  Were it not for the threat of conscription we might have remained in Vietnam for another twenty years, just like we probably will remain in the Middle East indefinitely.  It was the threat of conscription that fueled the Vietnam protest and forced an end to it.  A lesson was learned and that lesson is why the draft was suspended.  The corporatocracy realized they couldn't get away with it anymore.
> 
> Our sons are wising up and are not falling for the enlistment lures, now the corporatocracy is after America's daughters.  This is very bad policy and it ensures continuation of these _oil wars._
Click to expand...



   I agree totally, reinstate the draft with no deferments for anything or anyone and especially not for the college. When everyones son and daughter has to go watch how fast everyone shuts their mouth.


----------



## BaltimoreBob

Women are the 'C' Word.
There parts Dry Up from no use and they Die.
They lose Interest in SEX 
I a Male at 62 (63 next month) have Lost No Interest in Sex.

Only Idiot Women would want to saerve in Combat
they are probably all DYKES.

1st Post since 2010.

Thank You
Reparations for Vietnam Vets
Righteous Robert
Baltimore Bob


----------



## MikeK

drifter said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "some" women are too weak, so are "some" men.
> 
> Do you think the military will automatically put all women into combat zones?
Click to expand...

If women are approved for assignment in combat line companies you may rest assured that in spite of any objections by _old school_ military brass that is exactly where they will go.  Because the political whores in Washington who orchestrate such military debacles as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan, regard those sons and brothers who are foolish and naive enough to enlist in the Army and Marines as cannon fodder.  And as long as there is a steady supply of warm bodies to facilitate the requirements of the Military Industrial Complex Washington doesn't care if they have testicles or tits.  

As long as it isn't their sons and brothers they are sending into the grinder the show will go on.  And millions of brainwashed nitwits, hypnotized by television and secure in knowing there is no draft, will go on happily saying, _"Thank you for your service to our country,"_ which is the most offensively patronizing bit of nonsensical bullshit I've ever heard.  What it really means is _better you than me,_ and the idea that soon there will be women serving in grunt platoons while able-bodied men will be saying that to women is enough to make me puke.  

It's getting harder and harder to be proud of America.


----------



## sparty

Women don't belong in combat or the front lines.


----------



## Truthmatters

and no one cares what you think about it.


----------



## Truthmatters

Top 10: Chicks Who Could Kick Your Ass - AskMen


----------



## longknife

Tell that to the thousands of Israeli women soldiers who kick butt every day!


----------



## Katzndogz

When people talk about violent women it's true and it's something that I thought myself but it's isn't about capability.   It's about longevity.   A woman, no matter how bad the biker chick isn't going to be a very bad biker chick after two weeks without a shower and a vaginal infection burning out her uterus, or living off MRE's while carrying a 50 pound backpack for days on end.

That's why Isralie women are not permitted in front line combat.   They are required to be in the military, but they are not fighters.  

Experience from foreign countries is not very enlightening on the matter of women in combat. Contrary to popular belief, women in Israel, which is the only country with a female draft, are not assigned to duty as combat soldiers; they played only a limited, mainly defensive, role in the War of Independence, in 1948. A ruling by Canada's Human Rights Commission last year held that women could no longer be excluded from any military role except in submarines. The Canadian experience has not been heartening for those who seek to end the combat-exclusion rule in this country. Only seventy-nine women were recruited into the infantry training program and only one completed the course. She has since requested a transfer out of the infantry.

'The Most Counterproductive Policy in the U.S. Army': Servicemembers on the Women-in-Combat Ban, 20 Years Ago - Eleanor Barkhorn - The Atlantic

It might be more productive to listen to someone like Katie Petronio who was capable, did volunteer, and thought herself the equal to male fighters and she was, just not for long.


By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. 

 Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she&#8217;ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette

Women can indeed be lab rats for the special interest groups that imagine they can impose equality but it will ultimately be to their detriment and the detriment of everyone around them.


----------



## PegLegGuy

.
Forget strength already.

What about mindset?

We're raised differently than girls.

Can you imagine a rifle squad with 3 or 4 women?

Men have that bond with each other that I don't think women really have.

PegLegGuy
USMC 1967-71
FDNY 1971-99

That feeling in the gut that comes before imminent combat, is not so much from the fear of injury or death, as it is the fear of proving inadequate as a man, in front of men


.


----------



## Meathead

Probably been said already, but if women can pass the same standards as men for combat deployment, and those standards are not reduced to accomodate them, then why not? The only objection I might have are the tensions, sexual and otherwise, which could result in claims of harassment both frivolous and valid.


----------



## Katzndogz

Meathead said:


> Probably been said already, but if women can pass the same standards as men for combat deployment, and those standards are not reduced to accomodate them, then why not? The only objection I might have are the tensions, sexual and otherwise, which could result in claims of harassment both frivolous and valid.



Standards are always lowered.   There isn't an instance in the police or fire departments where the standards haven't been lowered to increase the participation of women.  When standards are lowered, they not only allow in unqualified women, but unqualified men as well.


----------



## Mushroom

Katzndogz said:


> Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that shell be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.
> 
> Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette
> 
> Women can indeed be lab rats for the special interest groups that imagine they can impose equality but it will ultimately be to their detriment and the detriment of everyone around them.



And this is really what it all boils down to.  A lot of people just do not seem to get that men and women are built completely different.

God, or Genetics, or Evolution, or whatever you call it has provided women with one muscle and bone structure, and men with another.  For women, it tends to be lighter bones, with the type of muscles that can to low impact repetitive tasks with ease, or for a short duration high impact task.  For men, they have denser stronger bones, and muscles that are better tuned to longer term high impact chores.

And it is not only that, the bones are arranged slightly different.  For men, our hips tend to be narrower, and the leg bones go in more of a straight-down configuration.  In women, the hips are wider, and the bones tend to connect more to the side.

Now people seem to think of combat, and only think of picking up a gun and shooting.  And yea, women can do that task just as well as men.  But for Infantry, there is a lot more involved.

I was a grunt for 10 years, and as I like to joke I got the knees to prove it.  In the Marines, all Infantry is "Light Infantry".  In other words, there are no helicopters or APCs or anything else permanently assigned to transport us from one location to another.  So everything is intended to move the Battalion or Regiment from one location to another on foot.

And this is where things really start to show the difference.  Every Marine Infantry Battalion does a combat evaluation on steroids called a MCCRES every 1-2 years.  And in addition to the usual combat drills (respond to ambush, set an ambush, single envelopment and movement to combat), it is capped off with a 25 mile "forced march".  40 kilometers with full combat load (50-75+ pounds) in 8 hours.  Typically 50 minutes of hard non-stop marching, 10 minute break, then another 50 minutes of marching.

Now I have served for over 15 years now, 10 in the Infantry (combat role, only men) and 5 in Air Defense (combat role, co-ed).  And I am far away from my prime, but even at 48 I have yet to find a female that can come anywhere close to keeping up with me in even a little 6 mile forced march.  Because of evolution, bones and muscles are just so different that very few could meet the demands of the job.

It is really as simple as that.  I do not doubt the ability to do many of the jobs, but when it comes to simple brute force and the endurance to carry large weights for prolonged periods of time, nature did not give that ability to women.  Men (grunt-grunt-grunt) go and kill the antelope, and drag it back to camp (grunt-grunt-grunt).  Women skin the antelope (remember the low-impact repetitive I mentioned earlier), grind the grain into flour (same low impact repetitive), and other similar chores.  Plus the men lift the heavy things, and carry them from one camp to another.  Women have babies, hence the wider hips and slightly different bone angles which makes that chore harder (not the lifting, the walking with the weight for prolonged periods of time).

This is how nature and evolution programmed our bodies tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago.  And it is not the routine tasks that I see a problem, it is the things we do like the training for combat that prepares us for the unusual things that I see the biggest problems.


----------



## regent

Women in combat is a fine idea, but the combat conditions must be changed. No more extended service in the field with no toilets, no sleeping in a slit trench every night for three months on end. And now some of the military are being accused of complaing about no hot breakfasts. Yeah, the whole thing has to be changed, but maybe combat will become a little more civilized?


----------



## Katzndogz

Great idea.  Change cimbat.  Get the enemy to agree.

Units with women will be at a disadvantage to units that do not have women.  The Taliban is not noted for their reliance on female fighters.


----------



## Againsheila

For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat:  Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.


----------



## Unkotare

Againsheila said:


> For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat:  Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.




Um...you know that doesn't...um...make sense, right?


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> Great idea.  Change cimbat.  Get the enemy to agree.
> 
> Units with women will be at a disadvantage to units that do not have women.  The Taliban is not noted for their reliance on female fighters.



They use women too, for suicide bombers.


----------



## Unkotare

High_Gravity said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea.  Change cimbat.  Get the enemy to agree.
> 
> Units with women will be at a disadvantage to units that do not have women.  The Taliban is not noted for their reliance on female fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They use women too, for suicide bombers.
Click to expand...


You mean they send them on blind dates with del?


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea.  Change cimbat.  Get the enemy to agree.
> 
> Units with women will be at a disadvantage to units that do not have women.  The Taliban is not noted for their reliance on female fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They use women too, for suicide bombers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean they send them on blind dates with del?
Click to expand...


----------



## aplcr0331

Againsheila said:


> For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat:  Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.



Over 60% of woman use an epuderal. If I was a woman I would too, no sense in being a faux tough lady. Of course, then you can't spin th' ole yarn about difficult birth is.

I'm sure you, however, had your baby in the fields standing up with no modern medical aids at all.


----------



## Againsheila

aplcr0331 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat:  Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 60% of woman use an epuderal. If I was a woman I would too, no sense in being a faux tough lady. Of course, then you can't spin th' ole yarn about difficult birth is.
> 
> I'm sure you, however, had your baby in the fields standing up with no modern medical aids at all.
Click to expand...


Actually, I got my epidural after 2 days of labor and more than 2 hours of transition...finally, on the 3rd day, I got a c-section.  I would have taken that epidural a lot earlier but some idiot told me natural birth was the way to go.  Meanwhile, my neighbor had her child in her living room with 17 minutes of labor, before the fire department got there.  I hated her.

My 2nd was a scheduled c-section and I'm here to tell you the recovery time from a scheduled c-section is a heck of a lot faster than recovery time from a c-section after 3 days of labor.


----------



## Munin

What a bunch of morons on this forum, the only arguments for women not serving is just pure superstition

I agree that you should have objective reasons for being able to join in a combat unit and not lowering the standard because of your sex. I also think you shouldn't waste the skills of people who want to serve just because superstitious nonsense

Many other armies already have women in combat units, in WWII the soviet Union for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II
And if I m not mistaken: the Soviet Union won the war against the Germans despite the use of women in combat roles

Also, I d rather think it s the other way around: if you as a country deny half of your manpower and are at war with a country as big as yours that doesn't, you re already at a disadvantage. And I also think some women are better at shooting or even stronger then some men in combat, it just depends on your individual skills

Or maybe you should take a look at this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/


----------



## ABikerSailor

Women who are currently serving on U.S. Navy warships (Spruance class among others) actually DO go into war zones on a regular basis.

And the arguement is what again?  Women can't serve in war zones?


----------



## editec

Very few soldiers ever find themselves in a situation where their upper body strength was vital to survival.

Damned few!


----------



## Tech_Esq

ABikerSailor said:


> Women who are currently serving on U.S. Navy warships (Spruance class among others) actually DO go into war zones on a regular basis.
> 
> And the arguement is what again?  Women can't serve in war zones?



I don't think there is an argument that they shouldn't go into war zones. I think the argument is that they shouldn't be in combat arms units.


----------



## Tech_Esq

editec said:


> Very few soldiers ever find themselves in a situation where their upper body strength was vital to survival.
> 
> Damned few!



Unless they are in combat arms units. Then it's typically crucial. A loader in a tank, better be able to get those rounds out and into the cannon butt fast and they ain't light brother. Same with arty you those rounds ain't gonna load themselves into the gun. Infantry almost goes without saying if you've looked at even one pic of the load they carry into combat.


----------



## editec

Its really quite simple.

Make their training test their ability.

Those women who make the grade get the assignment.

Don't we already so that for the men?

Hell yeah we do.


----------



## Unkotare

editec said:


> Very few soldiers ever find themselves in a situation where their upper body strength was vital to survival.
> 
> Damned few!




Oh yeah? What about the famous Battle of Benchpress Hill during the American Civil War? Or the massacre at Chinup-de-Mars during the French Revolution? And who can forget the bloody struggle to take Pushup Pass during the Spanish-American War?


----------



## Katzndogz

Munin said:


> What a bunch of morons on this forum, the only arguments for women not serving is just pure superstition
> 
> I agree that you should have objective reasons for being able to join in a combat unit and not lowering the standard because of your sex. I also think you shouldn't waste the skills of people who want to serve just because superstitious nonsense
> 
> Many other armies already have women in combat units, in WWII the soviet Union for example
> Soviet women in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> And if I m not mistaken: the Soviet Union won the war against the Germans despite the use of women in combat roles
> 
> Also, I d rather think it s the other way around: if you as a country deny half of your manpower and are at war with a country as big as yours that doesn't, you re already at a disadvantage. And I also think some women are better at shooting or even stronger then some men in combat, it just depends on your individual skills
> 
> Or maybe you should take a look at this: 8 Other Nations that Send Women to Combat



Bringing up the Soviet Union's actions during WWII and the benefit of women to that conflict with the Germans might be an exhibition of some ignorance.   The presence of women wasn't determinative in the Soviet victory.   Nothing the women did advanced the needs of the military.   They turned no tide of battle.   It was the devastating Russian winter.

Russian WWII Offensive of 1941 | Novelguide


----------



## Katzndogz

editec said:


> Its really quite simple.
> 
> Make their training test their ability.
> 
> Those women who make the grade get the assignment.
> 
> Don't we already so that for the men?
> 
> Hell yeah we do.



Those who don't make the grade can file a lawsuit on the grounds that the training has a disparate impact on women.

This has been done before.  This isn't new.  It's what happened in police forces and fire departments all over the country.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> Women who are currently serving on U.S. Navy warships (Spruance class among others) actually DO go into war zones on a regular basis.
> 
> And the arguement is what again?  Women can't serve in war zones?



Women have been involved in combat since the war on terror started.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Katzndogz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its really quite simple.
> 
> Make their training test their ability.
> 
> Those women who make the grade get the assignment.
> 
> Don't we already so that for the men?
> 
> Hell yeah we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who don't make the grade can file a lawsuit on the grounds that the training has a disparate impact on women.
> 
> This has been done before.  This isn't new.  It's what happened in police forces and fire departments all over the country.
Click to expand...


No, they can't.


----------



## Katzndogz

It's already happening.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814

The RTB has not been directed that all female candidates must pass regardless of performance, and Ranger Instructors will retain a limited ability to dismiss an individual underperforming woman from the course, as long as &#8220;enough&#8221; women remain to please the higher-ups. But they will have to justify every dismissal to the highest levels of command, who have made their intention clear. Regardless of performance, the majority of women attendees must pass &#8212; at least as high a graduating percentage as the men in the same class. For the first time in Ranger history, graduation will be guaranteed &#8212; for some.

There is no doubt that SOME strong women are the equal of SOME men, especially men that are weak to begin with.  I have seen too many women kick male butt, myself included.   But, women cannot maintain that strength over time especially in conditions that are not optimum.   Eventually units with women will degrade.  Either the women will weaken and have to be transferred out, or they will endanger the entire unit.  There really has been no battle in which the presence of women has changed defeat to victory.  Nor does it seem to matter because this is all about the feelings.   It's not what's best for the military and their readiness, it's really all about opportunities for women no matter what the cost.

Unfortunately for us, will be likely be facing battle hardened men with no time for such niceties as the sensibilities of women and gays.  

When asked if losing a war is an acceptable price to pay to satisfy the wish lists of specific groups, the left will say that it is.   So it will be.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Katzndogz said:


> It's already happening.
> 
> http://weaponsman.com/?p=2814
> 
> The RTB has not been directed that all female candidates must pass regardless of performance, and Ranger Instructors will retain a limited ability to dismiss an individual underperforming woman from the course, as long as enough women remain to please the higher-ups. But they will have to justify every dismissal to the highest levels of command, who have made their intention clear. Regardless of performance, the majority of women attendees must pass  at least as high a graduating percentage as the men in the same class. For the first time in Ranger history, graduation will be guaranteed  for some.
> 
> There is no doubt that SOME strong women are the equal of SOME men, especially men that are weak to begin with.  I have seen too many women kick male butt, myself included.   But, women cannot maintain that strength over time especially in conditions that are not optimum.   Eventually units with women will degrade.  Either the women will weaken and have to be transferred out, or they will endanger the entire unit.  There really has been no battle in which the presence of women has changed defeat to victory.  Nor does it seem to matter because this is all about the feelings.   It's not what's best for the military and their readiness, it's really all about opportunities for women no matter what the cost.
> 
> Unfortunately for us, will be likely be facing battle hardened men with no time for such niceties as the sensibilities of women and gays.
> 
> When asked if losing a war is an acceptable price to pay to satisfy the wish lists of specific groups, the left will say that it is.   So it will be.



Give us competent evidence: government law, regulations, rules, pamphlets.

You can't.  You fail again.


----------



## aplcr0331

editec said:


> Very few soldiers ever find themselves in a situation where their upper body strength was vital to survival.
> 
> Damned few!



Yep, and we refer to those Soldiers as Infantrymen. Exactly what we are talking about in this thread.

If a woman can pass all the same standards we have in place now, let them serve. Plus, make all women sign up for Selective Service as well. 

I'd like to see the numbers that make it through Infantry training though. It's much more than lifting someone in a firemans carry or pressing the trigger on your service weapon. A lot goes into being an Infantryman (person). Mindset being one of the biggest. Can woman do it? I think some can, but the pool is mighty small.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women who are currently serving on U.S. Navy warships (Spruance class among others) actually DO go into war zones on a regular basis.
> 
> And the arguement is what again?  Women can't serve in war zones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is an argument that they shouldn't go into war zones. I think the argument is that they shouldn't be in combat arms units.
Click to expand...


A Spruance class or Aegis class warship IS a combat arms unit.

Same thing with a carrier.  

All of those ships have women on them.


----------



## regent

I think the living conditions in some combat situations would be most stressful. We spent months on end sleeping in slit trenches, going to the bathroom in that same slit trench in a k ration box, no clean clothes, no hot meals, never clean, a drinking water shortage, skin rot, constant threat of disease, and a maximum of five hours sleep at night. Finally there was the enemy trying to do us harm.


----------



## Mushroom

Againsheila said:


> For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat:  Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.



But the very fact that you have hips adapted for giving birth is a great detriment to trying to fulfill a role in the Infantry.

Let's see you put on 100+ pounds of gear, and keep up with men in their prime in a grueling 25 mile forced march (or even keep up with me on a 10 mile march).  Every single combat Marine is expected to do that every year.

I am 48 years old, and in 5 years in the Army have never met a single female that can even come close to keeping up with me, even with the much-reduced standards of Air Defense (no body armor, no helmet, 35 pound pack).

Heck, many times I have even taken the pack from a female and *still* beat her to the end of the 6 mile march by 5-10+ minutes.  And remember, I am well over 2 decades past my prime.


----------



## Godboy

ogibillm said:


> my wife's serving. she could kick your ass



Im sure your wife is real tough for a chick, but no, she cant beat men up. Im 40, and while im not fat, i am out of shape, and id crush your girl in a fight.


----------



## Unkotare

Godboy said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> my wife's serving. she could kick your ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure your wife is real tough for a chick, but no, she cant beat men up. Im 40, and while im not fat, i am out of shape, and id crush your girl in a fight.
Click to expand...



So, you really thought it was a good idea to pursue this line of argument?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mushroom said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat:  Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the very fact that you have hips adapted for giving birth is a great detriment to trying to fulfill a role in the Infantry.
> 
> Let's see you put on 100+ pounds of gear, and keep up with men in their prime in a grueling 25 mile forced march (or even keep up with me on a 10 mile march).  Every single combat Marine is expected to do that every year.
> 
> I am 48 years old, and in 5 years in the Army have never met a single female that can even come close to keeping up with me, even with the much-reduced standards of Air Defense (no body armor, no helmet, 35 pound pack).
> 
> Heck, many times I have even taken the pack from a female and *still* beat her to the end of the 6 mile march by 5-10+ minutes.  And remember, I am well over 2 decades past my prime.
Click to expand...


So you are a super trooper.  I bet you max out most guys as well.  As far as women not being able to keep up with you, maybe so, but if they can keep up with Army standards, good to go.  Remember that your prejudices are not the standard.


----------



## Katzndogz

Againsheila said:


> For those of you who thinking women aren't "strong" enough or don't have the "endurance" for combat:  Give birth, then tell us about strength and endurance.



Glad you brought that up.   Before modern medical care, giving birth was the most common cause of female death.   It would be today, but they use C-sections before it gets that bad.  As as you know.   A woman can't spend two weeks or a month giving birth.  It would kill her, and has.   It doesn't take that long either.   Comparing a battlefield to giving birth is a very poor analogy.

From what women have said about serving in the infantry and the training that goes along with it, the first thing to go are the knees.  If a woman and a man both have to carry the same weight of equipment, the bigger knee structure and thicker bones of a man will perform and a woman's knees will break down.   Even when the knees are gone, women will still be expected to carry the same weight, for the same amount of time and distance.


----------



## Mushroom

JakeStarkey said:


> So you are a super trooper.  I bet you max out most guys as well.  As far as women not being able to keep up with you, maybe so, but if they can keep up with Army standards, good to go.  Remember that your prejudices are not the standard.



Haha, not hardly!  I got "RIF'ed" last year from Active Duty because I am at best marginal when it comes to the physical part (all they look at for promotion boards and packets is the PT test).  I barely pass my height-weight requirement, and have a permanent profile which prevents me from taking the run portion of the PT test.  But even when I did the 2 mile run part, I only passed with maybe a minute to spare from my minimum qualifying.

And excuse me, I am not showing prejudices here, I am giving my real life observations.  I am not sure of your qualifications or experience, but I was in the Infantry in the Marines for 10 years, 14 years as a civilian, then for the last 5 been in the Army (formentioned Air Defense).  My experience in this is from direct first hand experience and observation.

Most of the women had absolutely no problem running circles around me during the run portions of PT.  I am old, heavy, and have the knees of a long time grunt (and 2 motorcycle accidents have not helped either).  But I am still able to "ruck march", and we were not anywhere even close to the "Army Standards" for doing such a march.

In fact, my last Platoon Sergeant was a former instructor at the Air Assault School there at Fort Bliss.  And he said the failure rate for females in that course is 3-4 times higher then it is for men.  Lack of upper body strength for passing the obsticle courses (specifically the rope climb), and also the required forced march (12 miles, 50 pound pack, 3 hours or less).  And that is even less of a requirement then I saw as expected minimums for Marines when I was in.

So if I put out a challenge, and have 30 women meet me for a 10 mile ruck march and I then beat all of them, is it still a "prejudice"?    Heck, find 30 military females, they should be in much better shape, right?  Because over the course of 4 years I have easily done ruck marches with at least 100 females.  And not a single one could keep up with the fat old fart that was old enough to be her father.

I am not talking from some kind of bias here, my wife is a nurse and is stronger then I am, for short durations.  She can move around a 200 pound patient with little problem.  But she would not be able to carry around 60 pounds on her back for any length of time.

Of course, there are many other things involved here.  Why not actually do some research into the physiological differences between men and women (you are aware there are some, right?) before simply trying to claim I am "prejudiced".

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...A46_WOP_3InNX3JWA&sig2=f7Zrgc1iLMD5xbtMXChepA

In fact, when doing a little bit of research into this a while back, I became aware of something new to me, "Female Pelvic Stress Fractures".  Apparently in the last 20 years the military has noticed a sharp link to pelvic stress fractures, mostly because it is almost exclusive to females, and that it is commonly directly linked to ruck marches.  And the military medical community is researching it now to try and find out what is causing it, and how they can prevent it.

So excuse me if I call you full of it, when even the military recognizes some of these problems, and they are not just some kind of "bias", but actual medical injuries.


----------



## Mushroom

Katzndogz said:


> From what women have said about serving in the infantry and the training that goes along with it, the first thing to go are the knees.  If a woman and a man both have to carry the same weight of equipment, the bigger knee structure and thicker bones of a man will perform and a woman's knees will break down.   Even when the knees are gone, women will still be expected to carry the same weight, for the same amount of time and distance.



This is very true.  Get a group of 30 grunts and former grunts together, and the first thing we will normally joke about is how shot our knees are.  My old 1st Sergeant in my last unit was a former grunt, who was moved to Air Defense after his knees were blown out.  I was Medically Discharged from the Marines for having bad knees.  It is a very chronic condition, most especially in "Light" Infantry units (like The Marines, or Army Mountain Infantry).  This is because we move from place to place during training 95% of the time on foot.

In my 10 years as a grunt, I can probably count on 2 hands the humber of times I have moved to my destination by means other then foot (and most of those times it was because I was moving from a ship, those are really hard to march from).  Go to Camp Pendleton or Lejeune, and you see companies and battalions of grunts marching all over on Monday morning (going to the field) and Friday afternoon (going back from the field).


----------



## JakeStarkey

I respect both of you your service and experiences.  As well, my knees and ankles and hips suffer 12 years active duty in the infantry on airborne status.  Like you, I know of what I talk.  Women I knew in the service were capable of serving in the infantry, in terms of general strength and ability to pound the ground day in and day out.

We can argue all we want, but the fact remains the DOD has decided the women will get the chance.

Time will tell.


----------



## Godboy

Unkotare said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> my wife's serving. she could kick your ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure your wife is real tough for a chick, but no, she cant beat men up. Im 40, and while im not fat, i am out of shape, and id crush your girl in a fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you really thought it was a good idea to pursue this line of argument?
Click to expand...


What makes you think its not a good line of argument?


----------



## RightNorLeft

The thread title should be Most women arent strong enough and then id agree. For all those that keep wanting and hoping that women can be completely equal to men, just remember the physical acruity tests to be a cop and a firemen had to be lowered so more women could pass them.
   Admitting women  in general are not as physically capable as men is not an insult to women, its merely a fact. The favorite argument is GIVE BIRTH then tell me im not strong enough, blah, nonesense,  us not being able to give birth in itself shows were not the equal.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't think anyone is saying, at least not without being silly, that all women are physically equal to all men.


----------



## Samson

I don't even understand the controversy.

My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.


----------



## Katzndogz

Samson said:


> I don't even understand the controversy.
> 
> My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.



Not for long.   Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered.  Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.

The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Katzndogz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even understand the controversy.
> 
> My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for long.   Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered.  Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.
> 
> The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.
Click to expand...


Horse puckey, of course.  Standards will not be lowered.


----------



## Samson

Katzndogz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even understand the controversy.
> 
> My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for long.   Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered.  Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.
> 
> The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.
Click to expand...


You mentioned the lowering of standards for police and firefighters.

Sorry, but I haven't read all through the thread to find your evidence this has happened PLUS because it has happened to any municipal government, it would happen in the U.S. Military.

Where did you post it?


----------



## longknife

Samson said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even understand the controversy.
> 
> My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for long.   Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered.  Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.
> 
> The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mentioned the lowering of standards for police and firefighters.
> 
> Sorry, but I haven't read all through the thread to find your evidence this has happened PLUS because it has happened to any municipal government, it would happen in the U.S. Military.
> 
> Where did you post it?
Click to expand...


https://www.google.com/search?q=low...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


----------



## Katzndogz

Samson said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even understand the controversy.
> 
> My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for long.   Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered.  Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.
> 
> The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mentioned the lowering of standards for police and firefighters.
> 
> Sorry, but I haven't read all through the thread to find your evidence this has happened PLUS because it has happened to any municipal government, it would happen in the U.S. Military.
> 
> Where did you post it?
Click to expand...


Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police

Officials: Panetta opens combat roles to women - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

The LAPD's assault on SWAT - Los Angeles Times

When the standards are too stringent to allow in representation of minorities, including women, the standards are changed.   The standards are an artificial barrier maintaining the good old boys network and have to go.

The same thing happened with women firefighters.   In order to reach the quota of female hires standards had to be lowered.
Women Firefighters: The Gender Boondoggle - Page 4 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly

In fact, some firefighters say Bamattre quietly rolled back strict physical requirements, just like Manning, implementing a secret "no fail" policy to pass women who plainly could not heft chain saws up ladders or run with heavy hoses, or who had other physical deficiencies. In the almost entirely male yet multiracial force, firefighters were furious that academy rejects were getting through, and many questioned whether Bamattre was jeopardizing firefighters and the public.

In one instance, firefighter Melissa Kelly could not carry a ladder.  She dropped it on herself.  She complained that the male firefighters would not come and get the ladder off of her.   Think of this as an emergency.   One firefighter can't perform and more firefighters are needed to help her rather than deal with the emergency.   Liberals don't see this as a problem.  

_Lima told the Weekly, "It is hard to go in a fire with someone when you know from drilling she can't lift the ladder... If you can't do it in a perfect environment in a drill tower or academy, there is no way you can do it in a life-threatening situation."_

Lowering standards to let women in has a secondary deletorious effect.  When standards are lowered, they aren't lowered just for women.  Unqualified men get in too.   

I used to think that women were the equal of men in every way and there was nothing a man could do that a woman couldn't.  She could run as fast and for as long as any man.  Lift the same amount of weight. Be as vicious in a fight.   It took many years for me to be educated out of my misconceptions.   Nevertheless, this concept of physical equality is a misconception and a dangerous one at that.


----------



## Samson

Katzndogz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for long.   Just like police and firefighters, the standards will have to be lowered.  Otherwise they will end up with very, very few women.
> 
> The sad part is that perfectly capable women will have military careers cut short as they are discharged early for medical reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mentioned the lowering of standards for police and firefighters.
> 
> Sorry, but I haven't read all through the thread to find your evidence this has happened PLUS because it has happened to any municipal government, it would happen in the U.S. Military.
> 
> Where did you post it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police
> 
> Officials: Panetta opens combat roles to women - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times
> 
> The LAPD's assault on SWAT - Los Angeles Times
> 
> When the standards are too stringent to allow in representation of minorities, including women, the standards are changed.   The standards are an artificial barrier maintaining the good old boys network and have to go.
> 
> The same thing happened with women firefighters.   In order to reach the quota of female hires standards had to be lowered.
> Women Firefighters: The Gender Boondoggle - Page 4 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, I'll take them one at a time (ignoring the Op-ed article from LA times)

Regarding the laweekly.com article, there was never any lowering of standards.

The accusation was that, WITH THE STANDARDS IN PLACE, administrative personnel had overrulled drillmasters that had failed women.

Even if there was any unwritten policy overruling drillmasters to allow greater number of women to pass, any hint that this might be happening has promped corrective action:

_LAFD Battalion Chief Richard Rideout refused to discuss whether there was a no-fail policy for women, adding cryptically, "It doesn't happen anymore. Everything was revamped" when Chief Barry took over_​
So in this case, the standards did NOT change, and any efforts to contravene them were corrected.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz.  Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.


----------



## Samson

JakeStarkey said:


> That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz.  Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.



Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:

Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police

Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.

While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.

I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.

However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.


----------



## Bigfoot

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz.  Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:
> 
> Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police
> 
> Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.
> 
> While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.
> 
> I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.
> 
> However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
Click to expand...


It is so more Blacks can pass the tests.


----------



## Samson

Bigfoot said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz.  Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:
> 
> Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police
> 
> Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.
> 
> While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.
> 
> I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.
> 
> However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is so more Blacks can pass the tests.
Click to expand...


More whites can also pass the test.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz.  Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:
> 
> Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police
> 
> Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.
> 
> While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.
> 
> I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.
> 
> However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
Click to expand...


Far sighted is better than near, yes, I agree.


----------



## Mushroom

RightNorLeft said:


> The thread title should be Most women arent strong enough and then id agree.



Actually, my main issue with the title is that it should be " Women are too weak physically to serve in a* direct combat MOS*".  I have no problem with women in combat, they have served in that many times, and have done very good at it.

I have no problem with women in 90% of the MOS available in the military.  It is only that small 10% where such things really matter that I start to object.  And some of the few are Infantry, direct crews serving artillery, Armor, and a select few others.

MPs many times see more "action" then infantry, and I have absolutely no problem with women serving there.  But they are generally involved in much shorter duration but intense firefights.  That is quite different then what is expected for Infantry.


----------



## Mushroom

Samson said:


> I don't even understand the controversy.
> 
> My understanding is that women will still need to pass physical criteria to be omitted into combat units, and these the SAME physical criteria regardless of gender.



There is really no "physical criteria" to get into different MOS, other then the _lack_ of physical conditions that might prevent them from serving (like color blindness for electronics MOS, or no profile that says they _can't_ lift over 50 pounds).  There is no "higher level" required to go into say the Infantry.

But women already do take their physical critera at a much lower level then men do.  At my age (48), the minimum passing score is 25 pushups, 30 situps, and to run 2 miles in 19:30 or less.  To give an idea how far off that is from "prime", for a 22 year old male it is 40 pushups, 50 situps, and 2 miles in 16:36.

For a 22 year old female, it is 17 pushups, 50 situps, and 2 miles in 19:36.

In other words, a female does not even have to be in as good a shape as a 50 year old man to pass the "physical requirements".

Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)

In fact, a female in her prime does not even have to do as many pushups as a 60 year old man, and only has to run about 20 seconds faster then him.

Now think about putting 60 year old men in the infantry, and you might start to get an idea how silly this is.


----------



## Mushroom

JakeStarkey said:


> Horse puckey, of course.  Standards will not be lowered.



They already are lower!  What don't you get about that?????

Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)

The standards for women in the Army is much lower then that of men.  And it is not just that way in the Army.

In the Marines, women do not even do pull-ups.  Where as men have to do at least 3 pull-ups, women only have to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds.  Where as men have 28 minutes as a minimum to run 3 miles, women get 36 minutes.

Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Males

So don't even try to go there where the "standards will not be lowered", they already are, and have been since women first entered the military.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mushroom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse puckey, of course.  Standards will not be lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already are lower!  What don't you get about that?????
> 
> Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)
> 
> The standards for women in the Army is much lower then that of men.  And it is not just that way in the Army.
> 
> In the Marines, women do not even do pull-ups.  Where as men have to do at least 3 pull-ups, women only have to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds.  Where as men have 28 minutes as a minimum to run 3 miles, women get 36 minutes.
> 
> Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Males
> 
> So don't even try to go there where the "standards will not be lowered", they already are, and have been since women first entered the military.
Click to expand...


We are talking about combat arms.  So show me where the women are going to get different standards than in the combat arms?  You can't.


----------



## Godboy

JakeStarkey said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse puckey, of course.  Standards will not be lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already are lower!  What don't you get about that?????
> 
> Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)
> 
> The standards for women in the Army is much lower then that of men.  And it is not just that way in the Army.
> 
> In the Marines, women do not even do pull-ups.  Where as men have to do at least 3 pull-ups, women only have to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds.  Where as men have 28 minutes as a minimum to run 3 miles, women get 36 minutes.
> 
> Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Males
> 
> So don't even try to go there where the "standards will not be lowered", they already are, and have been since women first entered the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about combat arms.  So show me where the women are going to get different standards than in the combat arms?  You can't.
Click to expand...


Theres a lot more to combat than simply firing guns. The physical tests are there (among other reasons) to ensure your military personell are strong enough to move injured soldiers out of harms way. I imagine most women couldnt drag a 200 pound man with his full pack on, let alone carry him.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Godboy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already are lower!  What don't you get about that?????
> 
> Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)
> 
> The standards for women in the Army is much lower then that of men.  And it is not just that way in the Army.
> 
> In the Marines, women do not even do pull-ups.  Where as men have to do at least 3 pull-ups, women only have to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds.  Where as men have 28 minutes as a minimum to run 3 miles, women get 36 minutes.
> 
> Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Males
> 
> So don't even try to go there where the "standards will not be lowered", they already are, and have been since women first entered the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about combat arms.  So show me where the women are going to get different standards than in the combat arms?  You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theres a lot more to combat than simply firing guns. The physical tests are there (among other reasons) to ensure your military personell are strong enough to move injured soldiers out of harms way. I imagine most women couldnt drag a 200 pound man with his full pack on, let alone carry him.
Click to expand...


Just so.


----------



## Samson

Godboy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already are lower!  What don't you get about that?????
> 
> Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)
> 
> The standards for women in the Army is much lower then that of men.  And it is not just that way in the Army.
> 
> In the Marines, women do not even do pull-ups.  Where as men have to do at least 3 pull-ups, women only have to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds.  Where as men have 28 minutes as a minimum to run 3 miles, women get 36 minutes.
> 
> Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Males
> 
> So don't even try to go there where the "standards will not be lowered", they already are, and have been since women first entered the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about combat arms.  So show me where the women are going to get different standards than in the combat arms?  You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theres a lot more to combat than simply firing guns. The physical tests are there (among other reasons) to ensure your military personell are strong enough to move injured soldiers out of harms way. I imagine most women couldnt drag a 200 pound man with his full pack on, let alone carry him.
Click to expand...


While there are differences between Male and Female recruits' physical fitness expectations. I cannot find evidence that there's any extra fitness criteria for combat units.

Frankly it seems to be a mute point:



> A female Army officer who spoke with ABC News on condition on anonymity pointed out that senior leaders feel compelled to open job positions to show how progressive they are. However, this officer noted, "every female troop I know (over the age of 25) says publicly, 'Sure, open them up!' And privately, 'But not for me personally. I know I don't have the brute strength required and I would be crushed to let down my colleagues -- so, no way, no thanks.'"


----------



## waltky

Granny says dey can draft her - she still got her old army boots from the Big One...

*If women can serve in combat, should they register with Selective Service?*
_February 9, 2013   The Pentagons new policy of allowing women in combat jobs has raised new questions about an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court settled 22 years ago. Should young women be required to register with the U.S. Selective Service System just as young men do?_


> The U.S. Department of Defense issued a Jan. 24 memo that will give more women an opportunity serve in combat roles and military jobs that had been reserved only for men.  In a 6-3 vote in 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that because women were not allowed in combat, only men were legally required to register with the government under the Military Selective Service Act.  The selective service system has the names and addresses of nearly 15 million men ages 18 to 25 in its files, according to the agencys website. The military is currently all-volunteer, so the service, once called the draft, isnt used.
> 
> Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the selective service system, said Congress would likely change the law and require women to register because the Pentagon has allowed women in combat roles. However, no bill has been introduced in Congress to do that, he said.  Several students at Forsyth Technical Community College and Winston-Salem State University had mixed views last week about whether women should be legally required to register for selective service if the country has an emergency and Congress and President Barack Obama start a new draft.
> 
> Celicia Davis of Advance, the founder and adviser of the Student Veterans Association at Forsyth Tech, said she supports women registering for selective service.  I think all people should serve, said Davis, who served as an Army specialist at Fort Bragg. Our country was founded on freedom, and freedom isnt free.  Nolan West, a 17-year-old student at FTCC, said women should not be required to sign up for a draft.  If we need troops, men can be there, West said. We need women in civilian jobs.  Forsyth Tech student Ema Seferovic, 16, of Kernersville disagreed, saying that women should be included in any draft.  Its an equality thing, Seferovic said. What makes men more qualified to fight in a war?
> 
> Jade Gray of Winston-Salem, a 16-year-old FTCC student, agreed with Seferovic. Women registering for a draft and fighting in combat are steps toward equality for men and women, Gray said.  It is hypocritical to fight for womens equality and for women not to go through a draft, she said.  FTCC student Thomas Hiott, 18, of Lewisville, said he has registered with the selective service system.  I know its the law for men, but women should have a choice, Hiott said. However, Denise Evans, 45, a Forsyth Tech student, said Congress shouldnt require women to register for a draft because women can volunteer to join the military.  Men cant have children, Evans said. They should be required to register with selective service.
> 
> MORE


----------



## GHook93

ginscpy said:


> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won



You are wrong. Many women have fought well in combat throughout history. Strength is one thing, physical fitness, stealth, handing and aiming a gun, military tactics, speed and agility are other aspects. Go down to the lake during summertime in Chicago. Many of the female joggers would make excellent soldiers and many of the fat slobbish men who lose their breathe by walking up a few stairs would not.

I am all for women serving in combat, just as long as they do it willingly. Only enlistment, NEVER THE DRAFT. Only males should have to sign up the for the draft, NEVER WOMEN! I have no real reason other than I have 3 daughters and could stomach them going off the battle! I wouldn't want to see my son go either, but I could live with that one more!


----------



## aplcr0331

GHook93 said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me im  wrong
> 
> There was this seg  in some news showwhere they had to -dumb-down  thetests to let get yhewomen to pass
> 
> Not ragging on - them  - if not for women in the munitions plants in WW2  - probably would never have won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. Many women have fought well in combat throughout history. Strength is one thing, physical fitness, stealth, handing and aiming a gun, military tactics, speed and agility are other aspects. Go down to the lake during summertime in Chicago. Many of the female joggers would make excellent soldiers and many of the fat slobbish men who lose their breathe by walking up a few stairs would not.
> 
> I *am all for women serving in combat, just as long as they do it willingly. Only enlistment, NEVER THE DRAFT. Only males should have to sign up the for the draft, NEVER WOMEN! I have no real reason other than I have 3 daughters and could stomach them going off the battle! I wouldn't want to see my son go either, but I could live with that one more*!
Click to expand...


Rah-rah-rah women can do anything men can do only better!!! Neener-neener neener!

So, my three sons should go off and fight for their country if they are drafted but your daughters get to stay home in a life of privilege? They get all the benefits (and some would argue more) of the republic but have to bear no burden in defending it? Awesome. As long as your reasoning is sound, I'm all for it.

If the combat jobs are opened up, then they should be registered for Selective Service. End of story. 

Your daughters will be fed to the machine so the elite (Female Officer's and other women who will not see direct combat like a true grunt will) can progress in their careers. 

How's it feel to have your daughters be nothing more than disposable bodies from someone else's gain.

If we want true equality then you get true equality and you take the good AND the bad. This picking and choosing shit has got to go.


----------



## Katzndogz

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz.  Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:
> 
> Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police
> 
> Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.
> 
> While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.
> 
> I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.
> 
> However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
Click to expand...


When women cannot meet the standards and women take the training but don't graduate out, of course the standards will be lowered.   

The idea of women in combat has nothing to do with making for a more effective military, but making women feel good about themselves.  They can't feel good about themselves unless they actually make it through training.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Katzndogz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is very weak reasoning by you, Katzndogz.  Nothing more than nonsense propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:
> 
> Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police
> 
> Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.
> 
> While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.
> 
> I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.
> 
> However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When women cannot meet the standards and women take the training but don't graduate out, of course the standards will be lowered.
> 
> The idea of women in combat has nothing to do with making for a more effective military, but making women feel good about themselves.  They can't feel good about themselves unless they actually make it through training.
Click to expand...


Hey..................asshole who never served..............................do you think that you're in better shape than most of the women in the military?

I doubt it.


----------



## Katzndogz

ABikerSailor said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can certainly sympathize with the concern:
> 
> Obama Justice Dept. Forces City To Lower Standards For Police
> 
> Cites ABC news reporting the Dayton Police Department's lowering of examination passing standards.
> 
> While this has nothing to do with the US Military, or physical standards, or women....I suppose one could extraplate them all.
> 
> I believe that the inclusion of women in combat units, and maintaining standards is OK, ans long as we are serious about not circumventing the standards when women fail to meet them, or lowering the standards so women can meet them.
> 
> However, it appears that eith of these possibilities may be more likely than not, and we should make sure that some oversight is in place to prevent it from happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When women cannot meet the standards and women take the training but don't graduate out, of course the standards will be lowered.
> 
> The idea of women in combat has nothing to do with making for a more effective military, but making women feel good about themselves.  They can't feel good about themselves unless they actually make it through training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey..................asshole who never served..............................do you think that you're in better shape than most of the women in the military?
> 
> I doubt it.
Click to expand...


Have you ever heard of Katie Petronio?  She might be a woman who deserves your attention.  After all, she is in the military, she did go through the training, and she made it through.  

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment.

Is she "who never served" lying?  She did serve and she served in a combat capacity.   Does it matter, or is she just a liar trying to destroy women's chances for advancement?


----------

