ccvirginia

If you expect men to accept women as equals than it would be neccesary for women to be tested at the same level men ore. The army physical fitness test is a great example. Today in the military there is a men's standard and a woman's standard (much lower than the men's).

Any woman who can meet the same physical standards as the men that is. Why does the military have 2 standards? Why is it that men have to do at least 40 push ups to pass the pt test but women only have to do 8?

Raise the level and have one standard and I'll support woman serving in front line positions. I would guess less than 1% of the females in the military could pass the PT test at the men's standard.

In my basic training the men marched 5 miles to the range while the women were bused. Why? Becuase the women were simply not able to do it. Not one of them could march with their rifle and ruck further than 1 mile. I witnesses an entire platoon of women fall out. Its a fact folks!

ccvirginia

Number of pushups required to pass (ages17-21):

Men = 42
Women = 19

Number of situps required to pass:

Men = 53
Women = 53

Time in 2 mile run to pass:

Men = 15.54
Women = 18.54

Why is it that the standards are lower for women?

samcol

Yes, what a joke. This is just mind boggling to me. People who support women in the front lines lose the argument when it comes to the double standards.

Cereberus

Bingo.

I don't mean to be rude, but hearing someone who's never been in the service explaining their opinion on this topic is like hearing a man tell what it's like to give birth.

I've been in the military, and I think there are more problems than benefits from women in combat units. Special forces in particular have their own opinions, which don't align with the plot of "G.I. Jane."

Beyond that, there are two other factors:

1. America is not ready to see women come home in body bags, as Willypete said.
2. People think it's worse for a captured woman to be raped than it is for a captured man to be tortured. I haven't seen an explanation for that, but that IS the prevailing opinion.

For the record, there are many, many women serving admirably in the military, and we couldn't get along without them.

Just not in combat units, IMO.

WillyPete

And yet, why is it that women outperform men in G-Loc resistance when flying aircraft? They tend to be shorter, with the larger thighs, and higher haemoglobin counts. Their bodies are better able to deal with the blood being forced into the legs becasue of this and other reasons.
(Women also have higher survivablilty than men on the operating table due to the blood oxygen thing.)

With that in mind, women are physically BETTER suited than men to be combat pilots.

(G-Loc = Gravitational force induced loss of consciousness)


Both men and women have their strengths and weaknesses, men are just more genetically predisposed to the physical act of fighting on land.

shakran

So let me get this straight. Women serving in active military duty might reduce public approval of unnecessary wars? Hell dude, that's a reason FOR women in the military, not against!

Ustwo

I would only be accepting of women in combat if they volunteered for it specificly and were forced to prove they were on equal footing with the average male combat troop.

None of the lower standards they try for female firefighters and the like.

I still wouldn't be happy with it, the last thing you want in a foxhole is sexual tension, but thats a different issue.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

If there were sexual tension it would be the fault of those in charge of training, not the women on the front lines. Besides, anyone who's thinking with their junk whilst under fire deserves whatever they get.

Ustwo

I might be wrong but I dont' think you can train sex out of a 19 year old living in close quarters.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

RAGEAngel9

Lol and yet abstinence sex ed is encouraged by the same groups.


// not a personal dig at Ustwo

filtherton

I thought our troops were the most disciplined fighting force in the world. Ustwo, why do you hate our military?

I think you underestimate the motivational power of military punishment.

Seaver

Look up the methods used on young boys to try to prevent masterbation... MUCH worse than military punishment and it still didnt stop anything.

filtherton

So essentially, what's going to happen if we let women fight on the front lines, is that the entire cohesiveness and effectiveness of the american military is going to disappear in an orgy of late adolescent lust? Is that what has happened in the rest of the military where women are quite common? Does anyone have any kind of basis for this perspective beyond a healthy mistrust of teenage sexuality? Has the integrated israeli military fallen apart in an orgy of soldier on soldier lust? I mean, i understand the argument, it just, to me, seems to lack any kind of basis in reality.

martinguerre

other commenters are smart to bring up the Israeli example...their integrated army has been one of remarkable sucess...and that's not because Israeli women are known for their chastity. Several of my friends who have made aliyah report it's quite the opposite.

Also, you're assuming that sexual tension doesn't happen between men. Just a thought.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ustwo

Well unless we are trying to emulate the Sacred Band of Thebes, I'm not to worried about sexual tension amoung males. Don't ask don't tell and all that

I'm not saying a sex integrated army couldn't succeed, I'm just not sure ours is ready for it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

well, as recruiting numbers for May are being released late, this friday instead of the first of the month, suspicions are running high that the numbers are not good.

so speaking of policies that hamper recruiting an effective and professional army....i see Don't Ask/Tell as a parallel to the gender segregation. there isn't a whole lot of room to tolerate mistakes that keep us from having the best Army we can...if we're going to win in two theaters and remain a deterrant around the world...i think we need to give up these anachronistic and blind policies that deter enlistment.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Seaver

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that sexual tensions can not be stamped out no matter how hard you try. There's a reason there are terms such as navy-goggles, lack of opportunity will alter perceptions and lead to gross misconduct if not treated correctly. Ask any Petty Officer or Gunny about male-female soldiers... I have a couple stories myself that I have witnessed.

If you took the time to read my posts I have no problem putting women on equal footing with male soldiers. What I am trying to say is reasoning that these people are adults and are disciplined enough to combat the most powerful driving force in human nature is ignorant.

reconmike

Shakran,Have any of these reporters ever have to squat and take a dump in front of you while you watched for hostiles?
How about take a bath out of a helmet?
Ofcourse not, it is not all about actual combat situations, I served with some
tough WM's but I really dont think they could have handled some situations we found ourselves in.

Women have their place in the military, it's not in combat. I know I would not have been able to do it, I would always have been thinking is she going to crack, lose it and put us all at risk?
And I'm not saying that does not happen to men, cause it does,and I have seen it first hand, but they are removed rather quickly.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

WillyPete

I DO think that women can be just as effective in combat, but not in western armies.

We've crippled ourselves with the sexually based roles in our society.
Women have served with distinction in many wars and national armies, yes, even in combat.

Has no-one heard of the mythological Amazons?

Seeing as most of the objections are based on sexual tensions arising, I'd say the fault is more of the inadequacy of the American public to deal with sexual freedom as a whole. (I use USA because it seems the discussion is revolving around women in YOUR armies.)

My other point of contention is to ask why women fel the need to be permitted in combat. Why feel the need to prove yourself equal to men in one of the most base acts we can commit. No, I'm not aying that those who fight are base, but that the act of war is undesirable, although sometimes unavoidable.
I can see it being a case of wanting the chance simply because it's denied to you, but would expect enlistment number not to rocket up if the combat restrictions were lifted.

And if they were lifted, I would sincerely expect to see a single qualifying standard. Purely for their survival. If troops have to run distance x in time y to evade an enemy and it's over the basic entrance requirement for the women, it'll look awful bad if only the men return.
Bullets, bombs and Death are not sexually biased and won't hold women to a lower bar.

Ustwo

I am rapidly approaching middle age. I haven't worked out in over a year. I am grossly out of shape in terms of endurance, I'm lucky I'm not fat. I have yet to meet a woman who I couldn't beat the living crap out of had I wanted to. Yes I know out there, there are some who could take me, but we have to be honest about physiology. Men as a rule are stronger and faster. I also think that there is an evolutionary advantage men have with spacial relationships, and our natural aggression can be a plus in combat too.

I never bought into the whole gender stereotyping theory that we make girls into 'girls' by how we treat them. Little girls act differently than little boys and they grow up to be different. In a perfectly gender neutral world, boys would still fight boys and girls would still want to play house.

Now I know modern combat isn't always about who is the fastest and the strongest, but I am perfectly content to send the boys to war while the girls stay home.

Hell, from a species point of view it makes sense. Women are more important to the next generation than men are. The next generation of children is not limited by the number of males, but the number of females. The only time it makes genetic sense to send women into war is where your very survival as a people is in question.

So in rambling conclusion, to me, women in combat goes against who and what we are. Women can fight but only when there is no alternative, they have not evolved for it, they are not as good at it, and I can't see why anyone would want to send them to war. History has had some notable women warriors, but they are notable due to their rarity. Either human kind has tried to keep women down for all of its history by not 'letting' them fight, or their may be some damn good reasons for it.

What I really want to know is, why do people want to see them in combat?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

We have an all volunteer military so I would think the answer to your question is rather obvious. Some women want to be in combat positions.

I'm with David Hackworth on this one. Women need to be held to the same training standards as men if they wish to serve in the front lines.

astrahl

I don't like the idea that somebody's perceived role for me would define me decisions about my life. You may think of women as homebodied caregivers (generalizing here), but that doesn't mean it is okay to limit my choices for it.

And if men on the front lines have that hero factor or fear factor as the case may be, don't punish the women by excluding them...expect more from the men!

You can't call me an equal and then limit the kind of equality you are willing to share.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

Ustwo

Not being shot at is punishment?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

astrahl

Having other people choose my future and limit my options is punishment.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

stevo

in other words, expect less from the women on the front lines. how is that equal?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

shakran

What's your point? Are you suggesting there's gonna be a lot of sexual tension between a male and female soldier while she's defecating?

And you might be surprised- news people are generally pretty laid back about privacy - after all we're always reaching in each other's shirts to get the mic placed right, etc.

And yes, I've worked with women in satellite trucks during hurricane coverage where we had to eat, change, sleep, and work in the truck. Can't change outside 'cause there's gallons of rain being driven sideways at you.

And there's even been times when we've had to relieve ourselves into jugs because we're not anywhere near a bathroom and we can't leave the truck. We werent' worried about enemy fire at the time, but we didn't have any privacy either. No big deal. We were adults, and we did not go at it like jackrabbits afterward either, as some are suggesting the soldiers would do if they were integrated.

I say again, if you're trying to get in the pants of the soldier next to you while machine gun bullets are whizzing past your helmets, you're a moron. Gender has nothing to do with it.

And if you're a big enough moron to try and screw while you're being shot at, you shouldn't be in the military anyway.

reconmike

First I find it highly suspect that an infront of camera news woman is going to relieve herself in a jug in front of you. Sorry just dont see it happening.

Your analogy holds no water imo, so you work with women, big deal,as do alot of us. Is there any tension from the fact that you might be killed at any moment? From what I have seen there are plenty of office romances.
And they start without that tension.


And my point being is what happens after the rounds stop flying, what if something develops then?
Now you have 2 people who could in fact compromise future action because they have special feelings for each other.

My point of view is from experience, I know what mind frame it takes to live for months in the field, not a day sleeping in a van.
Women will only complicate an already difficult situation.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

astrahl

I don't think you understood what I said. The conversation was that some men have hostility or hero complexes with women they may work with. Don't punish women for the men's complexes, expect better BEHAVIOR from men.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

MikeyChalupa

Man oh man. Though I've never been in combat, I've got just about 10 years of active duty Naval service and I'll tell you what I've seen so far.

Women in the military is necessary, but causes a new set of challenges that the direct results of unfortunately are not ever truly felt by those who make that decision. It's not a good or a bad thing. It's not "G.I. Jane". It's women serving honorably, and disonorably. It's the men around them serving honorably, and dishonorably. As one who has worked side by side with women I have no problem with the concept, but the problems that arise when those women (or men) follow those urges we all have only decrease mission readiness. Is it fair that a female can choose to get pregnant so she can miss a deployment, now causing someone else to fill that billet while she's gone? You can't make her promise not to. But you have to let her go when she does. A man can't get pregnant to get out of a deployment. Is that fair that she has an "out" that he doesn't? Sexual assault cases, fraternization, and harassment grab headlines when they occur in the military, further damaging an already unpopular service.

The other issue is that women coming home in body bags is, in our nation, even less acceptable than men dying. Is THAT fair?

This decision should be made by front-line commanders, not civilian officials who don't have to take those units into combat, or deal with or worry about what's actually going on in those units. My observation is that while most women serve honorably and with no problem, the few who misbehave or do not uphold their commitments to service are ruining it for the rest of them, just like the men who act like asses do.

-Mikey

M0oMo0Man

Women should only go into battle. if there is a shortage or unequal balance then men should be dispacted. There are more women in the world now there for if women die in battle then it will equal out the sex define.

tecoyah

I did not delete the above.....simply to explain the reasoning for deleting the rest

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Elphaba

Manx, I am truly saddened by what you are now doing. I was another one that appreciated your well thought out posts in Politics.

If you choose to come back once again, I sincerely hope that it is to bring a positive contribution here because I believe you have valid points to make.

But what you are doing now does not speak well for you.

With great regard,
Pen

irateplatypus

i find it a bit conceited that you feel making parallels between being a tv camera man and a frontline soldier in combat are a useful way to discuss the issue.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

StanT

First Woman Gets Silver Star Since WWII


Anyone care to suggest that Ms Hester doesn't belong in the military?

shakran

I find it absurd that you seem to think men and women can work together unless they're being shot at, in which case they'd screw like rabbits. That's a ridiculous premise. I HAVE been shot at in my job and the last thing I was thinking about was sex.

What if these sex crazed male soldiers have to rescue a woman somewhere? Is she guaranteed to get gang raped because these soldiers can't handle sexual feelings?

You can't have it both ways. Either we have well trained military that's got plenty of discipline, or we've got a bunch of frat boys. Which is it?

Arroe

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._re_mi_ea/iraq

thought this was interesting and pertained to the topic. women killed on the frontlines today in Iraq.

CMH

This is a ridiculous collection of posts by a bunch of ignorant non-military do-gooders.

filtherton

I dare you to try and elaborate.

tecoyah

We have commited to cleaning up this board. We would very much like the help of all who frequent politics in doing so. We have no intention of playing favorites in any way and will use a very simple formula to accomplish corrective actions in here from this point on, these steps are as follows:

If you make a statement that seems to staff as inflamatory, we will Remind you of what civility is.....in Yellow

We ask that others indulge in self control and refrain from rising to the bait, as it can take time to notice these things

If you outright insult, or degrade the person of another member, we will stop you from doing so again for a period of time, and tell EVERYONE exactly why and for how long.....in orange

If anyone goes beyond this....in any way, they will never have the opportunity to do so again.....Period

You see red....things have become very bad

We only hope these extreme measures can be temporary, and allow some of the immaturity to leech out of this board. If not.....our ranks are going to thin quite a bit. If these rules seem harsh or "Fascist" to you.....

Deal With It

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Marvelous Marv

That's a very common, but wildly inaccurate, viewpoint of the military.

A more accurate summation would be that you can't pump up soldiers to the point that they will charge point-blank into enemy fire, and then expect them to amuse themselves by extending their pinkies at tea parties after the shooting stops.