http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/...n-combat/61495/



This could turn into a major fetish!

Great, they're in skivvies. Show me a picture where they are wearing full-battle-rattle including sappi plates.

Seen it done in firefighters' full bunker gear including helmet and Scott air pack. That count?

In fact, show me the picture where the girl is hauling her battle buddy out of the turret hatch while he's passed out/dead weight and tell me you don't need upper body strength. #%&*$# ridiculous.

Sorry, I'm equal rights on most things but gimme a break.

Some of the soldiers you see in videos don't look like they have a lot more upper body strength, certainly not enough to drag a heavily armored buddy in a kevlarplateflakvestbodyarmor out of a snorkelled turret hatch. Some people claim even men need to be two to carry a heavy, fully-equipped buddy. I know it's atrocious but maybe men shouldn't be in the army either.

I agree that the standards should be the same or very close at least, but that also makes the discussion about upper body strength superfluous since it should be a discussion about the standards that are applied, not a comparison of super models to body builders to prove some point.

I'm sure women who want to join the army can train to get the required strength, problem is only if they're not required to get the required strength, since it is, you know, required.

A look at other armies that did and do deploy women in combat roles may also be more useful than arbitrary comparisons.

Some women can, some probably can't.
Would have to say the same for men.
I would give the 'percentages' to the men in a physical contest, but that shouldn't cut out, the women who 'can'.
Just the way it is....IMHO.

If she can 'do' the job, she gets the job, what ever it is.
Same as men.
Don't agree with 'unequal' treatment.
Simple as that, as far as I'm concerned.

I've worked with women who could fight a normal man.
I've worked with women who had the 'courage', of a normal man.
An asset to the Department.
But if 'anyone' can't 'do' the job, they shouldn't have the job.
Simple as that....IMHO.
Just not the way it is, in every case.

For instance, if they took 'carrying an injured man off the battlefield' off the list of qualifications necessary to get the job, just to allow a gender, race, or nationality to pass the 'qualifications'...that's not 'equal'.
That's rigging the game. And someone will pay for it with his life, if it's a life and death 'game'.

Lowering the 'standards', to suit a certain group, is not 'equal'....IMHO.
But then again, I don't do the hiring....so it is, what it is.
We live and die, with the results.

Witnessing the results of those decisions, has a profound effect on your opinion.

Yes. Yes, it does. And there's a lot of men on the street that have no business out there, either. But they're there because they knew someone, or were otherwise politically correct for the time and place. This has zip to do with gender and everything to do with ability. You can't pigeonhole all women any more than you can do the same to all men (and I know you're not doing that here, Murphy-I'm speaking globally).

Lot of folks out there are alive right now because some gal had the guts to charge into a burning building or an armed confrontation. Seen it. And done it. But of course, I wouldn't want to spoil all this righteous anger in this thread with something as insubstantial and inconsequential as personal experience.

By the way, when I was in my 20s you couldn't have paid me extra to be an 11B. Military police was fine by me. They still used us as bootleg cav scouts and that's not what the recruiter lied to me would be the job-I was lured in by the promise of working law enforcement and spent most of my tour in the field. Ah, well. It was fun anyway. And I enjoyed my time hanging out with the 193d but I wouldn't have wanted to do it for a living. Now, that does not mean that my motivated peers ought to be told they can't even go out for the team. I differ with that Marine in the story referenced above as to that. If a woman can make the grade she ought to be allowed to try.

I'm with Murphy on it - anyone should be allowed who can do what needs to be done, but don't change the requirements just to open it up to more people.

I've forgotten the details, but a friend of mine who was in the Navy told me about a physical job on board ship that, pretty much since the beginning of the Navy, had been done by one person. When women were brought on board ships, most couldn't lift whatever needed to be lifted, so the Navy changed the rules to require that it be a 2-person job. Now they have to dedicate more crew to doing a given job, whether it's men or women, because of that rule change. That's one less crew member who could be doing other work.

Yes, there are too many men who are allowed to slide on the requirements as well.

Now if that's due to staffing problems (ie there aren't enough people trying to sign up that meet them), then go ahead and lower the standards for ALL.





The Jedi Master