Women now on the front lines of battle

Equality means in all aspects. Can't just take the "upside of the deal". Can't say "we want equality for this and that, but, not this other thing."
Women also should need to register for Selective Service as well. Have said this since Carter singed the act in '80. It was inequality in 1980, it is still inequality today and the fact that they don't have to register is "bull cookies".


(and hell must have frozen over when bimmerfan08 and I actually agree about something. I never would have thought him this liberal. )

From what I hear they will not be changing or lowering standards for women. As such, no complaints here. Can we get back to discussing the important things I already brought up?

Originally Posted by Act of God

From what I hear they will not be changing or lowering standards for women. As such, no complaints here. Can we get back to discussing the important things I already brought up?

depends, I think from what I heard/read in some areas, military will be exploring making changes do accommodate more gender neutral physical fitness requirements.

Originally Posted by Act of God

From what I hear they will not be changing or lowering standards for women. As such, no complaints here. Can we get back to discussing the important things I already brought up?

Believe it or not other types of news occur outside of the economic world.



(I agree this is low on the radar of importance, but it's still news of some importance)

Originally Posted by evolved

Believe it or not other types of news occur outside of the economic world.



(I agree this is low on the radar of importance, but it's still news of some importance)

If I had to guess I think it was perceived that a huge gop backlash would occur which could be used to further the war on women narrative

Originally Posted by Act of God

If I had to guess I think it was perceived that a huge gop backlash would occur which could be used to further the war on women narrative

Right now, I doubt that. This issue of female equality and combat roles has been simmering in the military for quite some time.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Equality means in all aspects. Can't just take the "upside of the deal". Can't say "we want equality for this and that, but, not this other thing."
Women also should need to register for Selective Service as well. Have said this since Carter singed the act in '80. It was inequality in 1980, it is still inequality today and the fact that they don't have to register is "bull cookies".


(and hell must have frozen over when bimmerfan08 and I actually agree about something. I never would have thought him this liberal. )

I'm socially liberal. Plus I'm not in favor of a situation that benefits one group over another.

I have zero problems with this. As long as they also get rid of gender differences in the APFT.

You guys are missing the point. It's not 'Women now on the front lines of battle' as the title reads.

It's more like - "Army now stops being hypocritical about who's allowed on paper in the front lines and changes the rule to reflect reality better".

Women have been serving on the front lines for years now, so this is sort of like how they repealed 'don't ask, don't tell'. About time.

The laws put in place in the 1950s doesn't reflect the reality of army gender equality anymore, so they are finally changing it (about time).

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Right now, I doubt that. This issue of female equality and combat roles has been simmering in the military for quite some time.

I have no dog in this fight. If a woman can pass the same tests as a man thers is no logical reason to deny her a position based on the same. If someone can reach X standard it should not matter what color they are, what sex they are, etc.

Again, if they decide there are different standards for women I would assume (but not know) that there could be safety issues. Would you prefer lower standards for black doctors? Women lawyers?

Originally Posted by Act of God

I have no dog in this fight. If a woman can pass the same tests as a man thers is no logical reason to deny her a position based on the same. If someone can reach X standard it should not matter what color they are, what sex they are, etc.

Again, if they decide there are different standards for women I would assume (but not know) that there could be safety issues. Would you prefer lower standards for black doctors? Women lawyers?

Bingo!

Passing standard for an 18 year old male on the APFT: 42 push-ups, 15:54 2 mile run.

18 year old female? 19 push-ups, 18:54 2 mile run.

That's the bare minimum standard to be in the army.

Originally Posted by Act of God

I have no dog in this fight. If a woman can pass the same tests as a man thers is no logical reason to deny her a position based on the same. If someone can reach X standard it should not matter what color they are, what sex they are, etc.

Again, if they decide there are different standards for women I would assume (but not know) that there could be safety issues. Would you prefer lower standards for black doctors? Women lawyers?

Oh I agree with you, a standard is a standard. However, part of the debate is that men are physically better equipped to handle certain exercises than women. That said, I read on the Marine Corps Times that the DOD is allowing the services the time to conduct studies and an analysis to look into gender neutral exercises, something both men and women can do without an unfair advantage towards men. One that comes to mind is pull ups. But I think now the Marines have changed their policy and women Marines who did arm hangs previously are now required to do pull ups - but perhaps not required to do them to the same max/min scale (not sure).

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Bingo!

Passing standard for an 18 year old male on the APFT: 42 push-ups, 15:54 2 mile run.

18 year old female? 19 push-ups, 18:54 2 mile run.

That's the bare minimum standard to be in the army.

This. However I believe in this grand social experiment that when the desired effects aren't immediately received, it will lead to a lowering of standards. Desegregation was brought up earlier in this thread but there is no comparison. This is not the same as allowing blacks to serve, this is denying that there are differences in men and women. There are. Not just in the plumbing department but other aspects of life as well. Men are wired differently. I'm not bashing women, I'm just sayin.

On a personal level, I think it's contemptible that we find it appropriate to send women to fight our wars.

I look forward to watching Ndamukong Suh plow into a woman on the field and kick her in the crotch. Equality for all, right?

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Oh I agree with you, a standard is a standard. However, part of the debate is that men are physically better equipped to handle certain exercises than women. That said, I read on the Marine Corps Times that the DOD is allowing the services the time to conduct studies and an analysis to look into gender neutral exercises, something both men and women can do without an unfair advantage towards men. One that comes to mind is pull ups. But I think now the Marines have changed their policy and women Marines who did arm hangs previously are now required to do pull ups - but perhaps not required to do them to the same max/min scale (not sure).

You've obviously served, so you would know better than me. Would or could a weaker/slower person be a liability or a threat to your safety on the battle field? I'm all for equal opportunity, but I would hate to see people's lives compromised due to an effort to make people feel better.

Originally Posted by JonJon

Be careful what you wish for

lol this

Originally Posted by Act of God

You've obviously served, so you would know better than me. Would or could a weaker/slower person be a liability or a threat to your safety on the battle field? I'm all for equal opportunity, but I would hate to see people's lives compromised due to an effort to make people feel better.

In my opinion, the short answer is yes, but it depends on the op-tempo, environment, and what's going on. Each person is different, male and female, of their physical and mental endurance abilities. Secondly, we don't fight wars like we used to. There is, however, still jobs in the military such as SOF communities and the infantry where physical fitness and mental endurance is needed.

Take for example a fully loaded Marine. I'll use myself. At 6 ft, and 195 lbs, plus another 60 lbs for gear, ammo, weapons, etc, you're looking at 255 lbs +/-. Should I get wounded and can't move, someone, or group of people are going to have to carry me, sometimes over a distance. It would suck more if there was no stretcher or vehicle near by. I've just created a liability b/c I'm wounded, but so are the others who are inept and can't carry me.

Another example that comes to mind is Infantry Officer's Course for the Marines. As a graduate of that school, it's no joke. The Marine Corps did a pilot program by admitting a few select females into that school, all supposedly volunteers and in good shape. They were expected to pass the same standards as their male counterparts. All didn't pass and/or dropped out. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...ry-course?lite

While those few females not passing may not mean anything (small sample size), and there could be in fact females that can pass, males have not passed that school either, and I've seen weak males Marines in my time in.

I'm neutral on the subject, and it's a different military these days. If males and females can pass the standard, great! If not, then perhaps they should look into another occupation.

Originally Posted by mdyaman

In my opinion, the short answer is yes, but it depends on the op-tempo, environment, and what's going on. Each person is different, male and female, of their physical and mental endurance abilities. Secondly, we don't fight wars like we used to. There is, however, still jobs in the military such as SOF communities and the infantry where physical fitness and mental endurance is needed.

Take for example a fully loaded Marine. I'll use myself. At 6 ft, and 195 lbs, plus another 60 lbs for gear, ammo, weapons, etc, you're looking at 255 lbs +/-. Should I get wounded and can't move, someone, or group of people are going to have to carry me, sometimes over a distance. It would suck more if there was no stretcher or vehicle near by. I've just created a liability b/c I'm wounded, but so are the others who are inept and can't carry me.

Another example that comes to mind is Infantry Officer's Course for the Marines. As a graduate of that school, it's no joke. The Marine Corps did a pilot program by admitting a few select females into that school, all supposedly volunteers and in good shape. They were expected to pass the same standards as their male counterparts. All didn't pass and/or dropped out. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...ry-course?lite

While those few females not passing may not mean anything (small sample size), and there could be in fact females that can pass, males have not passed that school either, and I've seen weak males Marines in my time in.

I'm neutral on the subject, and it's a different military these days. If males and females can pass the standard, great! If not, then perhaps they should look into another occupation.

Agrees with this!

You guys would know best

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Bingo!

Passing standard for an 18 year old male on the APFT: 42 push-ups, 15:54 2 mile run.

18 year old female? 19 push-ups, 18:54 2 mile run.

That's the bare minimum standard to be in the army.

NOVA........I always wondered. Is there any legislative act that permits felons to be approved for admission into the military ?

You can be a convicted felon and be admitted into the Army or another branch as long as it is not a 'big one ' like murder or rape or armed robbery.

When you apply you have to go through an approval process that includes
an interview and then your packet gets sent forward for approval from an anonymous board.

What legislation gives the military the right to approve someone for admission into the military and possess multiple weapons and be taught about bombs, demolition and survival techniques when they cannot possess a shotgun or vote in the civilian world ?

I can understand if they had a pardon, but that does not normally happen until you are in your 60s or 70s.

Is there an executive order or congressional approval or ......what allows someone entry and gives the military privleges that don't exist in the civilian world ?

Does this have any bearing on the thread at hand?

And I have no idea, I'm not a recruiter.