I don't know how many of you guys heard about this in the news today, but today 4 women filed a suit against the Department of Defense over the rules that exclude women in combat. My college class discussed this issue today and of no consensus was met.  Just wonder how you guys or gals feel about this issue. Should they let the ladies fight? If yes, in what capacity? Heres an article about it incase you missed it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/women-in-combat-defense-de... 

Views: 1295

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Should they let the ladies fight? If yes, in what capacity?

 

Yes. In whatever capacity they are qualified physically and mentally to do so. If a woman passes the same standards for physical fitness, skills and such as a man in a similar role - I see no reason for her sex to be barrier to her service. 

 

With that said, I do not expect the roles, responsibilities and requirements to be modified (or not much anyway) to accommodate. E.g. if the requirement for an infantryman is to march 10 miles with a 50lb pack (hypothetical) - there should not be a separate standard for woman infantry. 

I totally agree with this.

I know of one lady at West Point who's nick name was Rucksack.  It's all you saw when she was running with her kit.  It was the same kit as everyone else.  

If the person can do the job physically and mentally then let them do it.  Be it militarily  fire, police, EMT, CEO, etc.

That's not exactly possible.  Military physical fitness standards don't measure you're full physical abilities... they use a couple of tests that are supposed to be representative of your overall strength and stamina.  I'm not exactly a fitness machine... I go to the gym approximately never... and yet I can do more pushups than a lot of very fit women because I have a male frame.

Women in the military currently don't have to do nearly as many pushups as men do to pass their PT tests, because the number of pushups you can do is irrelevant except as a gauge for your broader fitness level.  A woman who can do as many pushups as I can could probably kick my ass.

It's not so easy to compare men and women that way.

Not to mention one can imagine situations where women's general smaller frames and greater flexibility would be a tactical advantage. There's also issues of brain structure regarding multi-tasking, the ability to learn languages, and likely stuff about sleep deprivation, pain tolerance, etc.

Of course, if the military is going to consider being short and flexible a tactical advantage, that involves a re-thinking of the traditional ideal of uniformity for soldiers. But, again, maybe modern combat suggests we should be open to that.

Tunnel rats.  Snipers. Tankers.  Submariners.

Those aren't Direct Action units though.

It's not a comparison.  It's a base standard everyone begins with.  Minimum requirements are minimum requirements.  There shouldn't be gender norming for requirements.

The standards are different... very, very different.  A man in his 20s (22-26) has to do a minimum of 40 pushups to pass.  A woman the same age has to do 17.  The situp standards, on the other hand, are identical for each gender.

No s hit. I'm saying raise the standards. Gender norming places equality on outcome. Gender neutral places equality on opportunity. Make everyone's minimum standards the same. That way everyone has the same starting line.

If the goal is to ensure that people from each sex are equally physically capable of performing the job, having uniform pushup standards doesn't do that. 

But, telling girls they don't even need to do half as many pushups as men somehow makes them capable of trying out?

That was my point.  It's not so easy to measure men and women the same way.  They're not the same.

So, you think there is some over arching reason a healthy, physically fit female in her 20's is incapable of performing 40 pushups (or in my case 3 pullups) other than she's never been told she must, and therefore never trains for it?

RSS

Latest Activity

Shane replied to Robin Holmström's discussion Tarzan flick as date?
"I used to live where we still had party lines. Not only would I be calling her whole house, but also two or three of her neighbor's houses as well."
11 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Pale Horse's discussion The Nature of Life and Conception in the group The Great Debate
"For what it's worth, God gave us the ability to figure out how to do all kinds of things that are wrong.  That we discovered the ability to do it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't "automatically wrong". To answer the…"
11 minutes ago
Robin Holmström replied to Robin Holmström's discussion Tarzan flick as date?
"I was hoping she did but no. I don't even think it should matter, it's still me asking her out no matter how I do it. Wish I could've known. So there's 0 chance now? Calling her after getting a no through text probably won't…"
1 hour ago
Steve Dallas replied to Pale Horse's discussion The Nature of Life and Conception in the group The Great Debate
"Sounds like you and your dad need to listen to your Johnny Cash singing about his Cadillac My view on the whole thing though is that if God gave us the ability to figure this stuff out, then it can't automatically be wrong. For a discussion…"
1 hour ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion The Nature of Life and Conception in the group The Great Debate
"In that case I share your beliefs and concerns.  As I too would worry about that being, being an empty shell.  I see no way that a truly "artificial being" could possess a soul, and that is truly what worries me more than just…"
1 hour ago
Steve Dallas replied to Robin Holmström's discussion Tarzan flick as date?
"If she doesn't want to answer, she won't. If she wants to talk to you, she will pick up. That takes care of calling or not. Remember, a big chunk of us grew up when you would call the entire house just to speak with her. So calling her…"
1 hour ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion The Nature of Life and Conception in the group The Great Debate
"I mean making life without one or the other, in a lab. I know it is already being done to an extent."
1 hour ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion The Nature of Life and Conception in the group The Great Debate
"You can still start with an egg and a sperm and grow a being in a lab.  Is that what you're considering man made, or because it started as two parts (sperm and egg), is it not man made?  What constitutes "Man Made"…"
1 hour ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service