Should Women be Held to the Same Standards as Men in the Military?

[Publius1787]

With Respect to Combat Jobs, Should Women be Held to the Same Standards as Men in the Military?

Since the topic of military equality has shot into the mainstream I have a few questions. Should Women be Held to the Same Standards as Men in the Military?

Should they be held to the same physical fitness scale? (Both the physical fitness test and the MOS specific test)
Should they be subject to 20 mile ruck marches?
Should they be required to fight males in martial arts training?
Should they be required to carry male soldiers (gear and all) to safety in combat training?
Should they be required to register for selective service?

If so then I say let em try. If not then we are risking lives for a feminist form of political gain.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Should they be held to the same physical fitness scale? (Both the physical fitness test and the MOS specific test)

No. A woman can be in excellent physical shape without the same raw performance as a male in comparable shape. Honestly, the standards for males are not exceptionally challenging anyway. I do feel that the women's standards are already too low as it is, though.

Should they be subject to 20 mile ruck marches?

Male and female soldiers alreaedy have to go through the same marches in basic training, and it should stay that way.

Should they be required to fight males in martial arts training?

They already do, and it should stay that way.

Should they be required to carry male soldiers (gear and all) to safety in combat training?

This is really only important maybe for specific MOS training. The reality is that you're not very likely to ever have to carry another soldier by yourself anyway. If a soldier goes down, he's most likely going to be carried off on a litter.

 

[Publius1787]

Should they be held to the same physical fitness scale? (Both the physical fitness test and the MOS specific test)

No. A woman can be in excellent physical shape without the same raw performance as a male in comparable shape. Honestly, the standards for males are not exceptionally challenging anyway. I do feel that the women's standards are already too low as it is, though.

Should they be subject to 20 mile ruck marches?

Male and female soldiers alreaedy have to go through the same marches in basic training, and it should stay that way.

Should they be required to fight males in martial arts training?

They already do, and it should stay that way.

Should they be required to carry male soldiers (gear and all) to safety in combat training?

This is really only important maybe for specific MOS training. The reality is that you're not very likely to ever have to carry another soldier by yourself anyway. If a soldier goes down, he's most likely going to be carried off on a litter.

Were not talking about physical shape. Combat requires raw performance.

They go through the same marches? Basic training marches do not exceede 12 miles. A line company will not only do 20 miles, but they will complete an obstacle course or complete a simulated movement to contact at the end of it. And all this with more gear than that which was carried in "basic."

Women combat men in martial arts in the military? Having served 8 years in the Marines (where blows [both open hand and fist] are allowed) I have never seen it.

A litter? Forget the litter. I'm speaking of those precious seconds/minutes that you have to get a soldier from the street to the casualty collection point. If you can't pick up or drag a man in full combat gear then you have no business serving with him in combat.

 

[g5000]

I think we should require the bad guys to be nicer and build their fortified positions downhill from our forces to make it easier to attack them so our womenfolk can get their promotions.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yes, but they won't.

 

[Bigfoot]

I think we should require the bad guys to be nicer and build their fortified positions downhill from our forces to make it easier to attack them so our womenfolk can get their promotions.

..and that's pretty much the truth of the matter right there. Combat time = faster promotion.

 

[skye]

YES!! women should be held to the same standards to men... yes they should be exactly like men! EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! If they want to be there put up an shut up.


No law suits after please, women who want to be like men should be like men,.

Period.

 

[g5000]

I think we should require the bad guys to be nicer and build their fortified positions downhill from our forces to make it easier to attack them so our womenfolk can get their promotions.

..and that's pretty much the truth of the matter right there. Combat time = faster promotion.

Our national defense is secondary to women getting equal pay. Only a sexist pig would disagree.

 

[Publius1787]

I think we should require the bad guys to be nicer and build their fortified positions downhill from our forces to make it easier to attack them so our womenfolk can get their promotions.

..and that's pretty much the truth of the matter right there. Combat time = faster promotion.

Our national defense is secondary to women getting equal pay. Only a sexist pig would disagree.

Kinda shows the fallacy of the liberal notion of equality of results.

 

[skye]

but women will never be like men.


Men are stronger!

 

[Bigfoot]

but women will never be like men.


Men are stronger!

And ladies are Hawt!!

 

[Clementine]

With Respect to Combat Jobs, Should Women be Held to the Same Standards as Men in the Military?

Since the topic of military equality has shot into the mainstream I have a few questions. Should Women be Held to the Same Standards as Men in the Military?

Should they be held to the same physical fitness scale? (Both the physical fitness test and the MOS specific test)
Should they be subject to 20 mile ruck marches?
Should they be required to fight males in martial arts training?
Should they be required to carry male soldiers (gear and all) to safety in combat training?
Should they be required to register for selective service?

If so then I say let em try. If not then we are risking lives for a feminist form of political gain.

To be in the military, and especially in combat, a person needs to be physically fit, strong and be able to endure whatever the job entails. If any member is weak, it hurts the mission. It's the qualifications for the job, both physical and mental, that should be considered when determining who is able or not. If they can't perform all the things you listed above, they would be a burden and not an asset. If our military isn't strong, then why bother having one? We can't weaken it just to please a few groups.

Some women are just as strong as men, though it's not the norm. If some women have what it takes and the desire to join the men in combat, so be it. If they can pass the same physical tests as men, then there's not much argument against them fighting alongside the men.

As far as registering for selective service, I'd say no. It would take too long to weed out the women who weren't fit enough to serve or who have children. I don't think they should leave the children and that goes for single parents, as well. With the stats showing so many Americans being overweight, most would be denied anyway.

I don't think the draft will ever come back. As it is, the military is making huge cuts right now and many bases are operating on a shoestring budget.

 

[Publius1787]

With Respect to Combat Jobs, Should Women be Held to the Same Standards as Men in the Military?

Since the topic of military equality has shot into the mainstream I have a few questions. Should Women be Held to the Same Standards as Men in the Military?

Should they be held to the same physical fitness scale? (Both the physical fitness test and the MOS specific test)
Should they be subject to 20 mile ruck marches?
Should they be required to fight males in martial arts training?
Should they be required to carry male soldiers (gear and all) to safety in combat training?
Should they be required to register for selective service?

If so then I say let em try. If not then we are risking lives for a feminist form of political gain.

To be in the military, and especially in combat, a person needs to be physically fit, strong and be able to endure whatever the job entails. If any member is weak, it hurts the mission. It's the qualifications for the job, both physical and mental, that should be considered when determining who is able or not. If they can't perform all the things you listed above, they would be a burden and not an asset. If our military isn't strong, then why bother having one? We can't weaken it just to please a few groups.

Some women are just as strong as men, though it's not the norm. If some women have what it takes and the desire to join the men in combat, so be it. If they can pass the same physical tests as men, then there's not much argument against them fighting alongside the men.

As far as registering for selective service, I'd say no. It would take too long to weed out the women who weren't fit enough to serve or who have children. I don't think they should leave the children and that goes for single parents, as well. With the stats showing so many Americans being overweight, most would be denied anyway.

I don't think the draft will ever come back. As it is, the military is making huge cuts right now and many bases are operating on a shoestring budget.

The funny thing about it all is that if women were to be held to the same physical standards as men, most would barley pass, and thus, their promotion scores would suffer as a result. It would offset any gain they would make in combat experience as the military adds heavy points based upon physical performance and physical fitness score.

 

[AmyNation]

If a woman wants a combat position, and she can qualify, let her have the damn job. Its really not complicated.

 

[AmyNation]

but women will never be like men.


Men are stronger!

I can understand where your worries comes from. American women have more balls than our oversea counterparts.

 

[Publius1787]

If a woman wants a combat position, and she can qualify, let her have the damn job. Its really not complicated.

Qualify by the male standard or female standard? The military lowers the bar for females so what qualification standard is it that you speak of?

 

[AmyNation]

If a job requires a solider be able to lift 200lbs, or trek 20 miles in X amount of time, than thats what the job requires.

 

[skye]

If a woman wants a combat position, and she can qualify, let her have the damn job. Its really not complicated.

Totally agree.

But please no law suits after. No walking on eggshells because you are woman. Take it like a man.

Sure let them.

 

[Connery]

The people qualified for the job regardless of sex should be able to compete for the position. The "job" does not know sex in as much as a skill set and other variables which are necessary for successful performance.

 

[Publius1787]

If a job requires a solider be able to lift 200lbs, or trek 20 miles in X amount of time, than thats what the job requires.

Well, that takes care of 99.9% of female applicants. Of the .1 that can pass, they will no doubt complain that they can't get promoted in a combat MOS because their physical fitness scores (although passing) are lower than that of their male counterparts. So now what? They wanted combat to get promoted but when applied to the same standard they can't get promoted. Funny how that works out.