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

[Publius1787]

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.

Infantry requires physical performance well before skill, knowlege, and other variables can be taken into consideration. Without the strength to endure physical hardship all other considerations become moot.

 

[AmyNation]

So women shouldn't be allowed to apply because youre certain that even if they pass the tests they'll probably whine about something else? Classy.

 

[skye]

So women shouldn't be allowed to apply because youre certain that even if they pass the tests they'll probably whine about something else? Classy.

Nooo ..... if they don't whine and put up with it like men do.... they are welcome.

 

[Publius1787]

So women shouldn't be allowed to apply because youre certain that even if they pass the tests they'll probably whine about something else? Classy.

Assuming your replying to me I would remind you that many promotion points are awarded for physical performance. Thus, a woman who is held to the same standard as a man will more often than not fall below the male average, effectively taking away any promotional gain offered by a combat job. I haven't seen too many females run 3 miles in 18-21 minutes or complete 10-20 pull ups. Nor have I seen any complete a 20 mile ruck. If they fall behind in training/testing they will be subject to counseling and denial for promotion. No doubt they will then play the Gender discrimination card. If liberals beleived in performance there would be no such thing as affirmative action.

 

[AmyNation]

I would remind you, that the military isnt just deciding to do this on a whim. Women who have honorably served our military are asking for the same opportunities male soldiers have, they want those jobs. They disagree with your flawed premise that women will hardly ever pass the tests, and that trying will damage their career.

 

[Publius1787]

I would remind you, that the military isnt just deciding to do this on a whim. Women who have honorably served our military are asking for the same opportunities male soldiers have, they want those jobs. They disagree with your flawed premise that women will hardly ever pass the tests, and that trying will damage their career.

Correction, I said that the ones who do meet the physical requirements will be competing for promotion with their higher performing male counterparts, which, will hurt their career and slow their promotions as their promotions will be partly tied to physical performance. A good chunk in fact! It's hard to lead troops when they out score you on the physical fitness test, the combat fitness test, and leave you behind on a 20 mile hike, effectively ensuring negative counselings and unsatisfactory fitness reports. If the choice to go to a combat MOS is driven by the pursuit of advancement in the ranks, for women, it will do just the opposite.

This policy has nothing to do with the opinion of the military by the way. This has White House written all over it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

Sure. Takes lots of muscles to pull that trigger. As long as a woman can perform the fundamental functions of the job, that's all I'm worried about. If she wants to be artillery, then as long as she can pick up the rounds and move them, I don't really care how many push-ups she can do.

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."

I think you missed my point. Women already do the same marches in basic. Anything that may be required in advanced training should operate the same way.

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.

I trained with and against women in the army. I knew more than one female NCO who was certified level 3 combatives. I would not want to fuck with them, I don't care how strong they are or are not.

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.

I'm not sure now if you're just being a chauvinist now, a liar, or what. There are plenty of men of smaller stature in the military who might have difficulty dragging men of larger stature. But in any event, if you really were in the military you would know that the "precious seconds" line is BS.

 

[skye]

If merits and capabilities are the same in men and women... sure.

Why not.


only.... we don't want whingers and criers after, no law suits no shit...if women want to be like men it's cool...but do not complain after

that's all

 

[Publius1787]

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

Sure. Takes lots of muscles to pull that trigger. As long as a woman can perform the fundamental functions of the job, that's all I'm worried about. If she wants to be artillery, then as long as she can pick up the rounds and move them, I don't really care how many push-ups she can do.

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."

I think you missed my point. Women already do the same marches in basic. Anything that may be required in advanced training should operate the same way.

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.

I trained with and against women in the army. I knew more than one female NCO who was certified level 3 combatives. I would not want to fuck with them, I don't care how strong they are or are not.

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.

I'm not sure now if you're just being a chauvinist now, a liar, or what. There are plenty of men of smaller stature in the military who might have difficulty dragging men of larger stature. But in any event, if you really were in the military you would know that the "precious seconds" line is BS.

Anyone who has ever served in a combat role knows that your only pulling the trigger once in a while. The rest is physical endurance. The trigger pull argument is a fallacy that morons bring up to take our minds off of 90% of what combat arms entales. I.e. carrying out the mission.

Good luck finding a woman who can keep up with the men on a 20 mile hump. Nevertheless, once she falls out or falls behind, you had better damn well give her a negative counciling or an adverse fitness report as you would any male.

When a woman gets her teeth knocked out or gets her boobies fondled in martial arts, don't come crying to me.

Some men does not equal most women. And by your lingo I can tell you served in the army which holds its standards as moderate at best, possibly making female service in the infantry a seemingly plausible option. Of course, the first thing you do to a casualty is get him, and yourself, out of harms way dispite whatever wound he may have in combat. Particularly when there is arterial bleeding, blood pressure can drop immeditaly. But I see you have no experience with that. A Pog perhaps? Or did you live out your days in Baghdad while the Marines got the most violent regions? (apply Army/Marine senerio to every conflict from Korea on).

 

[Inthemiddle]

Anyone who has ever served in a combat role knows that your only pulling the trigger once in a while. The rest is physical endurance.

Exactly. A man and a woman can both possess equal endurance, even if measured somewhat differently on their physical fitness tests.

Good luck finding a woman who can keep up with the men on a 20 mile hump.

They can do it on a 15K, why should we expect it to be different at longer distances? In any event, what does it matter? If you were paying attention, I already said that women should be expected to do the same marches as men. So why are you crying?

When a woman gets her teeth knocked out or gets her boobies fondled in martial arts, don't come crying to me.

Why would I? If you're dumb enough to fondle a woman with whom you're engaged in combatives, than you deserve the death she's going to be inflicting upon you while you were busy copping a feel.

Some men does not equal most women. And by your lingo I can tell you served in the army which holds its standards as moderate at best

As yes, the typical USMC snob. Oh yeah, you're just SOOOOOOO cool. Enough of you. If you can't respect your fellow brothers and sisters in arms, then get the fuck out. Our military does not need prima donnas like you.

Of course, the first thing you do to a casualty is get him, and yourself, out of harms way dispite whatever wound he may have in combat.

Now I know you're full of shit. No, the first thing to do is to return fire and gain fire superiority. Sorry bub, you've run into a combat medic here. I happen to know just a thing or two. You return fire and attempt to gain fire superiority. If the casualty is conscious you try to get him to return fire also and/or tell him to move to cover.

Particularly when there is arterial bleeding, blood pressure can drop immeditaly. But I see you have no experience with that.

Which is why moving a casualty just for the sake of moving him is pointless. Assuming that he's still breathing in the first place, the first thing to do is to stop the bleeding. By the time you've finished moving him, he could have bled out already.

 

[skye]

Men are stronger than women.


Period.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

January 24, 2013

Staff Sgt. Stacy Pearsall​

"As Sergeant Pearsall tells the story, her vehicle came under intense fire that day in 2007, near the city of Baquba. The male soldiers in her carrier had already dashed out to join the fight, so she jumped onto the machine gun and began returning fire.

Outside a soldier lay unconscious. Sergeant Pearsall opened the rear door and crawled to the man, who was 6-foot-2 and more than 200 pounds, twice her weight. From behind him, she clasped him in a bear hug and dragged him toward the vehicle. She fell once, then again. Somehow, she hauled him into the armored safety of the carrier.

After tearing off his protective vest, she realized his carotid artery had been torn by shrapnel. As blood spurted all over, she closed her eyes, stuck her fingers into his neck and squeezed. He screamed, and she thanked the heavens. He was still kicking.

What happened next seemed almost cinematic. Emerging from a purplish haze outside, a medic jumped into the carrier and set his kit beside her. “Are you a medic?” he asked.

Heck no, Sergeant Pearsall replied. “I’m the photographer.”

 

[Politico]

Yes.

 

[Publius1787]

Anyone who has ever served in a combat role knows that your only pulling the trigger once in a while. The rest is physical endurance.

Exactly. A man and a woman can both possess equal endurance, even if measured somewhat differently on their physical fitness tests.

Good luck finding a woman who can keep up with the men on a 20 mile hump.

They can do it on a 15K, why should we expect it to be different at longer distances? In any event, what does it matter? If you were paying attention, I already said that women should be expected to do the same marches as men. So why are you crying?



Why would I? If you're dumb enough to fondle a woman with whom you're engaged in combatives, than you deserve the death she's going to be inflicting upon you while you were busy copping a feel.



As yes, the typical USMC snob. Oh yeah, you're just SOOOOOOO cool. Enough of you. If you can't respect your fellow brothers and sisters in arms, then get the fuck out. Our military does not need prima donnas like you.

Of course, the first thing you do to a casualty is get him, and yourself, out of harms way dispite whatever wound he may have in combat.

Now I know you're full of shit. No, the first thing to do is to return fire and gain fire superiority. Sorry bub, you've run into a combat medic here. I happen to know just a thing or two. You return fire and attempt to gain fire superiority. If the casualty is conscious you try to get him to return fire also and/or tell him to move to cover.

Particularly when there is arterial bleeding, blood pressure can drop immeditaly. But I see you have no experience with that.

Which is why moving a casualty just for the sake of moving him is pointless. Assuming that he's still breathing in the first place, the first thing to do is to stop the bleeding. By the time you've finished moving him, he could have bled out already.

Obviously a combat medic who allows soldiers to bleed to death so as long as he feels threatened by the combat environment. Then again, if the Army was worth it's wight in combat effectiveness then it would be they, and not the Marines, who are given the most dangerous areas of operations. Face it, your country doesent trust your service to take on the most challenging tasks of combat operations and adding women to the mix will only deteriorate Army combat effectiveness even further as they are more likely to serve among the low standards of the Army infantry as opposed the more competent and higher standards of the Marine Corps riflemen. Of course, I do respect the Army; they played a pivotal role in guarding our bases so that we can run legitamet combat operations. Thank you 1st and 2nd ID!

 

[Publius1787]

January 24, 2013

Staff Sgt. Stacy Pearsall​

"As Sergeant Pearsall tells the story, her vehicle came under intense fire that day in 2007, near the city of Baquba. The male soldiers in her carrier had already dashed out to join the fight, so she jumped onto the machine gun and began returning fire.

Outside a soldier lay unconscious. Sergeant Pearsall opened the rear door and crawled to the man, who was 6-foot-2 and more than 200 pounds, twice her weight. From behind him, she clasped him in a bear hug and dragged him toward the vehicle. She fell once, then again. Somehow, she hauled him into the armored safety of the carrier.

After tearing off his protective vest, she realized his carotid artery had been torn by shrapnel. As blood spurted all over, she closed her eyes, stuck her fingers into his neck and squeezed. He screamed, and she thanked the heavens. He was still kicking.

What happened next seemed almost cinematic. Emerging from a purplish haze outside, a medic jumped into the carrier and set his kit beside her. “Are you a medic?” he asked.

Heck no, Sergeant Pearsall replied. “I’m the photographer.”

Lol
Valor awards for Jessica D. Lynch | Military Times Hall of Valor

 

[Pheonixops]

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.

Yes, when it's the Combat Arms and Spec Ops pipeline. No when it's for support and logistical related MOS's

 

[Againsheila]

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.

All the same standards except one...I don't think they should have to pee standing up....

 

[Antares]

The EXACT same standards.

 

[Antares]

GOOD for her.

January 24, 2013

Staff Sgt. Stacy Pearsall​

"As Sergeant Pearsall tells the story, her vehicle came under intense fire that day in 2007, near the city of Baquba. The male soldiers in her carrier had already dashed out to join the fight, so she jumped onto the machine gun and began returning fire.

Outside a soldier lay unconscious. Sergeant Pearsall opened the rear door and crawled to the man, who was 6-foot-2 and more than 200 pounds, twice her weight. From behind him, she clasped him in a bear hug and dragged him toward the vehicle. She fell once, then again. Somehow, she hauled him into the armored safety of the carrier.

After tearing off his protective vest, she realized his carotid artery had been torn by shrapnel. As blood spurted all over, she closed her eyes, stuck her fingers into his neck and squeezed. He screamed, and she thanked the heavens. He was still kicking.

What happened next seemed almost cinematic. Emerging from a purplish haze outside, a medic jumped into the carrier and set his kit beside her. “Are you a medic?” he asked.

Heck no, Sergeant Pearsall replied. “I’m the photographer.”

Lol
Valor awards for Jessica D. Lynch | Military Times Hall of Valor

 

[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.

Yes, when it's the Combat Arms and Spec Ops pipeline. No when it's for support and logistical related MOS's

So they get their combat arms check in the box for the sake of promotion and then conduct a lateral move into a less demanding MOS? No, do it across the board or don't do it at all. If the liberal notion that "sense women are getting attacked in support roles they should be able to serve in combat roles" holds true, then so should it the other way around. By your method women will only need to hold them selves to standard for a short time for promotion purposes and when they figure out that they are falling behind their male infantry peers they can just deploy once and enjoy the lax standards of other MOS's.