Zone1 Does anyone think we need to keep the current military model of lowering physical performance standards for women?

It makes the claim of the rule false.

I didn't derail anything. I corrected your error, so we can have an honest discussion.
No, I never said all, I said “pretty much”… which would make my claim true. Look at you… You don’t even read words because you’re so triggered here.

Nice try again, but not.
 
In one post You’re begging for soldiers and the next you say this?

Doesn’t seem like you have a position, and you did indeed just make it up

I heard CNN is hiring, you’d be great
You have no answer. If you eliminate 10% - 20% of the eligible pool how are you making that up? Without women, the military would not be able to function. So how are you going to replace them?
 
You have no answer. If you eliminate 10% - 20% of the eligible pool how are you making that up? Without women, the military would not be able to function. So how are you going to replace them?
How would it “not be able to function”? You just made that up

Meanwhile, There are plenty of ways to incentivize upping numbers, the first one is announcing a rejection of all the woke policies, which polling says is some of why people aren’t joining, or why they are leaving
 
How would it “not be able to function”? You just made that up
Fair enough. I guess losing 20% of your talent pool is not a big deal.

Meanwhile, There are plenty of ways to incentivize upping numbers, the first one is announcing a rejection of all the woke policies, which polling says is some of why people aren’t joining, or why they are leaving
We'll see if that works out for you. I am thinking nope.
 
You have no answer. If you eliminate 10% - 20% of the eligible pool how are you making that up? Without women, the military would not be able to function. So how are you going to replace them?
He wants to kick out gay soldiers too.
 
Currently, for pretty much all run, carry, push-up, swim, etc tests, women aren’t held to the same standard as men.

Pete Hegseth said he wants to make it equal for all. I say touché. Does anyone on here actually back the leftist woke demand for unequal standards to get more women into the military?
Someone needs to dust the missiles and tanks :)

No matter if it's military or fire service or public/private sector job, standards should never be lowered. The right person for the job should always be hired.
 
Currently, for pretty much all run, carry, push-up, swim, etc tests, women aren’t held to the same standard as men.

Pete Hegseth said he wants to make it equal for all. I say touché. Does anyone on here actually back the leftist woke demand for unequal standards to get more women into the military?
When my oldest son went in about 25 years ago, Chemical Weapons Branch, it being a Combat Support MOS meant women could join also. Even then the Army had separate physical standards for both sexes; different type and number of push-ups, chin-ups, weight lifting, etc.. Point being that most women don't have muscle and upper body strength like men, so realistic expectations applied.

The real factor to apply is that the Combat Arms: Infantry, Armor, Artillery should remain male only. Aside from the physical strength needs of those jobs there also is the morale factor where it's bad enough to see your fellow guys mangled by combat weaponry, but to see fellow females also in such condition could be very bad for morale.

Also, in modern mechanized warfare, battle lines often are fluid and a supposed "Rear Area" could suddenly be focus of close in combat. Means even cooks, supply clerks mechanics, and truck drivers, etc. might need to dig a foxhole and be able to shoot a rifle. For the most part, females should ideally be assigned tasks that would keep them 20, better yet 30 miles behind the line of battle/contact.

We're talking most Army and Marines here. There's room for a bit more flex in some Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard jobs/MOS.

Either way, physical, mental, psychological standards should not be reduced to try and get numbers recruited. If there aren't enough to meet quotas, will just have to adjust for the shortfall. Troops need to be able to huck their ruck, use their weapons efficiently, march 20-30 miles a day, move fairly quick through rough terrain, dig a quick foxhole, drag a buddy by his harness out of a fire zone, and a lot of other very physically demanding tasks.

Of course, if USA is invaded, we might have to make adjustments down a bit to fill urgent needs.
 
Its been what four years? If they haven't gotten a job in four years we don't want them.
They may want to finish their career track that they had started with the military. If someone was dropped at the 12 years level, they may want to get back in and finish the minimum 8 needed for their 20 and retirement benefits. Not to mention it was a waste to lose the trained and experienced talent.
 
You have no answer. If you eliminate 10% - 20% of the eligible pool how are you making that up? Without women, the military would not be able to function. So how are you going to replace them?
I think the issue is in regard to jobs/MOS that are combat arms related. Plenty of support and service "rear area" jobs that females can fill.
 
I think the issue is
Is this Your family.
If so, big Ups.


Screenshot 2025-01-16 at 11.05.24 PM.webp
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom