Women in Combat

[Mustafa]

Here is a Blog post from an author and friend of mine. He's a Houston cop, TX National Guardsman, and Former Marine. He's also a pretty damn smart guy...

?Women in combat?: myths and realities | chrishernandezauthor

 

[Maggot]

Good article, something I have considered. The other option I've thought of is to have all female platoons so they are on equal physical and emotional footing with their fellow soldiers. The girls might surprise us.

 

[mission_fail]

My thoughts exactly. Great post.

 

[Ireight]

I was 11B and I always said, an entire squad will be combat ineffective if one female gets hurt.
restated, If one girl got shot, every guy around her wants to protect her, take care of her, get her out. Because men take care of women that's what we do. Therefore its going to ruin everyone around if she gets hurt.

 

[Switchblade]

I like the way SF does it. Set a standard for acceptance to the Combat Arms jobs with reality as the basis of training and testing. If many do not pass, so be it, but DO NOT lower the standard to allow the weak to pass. It's simple, and relatively easy to state that men and women are essentially equal with only 15% of all men being of superior ability physically, and 15% of all women being inferior physically. Side by side, test for test, the middle 70% will be equal in both endurance and short burst ability in TESTING. In mission capability, only the higher of those 70%, about 20% will be able to match the men in mission capability due to size, weight, and strength. If you ask me though, get back in the kitchen and bedroom chick, you ain't a combat troop and never will be as applies to some 45% of women who think they might be able to do the jobs

 

[pawprint2]

I was 11B and I always said, an entire squad will be combat ineffective if one female gets hurt.
restated, If one girl got shot, every guy around her wants to protect her, take care of her, get her out. Because men take care of women that's what we do. Therefore its going to ruin everyone around if she gets hurt.

That is the old "standard", now with the new regs, and the full acceptance of gay service members, not all men will necessarily want to take care of women,in fact some of the females may be just "as wanting" to take care of an injured female as any male....times they are a changing. We can no longer go by what males like and what females like, we'll have to wait and see. There were guys on this board not to long ago, that screamed how they were going to contact the Generals (active duty guys no less) and let them know how screwed up the pres/sec of the Army/and the General staff was for allowing females in Combat Arms, as they thought once hearing from these guys, the entire chain of command would admit to having made a mistake, guess it didn't happen. They of course were Okay with all the other changes that have been made over the last few years-but this one really got to them. I have yet to read their condemnations in the Army Times, go figure.

 

[kraigWY]

Lets talk about reality: I don't really know how it is now, but we went to the field for 30 - 60 days, getting re-supplied ever 5-7 days (maybe). We took showers in the rain or baths in the rivers feeding rice paddies, about 1/3 stripped to bath while 2/3s provided security.

Jungle rot prevented us from wearing undies. Rip-stock nylon wasn't. Nothing to run around weeks at a time with the crotch totally ripped out of your britches. You cross a stream you stripped to pull leaches off each other.

Now ask your self, do you want your daughters or granddaughters in the infantry?

 

[_Windrider_]

What about the physiological event that happens every 28 days? A good K9 can smell that a mile away not to mention the logistical issues. So the first ever female SEAL is in country and starts her special time. Are you gonna stop every 6 hours so she can douche and freshen up?

Look, I'm I'm not trying to be a dick, but there are just certain things that aren't supposed to be equal.

My biggest objections are the gender normalizing that is sure to be present if it is allowed and they better start registering for the selective service as well.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad

 

[George Az]

There are prescriptions available to stop the female period. Ends that arguement. Which we would have to have if I was ever dropped out of some bird on a helo cast for a nice swim. Now in the jungle, we went commando before the use of the word commando. We called it free ballin so I guess there will have to be a new term. It is gonna happen. I am way past my last enlistment. I just cannot comprehend the stress this is going to put on staff - NCO's and the Officers.

Sir, Williams and Smith are at it again..be there fighting or screwin. I think it was easier to deal with fist fights.....

 

[_Windrider_]

There are prescriptions available to stop the female period. Ends that arguement. Which we would have to have if I was ever dropped out of some bird on a helo cast for a nice swim. Now in the jungle, we went commando before the use of the word commando. We called it free ballin so I guess there will have to be a new term. It is gonna happen. I am way past my last enlistment. I just cannot comprehend the stree this is going to put on staff - NCO's and the Officers.

Sir, Williams and Smith are at it again..be the fighting or screwin. I think it was easier to deal with fist fights.....

Yeah until the women's rights activists start protesting. Gloria Allred has the lawsuit already drafted.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad

 

[Bonjourjr]

I agree with what this guy has to say on the matter

SASC Testimony.VOB - YouTube

 

[George Az]

You have a significant point about the lawsuits and EEO issues. The amount of nudity among grunts for a variety of reasons is pretty frequent and usually not pretty. One year outside Ft. Bragg I got tore up by ticks. My swim buddy had to cut and burn and tweeze them off me. I had leeches in Panama, a really bad sand rash in Va beach, a leg burn from fast roping.....among other things. There has got to be a new word for the female grunt sports bra rash - see I am on board!

 

[_Windrider_]

You have a significant point about the lawsuits and EEO issues. The amount of nudity among grunts for a variety of reasons is pretty frequent and usually not pretty. One year outside Ft. Bragg I got tore up by ticks. My swim buddy had to cut and burn and tweeze them off me. I had leeches in Panama, a really bad sand rash in Va beach, a leg burn from fast roping.....among other things. There has got to be a new word for the female grunt sports bra rash - see I am on board!

How about a Brash?


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad

 

[Maggot]

Lets talk about reality: I don't really know how it is now, but we went to the field for 30 - 60 days, getting re-supplied ever 5-7 days (maybe). We took showers in the rain or baths in the rivers feeding rice paddies, about 1/3 stripped to bath while 2/3s provided security.

Jungle rot prevented us from wearing undies. Rip-stock nylon wasn't. Nothing to run around weeks at a time with the crotch totally ripped out of your britches. You cross a stream you stripped to pull leaches off each other.

Now ask your self, do you want your daughters or granddaughters in the infantry?

That's really bullshit, Kraig. Its really not a question of what anyone else wants. I want my pussy soft, white, fluffy and young. What its really about is the same battle we are waging over gun "rights". I say its their "right" to have the opportunity to try. If they fail then tough shit. But they deserve the right to try, just like you do.

 

[_Windrider_]

That's really bullshit, Kraig. Its really not a question of what anyone else wants. I want my pussy soft, white, fluffy and young. What its really about is the same battle we are waging over gun "rights". I say its their "right" to have the opportunity to try. If they fail then tough shit. But they deserve the right to try, just like you do.

As long as the playing field is even. If the men have to do X number of pull-ups, then so do the women. Absolutely no gender normalizing.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad

 

[Alaskaman11]

Lets talk about reality: I don't really know how it is now, but we went to the field for 30 - 60 days, getting re-supplied ever 5-7 days (maybe). We took showers in the rain or baths in the rivers feeding rice paddies, about 1/3 stripped to bath while 2/3s provided security.

Jungle rot prevented us from wearing undies. Rip-stock nylon wasn't. Nothing to run around weeks at a time with the crotch totally ripped out of your britches. You cross a stream you stripped to pull leaches off each other.

Now ask your self, do you want your daughters or granddaughters in the infantry?

I'll answer that! FUCK NO!

 

[Graham]

Some of the guys on Sofrep have been posting about this recently. Bottom line: It's not a vagina-maintenance issue; it's about standards.

The Israeli model, often held to be a stereotype of the successful integration of women in the armed forces, is in fact a failure. But the IDF recently set-up an integrated combat infantry battalion... So, we'll see what happens.

I wonder if, like the Koreans, an all-female combat unit might have some merit?!

 

[Mustafa]

I personally worked with Swedish infantry units with women and didn't see any gender specific problems.

 

[Direct_Fire]

Basing our decision about intergating women into the combat units off of the success fo the European countries is not really an apples to apples thing. Europeans have always been a more "open" culture, which takes away some of the "you can't do that" factor. This means that women and sex are not the forbiden fruit that they are here. I have been to several European countries and it is nothing to see tits on comercials. Our country is ruled by the idea that censorship and the government regulating everything that we see is Ok, which turns women into sacred figures. Don't get me wrong, I love women and everything about them, but telling me I can't fuck a hot chick when I was growing up was like giving me a challenge to do it. This CAN cause men(most men) to want to take care of the women that are around them, because of the way society views men as protectors.

I have no issue with women being in combat as long as they enter under the same standards as the men and they do not effect the mission. We all know that there are only a few women that any of us have ever met that could carry a grown man that was wearing full kit. There are only a few women that any of us have ever met that can carry a Pig or 240B during long missions or even field events. And the same for a 100+lbs ruck. I have nothing against women in combat based off of their periods cause, like stated above, there are medications for that(that most of us guys should be thankfull for cause they keep small humans from calling us "Daddy").

With all of that said...If a woman can perform at the same physical level as the guy to their left and right then I have no issue with it. If they can and perform as such then the guys around them will begin to treat them More as just another Soldier. As a leader of men, 11B men, I can deal with the sex issue among my Soldiers. Cause I know that if a woman can do everything the guys can do, she can take care of herself in that regard. And if it goes past that then you just handle it like you would with 2 men(cause now we have to deal with that).


Dave

 

[McCrazy]

As long as the playing field is even. If the men have to do X number of pull-ups, then so do the women. Absolutely no gender normalizing.

I can guarantee that won't be the case. The military doesn't have the same physical fitness standards for males versus females as it is. A girl can max her PT test and the same performance by me would make me fail.

There are women out there that I have met that could do the job of an infantryman better than many infantrymen I have met, if given the chance. Problem is they are very few and far between and it would be a debacle trying to kick all the incapable females out. We would just get stuck with them so as not to appear sexist and the force would be seriously degraded in capability.

 

[Killer Spade 13]

Don't send a Bob-Cat out to do the job of a Bull-Dozer . . . .

 

[Graham]

I personally worked with Swedish infantry units with women and didn't see any gender specific problems.

But did you see any gender-specific differences?... Does anyone here remember the East German Olympic team? LOL!

 

[Graham]

I think we must draw a disctinction between women in combat and women in SF units. Because women are already in combat by virtue of being in the military. There's no denying it, so we might as well accept it... That, and they have performed no worse than men when fired upon. Lowering SF standards to achieve full integration in direct action roles is another issue entirely. But for me, personally, I like having women around:

 

[Maggot]

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[waveone]

I can guarantee that won't be the case. The military doesn't have the same physical fitness standards for males versus females as it is. A girl can max her PT test and the same performance by me would make me fail.

There are women out there that I have met that could do the job of an infantryman better than many infantrymen I have met, if given the chance. Problem is they are very few and far between and it would be a debacle trying to kick all the incapable females out. We would just get stuck with them so as not to appear sexist and the force would be seriously degraded in capability.

Exactly Right. It is not the case now where our domestic services such as PD and FD's are concerned. The standards are lowered and that in itself creates a problem. From being around this issue as well as being a gym rat, I reject the notion that women can match a man in strength, over all endurance in both physical and emotional standards. While that can now be characterized as chauvinistic, it is not. Women's physicality, physiology and emotional make-up is much different than that of a man. While there are always exceptions, combat in itself violates gender and social mores.

Then we have the inherent social and political issues of mixing gender. It is a problem now and will only become exacerbated when the full integration occurs

 

[rem300wm]

I personally worked with Swedish infantry units with women and didn't see any gender specific problems.

That is because are women are so often...........like our men. Maybe that's why I jumped ship and fell for Italian women. They're not as good at milking a cow or pitching hay bales but stimulate a little more interest after supper.

(Before you get pissed I was just kidding.....mostly).

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

Remember when cursing at recruits was the disdain of the mothers of America ? Early 80's I believe. You can't swear at my little Jonny you might hurt his feelings. Back then the F word was used for every part of the english language I was taught about in school. It was a noun, verb, adjective and where ever it apropriately fit in a sentance. I Know the Marines have not changed due to a nephew of mine that is serving now. I remember a conversation with his mother about the subject back in the late 80's. I told her that if little Jonny can't handle being called a shit bag how would he handle being shot at. I have seen several of his mothers FB posts asking him to stop using the F word so much. Which his reply is usually "F### ma, get over it" . What will the mothers of America be saying when it is little Suzy rotten crotch getting some verbal abuse?
I am with the General on this one. I don't care if they can do it. There is no need for them to be there. If this is a push for equal rights, piss on equal rights, go get them some where else. Front line combat is no place for our women, I don't give a shit what they do in Sweden or any other F'ing place. By God this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and this is how we do it!!! We don't need to be like anyone else on this planet. We are the one everyone loves to hate and ridicule but as soon as their ass is in a sling who do they call? the good ol U.S.of A. Rattle that around in your brain housing. Man up and act like we are exceptional, don't fall in line cuz it's PC.

 

[waveone]

Remember when cursing at recruits was the disdain of the mothers of America ? Early 80's I believe. You can't swear at my little Jonny you might hurt his feelings. Back then the F word was used for every part of the english language I was taught about in school. It was a noun, verb, adjective and where ever it apropriately fit in a sentance. I Know the Marines have not changed due to a nephew of mine that is serving now. I remember a conversation with his mother about the subject back in the late 80's. I told her that if little Jonny can't handle being called a shit bag how would he handle being shot at. I have seen several of his mothers FB posts asking him to stop using the F word so much. Which his reply is usually "F### ma, get over it" . What will the mothers of America be saying when it is little Suzy rotten crotch getting some verbal abuse?
I am with the General on this one. I don't care if they can do it. There is no need for them to be there. If this is a push for equal rights, piss on equal rights, go get them some where else. Front line combat is no place for our women, I don't give a shit what they do in Sweden or any other F'ing place. By God this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and this is how we do it!!! We don't need to be like anyone else on this planet. We are the one everyone loves to hate and ridicule but as soon as their ass is in a sling who do they call? the good ol U.S.of A. Rattle that around in your brain housing. Man up and act like we are exceptional, don't fall in line cuz it's PC.

Again, exactly right. I wasn't aware that the military observed equal rights or the exercise of democracy for that matter. In fact, I've never known either existed in a combat situation.

 

[Unknown]

I think it should be the same for law enforcement, or combat arms. You earn you way in by passing the same requirements as everyone else. There would be no minority (women, race, religion) assistance. Either you are able to pass muster, or you don't get into the unit.

Women could choose if they wanted to deal with all the issues of hygiene in the field, that is a simple education class provided prior to the beginning of the selection process. The class would simply explain what they might have to deal with. If they say they are willing to put up with it, go ahead and try to make it past the selection process. Anyone who passes can get in, and no one who doesn't pass gets in regardless of race, religion, sex, ethnicity, or any factor other than their ability.

 

[pawprint2]

I think it should be the same for law enforcement, or combat arms. You earn you way in by passing the same requirements as everyone else. There would be no minority (women, race, religion) assistance. Either you are able to pass muster, or you don't get into the unit.

Women could choose if they wanted to deal with all the issues of hygiene in the field, that is a simple education class provided prior to the beginning of the selection process. The class would simply explain what they might have to deal with. If they say they are willing to put up with it, go ahead and try to make it past the selection process. Anyone who passes can get in, and no one who doesn't pass gets in regardless of race, religion, sex, ethnicity, or any factor other than their ability.

I'm not sure about the above statement, the military has for decades changed standards for entire groups, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual pref(gay or straight), and sex, now that combat arms is going to allow females a lot of people are screaming, but the other factors being "manipulated" was okay. Or am I reading this to say, no one should be given special treatment or consideration based on any of the above? There are those that would label this attitude as racist, as anyone against affirmative action is generally considered to be a racist - to include the command of all the armed forces.
Honestly, to start complaining about "special treatment" for "special" or "minority" groups now, seems like shutting the barn door after the horse has run off.

 

[Cobracutter]

I was 11B and I always said, an entire squad will be combat ineffective if one female gets hurt.
restated, If one girl got shot, every guy around her wants to protect her, take care of her, get her out. Because men take care of women that's what we do. Therefore its going to ruin everyone around if she gets hurt.

Thats a bunch of bullshit. I hate that tired old line.

Truth is women dont have the strength or the body to be able to handle that life. They arent respected by their male counterparts and will most likley never be as a combat leader. It would DESTORY unit cohesiveness and comradre, and further pussify, an already pussifed military.

As far as I'm concerned, women shouldn't even be in the military. For every one that pulls their own weight, there are 100 slackers, deployment dodgers, dependapodapus, weaklings who cause men to pick up their slack and work even harder. Ive seen everything from fucking squad leaders and extorting them (hey whos career is going to be ruined for fucking someone in your CoC, and E2 or an E6) to pulling bullshit EO and race cards when they are told to just do their fucking jobs.

Want to see a fucked up unit....... Wait till you have women commanders and PL's.

Most combat arms guys cant fathom the bullshit that other units have to put up with. Been there, done both multiple times. You got to have your fucking head examined to want to deal with that bullshit. Combat arms or Civy.

 

[Cobracutter]

I think we must draw a disctinction between women in combat and women in SF units. Because women are already in combat by virtue of being in the military. There's no denying it, so we might as well accept it... That, and they have performed no worse than men when fired upon. Lowering SF standards to achieve full integration in direct action roles is another issue entirely. But for me, personally, I like having women around:

What is combat?

Being occationaly mortared or rocketed on a Fob/LSA?

Being occationaly IED'ed as a truck driver

Spending days out in the field, setting up ambuses, reacting to fire and taking the fight to haji?


Just because your in theater, does not mean your in combat.

Combat means fighting, trying to kill someone or prevent them from killing you by means of lethal force . Unless your doing that, your not in combat.

 

[Graham]

What is combat?

Being occationaly mortared or rocketed on a Fob/LSA?

Being occationaly IED'ed as a truck driver

Spending days out in the field, setting up ambuses, reacting to fire and taking the fight to haji?

Just because your in theater, does not mean your in combat.

Combat means fighting, trying to kill someone or prevent them from killing you by means of lethal force. Unless your doing that, your not in combat.

Like I said, many women have seen in combat by virtue of being in the military. The enemy doesn't fail to shoot at you because they see that you are in a support role. IEDs don't discriminate as to gender either. I know Marines who have been drivers and are now missing limbs. I don't presume to tell them that they have never been in combat. I also know of infantry who never un-assed themselves from their vehicles, but pounded a hillside in response to a few stray AK rounds. They got their boy-scout combat badges. So it appears as if the stupidity of the system is also gender-neutral.

 

[Graham]

Truth is women dont have the strength or the body to be able to handle that life. They arent respected by their male counterparts and will most likley never be as a combat leader. It would DESTORY unit cohesiveness and comradre, and further pussify, an already pussifed military.

As far as I'm concerned, women shouldn't even be in the military.

Save it. The future is already here.

 

[Cobracutter]

Save it. The future is already here.

How many woman could pass Selection or BUDS, much less Army/Marine Infantry Officer Course?

Marines tried this recently. They HAND picked two women who would have the best shot at passing the course. They didn't even make it half way through before they were bounced.


For the one out of maybe 10,000 that theoreticaly could do it, is it worth it to waste the resources and destroy the combat effectiveness of units that have been dominated by males since the begining of time.

This is not the CIA/NSA. We don't need women on the battlefield. The units DO NOT WANT WOMEN on the battlefield (now pieces of ass on the side is a different story). Its nothing but a distraction and nothing would tear a unit apart faster.

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

It is obvious that women have been killed and seriously wounded in support roles and that sucks. Are we ready to amp those numbers up by 10% how about 20% or more? I think most people that are buying the argument that women are all ready in combat are playing checkers and drinking the cool aide. Wake up and smell the coffee. The liberals are playing chess. They are out flanking us with their passafist agenda. Heck last week Sandra Fuck (remember her? the bitch that wants free birth control) has started an activist movement for the acceptance of trans genders into the military. How long before we say " those poor patriots can't serve their country cuz of their sexual behavior"?
I will give you a generous number and say 1 out of 2000 women could pass an infantry course. With that grossly reduced number it means that 30,000 men have lost a chance to serve so we can make 1 squad of females. Does this make sense ? Hell no!

 

[pawprint2]

It is obvious that women have been killed and seriously wounded in support roles and that sucks. Are we ready to amp those numbers up by 10% how about 20% or more? I think most people that are buying the argument that women are all ready in combat are playing checkers and drinking the cool aide. Wake up and smell the coffee. The liberals are playing chess. They are out flanking us with their passafist agenda. Heck last week Sandra Fuck (remember her? the bitch that wants free birth control) has started an activist movement for the acceptance of trans genders into the military. How long before we say " those poor patriots can't serve their country cuz of their sexual behavior"?
I will give you a generous number and say 1 out of 2000 women could pass an infantry course. With that grossly reduced number it means that 30,000 men have lost a chance to serve so we can make 1 squad of females. Does this make sense ? Hell no!

*****NEWS FLASH**** "How long before we say, "those poor patriots can't serve their country cuz of their sexual behavior"?" ANSWER: It's been over a year.

 

[Unknown]

I'm not sure about the above statement, the military has for decades changed standards for entire groups, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual pref(gay or straight), and sex, now that combat arms is going to allow females a lot of people are screaming, but the other factors being "manipulated" was okay. Or am I reading this to say, no one should be given special treatment or consideration based on any of the above? There are those that would label this attitude as racist, as anyone against affirmative action is generally considered to be a racist - to include the command of all the armed forces.
Honestly, to start complaining about "special treatment" for "special" or "minority" groups now, seems like shutting the barn door after the horse has run off.

Many groups just want a fair shot at success, and I think that is reasonable. To give anyone an easier test than others simply is not fair because the test is rigged to be easier for some people. I also think that women or minorities should receive a fair test. I have never believed that making the test harder for minorities was fair.

If anyone thinks this is racist of me, I will happily accept that label,and return to discussing the actual point of my beliefs. Often people throw out the race card in order to distract people and get away from the true topic at hand. hey prefer to argue about the race card than the topic at hand. By accepting the slander of racism everyone can return to the topic at hand.

In this case, the topic at hand is that everyone must complete the same test in the same way in order to qualify, or pass a test. That allows all members of the group to shoulder their "fair share" (to use obama's phrase) of the workload.

If a member of an artillery crew has to be able to lift and move an 80 pound shell X feet, X times in a specified time frame, then every member of the crew should do,that. Allowing anyone onto the team that is unable to complete the same test is simply unfair.

However if the task is at a fire coordination center where finding a certain number of map coordinates in a given time, then weaker people would find an easier time completing the test. Tests should be job specific in order to be truly relevant.

 

[pawprint2]

Your complete lack of understanding regarding Affirmative Action is obvious by your above post. May I suggest you read a little bit about Affirmative Action, prior to making this type of comment, it only demonstrates, publicly, you don't know what you are talking about. Affirmative Action does not make it harder or have a more difficult set of standards for minorities or "special groups" of people, what it does do is make a LESS DIFFICULT set of standards for minorities and "special groups". Those that are opposed to Affirmative Action have been identified as Racist, not by me, but by almost every university (public and private), Local, State and Fed Gov. for years. If you demand, 100% equal testing requirements/admission standards/etc. you are in fact anti-Affirmative Action, hate that for you, but "thems the facts".
Your statement, "In this case, the topic at hand is that everyone must complete the same test in the same way in order to qualify, or pass a test." Is one of the most Anti Affirmative Action Statements one can make. If you are having a hard time understanding Affirmative Action, please do a web search, then spend some time reading the info. I could post 1000's of pages of info on Affirmative Action by just doing a web search, but is this really necessary?

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

PAWPRINT
I am unaware that trans genders are serving in the armed forces. I didn't think that gay and lesbian included trans genders?? Am I wrong ? wouldn't be the first time if I am.

 

[Unknown]

Paw print,
You are correct that I dislike any type of favoritism whether it is called affirmative action, the good old boy network, nepotism, or any other kind of favoritism or unequal treatment. I have no shame for my opinion as I am as entitled to dislike favoritism, or affirmative action as another person is to like it.

If testing has to be adjusted upwards, or downwards in order to make it equal and fair to everyone, I am OK with that. I am not sure whether or not you are in favor of unequal testing standards based on ethnicity, sex, or some other criteria. If you do favor biased testing, that is of course your right, just as I do not favor biased testing.

However, I realize that mine is only one opinion, and in the long run other people than you or I will make the decisions that decide how to set up testing and entry requirements based on factors that many people cannot even comprehend. At least for now, most of the special forces, para-rescue, and similar groups make testing for their units without bias or special consideration.

It remains to be seen if those units implement affirmative action, or some other differential testing system, or the entire military goes the way of the special forces units by making entry requirements the same for all candidates.

It seems to me that having a less difficult set of standards for minorities, or special groups is the flip side of making it more difficult for minorities or special groups. In both cases, someone gets shortchanged.

The "what it does do is make a less difficult set of standards for minorities or special groups" is a quote from paragraph one in your above posting, when referencing what affirmative action does. That is precisely the nature of my dislike for any system that grants favoritism or preferential treatment for one group over another.

 

[pawprint2]

PAWPRINT
I am unaware that trans genders are serving in the armed forces. I didn't think that gay and lesbian included trans genders?? Am I wrong ? wouldn't be the first time if I am.

One, my observation was ref your statement, "those poor patriots can't serve their country cuz of their sexual behavior", get with the times the armed forces are now gay friendly. Two, how do you know what the gay's do off duty? If some of the men like to dress up like females on their own time in gay clubs for example, no reg against it anymore. Based on what I have seen on this board and other places, with active duty military in the gay pride parades, I'm pretty sure that is going on everyday. I had to look up transgender, to be sure I knew what I was talking about, and in fact the transgender thing is strange to say the least, there are those that want to be of the other sex, but don't want to be cut, those that want to be another sex and want to be cut, those that just like dressing up like the other sex, but claim not to like same sex partners, those that like dressing up like the opposite sex and do like same sex partners-I'm sure there is more but that's more than I really wanted to know. So, once again, I'm real sure now that the military is gay friendly, why would they mind if one of there men, like to put on girlie clothes, and make-up and go to drag queen events? Once you open that door, it would get pretty hard to say this is okay, but this isn't etc. Remember, not very long ago the congress of the United Stated, changed the UCMJ, it is no longer a crime to have sex with animals. Yes, they took that out of the UCMJ around a year ago!

 

[pawprint2]

Paw print,
You are correct that I dislike any type of favoritism whether it is called affirmative action, the good old boy network, nepotism, or any other kind of favoritism or unequal treatment. I have no shame for my opinion as I am as entitled to dislike favoritism, or affirmative action as another person is to like it.

If testing has to be adjusted upwards, or downwards in order to make it equal and fair to everyone, I am OK with that. I am not sure whether or not you are in favor of unequal testing standards based on ethnicity, sex, or some other criteria. If you do favor biased testing, that is of course your right, just as I do not favor biased testing.

However, I realize that mine is only one opinion, and in the long run other people than you or I will make the decisions that decide how to set up testing and entry requirements based on factors that many people cannot even comprehend. At least for now, most of the special forces, para-rescue, and similar groups make testing for their units without bias or special consideration.

It remains to be seen if those units implement affirmative action, or some other differential testing system, or the entire military goes the way of the special forces units by making entry requirements the same for all candidates.

It seems to me that having a less difficult set of standards for minorities, or special groups is the flip side of making it more difficult for minorities or special groups. In both cases, someone gets shortchanged.

The "what it does do is make a less difficult set of standards for minorities or special groups" is a quote from paragraph one in your above posting, when referencing what affirmative action does. That is precisely the nature of my dislike for any system that grants favoritism or preferential treatment for one group over another.

Thanks for taking such a strong position, however; your position is directly opposite of the Complete command structure of the U.S. Military, and that of the Civil Rights Act. Any American that actually pays attention to these things, should know this didn't start yesterday, or last week, it seems strange to me, now that Affirmative Action isn't just in 99+% of the Gov. action and policy and law, but now 100%, a few people have suddenly realized with the exception of the mil's Combat Arms, this has been the law for a long long long time. Affirmative action in its application isn't just about equal oppportunity, but about equal Outcome. This is why I believe the females in Combat Arms will be put on the fast track (Drag racing track) to promotion, regardless of their ability, this will in fact make up for the years of "un equal opportunity". This is the very basis of Affirmative Action. Remember, if you were a public figure, and came out against Affirmative action, you would have the label Racist attached to your name, forever more. God forbid, you wanted equal admission standards/requirements at a state funded University. You seem to be confused, you seem to think this is my opinion, that there aren't any laws/rules/regulations/SCOTUSopinions that back up what I am stating. Please, take a couple of minutes and look up Affirmative Action, to include the 1991 Civil rights act. This isn't my opinion, but rather the law of the land.

 

[Unknown]

Paw print,
I respect your opinion, and that of other people with whom I disagree. I have never had a problem with being labeled as politically incorrect. You are courteous enough to not so label me as such, and I appreciate that, even if I do realize that my opinion differs from many people.

I retired from a position requiring my familiarity with equal rights, affirmative action, employee relations law and many other topics over a decade ago. I do not require further study in this area, I simply have a disagreement with many of the commonly accepted underpinnings of affirmative action, regardless of the opinions of other people. I realize and accept that affirmative action has been the law for a very long time. However affirmative action laws are not the only laws that i disagree with, yet I follow them. I do not have to believe in or agree with a law or decision in order for me to abide by it.

I am not confused about whether affirmative action is the law, or your opinion..like I said earlier, it has been the law for a very long time, and I have obeyed that law for a very long time. Obeying a law is very different than agreeing with the law's underlying rationale. I also disagree with many aspects of the patriot act, yet I accept them as law just as I accept affirmative action. I just don't agree with either of them.

It is my belief that whenever a standard is lowered for expediency, the return is often an outcome with lowered standards. If everyone carrying a 60 pound ruck has to wait up for someone who got in the unit even though they could barely carry a 40 pound ruck, the entire unit is slowed down and is less effective.

I dislike discriminating against anyone for any reason other than their ability to complete an assigned task. I believe that the military command structure still uses nothing more than ability in the combat arms special forces groups. I support that kind of outcome based selection. The people simply aren't graduated to fulfill a need for more seals, green berets, rangers, or para- rescue troops. They are graduated bases solely on merit. I have no problem allowing more people the right to try out, but graduating people who,show substandard performance just to fulfill a quota is counter productive to the desired outcome.

It is doubtful that I will be convinced to accept favoritism/special favors or unequal rights any time soon. What many people call equal rights are perceived by many as special rights.

I do accept anyone's right to disagree with me, and I accept that many of my opinions run counter to political correctness and the laws of the land. I will continue to obey the laws of the land, and will continue to hold my belief that special rights are not equal rights.

I really don't care if women, transsexuals, emigrants, or anyone else gets a fast tracked chance for a tryout. As long as anyone trying out has to complete the same test to pass, I would have no problem with things.

 

[Cobracutter]

You two are arguing, yet making the same points.....

Stop arguing and lets get back to bashing women

 

[Unknown]

Cobra cutter,
I like women though..but OK.

 

[roggom]

So this squid comes back from a tour in the sandbox, and he is up for SOQ.

Uniform sharp, ribbons a sea of green and "v", just A-J squared away.

The Chiar of the board asks. "EOD1, you spent the last 18 months overseas clearing ORD, your group took fire many times, also several joint operations, and eight commendations for acts of bravery to include the silver star.

We have on question for you. How do you feel about Women in Combat.

EOD1 does not miss a beat, Snaps too and states "Sir!, Women in combat is a spectacular idea"

The officers all look at each other, with wide smiles, nodding and taking notes.

EOD1 states again, "Women in combat, spectacular idea sir, I think everyone should be issued one."

 

[Victor N TN]

I like the way SF does it. Set a standard for acceptance to the Combat Arms jobs with reality as the basis of training and testing. If many do not pass, so be it, but DO NOT lower the standard to allow the weak to pass. It's simple, and relatively easy to state that men and women are essentially equal with only 15% of all men being of superior ability physically, and 15% of all women being inferior physically. Side by side, test for test, the middle 70% will be equal in both endurance and short burst ability in TESTING. In mission capability, only the higher of those 70%, about 20% will be able to match the men in mission capability due to size, weight, and strength. If you ask me though, get back in the kitchen and bedroom chick, you ain't a combat troop and never will be as applies to some 45% of women who think they might be able to do the jobs

While I have NEVER BEEN in combat, I do agree with Switch. It's only logical.