- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DoD Secretary opens all military jobs to women
Posted on 12/3/15 at 1:50 pm to Tigeralum2008
Posted on 12/3/15 at 1:50 pm to Tigeralum2008
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/5/25 at 2:07 pm
0
Posted on 12/3/15 at 1:51 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
It's not about being PC. It's about allowing someone to have the same opportunities to serve our country as those of other races, religions, and gender.
No, it's fricking not. It's about having the most lethal and best fighting force that you can possibly attain. That is the only goal. Your opportunities and rights go right out the window when you sign the dotted line.
This post was edited on 12/3/15 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:04 pm to NYNolaguy1
Glad I am retired. I feel bad for the Infantrymen presently serving who have to deal with this. People who think this is good obviously never served in the Infantry and deployed.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:13 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
It's about allowing someone to have the same opportunities to serve our country as those of other races, religions, and gender.
What about people who have disabilities? When I was a teen, I was told "no" by four branches of the military because I have epilepsy. I was otherwise more than fit for any duty. Couldn't the military have found a job for me, outside of combat, where I could have served my country in some way, and earned benefits to attend college, like all the other servicemen? They told me no.
And they were right. I now know that every member of the military should meet the standards of combat, and those who don't, are a liability. SOLDIER is the #1 job of every member of the military. Not accountant. Not photojournalist. Not data entry clerk. Even as a person who has suffered only one seizure in the last 24 years, I am unqualified to be a soldier. Because my next one might get someone killed.
My physical fitness rating, my ASVAB score, my desire to serve are all sufficient. But the weakest part of me disqualifies me as a whole. Though it hurt me personally to be told no, I understood, and I still do. I don't understand people who can't grasp this simple concept.
The door to combat should be closed to all who do not qualify for the job. Regardless of gender, race, sex, or disability. The non-military work environment is not the same as the combat environment. Different rules need to exist for both.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:13 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
quote:
It's not about being PC. It's about allowing someone to have the same opportunities to serve our country as those of other races, religions, and gender.
No, it's fricking not. It's about having the most lethal and best fighting force that you can possibly attain. That is the only goal. Your opportunities and rights go right out the window when you sign the dotted line.
Both of you missed the fact that I have stated time and again about meeting the same standards. I am not for lowering standards for the sake of increasing diversity.
If you believe our current standards provide us with "the most lethal and best fighting force that you can attain", then why can't women who met those same criteria join the fray?
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:17 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
You obviously have never met a female Marine... They can be be just as hardcore as their male counterparts
Well that explains the 0% success rate for the 30 females who've gone to IOC I guess.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:25 pm to Tigeralum2008
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/5/25 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:28 pm to NYNolaguy1
I still can't believe that our secretary of defense first name is Ashton.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:28 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
then why can't women who met those same criteria join the fray?
I've already said why. I've researched this topic quite a bit. Not to mention my own 15 years of service in the infantry. Facts show that women are more prone to injury and more susceptible to PTSD.
Boys and girls of fighting age also tend to frick a lot. So there will be a breakdown in discipline and morale when there are jealousies or when there is a sense of favoritism to females from male superiors or males from female superiors if they are suspected of fricking or being attracted to one another. This already happens every day in non combat units but it's swept under the rug and frankly, being disciplined and having high unit morale just isn't that important to a transportation or administrative or medical unit. At least not to the degree it is to a combat arms unit. Discipline and morale are one of the most important factors when gauging the effectiveness of an infantry unit. I don't expect anyone who hasn't been around one to understand what I'm talking about but it's true.
And before anyone calls me archaic or sexist for stating these facts. The human race just simply hasn't evolved past the basic instincts of men and women wanting to frick each other. Some will say "I go to work everyday and manage to not frick my female colleagues or sexually harass them." Well for one, you go to work everyday for about 8 hours and then go home. You don't work with them all day, the go home to the same barracks and live with them and the also hang our with them on the weekends. And you certainly don't deploy for months on end to the other side of the world in harsh and stressful conditions with them. Our military ranks aren't filled with monks. Secondly, combat in its nature is the lost primal experience, aside from maybe childbirth, that a person can go through. Modern ideals of fairness and equality simply do not apply.
So while it may make you feel better to say "Hey, if the can meet the standards then why not?" It is a simplistic view of the issue that shows you don't understand combat.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:30 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
frick IT! I'M READY! I'LL FOLLOW YOU TO THE RIVER STYX!
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:41 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Both of you missed the fact that I have stated time and again about meeting the same standards. I am not for lowering standards for the sake of increasing diversity.
If you believe our current standards provide us with "the most lethal and best fighting force that you can attain", then why can't women who met those same criteria join the fray?
Because it's not just about standards. It's been repeatedly thrown at you in this thread, but you continue to ignore it from people who have actually been there and done that.
Cohesion and morale are vital in front line combat units in ways that are impossible to understand unless you've been there. Throwing a 20 year old woman in the middle of that throws a massive wrench in it. It is unavoidable and was an epidemic with deployed mixed sex units in the GWOT. Female soldiers selling their bodies, getting pregnant, fricking their superiors and subordinates, on, and on, and on. That sort of stuff would break front line units.
Do you know how many issues mixed-sex units had with this stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you even aware of the USMC study that openly concluded that mixed-sex units were far less effective than all male units? Anyone on here who was deployed could tell you story after story of people not being able to keep it in their pants while deployed. The sort of stuff that damages support units is catastrophic for line units. That doesn't even begin to delve into the pregnancy, hygiene, and fitness issues, but frick everyone with first-hand experience.
Oh, and it would/will take billions to implement. Retro-fitting facilities, policy review, retro-fitting equipment and standards, etc, etc. That stuff takes time and money. All that just to so a few women can "create opportunities".
This post was edited on 12/3/15 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:41 pm to Foch
I read that article earlier when you referenced it. USA Today
You bring up very valid points. I simply feel some of them are not entirely insurmountable. I also question the validity of the rates of injury. It just seems disproportionately high especially given my knowledge of female athletes compared to males in the same sports. Apples to Oranges... I know... How were those numbers obtained? Was the sample size used to determine the % the same?
regarding misapplication of resources, many of the military training commands have high failure rates. Do you consider it a misapplication every time a service member fails?
You bring up very valid points. I simply feel some of them are not entirely insurmountable. I also question the validity of the rates of injury. It just seems disproportionately high especially given my knowledge of female athletes compared to males in the same sports. Apples to Oranges... I know... How were those numbers obtained? Was the sample size used to determine the % the same?
regarding misapplication of resources, many of the military training commands have high failure rates. Do you consider it a misapplication every time a service member fails?
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:42 pm to Tigeralum2008
Nobody wants to be in a platoon of yeast infected gutter sluts with their whining and their bitching and their pumpkin spice lattes. They need to frick off. If they get raped over there I do not feel once ounce of pity if it is from ISIS or their own platoon members. They signed up for it.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:46 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:Just as hardcore hitting their bun under their 1stSgt's desk
They can be be just as hardcore as their male counterparts.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:50 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Cohesion and morale are vital in front line combat units in ways that are impossible to understand unless you've been there. Throwing a 20 year old woman in the middle of that throws a massive wrench in it. It is unavoidable and was an epidemic with deployed mixed sex units in the GWOT. Female soldiers selling their bodies, getting pregnant, fricking their superiors and subordinates, on, and on, and on. That sort of stuff would break front line units.
Do you know how many issues mixed-sex units had with this stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you even aware of the USMC study that openly concluded that mixed-sex units were far less effective than all male units? Anyone on here who was deployed could tell you story after story of people not being able to keep it in their pants while in combat. That doesn't even begin to delve into the pregnancy, hygiene, and fitness issues, but frick everyone with first-hand experience.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to view things from a different perspective. If I was a woman wanting to serve and I was able to meet the standards and prerequisites, I would hate knowing that I was not allowed because I was a girl.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:53 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
If I was a woman wanting to serve and I was able to meet the standards and prerequisites, I would hate knowing that I was not allowed because I was a girl.
Boo fricking hoo
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:55 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Hey you're back!
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:56 pm to LewDawg
Thanks bud. I don't even know why I was banned
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:58 pm to NYNolaguy1
And America falls even deeper down the totem pole.
Posted on 12/3/15 at 2:58 pm to NYNolaguy1
I'd put Rhonda Rousey on the front lines before I'd put any of you that hide behind computer screens all day every day.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News