- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 11:42 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 12/3/15 at 11:42 pm to NYNolaguy1
This is absolute treason.
Women have no place on the combat field whatsoever. I'm tired of the PC politicians running the pentagon pushing cultural marxism on the finest military in the world.
Women have no place on the combat field whatsoever. I'm tired of the PC politicians running the pentagon pushing cultural marxism on the finest military in the world.
0
Posted on 12/3/15 at 11:43 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
Several women I work with think that the disparity between women's requirements and men's requirements for pushups and the 2-mile is ridiculous.
When I asked the question as to whether or not as a compromise that the min/max rates for women would be 70% of that of men in the same age group, almost all of them thought that was a fairly reasonable compromise.
Using the 17-21 scale.
Current Pushup standards:
Men - 42 (Min), 71 (Max)
Women - 19 (Min), 42 (Max)
A change to 70% would change it to 30 to pass and 50 to max, which is considerably more challenging.
Current 2-mile run standards:
Men - 15:54 (Min), 13:00 (Max)
Women - 18:54 (Min), 15:36 (Max)
This is a bit harder to gauge. To do this, you take what you'd normally have to run to score a 75 and put the min there, then adjust the chart accordingly.
This would make the min time 17:18 and the max time 14:00
When I asked the question as to whether or not as a compromise that the min/max rates for women would be 70% of that of men in the same age group, almost all of them thought that was a fairly reasonable compromise.
Using the 17-21 scale.
Current Pushup standards:
Men - 42 (Min), 71 (Max)
Women - 19 (Min), 42 (Max)
A change to 70% would change it to 30 to pass and 50 to max, which is considerably more challenging.
Current 2-mile run standards:
Men - 15:54 (Min), 13:00 (Max)
Women - 18:54 (Min), 15:36 (Max)
This is a bit harder to gauge. To do this, you take what you'd normally have to run to score a 75 and put the min there, then adjust the chart accordingly.
This would make the min time 17:18 and the max time 14:00
Posted on 12/3/15 at 11:45 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:
I might be OK with this as long as they don't lower the standards
frick that.
Women are not only a liability on the battlefield but they are a liability to the cohesion and unified discipline of a combat unit. Women are a minority in the military already and putting them in combat roles only increases the unacceptable fraternization risk they already are. They are an inefficient source of labor. They have more medical problems than men. They need more resources dedicated to them than what men actually need and that will cost billions more. And they're just plain petty bitches and bring drama as they're always fricking one of the soldiers.
Women in combat roles is absolutely unacceptable to anyone with a brain that knows how a military is supposed to work and how women always ruin it.
This post was edited on 12/3/15 at 11:50 pm
Posted on 12/4/15 at 12:42 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Several women I work with think that the disparity between women's requirements and men's requirements for pushups and the 2-mile is ridiculous.
When I asked the question as to whether or not as a compromise that the min/max rates for women would be 70% of that of men in the same age group, almost all of them thought that was a fairly reasonable compromise.
I'm not saying you're pointing in this direction, but you can't possibly believe that this is healthy for the force, right? That this was driven by anything other than pure political pandering?
People continuously get distracted by the physical requirements here (which are vital, to be fair) and fail to focus on the most critical pieces of this bullcrap, which is on cohesion and unit effectiveness.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 1:20 am to Sentrius
quote:
They need more resources dedicated to them than what men actually need and that will cost billions more
I think you pulled that number out of your arse. We have a bunch of male pussies right now, that have no respect for this country, and will never serve. I have no problem with a woman that wants to serve her country and can meet the requirements.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 4:59 am to AUCE05
This is great, iM putting my application to become a cowboys cheerleader...finally equality across the board
Posted on 12/4/15 at 5:10 am to tiggah1981
How long y'all figure until "the rape culture in the military" becomes a huge liberal talking point. This is market expansion for the SJWs.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 6:27 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
People continuously get distracted by the physical requirements here (which are vital, to be fair) and fail to focus on the most critical pieces of this bullcrap, which is on cohesion and unit effectiveness.
That's what is so frustrating. Females physical limitations are one of the least important issues here. But I can't put up a graph or chart that shows what women do to morale and discipline. Anyone who has ever served know how big of a distraction they are, but people who have never been in a line unit will never understand it. It's not their fault, but they are simply incapable of really understanding the issues.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 7:40 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said. “This means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.”
Which branch will be the first to lower the standards?
Posted on 12/4/15 at 8:10 am to GetCocky11
quote:
first to lower the standards?
Army. Someone already posted the sequence: women will join. Their physical abilities will severely limit their promotion rate. Quotes will be used to force promotion of substandard performance.
This post was edited on 12/4/15 at 8:11 am
Posted on 12/4/15 at 9:12 am to Sentrius
That pretty well covers it. 
Posted on 12/4/15 at 9:22 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
quote: People continuously get distracted by the physical requirements here (which are vital, to be fair) and fail to focus on the most critical pieces of this bullcrap, which is on cohesion and unit effectiveness.
That's what is so frustrating. Females physical limitations are one of the least important issues here. But I can't put up a graph or chart that shows what women do to morale and discipline. Anyone who has ever served know how big of a distraction they are, but people who have never been in a line unit will never understand it. It's not their fault, but they are simply incapable of really understanding the issues.
Exactly.
Ideally, that's why we have the Joint Chiefs, to be that barrier between civilian ignorance (literally, not being mean, meaning lack of understanding) and military matters.
Of course present day, present shitbird POTUS, they're largely PC puppets completely out of touch. (In all fairness this has occurred to some degree pre-BO).
Posted on 12/4/15 at 9:28 am to Havoc
Are women going to have to sign up for Selective Service now?
Posted on 12/4/15 at 9:33 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 12/4/15 at 10:12 am to GeauxxxTigers23
They routinely kick kids home from basic due to them getting caught screwing.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 10:17 am to ByteMe
quote:
I have no problem with a woman that wants to serve her country and can meet the requirements.
Which requirements? The one for male or the ones for female?
Posted on 12/4/15 at 10:21 am to JamalSanders
quote:
They routinely kick kids home from basic due to them getting caught screwing.
I remember during the run up to Desert Storm a lot of our support units were having all sorts of problems related to female solders getting knocked up so they could go home. From what I've heard from guys who were in those units, virtually every female they had, married or not was fricking at least one guy and in some cases many more.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 10:24 am to Havoc
quote:
Exactly.
Ideally, that's why we have the Joint Chiefs, to be that barrier between civilian ignorance (literally, not being mean, meaning lack of understanding) and military matters.
Of course present day, present shitbird POTUS, they're largely PC puppets completely out of touch. (In all fairness this has occurred to some degree pre-BO).
Two things really scare me here
1)That the marines were the only branch to come up with hard data that this would make their force less effective. The commandant then promptly said this was a bad idea. The clown in the White House overruled him. Kudos to the Commandant for sticking up for his Marines.
2)The other branches that didn't get hard data said no problem.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 10:31 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Two things really scare me here
1)That the marines were the only branch to come up with hard data that this would make their force less effective. The commandant then promptly said this was a bad idea. The clown in the White House overruled him. Kudos to the Commandant for sticking up for his Marines.
2)The other branches that didn't get hard data said no problem.
There's a reason the other branches didn't stand up....
He's carried out a purging of the military's officer corps that even Stalin himself would be impressed with.
Basically he's cleaning out officers who don't agree with him politically and replacing them with ones who do.
Posted on 12/4/15 at 10:38 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
1)That the marines were the only branch to come up with hard data that this would make their force less effective. The commandant then promptly said this was a bad idea. The clown in the White House overruled him. Kudos to the Commandant for sticking up for his Marines.
Then Commandant General Joseph Dunford is now the Joint Chief of Staff. During Carter's press conference yesterday he was noticeably absent. When Carter was asked if General Dunford was on board with the decision he dodged the question. Basically admitting that no, the JCS did not agree with the decision
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News