- 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: 14th amendment and women/trans in combat roles
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:12 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:12 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The issue is whether a woman should be automatically disqualified from combat.
To clarify the issue is women in combat arms. Women already see combat.
The mission of combat arms is to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver. That's a different animal than defending an ambush. And we should be very clear about which we're talking about.
This post was edited on 8/27/17 at 5:14 pm
0
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:13 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
It is the issue. We discriminate based on certain desirable and undesirable traits.
Just being female is not an undesirable trait.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:14 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The issue is whether a woman should be automatically disqualified from combat. Simply being female is not reason enough. If she meets the standards, she should serve.
Yes. As long as they meet the same standards that males have to meet.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:16 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Why is that funny to you? It's human anatomy. At 45 the average person cannot build new muscles naturally. At 65 our physiology begins to naturally decline and at 85 our mental faculties begin to naturally erode, on average.
If our bodies begin to decline at 65 then why don't we allow someone at age 50 to join?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:17 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Laughing at the assertion that they are the most elite military in the world is hardly shitting on them.
Okay. It's just that I'm kind of biased.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:17 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Just being female is not an undesirable trait.
Sure it is. They possess traits that make a force less lethal.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:18 pm to Kentucker
quote:
What's so controversial about that?
Have you served? I remember being in the field for a month, and we had a supply unit close by that had females that had to be convoyed back to the rear every few days to go take care of their "female cleaning" for lack of a better term right now. I remember very well how the rest of us looked at the females when they came back the next day refreshed / smelling like bars of soap ect while we're sitting there tired af with our nuts sticking to our legs. Trust me, in the infantry we all suffer together. Not being in that group due to special privileges makes you an outsider. Dont want that.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:18 pm to BamaFan365
quote:
Yes. As long as they meet the same standards that males have to meet.
Absolutely, without exception.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:19 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Absolutely, without exception.
Do you believe this will ever happen?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:20 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Sure it is. They possess traits that make a force less lethal.
Not all of them.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:20 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Just being female is not an undesirable trait.
That isn't an absolute. There are many situations where being a woman is an undesirable trait, particularly in team environments.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:23 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Not all of them.
Yes. Every single one of them. It's not PC, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
Give this thread a read.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:24 pm to dbuchanon
Yes. It goes without saying that every soldier should be treated the same. That there is a discrepancy based upon gender is as bad as the desire to exclude women from the military based upon their gender. It's an issue that the military must address if there is ever to be a general acceptance of women in the military.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:25 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Do you believe this will ever happen?
Never.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:25 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Not all of them.
That's where it becomes a question of efficiency. When you continually fill slots with candidates who are not as likely to succeed, you wind up with fewer qualified soldiers in the active force. The only way to maintain current levels is to massively ramp up recruiting and initial entry training. That's not going to be cheap.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:27 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
There are many situations where being a woman is an undesirable trait, particularly in team environments.
This x100. I weigh 205 lbs, with my full kit on I'm pushing 250-260 easily. If I was in a mixed gender unit do you think a female would be able to drag me out or fireman carry me out safely while under fire?
The standards are so skewed right now as it is, females yet to have met the same standards as their male counterparts. If you want a comparison look no further than the Marine Corps' Infantry Officer Course. Not a single female has yet to make it past the 5th week.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:28 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Yes. Every single one of them. It's not PC, but that doesn't mean it isn't true
I can only say that I respect your opinion even though it's counter to my own.
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:37 pm to Kentucker
I understand your sentiment but to implement this policy, one of four things has to happen. Make the standard the same and watch as combat arms slowly dwindle in number, allow a lower standard for females, lower the standards for everyone, or massively increase female recruiting and training. Tell me if I'm missing one.
This post was edited on 8/27/17 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:38 pm to Devil_doge
I remember when talk of the CFT started. I was excited for something better than the PFT to weed people out before indoc. That obviously didn't happen.
First time I took it, they were very clear about finding someone your size for a buddy. How the frick is that an accurate assessment of anyone's combat fitness?
First time I took it, they were very clear about finding someone your size for a buddy. How the frick is that an accurate assessment of anyone's combat fitness?
Posted on 8/27/17 at 5:38 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Not all of them.
Well, if someone in peak physical condition wants to join but is convicted of multiple felonies, they're not getting in either.
Page 5 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News