Yes, exactly. The standards should be uniform, they're not there just for the safety of the individual.

Sarissa Candyangel

Yeah I don't think anyone is suggesting that we simply shove half the jobs to women to "be fair" without expecting them to meet or exceed standards. I also do not like quotas. Unfortunately they often exist to promote fairness and stop the 'good old boys' club. Even when it's subconscious.

I read not long ago that when auditioning musicians (I think for chair positions), women consistently scored lower. When they performed behind screens and were judged purely on musical ability...women scored higher. Why? They constantly had to perform 'better' to be deemed merely average. Panels simply were consistently biased towards men. And yet I'm sure most of them would have insisted they didn't do so intentionally.

Anyway there's aspects of jobs which cannot be compromised, such as the ability to carry so much weight in an emergency (for a firefighter). But as long as we're consistently enforcing that standard for ALL firefighters *and* it's a necessary standard...I'm for it. If it's simply there to bust out most women...no.

But again, there are other countries which allow women in combat, generally through necessity. I'd point to Israel as an example of how it can be done successfully.

_________________

Even more proof that McCain is about 50 years behind the times, and remains sexist.

Would we have to adjust a few rules here and there? Yea, probably, due to the distribution in muscle mass. But it's rather like saying someone with a history of asthma should never be able to serve in combat roles because they are likely to have less stamina. On the whole, yes that it is probably true, but that does not mean a person cannot overcome limitations by working very hard. Oh noze, a minor physical disability, let's change all the standards! For the most part, you can keep those same standards plenty in tact and keep things equal for all.

Same is true with women, and there are plenty of strong women that would be many times more effective than a man on the battlefield(those in incredible shape with a good deal of weight training, etc). Just because there's a sizeable segment of a population of a group of people that wouldn't make the cut doesn't mean we should discriminate against them. Frankly, it only hurts our military.

I don't have a problem with women in the military in jobs that don't require (or have the potential to require) physical strength. It certainly is not sexist to say women have less physical strength than men.

The vast majority of 20 year old women would have a great deal of difficulty dragging a limp 180 pound body, whereas the vast majorty of average 20 year old men could do it with significantly less trouble.

I mean, if people want to make a big deal about it, just have combat readiness tests, etc.

There are other factors that play into it, but I really don't care enough. Let bored academics argue about that crap.

That's the bottom line. Complex problem solved simply = make people take a test that requires you to perform certain tasks. Whoever can't do those tasks, fails. Easy.

So you DO have a problem with women in the military with jobs that would require physical strength? Anyone would agree with the latter paragraph here, that's simple statistics, but the question is whether a woman CAN if given enough fitness, weight training, and physical traits. The fact that some women can do what men can, and more, should be plenty of reason to allow for women in positions that require physical strength.

In short, averages have nothing to do with whether or not a single individual woman is capable of passing the same test of physical strength.

When in combat, there are no "optional" helmets. You WILL wear a kevlar, and you WILL wear body armor. Also, typically the only people who carry a handgun are officers and tankers. Everyone else has a M16 or M4, not to mention the M249 and the M203. The M16, M4, and M249 all use the same ammo, which is much larger and heavier than anything that comes for a handgun. The 203 is a grenade launcher and carrying extra ammo for that is even heavier still.

The point is, as much as I respect your husband for being a police officer in this day and age, you can't compare the equipment that police departments use to a soldiers equipment in daily roles when in combat. There is no comparison.

Does this mean that females should not be in combat roles? No. But they are allowed in combat they should be held to the same standards that males are. And that is never going to happen.

Someone earlier talked about children being shown using AK47's. Just because they can fire it, doesn't make it an effective weapon. The AK47 is a highly inaccurate weapon that if you haven't noticed, it typically only used by 3rd world countries because they can't afford good weapons.

I have this image of you as the wimpy nerd boy in school who tried to act all "girl power" in a desperate attempt to get a little honey. Am I right?

Yes, that's a personal attack and I apologize in advance.

Read my post again. Nevermind, you're slow.
In summary: In the vast majority of situations, women are significantly weaker than men, so why bother? Seriously - who cares? I mean, if a woman wants to pump iron for a couple years so she can qualify to get shot at in combat, fine - let her. I just don't care, and I feel bad for anyone who does care because this is one of those stupid debates that really serve no purpose.

Couldn't these women take all this energy and bake some pies for the boys in arms?

I don't see why I should re-read the post, I was pretty straightforward and met your points straight up with a question, not a statement: DO you have a problem with women in the military having jobs that require physical strength? There was no accusation there, in case you were wondering or were confused =)

However, the implication when you say "I don't have a problem with women in the military in jobs that don't require (or have the potential to require) physical strength" is that there's a differing opinion on your part when faced with the question of whether or not there's a "problem" with women in the military who would perform jobs that require physical strength.

With regard to the questions of "why bother?" and "this is one of those stupid debates", it's a question of equality when someone is able to perform the exact same job, and utter discrimination in that case when you say no because the person in question has no penis. If you're truthful in saying "let them", then that's excellent news, and I'm glad you have "no problem" with that. And whether it's a "small number" of women or not is rather irrelevant, if someone qualifies then they should qualify regardless of sex or other arbitrary whims that have nothing to do with qualification.

The bottom line is that you either want women to have the same opportunities to serve their country as men do, or you don't. That's the question of equality. Just as men have the desire to be on the front lines of their nation's defenses, in the mix of the firefights and being able to sacrifice their lives to protect their fellow comrades, so do some women. They should be able to.

girls aren't strong boys are

It requires strength to lift that stock pot.

Yeah, an' dem colored folks...dem niggers...who cares if dem watermelon eatin' sons-a-bitches can be votin' or anythin'? Is stupid to even be talkin' 'bout it!



Couldn't dem negos be usin' all dat energy dey spendin' protestin' to be pickin' mah cotton fields? Damn coloreds.

Seriously, Orme, that just sounded stupid. I trust you're just joking or something.

Your post sounded pretty stupid as well; even if it was just mocking him.

That was kinda the point, I wasn't trying to write a classic of American literature here.

God, of course the pie thing was a joke. For crying out loud.
Now I'm annoyed because I'm arguing about something that I could care less about. /sigh

To recap... a third time:
Based on pure physicality, some women (very few) have the ability to do the job as well as men. Super. There are people who would argue that there are other reasons they should not be allowed to fight, but I don't care enough to understand those arguments or defend them.

And now that I think about it... maybe the pie comment wasn't a joke.
Implement the strength tests or whatever.
In order to qualify a woman is going to have to strength train or whatever for 1 or more years to qualify for a job that most men could fall of a bus and be ready for.

In all seriousness, couldn't their efforts be directed as something more productive? Spend a year learning a skill that lets them serve in a different capacity in the military. Of course, it's America and we can't say that. So if they want to get shot at, I really, sincerely, truly don't care if they do.

Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out.

You couldn't care less. If you could care less, then you care to some degree, which is not what you mean here.

Sorry, I'm on a crusade to get people to say that right.

I fuck that up all the time verbally myself heh.

_________________

I have been on that one for years. Welcome to the cause.

I just changed the way I say it "I could care less, but not by much"

You could also be saying "I could care less" sarcastically, in which case I would consider your collective crusades ended.

I could care less about the proper way to say it.

Daily military gear is significantly more cumbersome than police gear.

Women's physical requirements for military service are significantly less than men's requirements. For example, a male soldier may be required to perform 42 perfect push-ups in 2 minutes to "just pass" (which is a bad thing), whereas a woman might be required to do 13 push-ups in the same amount of time. (I don't remember the exact numbers)

I think there are many reasons not to allow women in the combat arms, and even to some degree, I think an integrated military in general is not as effective as it could be. It may be different now, but back in the 90's when I was in, women were a constant source of drama and problems. I was in a combat unit, so we had no women in our unit, but we neighbored units that were integrated.

I remember working with women while we railing up our vehicles. They couldn't manipulate the chains or the hardware to secure the vehicles. They mostly just ended up distracting the male soldiers.

I dunno, being egalitarian is great and all, but I'm still not sold on women in the military - mostly due to first hand experience.

_________________

Personally I'm all for women in combat units, provided they are as fully capable and trained as male soldiers, and held to the same standards as their male counterparts.

There will obviously be a higher percentage of women who are not able to meet those expectations. Tough shit. That's what the job calls for, that's the bar you'll have to meet.

Obama has raised 605 million already for his campaign, that is incredible. It really speaks to the amount of commitment he inspires in his followers. Now he is asking everyone for 10 dollars more. I guess we know what his October surprise is going to be, he is going to pay off the national debt!

If you consider that we are approaching the 1 billion mark to run a Presidential campaign things are getting mind boggling.

The amount of money this race is using up is disgusting.

12.5 million per day to spend with what he already has on hand.

Buying the election, hopechangery in action.

yeah-- it must suck that so many people like him .

Yeah, good thing a lot of them are overseas and can use bulk-purchased gift cards to avoid disclosure.

Oh no0ze, the terrorists are going to win!

The kid with the most money wins. That is the way the vast majority of elections are decided.

_________________

And I am so glad it is that way.

I'm generally hate the guy, but this article was pretty good.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78921



The most accurate poll from the last election has the race very close atm.

Bolding mine. The biggest problem, IMO, is rooting out the difference between 'You didn't measure up' and 'We stacked the deck against you'. And to some people, this difference truly isn't obvious. I've known women who complained that they were facing a glass ceiling in their jobs...when in reality it was their own choices that were hurting them.

Then there are also people who play that card intentionally as a way to get ahead.

The former at least I can understand, it's easier to believe that it's something else and not YOU when things aren't going well at your job. Especially if it's a problem that no one is telling you about (which happens quite often). It's easier to see the pattern of 'I'm a woman and they're all bully boys', rather than 'I dress like a whore and no one wants to deal with the walking lawsuit potential and the unprofessional statement my attire makes to every client/head office/human being who comes by'.

The clothing one is one I've seen more than once, and one I've had to address with subordinates more than once. All have thought it profoundly unfair and everyone else's problem (not a smart attitude in the workplace, srsly). All have believed men do not face this problem...and they're wrong. Men do, but usually in another fashion. I've known men who didn't progress because...quite frankly...they smelled bad. Or had horrifically bad breath. Unless you're working alone, it causes problems. And many times people do not want to address it with you because usually you smelly motherfuckers become ultradefensive about it. I don't care if it's a medical problem or what...do something about it. Or don't get into people's personal space.

Most jobs aren't purely about the work that you do, unless you're sitting alone in a room waiting for your code to compile. So if you work with other human beings in any capacity, then there are other aspects which are being judged. I've known people who've kept their jobs despite being almost completely incompetent...because they're likable. And I've seen people who were very very good at their jobs be marked for termination because they're contentious assholes.

All that being said, life and work...isn't fair. Never has been. That's no excuse not to try to make it as fair as possible. That shouldn't ever mean stacking the deck though.

_________________

I was largely addressing the physical requirements. Everything else is manageable, and with clear cut rules that are consistently enforced, shouldn't be a problem.