originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: chuck258
Firstly, stop with the assumptions and the damn insults. You are destroying the rest of your good arguments.
but you have zero idea what you are talking about when it comes to military standards.
It's easy for Liberals like yourselves
So just like you don't think men should have any say in abortion simply because they are not women
You know nothing about me and yet you let loose with this crap. I could retaliate but I will refrain.
Many of the responses here, from former serving military, mirror the thinking at the top military level.
How about you all step back and look at it from the point of the military's continued development of specialists.
I would not agree with sending females out from a forward fire base on a long patrol, unless they have proven themselves capable of carrying around
the necessary kit.
But by the same token, that very same forward fire base needs a defense team to repel hostiles if they are stupid enough to attack. 100 women could
do that job as well as 100 men. They can man (women or womanize?) the machine guns, the mortars and fill the prepared rifleman (riflewoman?)
For every 100 women involved in securing the base, you have released 100 men to go out on patrol.
The real issue here is that the military have always been male dominated and only recently have women been moving in. In the navy, women eventually
started to occupy positions and a women can push a 'fire' button just as well as a man.
If you sat back and thought about it, you can design a military based on both sexes.
These same arguments that litter this thread have been used by the Police, Navy, Airforce and Firemen. All have eventually allowed women in and they
all function as well as they did without them.
Hey guess what? Women already do all the stuuf you just said anyway. That's why women who are not grunts get the same training that men who are not
grunts get. This is where your lack of understanding of the military starts to show. Shooting a gun does not make you an Infantry Marine or Soldier.
No, what makes an Infantry an Infantry is the stuff they do as an occupation (going on long patrols, setting up Patrol Bases, capturing objectives
(while on foot), holding those field objectives and repelling attacks, etc.) and conversely the training they recieve). That is what is at issue
here, and by the looks of your post, you didn't see that I do support a tightly controlled and watched integration of women. Once again, it's the
standards that are the biggest issue. You don't need to show that you can hump miles on end with 120 pounds of gear in the midday heat and then still
pull watch at night time to defend a base, or gun a truck or post repel an attack on a FOB or on a big supply convoy. However that is what grunts have
to do, and even that is outside of what some men can do. However a much much larger percent of men can do it than women. As I said, there are
extraordinary cases of women who could do it just like me or hell, even better, and if they choose to be infantry, the door should be open for them to
try. However again, in this politically correct world with Liberals in our government, as good as they are at inching # in they will not be happy with
this, because they are not interested in equal opportunity, but equal outcome. That is why even I am hesitant, because if we were to do what I
personally think we should (that is, open the door to females, but maintain the standards), within five years, there are going to be calls to even out
the infantry ranks with females to reflect their percentage as a whole in that specific branch, and that will the nail in SOMEONES COFFIN because
people will die, be it the woman who gets into the infantry without being able to cut it, or a patrol that falls behind because a woman couldn't keep
up with 120 pounds on her back this ensuring they are late to their objective, ambushed etc. Who will answer for that? You? Are you willing to suffer
the co sequences of your actions and beliefs when someone gets killed in the name of political correctness?
As for your comment on women in the air force, firefighters and cops.......I'm just not gonna do the work for you because you are to scared to look at
counter arguments to your own bias belief. You probably buried your head in the sand when it came to that female firefighter that was literally
allowed to pass despite being orders less than the standards every male firefighter in her class had to pass. I suppose if I was incapacitated in a
fire I wouldn't care who came into to try to save me, though I have to say it would be extremely unfortunate if she were to die in a fire rescuing me
because she couldn't lift the support beam, or worse yet if other firefighters had to be diverted from their tasks to save her and me because she
couldn't save me herself, that's a huge debacle. Maybe I shouldn't mention the pile of cases of female guards who have been sexually assaulted in male
prisons, again, I suppose male guards could be too, but I don't k ow, something tells me women are probably targetted several factors more often......
Because they are women. Let's not get started on patrol officers, if you are on the whole "police shouldn't be shooting people" train, I don't know
how you could support just any female becoming an average patrol officer. Fun fact, when it comes down to a 150 pound female vs a 150 pound male, 9
times out of 10 most people would put the money on the male winning the struggle, but that's none of my business........ As for women in the air
force..... I have already stated my arguments, and they are universal across the branches, but again it shows (and I don't mean this condenscendingly)
your ignorance about the military. There are already female fighter pilots, have been for decades, they have female mps, just like every other branch
has female mps, I don't see the argument you are trying to make here, because the air force does t have infantry air men. They have security forces,
that patrol on air bases more often than not in armored vehicles, but they don't hump out tens of miles with 3/4 again their body weight like soldiers
Edit: Also, I find it quite ironic you are sitting here telling me "you can't say that, you don't know me" right after you literally accused dozens if
not more High Ranking military officers of conspiring to create standards with the goal of excluding woman from certain roles because of misogyny. You
don't know them. I think it's hilarious you think officers would donate decades or more of their lives just to exclude women. So get off your high
edit on 13-9-2015 by chuck258 because: (no reason given)