It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men and women in the military and physical standards

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
OK so let me start by saying I was in the Navy and I was in with both men and women and I had no problem with it.

Let me also say in the new PC culture we have that this isn't an attack on women I would just like to point out a massive inconsistency in thinking. I love women of course.

In the Marines and Army it may be different I don't know.

So my first question is why does the military have physical readiness test standards ton begin with?

The military States that it has the test in order to meet varying physical demands.

But there's a problem ...

Womens requires to perform less than half of the amount of men.

Still having trouble understanding where im going with this?

OK.. How is it possible for men and women to perform the same duties if men have to be twice as strong as women in order to do them? What is the point of having the standard if you really need it in the first place?

If women have the same exact job how can they do that job in combat if they are physically incapable of doing that job?

Do you not see how that doesn't make sense ?

Shouldn't women have to meet the same exact physical requirements as men if they are expected to do the same job?




posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Why have physical requirements for anyone if they're going to go through bootcamp anyways? Have an extended bootcamp for fatties if you have to. If someone wants to serve our country & join the military, I say let them.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SmurfRider

You missed the point.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
A blockage that totally fail we never have this type of stuff during civil war or 1800's. The Gangs on the hand are more than likely be able to serve for the country standards because they are the ones who are actually exercising these days and have the money. While the good Americans are too busy working 24/hr paying off debts(to possibly corrupt cronies), not exercising due to overwork.

Just like the Italian Mob Era(Cold War).
edit on 28-4-2016 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
One reason, like you've stated in the past is due to our sheer difference in ability. We can offset this through diet and exercise, but the men have always been able to carry a heavier burden. Maybe if they consider them more expendable, they are more expendable?

Not my views, of course.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I think you missed mine. My point made your point invalid. You're just something of a misogynist I think.
edit on 28-4-2016 by SmurfRider because: (no reason given)


I see you actually did very briefly address my point in the OP. Why do they have standards & tests to begin with. I think that should be reiterated in your main post because it is a far more valid question than why those standards are lowered for women, which should be obvious.
edit on 28-4-2016 by SmurfRider because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SmurfRider

I'm not a misogynist

If men have to be a specific strength in order to perform their duty ie NO MAN LEFT BEHIND

How can a woman be expected to perform that same duty at half the strength ??

Of course you PC cop out of answering that question



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
If men & women can come out of a Crossfit bender with both looking like The Hulk, then the military can buck up & require serious fitness training to render both genders of equal physical fitness.

There's no excuse, aside from outdated old wives/husbands tales of who can and cannot do what.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

As far as I see it, minimum requirements are just that & they should be different for both sexes for every reason listed in the 17 pages of that Transexual MMA thread (& the few posts fully explaining it in this thread already). minimum To repeat myself, that's what bootcamp is for. What's your real issue here? I don't see the point of this thread even.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SmurfRider

The reason they have physical requirements is so that they can perform specific jobs..

Such as dragging an injured soldier out of a live battlefield

So how can someone half the size and strength of someone accomplish that task?

You don't get it youve probably never served but that's a reality for soldiers.

The same standard should apply across the board.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
If men & women can come out of a Crossfit bender with both looking like The Hulk, then the military can buck up & require serious fitness training to render both genders of equal physical fitness.

There's no excuse, aside from outdated old wives/husbands tales of who can and cannot do what.


Totally agree and thanks for understanding the hypocrasy



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

So an enlisted person gains no strength or endurance whatsoever between signing on & being in combat? man that sucks, here I thought bootcamp was kind of a big deal...

Do you think endorphins wouldn't play any role in that type of situation, big muscles or no?



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SmurfRider

The physical standards in the military should be equal across the board that's the point your not making any sense



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

It's not hypocrisy at all, it's a loosening of rules so that people who want to serve can serve & aren't turned away when they will be attending bootcamp which will make or break them anyways.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: SmurfRider

The physical standards in the military should be equal across the board that's the point your not making any sense


I totally agree, there literally shouldn't be any restrictions. That's what basic fricken training is for.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: SmurfRider

I think this matters far less for certain positions, but combat positions and other areas that require a certain amount of strength and stamina should not let women have lower requirements.

So take a tank crew, where they need physical strength to load the main gun (I think) or special forces that sometimes have to travel extreme distances at extreme speeds carrying a ton of gear. You can't let women have positions like that if they can't meet the same requirements. It's not about gender at that point, it's about physical ability and if you can't perform you shouldn't get a pass because you're a woman.

I don't think the OP has ever exhibited any misogyny, especially not in this thread. This is simple stuff. It's also life and death stuff. If the job requires you be able to do X physical activity in X amount of time, you shouldn't get the job if you can't perform.

If your MOS is sitting behind a computer, sure let women have lower standards because their fitness level isn't really required and being fit for an average woman doesn't require them to be as strong as a fit man. If your MOS is something physical, it's stupid to let women into the position if they are incapable of performing the tasks REQUIRED for that position.

Didn't some SF group or the Marines or someone just have to lower the standards because NO women could pass? They shouldn't do that with combat units. The same standards should apply to everyone. Short guys don't get a pass on the miles they need to be able to cover or the amount of gear they need to hump, why should women? It's not about gender in these situations, it's about specific physical requirements when your job requires physicality. I remember seeing a police officer in Seattle that was so slight even at 12 I thought she was a liability.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Loosening of the rules for the military gets our soldiers killed and maimed the rules were established for a reason it shouldn't be easy for anyone period



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Yes the rangers where they are in heavy combat and have a no soldier left behind policy.

I don't care if women can or can't do it I care about the relaxing of the standards.

I tried out for the SEAL program and it's no joke and you have to be able to buddy toe and drag and carry your shipmate so they don't die.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SmurfRider
a reply to: onequestion

I think you missed mine. My point made your point invalid. You're just something of a misogynist I think.


Are you kidding me? You don't have a point, you have a question. The answer is simple. You need the tests to know if someone has basic physical capacities required for the military. You're going to call him a misogynist for bring up a valid point? That's just stupid.


I see you actually did very briefly address my point in the OP. Why do they have standards & tests to begin with. I think that should be reiterated in your main post because it is a far more valid question than why those standards are lowered for women, which should be obvious.


You really are this dense! Try reading the sentences that follow the question in the OP. Now try to consider the whole point that spans multiple sentences. Yes, I know this requires you to have an attention span longer than 3 seconds. Is it honestly too much to ask of you?

Let's see... pullups... nope, they can't be useful... might as well throw them out for the ladies... lol. I suppose you believe we can all be winners if we really just try.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Thank you domo, that's the type of explanation I was looking for. Now, is OneQuestion referring to special forces requirements of just basic entrance requirements? Because if a woman wants to be special forces, then she can be with discipline & training. Are they letting subpar people into special forces? That would be an issue despite sex imo.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join