US Military to open all combat jobs to women by next year according US SecDef - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49237318]In the case of the firefighter, the female firefighter FAILED the test and was still accepted. Are you implying man and women are different and that you can apply the advantages they have to different jobs? YOU'RE INSANE![/QUOTE] So because we have no proof at all that the military will be harmed by letting women into combat arms we are just going to bring up random/made up scenarios about Swedish military trainingand some firefighter, somewhere?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237332]My aunt is a captain in the Army and one of the strongest, most capable people I know. It is, however, a fact that, due to societal norms, women are not typically as physically capable as men, and certainly not as common in labor-oriented environments such as the military. Not that women are inherently less capable for the fact that they are women, but that our society has heavily enforced gender roles - which, thankfully, have been dissolving for a while. However, this country still tends to misunderstand what equality is really about, resulting in counterproductive "solutions" like affirmative action and other biases that allow people who don't really know what they're doing to land jobs they aren't exactly qualified for on the basis that they're an under-represented minority. Therefore there is a valid concern that women may therefore be held to lower standards for the same tasks.[/QUOTE] I 100% agree - the "difference between men and women" is almost [i]solely[/i] due to societal norms. This is a massive step in the right direction to further dismantling those norms and allowing both men and women to explore jobs and opportunities typically reserved for the other sex. I understand the concern, but I think it's unrealistic. Sure, there may be a political agenda behind it, but the idea that women [i]want[/i] lower standards is insulting, not liberating. It's definitively anti-feminist. Tossing out the laws that say "you have to have a dick to do this job we don't care if you can pass the tests" does nothing but open the [i]opportunity[/i] for women to succeed in those roles. The more that do, the less stigmatized it is by society, and the more those traditional gender roles break down.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237332]My aunt is a captain in the Army and one of the strongest, most capable people I know. It is, however, a fact that, due to societal norms, women are not typically as physically capable as men, and certainly not as common in labor-oriented environments such as the military. Not that women are inherently less capable for the fact that they are women, but that our society has heavily enforced gender roles - which, thankfully, have been dissolving for a while. However, this country still tends to misunderstand what equality is really about, resulting in counterproductive "solutions" like affirmative action and other biases that allow people who don't really know what they're doing to land jobs they aren't exactly qualified for on the basis that they're an under-represented minority. Therefore there is a valid concern that women may therefore be held to lower standards for the same tasks in order to pad out the numbers and say "look, we're equal!"[/QUOTE] Ok. But this isn't happening.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237332]My aunt is a captain in the Army and one of the strongest, most capable people I know. It is, however, a fact that, due to societal norms, women are not typically as physically capable as men, and certainly not as common in labor-oriented environments such as the military. Not that women are inherently less capable for the fact that they are women, but that our society has heavily enforced gender roles - which, thankfully, have been dissolving for a while. [/QUOTE] Except women generally being physically less capable has nothing to do with societal norms. Men gain muscle much faster than women with the same workout routines thanks to increased natural testosterone. The societal norms and gender roles actually formed around this. Men are stronger so they get the role of more physically demanding tasks. Get your facts straight or don't state them as facts please. It reflects poorly on feminists to spout lies.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49237369]I 100% agree - the "difference between men and women" is almost [i]solely[/i] due to societal norms. This is a massive step in the right direction to further dismantling those norms and allowing both men and women to explore jobs and opportunities typically reserved for the other sex. I understand the concern, but I think it's unrealistic. Sure, there may be a political agenda behind it, but the idea that women [i]want[/i] lower standards is insulting, not liberating. It's definitively anti-feminist. Tossing out the laws that say "you have to have a dick to do this job we don't care if you can pass the tests" does nothing but open the [i]opportunity[/i] for women to succeed in those roles. The more that do, the less stigmatized it is by society, and the more those traditional gender roles break down.[/QUOTE] It's not that women want to be held to lower standards or that I'm saying that any amount of them do, it's that out of touch people responsible for setting up the standards may well hold them to lower standards to be seen as progressive and equal. I hope that they don't, and allow for true equity in the military, allowing those women who earn their place to truly earn it.

That's great to hear but here's the one reason why they stopped women on the front lines in the first place was RAPE. This is going to end badly.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49237290]You're making the assumption that the tests will be easier for women - give me a citation that the US military is planning to make the tests easier on women and I'll concede, but right now you're operating on assumptions based on a country with a tiny military on the other side of the Atlantic.[/QUOTE] They have before though, as with the Seals. Also, the Sweden example mentioned in the thread.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49237397]Except women generally being physically less capable has nothing to do with societal norms. Men gain muscle much faster than women with the same workout routines thanks to increased natural testosterone. The societal norms and gender roles actually formed around this. Men are stronger so they get the role of more physically demanding tasks. Get your facts straight or don't state them as facts please. It reflects poorly on feminists to spout lies.[/QUOTE] Men and women are equally capable of achieving the same physical feats. There are biological factors that, in general, affect their progress, but they have the same final capacity for physicality as men. Those biological factors don't explain why capable women are discouraged from achieving what they can - that's a social factor.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49237313]i still believe that women in certain roles could perform better than men, and vice versa[/QUOTE] I agree, in certain roles some prevail while others don't.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49237403]They have before though, as with the Seals. Also, the Sweden example mentioned in the thread.[/QUOTE] But the Sweden one doesn't happen here. All these threads are the same: a bunch of people who don't understand how the military works bringing up irrelevant at best, fabrication at worst scenarios to try to predict something that hasn't been implemented. Nothing is going to get changed because women already meet the standards to do these jobs. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237425]Men and women are equally capable of achieving the same physical feats. There are biological factors that, in general, affect their progress, but they have the same final capacity for physicality as men. Those biological factors don't explain why capable women are discouraged from achieving what they can - that's a social factor.[/QUOTE] There is nothing that prevents a woman from rucking 20 miles or loading a sabot round in a tank.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49237438] Nothing is going to get changed because women already meet the standards to do these jobs.[/QUOTE] You can call it a slippery slope but its happened before. The concern is justified. I really hope they keep the standards the same because a woman that meets the qualifications should be able to serve in combat roles.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237425]Men and women are equally capable of achieving the same physical feats. There are biological factors that, in general, affect their progress, but they have the same final capacity for physicality as men.[/QUOTE] If that's the case, why are sports divided by gender? Because for women to achieve that final capacity, they'd need to live in the gym. Achieving final capacity is hard as is, it's even harder if you're a woman. Our bodies work different, the chemistry is different and thus the road to that final result are a lot different. The reason there's a lot less women in physical jobs is because no sane woman will put in so much effort for so little gain (I mean come on, who wants to work most physical jobs).

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237425]Men and women are equally capable of achieving the same physical feats. There are biological factors that, in general, affect their progress, but they have the same final capacity for physicality as men. Those biological factors don't explain why capable women are discouraged from achieving what they can - that's a social factor.[/QUOTE] How come that I never see some buff as fuck women who goes to the gym, who does the exact same routines as we do? Where the lads can achieve noticeable muscle gains and growth within 2 months the women seem to never gain as much?

Will the Selective Service be amended to require both men and women to register?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49237446]You can call it a slippery slope but its happened before. The concern is justified. I really hope they keep the standards the same because a woman that meets the qualifications should be able to serve in combat roles.[/QUOTE] No it's not. It's absolutely not justified.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49237290]You're making the assumption that the tests will be easier for women - give me a citation that the US military is planning to make the tests easier on women and I'll concede, but right now you're operating on assumptions based on a country with a tiny military on the other side of the Atlantic.[/QUOTE] The precedent has already been set. The US army currently has lower physical requirements for women. I'm not sure why we should expect anything different. ([URL]http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft[/URL]) The baseline is that the requirements are going to be different. You're the one making the unfounded assumption that they'll be the same.

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237461]How come that I never see some buff as fuck women who goes to the gym, who does the exact same routines as we do? Where the lads can achieve noticeable muscle gains and growth within 2 months the women seem to never gain as much?[/QUOTE] I guess because social factors discourage women from going to the gym to get buff, like I said??

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237472]I guess because social factors discourage women from going to the gym to get buff, like I said??[/QUOTE] IF you are so worried about social norms, why did you then choose to join up at the first place? "Oh this job requires me to do this and that, but it's frowned upon, but I have to do it to be able to make it, but I won't, because social norms blablabla" That is NOT an asset for any team or squad. There is just a problem waiting to happen.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49237350]So because we have no proof at all that the military will be harmed by letting women into combat arms we are just going to bring up random/made up scenarios about Swedish military trainingand some firefighter, somewhere?[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that in the case of the firefighter, the standards were the same for men and women, but the woman in question still demanded to be accepted. According to .Isak., that wouldn't happen.

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237497]IF you are so worried about social norms, why did you then choose to join up at the first place? "Oh this job requires me to do this and that, but it's frowned upon, but I have to do it to be able to make it, but I won't, because social norms blablabla" That is NOT an asset for any team or squad. There is just a problem waiting to happen.[/QUOTE] :downs:

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237472]I guess because social factors discourage women from going to the gym to get buff, like I said??[/QUOTE] I can't tell if you're serious or trolling now. Do you really not understand how biology in relation to genders in humans work? Here's a hint, no it's not because of patriarchal society lmao.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49237508]I can't tell if you're serious or trolling now. Do you really not understand how biology in relation to genders in humans work? Here's a hint, no it's not because of patriarchal society lmao.[/QUOTE] Sorry, it's a little difficult to take a biotruther using slight average differences in body chemistry to justify his sexism seriously. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] US Military to open all combat roles to blacks by next year according US SecDef "But blacks are inherently inferior to whites, it's scientifically proven..."

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237514]Sorry, it's a little difficult to take a biotruther using slight average differences in body chemistry to justify his sexism seriously. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] US Military to open all combat roles to blacks by next year according US SecDef "But blacks are inherently inferior to whites, it's scientifically proven..."[/QUOTE] I expected you to confirm your trollings by saying biotruth. Thank god, I was worried for a sec there.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49237438]There is nothing that prevents a woman from rucking 20 miles or loading a sabot round in a tank.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing with that. I'm arguing with someone who thinks otherwise. Women bulk up marginally slower but they are not incapable of doing the same things as men and should not be held to lower standards for the sake of numeric equality, even though there is a precedent for this.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237539]I'm not arguing with that. I'm arguing with someone who thinks otherwise. Women bulk up marginally slower but they are not incapable of doing the same things as men.[/QUOTE] Marginally? You are joking right? If not, please show me some credible sources, perferly from people who actually work out or go to the gym more than once a year.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237514]Sorry, it's a little difficult to take a biotruther using slight average differences in body chemistry to justify his sexism seriously. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] US Military to open all combat roles to blacks by next year according US SecDef "But blacks are inherently inferior to whites, it's scientifically proven..."[/QUOTE] Yeah except it's a well documented and 100% accepted scientific fact that men produce more muscle mass than women, which is not even in the same ballpark of theories as "blacks are inferior". If you're going to argue about something at least avoid making a point as stupid as that.

during world war 2, the USSR deployed women on the battlefield. there, they proved to be a very effective fighting force. it is said that many women fought far more fiercely than the men. there were teams of snipers that were extremely deadly and pilot squadrons that would pull of crazy silent bombing runs. as machine gun, artillery, and tank crews they excelled. we also must not underestimate the psychological impact that fighting women may have. the german soldiers were extremely uncomfortable with fighting the women soldiers of russia, did damage to their morale. i can imagine that the effect would be even more profound with our current enemies. men and women are biologically different, and we should treat it as such. men shouldn't necessarily be held to the same standards as women, and women shouldn't to men's. we should work to the natural strengths of each sex. men are naturally stronger than women, and women naturally have better endurance. neither is "better" or "worse" than the other, they're just different. either one can preform any and all tasks required by all roles in the military but i see no reason why we can't work on specialized training regimens for both. if we can exploit the natural differences to make a more effective fighting force i see it as a positive.

[QUOTE=srobins;49237547]Yeah except it's a well documented and 100% accepted scientific fact that men produce more muscle mass than women, which is not even in the same ballpark of theories as "blacks are inferior". If you're going to argue about something at least avoid making a point as stupid as that.[/QUOTE] Literally all I said was I hope they are held to the same standards because women are capable of doing the same things. I didn't say women come out of the womb as ripped as Arnie and get whittled down into twigs by the patriarchy. They are discouraged from doing 'manly' things by an overall societal emphasis on gender roles, regardless of physical capability. Many women are perfectly physically able, as proven by their earned participation in roles previously reserved for men.

[QUOTE=Passing;49237401]That's great to hear but here's the one reason why they stopped women on the front lines in the first place was RAPE. This is going to end badly.[/QUOTE] How about instead of banning women from frontline service because they're victims of a crime, we kick out the perpetrators of that crime on an individual basis? If women start getting raped a bunch, [i]discharge and arrest the people who rape them[/i], don't say "whoops it's too big of a risk sorry women go home!"

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237514]Sorry, it's a little difficult to take a biotruther using slight average differences in body chemistry to justify his sexism seriously. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] US Military to open all combat roles to blacks by next year according US SecDef "But blacks are inherently inferior to whites, it's scientifically proven..."[/QUOTE] It's VERY difficult to take someone that use biotruther unironically serious.