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

Personally, I know more women who work out than men. Of course, the goal is generally to be attractive, not to be strong. I'm actually amazed how physically weak some women are, even those who work out.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237558]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] No, you "literally" implied that people thinking men and women have different genetic factors influencing muscle mass is akin to the same line of thinking as "black people are inferior to white people", which is stupid.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49237569]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] It's not being raped by your own folks, but by the enemy.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49237557]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] And they were equipped with? A rifle, some rounds, a uniform, a belt, maybe even boots, off you go sister. And now?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49237570]It's VERY difficult to take someone that use biotruther unironically serious.[/QUOTE] When using body chemistry to claim women are inherently and permanently inferior to men, you're a biotruther. That is a disparaging term for someone who uses misrepresented science to justify their prejudices. [QUOTE=srobins;49237577]No, you "literally" implied that people thinking men and women have different genetic factors influencing muscle mass is akin to the same line of thinking as "black people are inferior to white people", which is stupid.[/QUOTE] No, I "literally" acknowledged that differences exist but they are not so vast and insurmountable as to completely disbar women from the military and civilian roles that men usually play if they're capable of meeting the requirements.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49237569]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] Last thing we need is ISIS making rape porn out of our own female soldiers.

I wonder if SOFs are included. Anyhow, as long as they don't lower MOS-specific standards and try to shoehorn women into all jobs then I don't see the problem.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237585]When using body chemistry to claim women are inherently and permanently inferior to men, you're a biotruther. That is a disparaging term for someone who uses misrepresented science to justify their prejudices.[/QUOTE] It's not "body chemistry", it's muscle mass, bone density, difference in hormones, differences in metabolism and so on. Nobody is trying to justify any prejudice, people are just saying that these women should receive no special treatment.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49237574]Personally, I know more women who work out than men. Of course, the goal is generally to be attractive, not to be strong. I'm actually amazing how physically weak some women are, even those who work out.[/QUOTE] This is the crux of it. If women weren't socially pressured to be physically attractive under conventional social ideas of attractiveness, and if super-fit women were viewed as attractive instead of repulsive or intimidating by most people, you'd see a huge change in this. Twenty years ago the ideal was stick-thin cocaine-addict looks for women. Now? It's moved to big asses and squats, which take exercise. If that ideal was [i]physical strength[/i] like it often is for men, the difference between men and women could close much more easily than it seems to. There are biological differences between men and women - I don't know why people are arguing this. But saying that those biological differences mean that [i]all women are incapable of passing those tests[/i] is sexist and wrong. I know women who are a foot taller than me and could probably snap my spine in an instant. In high school I knew a woman who could bench as much as most of the male football players. Should they be banned from frontline military service, as they are right now? Why? What reason could you possibly have to support that idea?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49237613]It's not "body chemistry", it's muscle mass, bone density, difference in hormones, differences in metabolism and so on. Nobody is trying to justify any prejudice, people are just saying that these women should receive no special treatment.[/QUOTE] Which is exactly what I said. itsjuly didn't like the implication that women were capable of meeting the existing standards, so he went off on a string of "omg patriarchy lol" ramblings.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49237581]It's not being raped by your own folks, but by the enemy.[/QUOTE] in the US Military, you have a negligible risk of being raped by a foreign enemy. Being raped by fellow friendly soldiers is the actual fear.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49237597]Last thing we need is ISIS making rape porn out of our own female soldiers.[/QUOTE] Which will happen, believe you me, capturing an american woman who is a fighting soldier would be like the medal of honor for those animals. and the viral demoralisation would increase even more.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49237613]It's not "body chemistry", it's muscle mass, bone density, difference in hormones, differences in metabolism and so on. Nobody is trying to justify any prejudice, people are just saying that these women should receive no special treatment.[/QUOTE] [B][i]Where the fuck are people getting the idea that women will get any preferential or special treatment????[/i][/B] It is not in the article. The government has not said anything about it. It is wild speculation not rooted in reality. Most of my feminist woman friends would be incredibly offended if they said "oh girls you're dainty just carry 10kg less!" It's a complete assumption. Stop perpetrating it as if the US government said "oh yeah we're going to make it super easy for women because equality!"

[QUOTE=Code3Response;49237622]in the US Military, you have a negligible risk of being raped by a foreign enemy. Being raped by fellow friendly soldiers is the actual fear.[/QUOTE] Yes, but you can do something about that and we're talking about why it isn't a thing since the olden days. [QUOTE=.Isak.;49237631][B][i]Where the fuck are people getting the idea that women will get any preferential or special treatment????[/i][/B] It is not in the article. The government has not said anything about it. It is wild speculation not rooted in reality. Most of my feminist woman friends would be incredibly offended if they said "oh girls you're dainty just carry 10kg less!" It's a complete assumption. Stop perpetrating it as if the US government said "oh yeah we're going to make it super easy for women because equality!"[/QUOTE] Because we've seen this in other countries, that exactly the point of bringing up Sweden in the discussion.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49237639]Yes, but you can do something about that and we're talking about why it isn't a thing since the olden days. Because we've seen this in other countries, that exactly the point of bringing up Sweden in the discussion.[/QUOTE] THANK YOU. Atleast you understood.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49237631][B][i]Where the fuck are people getting the idea that women will get any preferential or special treatment????[/i][/B][/QUOTE] You can see that on page 1, if not, I don't think anyone can help you at this point. Two vocal feminists in the thread, both seem to be unable to read.

Hell, in NZ they don't get any kind of special treatment and they're in [i]every single military force in the country[/i] except for the SAS, which has unbelievably strict physical requirements that only the top tiniest percentage of men can qualify. But it's still open for women to try. That's what this is doing - you're all making slippery slope arguments that quotas will start and suddenly our combat efficiency will drop because men are horny animals that can't handle themselves when a woman is nearby. This is stupid.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49237557]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 [/QUOTE] Actually it would be way less profound. It's the US trying to catch up with our enemies who are exploiting 4th generation warfare better than we are.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49237639]Yes, but you can do something about that and we're talking about why it isn't a thing since the olden days.[/QUOTE] The US military is incompetent of investigating sexual assaults

[QUOTE=sgman91;49237470]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] There is an important distinction to be made between the already unequal PT standards and what people in this thread are arguing, that things will become more unequal. It's two different subjects. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Apache249;49237602]I wonder if SOFs are included. Anyhow, as long as they don't lower MOS-specific standards and try to shoehorn women into all jobs then I don't see the problem.[/QUOTE] Which they won't as i already laid out above. Women have been doing tanker work for awhile and literally anyone who can pass MEPS can succeed as an infantryman

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49237643]You can see that on page 1, if not, I don't think anyone can help you at this point. Two vocal feminists in the thread, both seem to be unable to read.[/QUOTE] What post?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;49237622]in the US Military, you have a negligible risk of being raped by a foreign enemy. Being raped by fellow friendly soldiers is the actual fear.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but if you're the kind of piece of shit who would do that, you deserve to get thrown into Leavenworth.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49237714]Yeah, but if you're the kind of piece of shit who would do that, you deserve to get thrown into Leavenworth.[/QUOTE] War changes people. Can fill soldiers with a feeling of no propose, feeling alone, hated, outside of everyone else. Survivors guilt. Anger, depressions. And those problems can evolve, Battlefield fatigue, trauma, stress. Add a woman in that. And a man close to mental breakdown. I Know it sounds wierd and distant for all feminists and other people here, but it is real. And if not so, the enemy will most definitely exploit the captured women in propaganda and demoralization. A family can always survive without a father. But without a Mother you are fucked.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49237687]There is an important distinction to be made between the already unequal PT standards and what people in this thread are arguing, that things will become more unequal. It's two different subjects.[/QUOTE] I just looked through the first page again, and I don't quite see that point being made. People are simply expressing a desire for equal standards. .Isak especially seems to be suggesting that women should and will be held to the same absolute standard. He's so far said: [QUOTE]I don't see why people think that women in combat roles would ever accept being held to lower standards.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The idea that they'll set a different standard isn't even mentioned and doesn't seem realistic in the slightest.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE] Women already are held to a lower physical standard, and that lower standard will most likely continue.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49237653]Actually it would be way less profound. It's the US trying to catch up with our enemies who are exploiting 4th generation warfare better than we are.[/QUOTE] i was referring to those in the middle east although i could be somewhat out of touch there, but you are right. regardless, i still think the same as what I posted

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237758]A family can always survive without a father. But without a Mother you are fucked.[/QUOTE] could you elaborate on this please?

[QUOTE=Cone;49237813]could you elaborate on this please?[/QUOTE] The mother is the caretaker.

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237835]The mother is the caretaker.[/QUOTE] You are a sexist.

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237835]The mother is the caretaker.[/QUOTE] do you have so little trust in the widowers of the United States?

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237835]The mother is the caretaker.[/QUOTE] How's the 1950's