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

[QUOTE=sgman91;49243728]Are you trying to say that women aren't held to a lower standard or that being at a lower level of physical ability doesn't matter when performing strenuous physical tasks? I know you're trying to be witty, but it kind of seems like a non-sequitur.[/QUOTE] I am absolutely saying that PT standards have nothing to do with the type of tasks a soldier does, including moving casualties.

Everyone deserves the right to die in combat except children

[QUOTE=sgman91;49243628]It's hard for me to believe that. You're going to die unless your squadmate is able to effectively pull or carry you to safety and you don't care whether a person who, on average, is required to preform at a higher physical standard is coming for you. That's just nonsensical.[/QUOTE] Have you served? Maybe you don't get the idea of comradery. If I were serving combat and I was injured, and I knew there was a female Corpsman in my squad, and she came running for me, I would know for a fact that my ass was getting out of there come hell or high water. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Seriously though, I'm 160 lbs of skin and bones. My arms are like wet noodles, if I could move casualties then I guarantee you that females can too.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236734]This is great news and a big step forward. I just hope that they maintain the same standards for women. It's not to exclude anybody, that's just the grade of person needed on the battlefield. Affirmative action is troubling enough when it's not being used to funnel people who aren't up to snuff into life or death situations.[/QUOTE] 'Maintain' We never had it to begin with our physical fitness standards have been different since the dawn of history. It's totally irresponsible. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49244934]Have you served? Maybe you don't get the idea of comradery. If I were serving combat and I was injured, and I knew there was a female Corpsman in my squad, and she came running for me, I would know for a fact that my ass was getting out of there come hell or high water. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Seriously though, I'm 160 lbs of skin and bones. My arms are like wet noodles, if I could move casualties then I guarantee you that females can too.[/QUOTE] This. They teach you how to pick people up who weigh 1.5x your weight in corpsman school. I weigh 210 and a female corpsmen who weighs 125 can pick my ass up and get to running speeds. That doesn't change my viewpoint on physical requirements however. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;49243647]Yeah when someone is dragging me to safety my number one concern is how many situps they can do in 2 minutes. You're the one being nonsensical.[/QUOTE] You don't understand why we do PRT then.

[QUOTE=yodafart9;49244999]'Maintain' We never had it to begin with our physical fitness standards have been different since the dawn of history. It's totally irresponsible. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] This. They teach you how to pick people up who weigh 1.5x your weight in corpsman school. I weigh [B]210 and a female corpsmen who weighs 125 can pick my ass up and get to running speeds.[/B] That doesn't change my viewpoint on physical requirements however. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] You don't understand why we do PRT then.[/QUOTE] Shes strong she can pick up 1.68x her bodyweight

[QUOTE=Code3Response;49237109]Cant wait for people to bitch about this. Oh wait they already are. Its 20-fucking-15, no reason why females shouldn't be given the same opportunities as males.[/QUOTE] Man I wish I could use "It's 2015!" for a response and use nothing else but that. Like hey equal opportunity is great! Except that when 90 military women who went through training for a combat role only 2 passed. Let's not also forget that multiple serving women have spoken out that they are actually okay with not being in a combat role since they know that they'd need help with things that a man can do by himself since men have more upper body strength. That's not sexist that's biology. There's also the risk of women combatants getting capture. I'll let you think on that one though. But hey, it's 2015! I'm glad you know what year it is.

[QUOTE=Antlerp;49245255]Shes strong she can pick up 1.68x her bodyweight[/QUOTE] Haha have you tried to move 215 lbs of dead human weight PLUS a kevlar, flak jacket, SAPI, and whatever else they're carrying?

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49245320]Haha have you tried to move 215 lbs of dead human weight PLUS a kevlar, flak jacket, SAPI, and whatever else they're carrying?[/QUOTE] I couldn't tell if he was sarcastic, but if I could pick up 310 pounds of shit and farmers run away with it I would be happy with myself.

[QUOTE=yodafart9;49244999]This. They teach you how to pick people up who weigh 1.5x your weight in corpsman school. I weigh 210 and a female corpsmen who weighs 125 can pick my ass up and get to running speeds.[/QUOTE] Shit, my sisters can't pick up a 35 kg bag, not to mention carry it down hill (though we are not in the army, just do some farming stuff).

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;49243070]The reason people are concerned is because men are almost always a better physical candidate for any military role than a woman. This is just a simple fact of our biology, men are bigger, stronger, and faster. Most of the time. Now, since women can participate in these same roles, people are afraid that standards will be modified so that they may be part of it. This is a problem.[/QUOTE] Dismissing a female as a fully qualified soldier because they are unable to carry the same amount of equipment is sexist. Females are fully qualified to be soldiers in all roles short of the dick inspection line for egos. Standards are to be modified because of the exact reasons you listed. This isnt new to anyone. [URL="https://www.cooperinstitute.org/law-fire-military/"]Cooper Institute[/URL] has been doing this a long time. There is no problem. The problem is people ranking females second-class to men in the military.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;49245310]There's also the risk of women combatants getting capture. I'll let you think on that one though.[/QUOTE] Because male combatants can't be captured, right?

[QUOTE=Archonos 2;49237123]I support equal opportunity and all but weren't there recent tests in ranger certification that the women were notably less effective?[/QUOTE] Only 2 candidates graduated. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Code3Response;49245882]Dismissing a female as a fully qualified soldier because they are unable to carry the same amount of equipment is sexist. Females are fully qualified to be soldiers in all roles short of the dick inspection line for egos. [/QUOTE] This quote right here disqualifies you so hard from the conversation its not funny. If a soldier cannot carry the necessary equipment without tiring out easily they are a liability because that means the troops have to take breaks more often, they have to move more slowly and that tired soldier is going to be even more shit at aiming. This idea that somehow we can 'modify' standards. Also there's a difference between modifying standards to keep up with increased equipment carryment and reducing it because we want more women. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Also the Cooper Institute has come under heavy fire for women being unable to keep up with their partners in a large percentage of duties.

[QUOTE=Swilly;49246113]This idea that somehow we can 'modify' standards. Also there's a difference between modifying standards to keep up with increased equipment carryment and reducing it because we want more women.[/QUOTE] Which is literally what happened in the marines when half the female recruits couldn't do the 3 pullup minimum. The military's response was to allow them to do flexed-arm hangs instead so that they wouldn't have such a low female retention rate for women already in the service, which means, of course that a huge number of women who were already serving couldn't do this basic physical test as well. "Officials felt there wasn't a medical risk to putting the new standard into effect as planned across the service, but that the risk of losing recruits and hurting retention of women already in the service was unacceptably high, she said." ([URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/marines-female-fitness-plan_n_4533020.html[/URL]) [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Also note that a perfect female score was 8 pullups while men had to do 20 for the same score.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;49245882]Dismissing a female as a fully qualified soldier because they are unable to carry the same amount of equipment is sexist.[/QUOTE] Well, shit thanks for arguing for me. You said it yourself. I am not saying to bar them from these fields. I am saying either they make the existing standards set for men, or find another job. This whole sexist thing is a load of horse shit. If someone can't carry their share, why should they be on the team? Everyone needs to be equally capable as you are only as strong as your weakest link. If women want to work in the field that is male specific then they need to be able to perform the same.

If women can make it in Navy EOD, then I don't see any reason they can't handle Marine/Army infantry.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49243051]I don't see the "biological differences" ya'll are talking about being that big a deal. We're no longer charging into battle swinging axes and marching hundreds in organized rows to engage in day long melees. Physical strength simply doesn't play as big a role in the age of modern combat. Women can still run, hold and fire a rifle, engage in tactical maneuvering, take effective cover, etc, so what's the real limitation here? When it comes to actual modern combat skills, women are not in any way physically disadvantaged.[/QUOTE] I think you've said somewhere that you are working in the military? Haven't you been to base camp? You should know that full standard military equipment is 30-40 kg ontop of your body mass, and add a fuckload of running here and there, possibility of having to carry your teammates etc. It's just not viable for them due to how gaining strength works for women. How many girls do you know that can pull themselves up at least once? How many guys? [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=soulharvester;49246095]Because male combatants can't be captured, right?[/QUOTE] Don't be an idiot. Do you think, for example, Muslim insurgents, who would they prefer to rape? A guy or a gal?

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49247151]I think you've said somewhere that you are working in the military? Haven't you been to base camp? You should know that full standard military equipment is 30-40 kg ontop of your body mass, and add a fuckload of running here and there, possibility of having to carry your teammates etc. It's just not viable for them due to how gaining strength works for women. How many girls do you know that can pull themselves up at least once? How many guys? [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Don't be an idiot. Do you think, for example, Muslim insurgents, who would they prefer to rape? A guy or a gal?[/QUOTE] Yeah, I was in for two years. I've carried the weight. I've done the marches. 25k in full ruck as a basic training requirement. It was difficult. I can also tell you that my MOS had a substantial number of women in it, all of whom also had to complete basic training, and many of whom outperformed the majority of the men by a fair margin during our regular physical fitness tests and training. One of those women beat the shit out of every dude in AIT at unarmed combat training and went on to do MMA cage fighting. One of my drill sergeants was also a woman, and that girl was a fucking PT [I]monster[/I]. I have never seen anybody go at it as hard or as long as she did. None of the other brown hats smoked us half as bad as her, and unlike the others she would actually do the punishments with us. She'd make shit up to punish us for just to laugh at how much we all struggled to keep up with her. Being a woman does not make a person inherently less capable. I mean, even assuming the theoretical maximum level of raw physical strength for a biological woman is lower than a biological man, a woman can sure as shit still get plenty strong enough to meet and exceed the duty requirements, and raw physical strength is the only field in which that would even arguably be an issue. Stamina, speed, dexterity, marksmanship, bravery, etc are on unquestionably equal footing. Also, don't call people idiots. Rude Gus.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49247151]I think you've said somewhere that you are working in the military? Haven't you been to base camp? You should know that full standard military equipment is 30-40 kg ontop of your body mass, and add a fuckload of running here and there, possibility of having to carry your teammates etc. It's just not viable for them due to how gaining strength works for women. How many girls do you know that can pull themselves up at least once? How many guys? [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Don't be an idiot. Do you think, for example, Muslim insurgents, who would they prefer to rape? A guy or a gal?[/QUOTE] the only bad part of a 30-40 kg load is grabbing it off the ground, having it on is like not that bad its more about endurance than strength anybody can carry a person if the situation calls for it, adrenaline lets you do things you shouldn't be able to, like getting shrapnel to the ankle and not even noticing it, or lifting a car male combatants can still get their man parts mutilated

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49247151]Don't be an idiot. Do you think, for example, Muslim insurgents, who would they prefer to rape? A guy or a gal?[/QUOTE] Why should that have any effect on whether or not women get to serve in the forces? Because men are immune to cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of "Muslim insurgents" somehow? Or are you going to continue down the road of demonstrating the theory of male disposability in our culture?

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49247151]I think you've said somewhere that you are working in the military? Haven't you been to base camp? You should know that full standard military equipment is 30-40 kg ontop of your body mass, and add a fuckload of running here and there, possibility of having to carry your teammates etc. It's just not viable for them due to how gaining strength works for women. How many girls do you know that can pull themselves up at least once? How many guys?[/QUOTE] Dude women have been doing this shit for years what do you mean it's "not viable" [QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49247151] Don't be an idiot. Do you think, for example, Muslim insurgents, who would they prefer to rape? A guy or a gal?[/QUOTE] Know whats worse than being raped? Being shot and blown the fuck up.That's the risk you take when you sign on the dotted line and volunteer to be the person that destroys the enemy in close combat.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49247449]Yeah, I was in for two years. I've carried the weight. I've done the marches. 25k in full ruck as a basic training requirement. It was difficult. I can also tell you that my MOS had a substantial number of women in it, all of whom also had to complete basic training, and many of whom outperformed the majority of the men by a fair margin during our regular physical fitness tests and training. One of those women beat the shit out of every dude in AIT at unarmed combat training and went on to do MMA cage fighting. One of my drill sergeants was also a woman, and that girl was a fucking PT [I]monster[/I]. I have never seen anybody go at it as hard or as long as she did. None of the other brown hats smoked us half as bad as her, and unlike the others she would actually do the punishments with us. She'd make shit up to punish us for just to laugh at how much we all struggled to keep up with her. Being a woman does not make a person inherently less capable. I mean, even assuming the theoretical maximum level of raw physical strength for a biological woman is lower than a biological man, a woman can sure as shit still get plenty strong enough to meet and exceed the duty requirements, and raw physical strength is the only field in which that would even arguably be an issue. Stamina, speed, dexterity, marksmanship, bravery, etc are on unquestionably equal footing. Also, don't call people idiots. Rude Gus.[/QUOTE] Hell yeah, dude. One of the females in my BCT company was so good that she would have been maxing on everything even if she were male, and 2nd Platoon's female DS was like a female terminator, she could do hardcore PT all damn day and not give a shit. Yeah, a number of females have trouble physically, but that doesn't mean they all do. Why restrict them all regardless of competence? We'd be missing some top quality soldiers.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49247151]I think you've said somewhere that you are working in the military? Haven't you been to base camp? You should know that full standard military equipment is 30-40 kg ontop of your body mass, and add a fuckload of running here and there, possibility of having to carry your teammates etc. It's just not viable for them due to how gaining strength works for women. How many girls do you know that can pull themselves up at least once? How many guys? [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Don't be an idiot. Do you think, for example, Muslim insurgents, who would they prefer to rape? A guy or a gal?[/QUOTE] Pal, go look up some actual combat footage and what not. War is fucking scary. Getting raped is the last thing on these people's minds.

[QUOTE=yodafart9;49244999]This. They teach you how to pick people up who weigh 1.5x your weight in corpsman school. I weigh 210 and a female corpsmen who weighs 125 can pick my ass up and get to running speeds. That doesn't change my viewpoint on physical requirements however.[/QUOTE]Plus if it came down to it she (or InvaderNouga with his noodle arms) would drag a casualty, and they'd do it all the way to safety come hell or high water. Meeting the current standards would be enough I think, the [I]real problem[/I] is the lardasses who trim down when they need to and are way over the line the rest of the time. I'm more concerned with PFC Fatty McDipshit catching a bullet than I am some little chick who's in a combat MOS, at least if she gets her legs blown off from a half-assed IED she'll be easy to lift. I mean yeah if there was an across-the-board requirement it's likely some women couldn't hack it and would be let go, but I really don't think it would be a lot. Far less than some people are saying, that's for sure. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Cocacoladude;49248533]Pal, go look up some actual combat footage and what not. War is fucking scary. Getting raped is the last thing on these people's minds.[/QUOTE]This, right here. Aside from some ultra fucking rare instances I can't really see any US infantry soldier or marine being in a position to get captured (which is necessary for that rape to occur) unless they're being monumentally stupid. I mean that would require you to essentially go AWOL outside the wire. Who the fuck does that?

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49247151] Don't be an idiot. Do you think, for example, Muslim insurgents, who would they prefer to rape? A guy or a gal?[/QUOTE] Women are being raped every single day - at work, at school, at home. Should we just ban women from everything because of the threat of rape? How's this even a concern? Women already live with an increased threat of being raped so it's not like they're going to join the military thinking that rape is now an impossibility.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49247624]Why should that have any effect on whether or not women get to serve in the forces? Because men are immune to cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of "Muslim insurgents" somehow? Or are you going to continue down the road of demonstrating the theory of male disposability in our culture?[/QUOTE] I was pointing out that women are more disposed to abuse than men if captured, i do not care abouf your post beyond that. [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;49247637]Dude women have been doing this shit for years what do you mean it's "not viable" Know whats worse than being raped? Being shot and blown the fuck up.That's the risk you take when you sign on the dotted line and volunteer to be the person that destroys the enemy in close combat.[/QUOTE] 1) If they can do this, sure, why not. Im just discussing the fact that it is a lot more difficult, not impossible. 2) Look above. @ everyone else who quoted me I do not argue that women in military are impossible. The problem is that it is not really effective compared to recruiting men, this is mainly the reason why military does not usually bother.

[QUOTE=Antlerp;49245255]Shes strong she can pick up 1.68x her bodyweight[/QUOTE] Life of the party over here.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49250781]I was pointing out that women are more disposed to abuse than men if captured, i do not care abouf your post beyond that. [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] 1) If they can do this, sure, why not. Im just discussing the fact that it is a lot more difficult, not impossible. 2) Look above. @ everyone else who quoted me I do not argue that women in military are impossible. The problem is that it is not really effective compared to recruiting men, this is mainly the reason why military does not usually bother.[/QUOTE] ISIS is indiscriminate in who its torture and murder. All "apostates" and "crusaders" deserve pain and death under their philosophy. By ISIS's own definition, an "apostate" is ANY MUSLIM who has not made the hijrah (holy journey to join ISIS's new caliphate) of your own free will. This encompasses all Muslims, including men, women, children, civilians, and even members of other extremist organizations. This is why over 90% of ISIS's victims have been Muslims. This is why we are in a global refugee crisis. "Crusaders" are simply defined as non-Muslims. The source for this is ISIS's propaganda magazine, Dabiq. So, it doesn't matter whether a captured soldier is a man or a woman. They are still a crusader, and ISIS will still torture and execute them.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49247449]Yeah, I was in for two years. I've carried the weight. I've done the marches. 25k in full ruck as a basic training requirement. It was difficult. I can also tell you that my MOS had a substantial number of women in it, all of whom also had to complete basic training, and many of whom outperformed the majority of the men by a fair margin during our regular physical fitness tests and training. One of those women beat the shit out of every dude in AIT at unarmed combat training and went on to do MMA cage fighting. One of my drill sergeants was also a woman, and that girl was a fucking PT [I]monster[/I]. I have never seen anybody go at it as hard or as long as she did. None of the other brown hats smoked us half as bad as her, and unlike the others she would actually do the punishments with us. She'd make shit up to punish us for just to laugh at how much we all struggled to keep up with her. Being a woman does not make a person inherently less capable. I mean, even assuming the theoretical maximum level of raw physical strength for a biological woman is lower than a biological man, a woman can sure as shit still get plenty strong enough to meet and exceed the duty requirements, and raw physical strength is the only field in which that would even arguably be an issue. Stamina, speed, dexterity, marksmanship, bravery, etc are on unquestionably equal footing. Also, don't call people idiots. Rude Gus.[/QUOTE] No one is arguging against women who can keep up. If they perform just as well or better than men then there is no reason not to give them a rifle a smack on the helmet and put them in combat. The issue is lowering standards for the sake of having more women.

From my personal experience serving with female fighters(IDF), standards had to be lowered because they physically couldn't do things that guys could, and no thats not a 'chauvinistic' approach or whatever..its biological differences. This shows in carry weight, length and time alleviation in run tests, amount of pullups etc.. Easiest example - obstacle course, the female fighters have a bench for climbing a 2 meter wall because of something to do with their wombs, and also recently half of the wall has been lowered just so that they could pass.(not saying that a few haven't without the lowering, but the most couldn't)

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49243140]I know for a fact that wearing full battle rattle is really not that demanding as you would think. Disclosure, I'm a pretty scrawny guy with shitty cardio and I can't tell you how many times I had to do ridiculous shit or run up stupid hills wearing that stuff. My point is that wearing that junk is not as demanding as you would think, if I could do it a female definitely could. Not to mention I know many females who would kick my ass from the moon and back at PT.[/QUOTE] Put this situation in mind. During a battle, the squadleader sets soldier A(female) on the mission to recover an covered but injured soldier. Lets call HIM "Soldier B" cirka 100m infront of them. He can not assist nor walk and you are not allowed to leave your weapons and/or any ammo left behind and even equipment behind because that might benefit the enemys cause! The woman in question, Soldier A. Weights in at about 68kg at a height of 1m72cm Add your kevlar, ammo, bag and weapon. Soldier B who is injured is a man with the length of 1m 85cm and weights in at about 95kg dry, with the full combat load and gun at about 130kg. Soldier A Who only had to pass with moving a 65/75kg dummy tops has to recover soldier B and is not allowed to leave either weapon, ammo or equipment behind because of fear that the enemy might use it against them later on. Soldier A can barley drag injured soldier B back to safety or carry the neccesery equipment back. Soldier B risks getting hit and/or not make it back in time to get patched up because soldier A had finished the basics with "special rules and regulations concerning the different sex" Who would want that in your squad during a "hot skirmish" if soldier A can't even drag your sorry injured ass back to safety 100m away? Soldier A becomes a liability. Especially for the specialist troops and/or the squad machine gunner. Is that something you want on your team? Disclaimer! If she passes the same basic training without modifications and/or other rules because of sex and gender. She must be able to perform during duty in an "hot" conflict zone and be able to help and get her colleagues to safety if a situation comes up where it's needed. But IF the US:A decides to cut some slack for the females, The mixed squads with heavier guys WILL see this as a liability and might even damage the squads/teams morale and fighting force. IF you don't agree, you should really enlist and/or just survive boot camp and basic combat exercise. You will see what i'm talking about there and then. Reminder: I'm talking about my experience in the Swedish armed forces and the Swedish "hemvärnet" Home Guard.