Army chief Lieutenant General David Morrison labels gender inequality in militaries a 'global disgra - Polidicks

snip, this post was awful

While he brings up a very good point, I sure hope militaries don't turn to minority quotas or some similar stupidity.

[QUOTE=maxumym;45103872]While he brings up a very good point, I sure hope militaries don't turn to minority quotas or some similar stupidity.[/QUOTE] They prolly will eventually. That's how the RCMP is.

You are a 75kg soldier, if you would get shot in the battle who would you rather have carrying you to safety ? Agree) a 80kg man Disagree) a 55kg woman

[QUOTE=wauterboi;45100837]Or it could be like online gameplay: "Dude, there's a girl over there!" "UHHHHHHH. UHHHHHHH. Well she's obviously a man! There's no such thing as girls on the battlefield!"[/QUOTE] + get a billion creepy friend requests and a bunch of mouth-breathing lechers stalking them

Like its been said Im all for this as long as the women can physically keep up with the men

[QUOTE=AntonioR;45103920]You are a 75kg soldier, if you would get shot in the battle who would you rather have carrying you to safety ? Agree) a 80kg man Disagree) a 55kg woman[/QUOTE] If I get shot in combat I'd be happy with anyone carrying me the hell out of there. Beggers cant be choosers.

[QUOTE=Winters;45103986]If I get shot in combat I'd be happy with anyone carrying me the hell out of there. Beggers cant be choosers.[/QUOTE] You really think a 55 kg woman could carry a 75kg soldier around with all the equipment and stuff. Dream on.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;45103920]You are a 75kg soldier, if you would get shot in the battle who would you rather have carrying you to safety ? Agree) a 80kg man Disagree) a 55kg woman[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware that 55kg was the weight limit for women.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;45104003]You really think a 55 kg woman could carry a 75kg soldier around with all the equipment and stuff. Dream on.[/QUOTE] You realize that training standards are the same for men and women, right? If a woman can't perform up to the same standards that men are required to, she doesn't fight, same as if a man doesn't perform up to those standards.

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;45104029]You realize that training standards are the same for men and women, right? If a woman can't perform up to the same standards that men are required to, she doesn't fight, same as if a man doesn't perform up to those standards.[/QUOTE] I am not sure about that. I wouldn't be surprised if they would make "female" standards or just lower the overall performance standards just to get more women in the army to satisfy statistics and make people quiet. Also I wouldn't want to be a female POW in a 99% male camp...

[QUOTE=JoonazL;45100549]I'm all for gender equality but wouldn't menstruation make women bad infantry? No matter how good your training is you can't avoid that.[/QUOTE] Berserk taught me that!

[QUOTE=AntonioR;45104003]You really think a 55 kg woman could carry a 75kg soldier around with all the equipment and stuff. Dream on.[/QUOTE] Yes, because soldiers totally don't go through any sort of physical training to increase their strength, endurance, etc. And women only come in small sizes, right?

[QUOTE=Jacen;45104147]Yes, because soldiers totally don't go through any sort of physical training. And women only come in small sizes, right?[/QUOTE] I believe it was the USMC that had to lower the physical strength requirement or extend the time required to make the requirement for females temporarily because they couldn't pass it. Go off of that and tell me while looking at it objectively what happens when someone who can't pass a physical strength requirement attempts to carry around someone who is two times larger than them plus that person's equipment and their own.

[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;45100494]This is exactly what he's talking about, you're heavily implying that women can't handle combat situations even though they receive the same basic training as men.[/QUOTE] He's very obviously saying something along the lines of "war sucks, the less people who have to go through it the better". How the hell do you get sexism out of that?

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;45104029]You realize that training standards are the same for men and women, right? If a woman can't perform up to the same standards that men are required to, she doesn't fight, same as if a man doesn't perform up to those standards.[/QUOTE] actually that couldn't be any further from the truth for the us military women have different (lower) physical standards than men [editline]14th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=mugofdoom;45104211]He's very obviously saying something along the lines of "war sucks, the less people who have to go through it the better". How the hell do you get sexism out of that?[/QUOTE] yeah thank you thats pretty much what i was trying to say

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;45104211]He's very obviously saying something along the lines of "war sucks, the less people who have to go through it the better". How the hell do you get sexism out of that?[/QUOTE] "men do what men do and women do what women do" Highlighting that both sexes have different roles and that the status quo should remain.

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;45104029]You realize that training standards are the same for men and women, right? If a woman can't perform up to the same standards that men are required to, she doesn't fight, same as if a man doesn't perform up to those standards.[/QUOTE] But the training standards aren't the same [url]http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft[/url]

[QUOTE=AntonioR;45104003]You really think a 55 kg woman could carry a 75kg soldier around with all the equipment and stuff. Dream on.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/army-weight-rules.html]I mean, it's not like the height to weight requirements for men and women in the US army is the exact same. Oh wait.[/url] Granted, male muscle mass is slightly stronger than that of women's, (around 5-10%) Therefore let me change your sentence around a little bit. [QUOTE=AntonioR;45104003]You really think a 55 kg man could carry a 75kg soldier around with all the equipment and stuff. Dream on.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;45104227]"men do what men do and women do what women do" Highlighting that both sexes have different roles and that the status quo should remain.[/QUOTE] retarded choice of words on my part

[QUOTE=Leon;45104248]retarded choice of words on my part[/QUOTE] I was just pointing out where I got my reasoning from.

[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;45104227]"men do what men do and women do what women do" Highlighting that both sexes have different roles and that the status quo should remain.[/QUOTE] Right, I could see how that would come off as sexist. To me it read more as a poor choice of words but I get what you're saying now. Frankly, no one should be barred from the military based on their sex, only whether they can physically do the job or not. I guess I just don't see why they would want to.

[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;45104227]"men do what men do and women do what women do" Highlighting that both sexes have different roles and that the status quo should remain.[/QUOTE] I would say we should put people where they are bringing the best performance. We should be gender blind.

So long as females are held to a standard of physical and mental fitness that males are upheld to, I do not see any problem with them being standard infantry. What most people ignore is that current military operations are heavily reliant on Search and Destroy, and a key component of that is being able to hunt down something and get rid of it. If current studies of hunter and gatherer societies are to be accounted for, having female infantry combined with male infantry would increase the chances of operation success by roughly ten to twenty percent, as is the case with hunter and gatherer societies having better luck hunting with co-op groups. We also have proof that females also carry better eyes, better matters of diplomacy, and women are naturally more able with keeping hearts and mind campaigns to a maximum efficiency. Having these traits in low-intensity conflicts around the world would be a huge benefit to current ongoing operations.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;45104060]I am not sure about that. I wouldn't be surprised if they would make "female" standards or just lower the overall performance standards just to get more women in the army to satisfy statistics and make people quiet. Also I wouldn't want to be a female POW in a 99% male camp...[/QUOTE] Holding men and women to different standards like that is against all of the feminist ideals that brought the issue up in the first place anything else would be missing the point entirely

[QUOTE=Leon;45100478]yeah let the women get drafted and die by the dozen like men in the infantry [editline]14th June 2014[/editline] men do what men do and women do what women do lets leave them out of warfare please, for their benefit.[/QUOTE] I agree, this is why we also shouldn't let gays into the military: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ[/media]

[QUOTE=Winters;45103986]If I get shot in combat I'd be happy with anyone carrying me the hell out of there. Beggers cant be choosers.[/QUOTE] I'm 210 pounds if I got shot and had to be carried and I was with a woman id be dead

[QUOTE=JoonazL;45100549]I'm all for gender equality but wouldn't menstruation make women bad infantry? No matter how good your training is you can't avoid that.[/QUOTE] No, it'd make them better. They'll become barbarian death machines for one week of the month.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;45104319]I'm 210 pounds if I got shot and had to be carried and I was with a woman id be dead[/QUOTE] you'd probably have to be in shape before you went into combat that goes both for you and the hypothetical woman

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;45104246][url=http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/army-weight-rules.html]I mean, it's not like the height to weight requirements for men and women in the US army is the exact same. Oh wait.[/url] Granted, male muscle mass is slightly stronger than that of women's, (around 5-10%) Therefore let me change your sentence around a little bit.[/QUOTE] It is a lot more of that actually [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology#Skeleton_and_muscular_system[/url] [QUOTE]Gross measures of body strength suggest a 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.[12][13] One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.[14] Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes.[15] Differences in width of arm, thighs and calves also increase during puberty.[/QUOTE] This height to weight measurement is not used for physical tests anyway, but how they perform in push ups, sit ups and running