combat roles to women?

[pettyofficerj]

Listened to an NPR interview with...

BETH BAILEY, a Professor of History at Temple University who studies gender and military institutions,
COLLEEN FARRELL, a U.S. Marine Corp Captain who is a plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit challenging the DOD's combat ban,
and ELAINE DONNELLY, President of the Center for Military Readiness.

Beth said Panetta defied Congress by completely bypassing them, he CAN NOT make this policy, that their is an absolute quota agenda and those who ensure the quota is met receive promotions, that the official policy is "fair" standards, not "equal" and that eventually when women are dismally failing to pass the test, the standard WILL LOWER - it won't be announced, they will just make the test easier FOR ALL, until women can pass it.

*One National Guard soldier called in and he said that the training test for army is 42 push-ups in 2 mins for the men.....13 for the women. He said carrying alone almost 100 pds of equipment on missions is back breaking, even for him and he's a big guy.
But the 13 to 42..wow HUGE disparity, I must say.

The debate was really good. If anyone wants to listen to it, here is the link -

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2013/01/28/women-on-the-front-lines-ending-the-combat-ban/

if we really want to keep it real and fair, that should be addressed more often

but.....some people say that it had to be lowered, because if it wasn't it would cut out many women. the military for lots of women is a paycheck...a way to support themselves and a place in this world. it is also a pipeline for college assistance and other things. why deny women such economic opportunities such as a job, benefits and a place to live?

infantry on the other hand, is something that is 'extra.' their standards should NOT be lowered and we should promote this culture that infantry be a 'select few' no matter what

 

[Bliss]

if we really want to keep it real and fair, that should be addressed more often

but.....some people say that it had to be lowered, because if it wasn't it would cut out many women. the military for lots of women is a paycheck...a way to support themselves and a place in this world. it is also a pipeline for college assistance and other things. why deny women such economic opportunities such as a job, benefits and a place to live?

infantry on the other hand, is something that is 'extra.' their standards should NOT be lowered and we should promote this culture that infantry be a 'select few' no matter what

So what do you say to the men who can only make 41 push-ups and are denied a job? Where is his paycheck? Is it fair he is is cut out?

And if it is about not denying women a govt job, benefits, free college and a free place to live, I want in then. Find a way to qualify me too, ok?

 

[pettyofficerj]

So what do you say to the men who can only make 41 push-ups and are denied a job? Where is his paycheck? Is it fair he is is cut out?

And if it is about not denying women a govt job, benefits, free college and a free place to live, I want in then. Find a way to qualify me too, ok?

someone else asked that too

pretty interesting when you actually sit down and think about it

could you imagine how sweet it would be for those studs if all they had to do was the female minimum

remember when women could get away with not doing pull-ups and could opt to do pushups from their knees?

lmao

i'd imagine with all this equality shit going down, more people will be asking why the male requirements aren't realigned with the female ones

 

[Bliss]

someone else asked that too

pretty interesting when you actually sit down and think about it

could you imagine how sweet it would be for those studs if all they had to do was the female minimum

remember when women could get away with not doing pull-ups and could opt to do pushups from their knees?

lmao

i'd imagine with all this equality shit going down, more people will be asking why the male requirements aren't realigned with the female ones

TRUTH right here, Petty.

 

[pettyofficerj]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...a-debate-that-deserves-more-than-giggles.html

-"First, standards have been reduced so much that, in many cases, service members no longer are being prepared for the strenuous challenges they will face in the fleet or field. Second—and even more destructive of morale and trust—is the fact that when the requirement can’t be changed and the test cannot be eliminated, scores are “gender normed” to conceal the differences between men and women. All the services have lower physical standards for women than for men. Two decades ago, the U.S. Military Academy identified 120 physical differences between men and women, not to mention psychological ones, that resulted in a less rigorous overall program of physical training at West Point in order to accommodate female cadets."

that's insane

i'd love to get a look at the studies they've done to come up with that number

if i'm a dude failing the phyiscal portion of my training based on a 'male' scale, i'd sue

:lol:

 

[orejon4]

I say, if they can handle the physical workload, let them do it.

 

[pettyofficerj]

I say, if they can handle the physical workload, let them do it.

what about the gender norming and lowering of standards in basic/rotc/academies?

should they become aligned with the boys for 'fairness'

 

[orejon4]

what about the gender norming and lowering of standards in basic/rotc/academies?

should they become aligned with the boys for 'fairness'

I'm against that. It should be based on ability, period. Equality of opportunity to compete, but not mandated equality of outcomes.

 

[pettyofficerj]

I'm against that. It should be based on ability, period. Equality of opportunity to compete, but not mandated equality of outcomes.

very eloquently put

 

[pettyofficerj]

i just think at the end of the day, certain people with certain agendas want to see more sexual diversity in the armed forces

diversity isnt necessarily a bad thing...hell...due to 'diversity,' im able to live in a mixed neighborhood and work at a mixed job, where people accept and respect my contributions instead of condemning me on face value alone

i just think if women want to be taken more seriously and seen as equals, they may need to rethink this whole diversity issue and the changes that take place to make such an issue bloom

if the standards were equal all across the board from square one, you'd probably would have seen less resistance to combat spec

can't exactly bitch and moan when women are blowing u away in the same tests:smt043

 

[Bliss]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...a-debate-that-deserves-more-than-giggles.html

-"First, standards have been reduced so much that, in many cases, service members no longer are being prepared for the strenuous challenges they will face in the fleet or field. Second—and even more destructive of morale and trust—is the fact that when the requirement can’t be changed and the test cannot be eliminated, scores are “gender normed” to conceal the differences between men and women. All the services have lower physical standards for women than for men. Two decades ago, the U.S. Military Academy identified 120 physical differences between men and women, not to mention psychological ones, that resulted in a less rigorous overall program of physical training at West Point in order to accommodate female cadets."

that's insane

i'd love to get a look at the studies they've done to come up with that number

if i'm a dude failing the phyiscal portion of my training based on a 'male' scale, i'd sue

:lol:

120 'differences'? Say it ain't so. This must be propaganda, there is no such thing.

But sue you should...if it's for non-combat/infantry, you too should get special treatment so you may enjoy all the benefits provided when you join the military.

Your commentary shows it's an exceptional pass that like TDK says, NONE of the ultra-feminists have piped a peep about. It's doing my gender an overall disservice, along with short-changing people's lives we are paid to protect, when we end up getting privileged exceptions after demanding equality. We are either good enough for the job, or we are not.
Borrowing someone in here's 'equality analogy' when it came to working the front-line, "this should not be about penis and vaginas, but about the best qualified - period." I hope they feel that about all branches.

 

[pettyofficerj]

120 'differences'? Say it ain't so. This must be propaganda, there is no such thing.

But sue you should...if it's for non-combat/infantry, you too should get special treatment so you may enjoy all the benefits provided when you join the military.

Your commentary shows it's an exceptional pass that like TDK says, NONE of the ultra-feminists have piped a peep about. It's doing my gender an overall disservice, along with short-changing people's lives we are paid to protect, when we end up getting privileged exceptions after demanding equality. We are either good enough for the job, or we are not.
Borrowing someone in here's 'equality analogy' when it came to working the front-line, "this should not be about penis and vaginas, but about the best qualified - period." I hope they feel that about all branches.

and you won't hear about it either, as that would result in less females physically fit to be in the military..

and you know less just isn't acceptable

 

[TheHuntress]

120 'differences'? Say it ain't so. This must be propaganda, there is no such thing.

But sue you should...if it's for non-combat/infantry, you too should get special treatment so you may enjoy all the benefits provided when you join the military.

Your commentary shows it's an exceptional pass that like TDK says, NONE of the ultra-feminists have piped a peep about. It's doing my gender an overall disservice, along with short-changing people's lives we are paid to protect, when we end up getting privileged exceptions after demanding equality. We are either good enough for the job, or we are not.
Borrowing someone in here's 'equality analogy' when it came to working the front-line, "this should not be about penis and vaginas, but about the best qualified - period." I hope they feel that about all branches.

OMFG, Bliss, for fuck's sake, we have been saying this whole time that we agree with Panetta's stance that women who want to enter these positions be held to the SAME STANDARDS AS THE MEN. These positions are different than other positions, and thus have different requirements. Jesus jumping Christ!

 

[Bliss]

i just think at the end of the day, certain people with certain agendas want to see more sexual diversity in the armed forces

diversity isnt necessarily a bad thing...hell...due to 'diversity,' im able to live in a mixed neighborhood and work at a mixed job, where people accept and respect my contributions instead of condemning me on face value alone

i just think if women want to be taken more seriously and seen as equals, they may need to rethink this whole diversity issue and the changes that take place to make such an issue bloom

if the standards were equal all across the board from square one, you'd probably would have seen less resistance to combat spec

can't exactly bitch and moan when women are blowing u away in the same tests:smt043

I would be so proud of my gender if we could run with the big dogs. To find out I'm given a head start? No thanks!

All I ask of the Brass in charge is DO NOT sneak in lowering the requirements side-ways so that you may appease those screaming 'we are the same', if you find the standard can not be met.

 

[Bliss]

OMFG, Bliss, for fuck's sake, we have been saying this whole time that we agree with Panetta's stance that women who want to enter these positions be held to the SAME STANDARDS AS THE MEN. These positions are different than other positions, and thus have different requirements. Jesus jumping Christ!

For fucks sake? Shut up, for once. And listen to those EXPERTS who study it. You don't know jack shit. The ACLU said they can NOT guaranteed that the standard will not 'CHANGE", it's not impossible. Listen to the NPR interview...'for fucks sake!"

 

[pettyofficerj]

OMFG, Bliss, for fuck's sake, we have been saying this whole time that we agree with Panetta's stance that women who want to enter these positions be held to the SAME STANDARDS AS THE MEN. These positions are different than other positions, and thus have different requirements. Jesus jumping Christ!

but you never expressed interest in eliminating gender norming for basic/rotc/academies

that's part of what was being discussed here..or maybe u have..too many damn pages to read

why aren't women being held accountable in that sense? where's panetta screaming from the top of the mountain that gender discrimination like that is wrong, and should be changed. if you want to open another door, you gotta close the one behind you, right?

irregardless of what position a woman may be going for, a standard is a standard. lots of men can't meet it, but lots can just like there are women that can meet the same male requirements.

but...because lots of women can't meet the minimum, the standard of practice since god invented the pushup...another standard was formulated and women happily took advantage of it

 

[pettyofficerj]

For fucks sake? Shut up, for once. And listen to those EXPERTS who study it. You don't know jack shit. The ACLU said they can NOT guaranteed that the standard will not 'CHANGE", it's not impossible. Listen to the NPR interview...'for fucks sake!"

if you really want a significant representation of women combat mos/leadership positions within combat branches (you know, rifle company commander/XO, battalion CO), they're going to have to gender norm or reduce requirements altogether

but guess what...if you reduce ALL requirements, you wont just get more eligible females..you're going to get MORE eligible males that would have washed out

 

[blackbull1970]

There is a very small minority of females out there in America that can handle the physical and mental duties of being a front line Infantryman in the ARMY/Marines.

I say if they can keep up with the men on their level without any special treatment (bathrooms excluded) then let them join.

My issue is how women can get thru the "Band of Brotherhood" mentallity that is high amongst Infantrymen.

There is a shitload of physical and mental hazing and initiations that goes with the Infantry that is illegal under military law, but the military turns a blind eye to it because top brass understand what the Infantry is and what they are about. The inititations are physically, somewhat sexual perverted, racist and sexist. There is nothing "politically correct" about Infantryman initiations.

The initiations get more severe the higher you go from basic Infantryman, to Airbourne/Air Assault, Ranger, Green Beret, Marine Recon, etc....

All it takes is one female who does not want to participate in the "hazing" and initiations to go crying to "60 minutes" or "Dateline" and getting on TV with a ball of tears about how she was mistreated.

This was the situation back in the 1980's during the infamous "Tailhook" incident with the Navy aviators. Those Aviators had been behaving and acting like that ever since the NAVY instituted airplanes into the force. A couple of female Aviators didnt like it and blew the whistle.

Lots of men are not prepared for it....but they keep their mouth closed about it. So you know females will have a problem with it...and blab it to the world.

 

[TheHuntress]

For fucks sake? Shut up, for once. And listen to those EXPERTS who study it. You don't know jack shit. The ACLU said they can NOT guaranteed that the standard will not 'CHANGE", it's not impossible. Listen to the NPR interview...'for fucks sake!"

Telling me to shut up? Woman you have your mouth on so many dicks right now, I don't think you can think straight.

You're going to believe the ACLU over the head of the fucking military? The standard for general soldiers is different than combat positions. I don't think a woman needs to be able to do 40 pushups to be a translator, but if she's going on a mission for a month, she needs extra skills. Just like most women won't make it into the SEALS, most women won't make it into these front line combat positions, just as some men won't. But, if they CAN then there is no reason under the sun that they shouldn't be able to apply for these positions. They have until 2016 to figure out all out. They figured out integration, too, giving women the right to vote, and allowing black men in the military years ago, despite the bullshit rhetoric that people tried to throw out.

 

[pettyofficerj]

There is a very small minority of females out there in America that can handle the physical and mental duties of being a front line Infantryman in the ARMY/Marines.

I say if they can keep up with the men on their level without any special treatment (bathrooms excluded) then let them join.

My issue is how women can get thru the "Band of Brotherhood" mentallity that is high amongst Infantrymen.

There is a shitload of physical and mental hazing and initiations that goes with the Infantry that is illegal under military law, but the military turns a blind eye to it because top brass understand what the Infantry is and what they are about. The inititations are physically, somewhat sexual perverted, racist and sexist. There is nothing "politically correct" about Infantryman initiations.

The initiations get more severe the higher you go from basic Infantryman, to Airbourne/Air Assault, Ranger, Green Beret, Marine Recon, etc....

All it takes is one female who does not want to participate in the "hazing" and initiations to go crying to "60 minutes" or "Dateline" and getting on TV with a ball of tears about how she was mistreated.

This was the situation back in the 1980's during the infamous "Tailhook" incident with the Navy aviators. Those Aviators had been behaving and acting like that ever since the NAVY instituted airplanes into the force. A couple of female Aviators didnt like it and blew the whistle.

Lots of men are not prepared for it....but they keep their mouth closed about it. So you know females will have a problem with it...and blab it to the world.

one hazing form that I know of was/is called 'blood wings' or blood pinning

after successful completion of airborne school, people would go around stamping the metal pin on the back of the jump wings into your chest, instead of gently putting them on

it's supposed to be illegal, like all hazing

BUT..boys will be boys and infantry aren't expected to be 'soft'

although..tbh...after doing a ruck march for god knows how long...everything should seem like a joke

ur already being hazed the minute you go to reception