General Peter Pace speaks...

[fortiesfun]

The 120-lb girl in my section can barely run with her gear, let alone try to drag my 200-lb ass more than ten feet.

Gosh. That sounds like the best argument I have heard for limiting the weight of soldiers. How inefficient to have large men in battle. They are too heavy to lift when they get shot.

 

[Freddie53]

Is it impossible to imagine a soldier making a decision to try and save the life of his lover when it might not be the best thing to do for the squad as a whole?

Zora has already commented on this. In the military, not only is gay sexual behavior prohibited but so is straight sexual behavior. Married people may not serve in the same unit. Should gays be allowed to openly be gay in the military, rest assured, gays would not and should not serve in the same unit.

 

[TLCTugger]

Most men could carry me on their backs; most women can't. Guess which option is more likely to result in survival.
. . . .
the argument about female infantry is really not about discrimination based on gender. It's based on typical physical characteristics

Determining which privileges you afford someone based on what is typical for the group they happen to belong to IS EXACTLY discrimination.

If the soldiers in your unit need to be able to carry you on their backs, make that the test to get in your unit. And make them run the mile for time with 10 gallons of water in their packs or whatever you think is called for.

You have presented no case justfying discrimination. Everybody (gay straight male female short tall fat thin blue orange cut uncut) who can do it deserves a shot.

-Ron

 

[TLCTugger]

Most men could carry me on their backs; most women can't. Guess which option is more likely to result in survival.

Maybe we need to be discriminating about letting guys too big to be carried serve.

-Ron

 

[Freddie53]

Determining which privileges you afford someone based on what is typical for the group they happen to belong to IS EXACTLY discrimination.

If the soldiers in your unit need to be able to carry you on their backs, make that the test to get in your unit. And make them run the mile for time with 10 gallons of water in their packs or whatever you think is called for.

You have presented no case justfying discrimination. Everybody (gay straight male female short tall fat thin blue orange cut uncut) who can do it deserves a shot.

-Ron

The ideas presented here just won't work. They make too much sense.:smile: Next thing you know basketball player will be being selected on the basis of how well they can shoot, dribble, not turnover the ball, and not foul. Surely on basketball coach would select his players based on this.:tongue:

 

[madame_zora]

Determining which privileges you afford someone based on what is typical for the group they happen to belong to IS EXACTLY discrimination.

If the soldiers in your unit need to be able to carry you on their backs, make that the test to get in your unit. And make them run the mile for time with 10 gallons of water in their packs or whatever you think is called for.

You have presented no case justfying discrimination. Everybody (gay straight male female short tall fat thin blue orange cut uncut) who can do it deserves a shot.

-Ron

Yes, I agree with this. What I don't agree with is allowing people who can't "do that" have a job- any job- where they get equal pay but can't do equal work.

I also hate it when a group has to lower their standards to let women in. If a woman can do something that has been typically seen as a man's job- great! Give her the job and pay her accordingly. I just get sick to death of women whining about equal rights, but they're not willing to suck it up and carry their own share of the responsibilities. It lessens the argument for equal rights for those of us who DO hold ourselves to the same standards.


The services do have weight limits, but they still might be too much for just ANY woman to lift. Don't get me wrong, women who CAN lift and carry her fellow soldiers should be allowed, but those who can't should only be qualified to do lesser jobs which they can perform satisfactorily. There should be a difference in pay in accordance with her lesser abilities.

 

[DC_DEEP]

The services do have weight limits, but they still might be too much for just ANY woman to lift. Don't get me wrong, women who CAN lift and carry her fellow soldiers should be allowed, but those who can't should only be qualified to do lesser jobs which they can perform satisfactorily. There should be a difference in pay in accordance with her lesser abilities.

Or a difference in MOS. Some physical factors can and do determine which MOS a service member may or may not qualify for. Minimum height and weight standards could certainly apply for combat duty, just as color-blindness could disqualify from another MOS in which color vision was essential. But those things should not be based solely on gender or orientation. There were married couples in my unit, and there were also a few women who were taller and heavier than some of the men. We all just did our jobs.

 

[LeeEJ]

So, okay then, YES, it's discrimination to say that women usually aren't as fast or strong as their male counterparts. Geez.

I also hate it when a group has to lower their standards to let women in.

Then we raise the standards to where they should be, and suddenly 80% of the females we have now get kicked out. Holy shit, now we're going to get sued to let more women in.

I mentioned basketball before. Make women ballplayers use the same ball as the men.

"A few" whoever is not a valid point to be made. That's like saying that a few F-18's can carry their full combat load. You want some grunts, you ask for some grunts, and you don't wonder if they're physically able to do their job.

FWIW, one of the females in my unit qualified expert on both rifle and pistol (and would have outshot me and gotten company high shooter on pistol if she hadn't had three rounds misfeed). Too bad that 95% of everyone else on the range could beat her to a pulp if there were no bullets.

 

[Freddie53]

This discussion is lacking common sense. The military is made up of many people doing lots of different jobs. Most of the soldiers are NOT combat support troops. Supplies have to be in order. Communications havee to be maintained. And the list goes on. The military gives tests in various skills and assigns military according to ability and skill of the personnel. There is no need to check the genitalia as part of assigning duties according to abilities.

Can you imagine it. There is a need for drivers for the trucks. A survey of the genitalia is done to determine which soldiers are going the drive the trucks. A little silly isn't it.

Of course the big strong males are going to be assigned some of the physical work. That is based on skill and ability, not genitalia. And there are some very strong females out there as well. Some stronger than some males.

 

[LeeEJ]

This discussion is lacking common sense.

Exactly!

And there are some very strong females out there as well. Some stronger than some males.

And, exactly my point again... "some".

 

[SpeedoGuy]

For whatever it's worth:

I've been involved with wildland firefighting for about 20 years. During that time there was initially a strong bias against women in wildland firefighting because they were seen as weaker and less less capable. Women were percieved as less able to heft tools and hike long distances to attack widlfires.

But, over tiime, there's been a gradual acceptance of women in the wildland firefighting ranks (a very macho profession to be sure). Where once there was rejection, there has been gradual admission that what women lack in upper body strength, they make up for in endurance. To wit: When the strong guys poop out after lengthy assignments on the fireline, the women continue going, albeit at a slower pace.

The upshot is that both gender advantages complement each other. The guys hit heavy and strong up front, the women keep going after lengthy days on the front. Not a bad combination, in my experience.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Exactly!



And, exactly my point again... "some".

I agree, "some" is the keyword. For those women who qualify, they should be allowed combat duty. For those men who don't qualify, they should not be assigned to combat duty.

Every single MOS is important, and no single MOS should have a specific gender as a qualifying factor. The criteria should be matched to the job, without a gender specification, and any servicemember, regardless of gender, should be eligible for any MOS if they meet those criteria.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

That is FAR too intelligant to be a millitary SOP.

Anyway, because I love being quasi-racist. Since blacks are stupider, stronger, faster and violenter on average, hey white-guys!

GET DA FOOK OUT OF MAH MILLITARY!!



Am I the only disturbed with the gay/girls arguements cross-threading the thread? Well, men in drag make great soldiers...

 

[Lex]

... Well, men in drag make great soldiers...

It's ALL drag.

Work Drag.

Gym drag.

Bar drag.

Etc.

Green outfit, guns, face paint. DRAG.

Men in Uniforms are HAWT.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Am I the only disturbed with the gay/girls arguements cross-threading the thread? Well, men in drag make great soldiers...

They make much better FBI directors...

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

It's ALL drag.

Work Drag.

Gym drag.

Bar drag.

Etc.

Green outfit, guns, face paint. DRAG.

Men in Uniforms are HAWT.

I don't. Makes me looks fat.

They make much better FBI directors...

Well the sure as hell aren't a queer-friendly organsiation!

 

[DC_DEEP]

I don't. Makes me looks fat.

Well the sure as hell aren't a queer-friendly organsiation!

You should have told that to J. Edgar Hoover years ago!