G.I. Jane .......Coming Soon

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

The army has conditioning tests to determine the fitness of an individual to do these things, male or otherwise. If a woman can pass these tests, why shouldn't she be permited to serve in combat? I don't think anyone is suggesting we send someone with the physique of Kate Moss into battle.

Actually they are. You really think that these people are going to be satisfied with unequal numbers of men and women on the front lines? Plenty of fire departments have already been through this. This crap is always done piecemal: Step 1) Demand they let women in but leave physical standards as they are. Step 2) Criticize physical standards as too high if not an X percentage of women are represented according to as they should by the beliefs of left-wing gender bean counters. Step 3) Lower physical standards to let more women in. It's already happening.

Btw, you aren't considering the implications of a mixed-gender front line in terms of sexual tension and the likelihood of having preggos waddling around.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Do you think a woman could make the active roster of any NFL team other than being a kicker?

One full-steam hit by Von Miller and I'd be down for hours and would probably be hurting for weeks.

These people are in denial.

[BroncoInferno]

^ Yep, that's the drama llama alright

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Do you think a woman could make the active roster of any NFL team other than being a kicker?

If they can pass the required training without getting special treatment then I would have no problem serving along side them in a combat zone. I don't agree with the premise of this question to begin with. I doubt many combat soldiers and Marines could hang in the NFL. In all my time in the Marines I can think of one big enough to handle himself on the gridiron.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Goddamn, you are truly bat-**** crazy. You ARE the drama llama

Ad hominem invective and labeling. The very argument I've been saying since day one the left use, because they have nothing else. Thus, yet again, this forum's lib contingent prove my point.

Indeed, this kind of behavior has been the favored tactic of the radical left for decades. Don't discourse, don't explain. Avoid debate and instead call names and shout down.

As predictable as a watch.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Dukes

If they can pass the required training without getting special treatment then I would have no problem serving along side them in a combat zone. I don't agree with the premise of this question to begin with. I doubt many combat soldiers and Marines could hang in the NFL. In all my time in the Marines I can think of one big enough to handle himself on the gridiron.

There are much deeper implications than merely the physical testing. The fact that the advocates of putting women on the front lines don't discuss these issues means they either aren't aware of it because they're so shallow-minded they haven't considered them, or that they're such pushy ideologues they simply don't give a crap.

[peacepipe]

Anyway,panetta came out today and stated that test/physical requirements for men to qualify will be applied to women. They are not going to lower the bar for women to qualify.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Anyway,panetta came out today and stated that test/physical requirements for men to qualify will be applied to women. They are not going to lower the bar for women to qualify.

As I said already, that's what you think. Fire departments started out with what the military is pushing now. These people pushing this are not going to be satisfied with OK these women can't pass standards. No, they'll do what they've been doing with fire departments internationally and demand standards be lowered once it's shown that very few women can pass current standards. These people don't take no for an answer, and they will forcibly "equalize" everything even if it means harassing people into capitulating with lower standards. This is only step 1.

[nyuk nyuk]

The politics of lower standards strikes again, folks. The only doors this crowd want existing are those which they erect. Any other door will be kicked down even if it jeopardizes physical safety.

[W*GS]

'nyuk nyuk' is just projecting his own shortcomings as a man...

He's not strong, so no woman can be strong.

He cannot control his sexual urges, so all women are vulnerable to predatory men.

He feels so protective of women (being the weaker sex) that all men must feel as protective as he does.

The usual logical fallacy **** we expect from him.

[Fedaykin]

As always, reality has a liberal bias and evidence trumps ideology.

Israel has had mixed gender combat force for a long time and is one of the most effective armies in the world.

[Rohirrim]

I have to say I'm completely opposed to this idea, on just about every level I can think of.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Anyway,panetta came out today and stated that test/physical requirements for men to qualify will be applied to women. They are not going to lower the bar for women to qualify.

Too late ....... they have already lowered the bar

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

'nyuk nyuk' is just projecting his own shortcomings as a man...

He's not strong, so no woman can be strong.

He cannot control his sexual urges, so all women are vulnerable to predatory men.

He feels so protective of women (being the weaker sex) that all men must feel as protective as he does.

The usual logical fallacy **** we expect from him.

Off-topic personal insinuations have always been a favored tactic by the left specifically in lacking basic intellectual weaponry to formulate a coherent response. Unsurprising.

As you were, lib.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I have to say I'm completely opposed to this idea, on just about every level I can think of.

Well you're just a weakling sexist. Ask Wog.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I have to say I'm completely opposed to this idea, on just about every level I can think of.

Just out of curiosity - why?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

As always, reality has a liberal bias and evidence trumps ideology.

Israel has had mixed gender combat force for a long time and is one of the most effective armies in the world.

What's your source behind this, sir?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Just out of curiosity - why?

Because he's a racistsexistlyingegotisticalbigot. What else?

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Actually they are. You really think that these people are going to be satisfied with unequal numbers of men and women on the front lines? Plenty of fire departments have already been through this. This crap is always done piecemal: Step 1) Demand they let women in but leave physical standards as they are. Step 2) Criticize physical standards as too high if not an X percentage of women are represented according to as they should by the beliefs of left-wing gender bean counters. Step 3) Lower physical standards to let more women in. It's already happening.

Btw, you aren't considering the implications of a mixed-gender front line in terms of sexual tension and the likelihood of having preggos waddling around.

The military's top official seems to think that the combat ban of women in the military is a primary driving force in the tension you described.

And where is the evidence that lowering of physical standards to let more women into the military is already happening?

I've had this discussion with a lot of ex-military friends, who either went on to elite special forces or are currently still serving who think this is a bad idea. I've also had my friends who are recruiters tell me that standards have never been higher than they have now, and they turn away a lot more people than they ever get into the service.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Requiem

The military's top official seems to think that the combat ban of women in the military is a primary driving force in the tension you described.

And where is the evidence that lowering of physical standards to let more women into the military is already happening?

I've had this discussion with a lot of ex-military friends, who either went on to elite special forces or are currently still serving who think this is a bad idea. I've also had my friends who are recruiters tell me that standards have never been higher than they have now, and they turn away a lot more people than they ever get into the service.

I have already explained on this thread the SOP regarding the people who are pushing for such things. It's already happened in numerous fire departments. This is an approach that's been used before and will be again. It will not stop here, it never has.

Let's see how many preggos they allow waddling about on the front lines. This will be entertaining.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I have already explained on this thread the SOP regarding the people who are pushing for such things.

It's already happened in numerous fire departments. This is an approach that's been used before and will be again. It will not stop here, it never has.

So currently, it isn't happening in the military. Thanks for clarifying.

Let's see how many preggos they allow waddling about on the front lines. This will be entertaining.

Probably zero.

[That One Guy]

I've always been opposed to the idea but, secretly, this is a day I've been waiting for for a LONG time.

Let's progress through this logically:

All MOSs in the military do the same PT standard. Males have their standards defined by age then females have their standard defined by age. There is no MOS special PT tests in the military. Now, you get promotion preference by doing better than your peers on your PT test. Before, a woman could do, say, 35 pushups but get more promotion points than a guy that did the same job but did 50 pushups. If men and women are going to be held to a single standard, how can you defend giving women preferential treatment for promotion? This will actually widen the gaps because probably 75% (an estimate) of women probably cannot meet the male standard for the PT test. Sure, GI Jane exists, but what about GI Secretary?

Beyond the fact that I think a few women just F'd over their sex as a whole, I fear for the ramifications. In my job, it was fairly simple to replace someone. That was convenient because out of 6 females we had, a single one made it to our deployment without getting pregnant. Every unit goes through this. Women love to be soldiers during peacetime then mothers during wartime. Again, some don't but MANY do get pregnant to avoid deployments. Plugging a soldier behind a computer is one thing but what about when this starts devastating fire teams that rely on each other to stay safe?

And as for those saying strength should be disregarded because we're tech based now, I can build a computer from spare parts and do some low level programming. Does that mean I qualify for SF or Navy Seals? I see the number of women that even GET to advanced training being tiny (the number that pass microscopic) but those are women that can probably take care of themselves. The ones that just got F'd hard are the average women.

They're either equal or they're not. You can't have two ranks of women - the butch and the beautiful..

[That One Guy]

Oh, and while it probably won't be used anytime soon, the symbolism of making the women sign up for selective service will make everyone stop and think, I believe. Law people are already claiming almost unanimously that women will now be forced to sign up. They were only exempted before because the Supreme Court ruled that the draft was for "combat forces" and women didn't fit that role because of the exclusion. That doesn't apply anymore so a quick, logical inference should be simple for the Supreme Court to make.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Know what's even funnier? These emasculated self-loathing pseduo-men are on a football forum, rooting for a team on a league neither of which (rightly) allows female players. Even funnier than that is that the team they love, the mighty DENVER BRONCOS, is owned and operated by Republicans, including our splendid HOF starting quarterback. Ain't that a b****?!

Of course I know to not bother expecting ideological or moral consistency from the left. That is, after all, one reason I quit being left-wing.

Actually, W*GS is pretty vocal in his hatred for all things Broncos and possibly football as a whole, I can't remember. The logic of why he's here is the mystery there.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Just out of curiosity - why?

Sexual dimorphism, for one thing. For another, there is a lot of hard-wiring in our behavior as a species that is gender based and tied to mating. You inject an entire new level of complication into the combat theater by having women fighting beside men. What if hand to hand combat occurs? What happens to female soldiers who are captured? What is the reaction of male soldiers to female soldiers in a combat situation? Already, the incidence of sexual assault in Iraq and Afghanistan has been labeled an "epidemic." Bad idea all the way around.