TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:As long as no one is offended and everyone gets a trophy everything will be fine.

VMI77 wrote:

Breny414 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Breny414 wrote:Jago668, I understand the point. I do believe there is an ample supply of women who can... just a belief. whether or not recruiters ("your recruiter lied to you, son" ) will make sure the individual is qualified is another matter.

FWIW, I wasn't in infantry and I didn't want anything to do with infantry. when I got my orders and they said 3rd Infantry Division I was pretty bummed because I didn't know any better. Wound up in an artillery battalion. And I have no doubt that women can do that... cut the powder, pull the lanyard, etc, etc.

I have no doubt that those women who can meet the same physical standards as the men are required to meet will be physically able to cut it in combat, but do you not agree that women MUST meet the same standards as men? Because alternatively, if women cannot meet those standards, then the standards for men must be correspondingly lowered, otherwise you still have a gender preference in the ranks......but biased against men this time, because they will have to put in more physical work than their female counterparts in order to have access to the same MOS's.....and you're back to having a sexist military again.

See, this movement cannot do anything but fail unless standards are equal across the board, not just access.

And the bottom line is that the current physical standards for men are carefully designed for the purpose of developing people who can physically hack it in combat. So, it doesn't matter the gender - if a person meets reduced standards, regardless of gender, then their ability to perform in combat will be correspondingly reduced. And then the whole military suffers. This isn't about sexism, it is about biology in its most brutally darwinian sense.

You don't have to be a combat veteran to see and understand this.

Of course, they will have to meet the standards. However many push-ups in 2 minutes, sit-ups in 2 minutes and the 2 mile run in however many minutes, based on their age. And whatever other strength quals may be required... e.g., lift 100 lb round. I don't know the standards. I think those are achievable. So that begs the question: If I recall, the standards are lowered as you get older. should we make the older soldiers adhere to the same standard as the younger ones?

You keep repeating the same falsehoods.....by this point it has to be deliberate. THEY DO NOT MEET THE SAME PHYSICAL STANDARDS. Anyone interested can merely do a search on military PFT standards. Standards are by age and sex. The standards for women are different than the standards for men...why do you pretend otherwise?

Breny414 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Breny414 wrote:Jago668, I understand the point. I do believe there is an ample supply of women who can... just a belief. whether or not recruiters ("your recruiter lied to you, son" ) will make sure the individual is qualified is another matter.

FWIW, I wasn't in infantry and I didn't want anything to do with infantry. when I got my orders and they said 3rd Infantry Division I was pretty bummed because I didn't know any better. Wound up in an artillery battalion. And I have no doubt that women can do that... cut the powder, pull the lanyard, etc, etc.

I have no doubt that those women who can meet the same physical standards as the men are required to meet will be physically able to cut it in combat, but do you not agree that women MUST meet the same standards as men? Because alternatively, if women cannot meet those standards, then the standards for men must be correspondingly lowered, otherwise you still have a gender preference in the ranks......but biased against men this time, because they will have to put in more physical work than their female counterparts in order to have access to the same MOS's.....and you're back to having a sexist military again.

See, this movement cannot do anything but fail unless standards are equal across the board, not just access.

And the bottom line is that the current physical standards for men are carefully designed for the purpose of developing people who can physically hack it in combat. So, it doesn't matter the gender - if a person meets reduced standards, regardless of gender, then their ability to perform in combat will be correspondingly reduced. And then the whole military suffers. This isn't about sexism, it is about biology in its most brutally darwinian sense.

You don't have to be a combat veteran to see and understand this.

Of course, they will have to meet the standards. However many push-ups in 2 minutes, sit-ups in 2 minutes and the 2 mile run in however many minutes, based on their age. And whatever other strength quals may be required... e.g., lift 100 lb round. I don't know the standards. I think those are achievable. So that begs the question: If I recall, the standards are lowered as you get older. should we make the older soldiers adhere to the same standard as the younger ones?

Breny414 wrote:Jago668, I understand the point. I do believe there is an ample supply of women who can... just a belief. whether or not recruiters ("your recruiter lied to you, son" ) will make sure the individual is qualified is another matter.

FWIW, I wasn't in infantry and I didn't want anything to do with infantry. when I got my orders and they said 3rd Infantry Division I was pretty bummed because I didn't know any better. Wound up in an artillery battalion. And I have no doubt that women can do that... cut the powder, pull the lanyard, etc, etc.

Abraham wrote:Breny414,

Are you prior military?

Those who offer their opinions without ever having been in, especially the war fighter MOS's, where the physical demands are severe, are offering up something they know nothing about.

But, yes, it's all the PC rage to equate women with men as physical equals.

Baloney!