TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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?

Because the facts are not convenient to his argument.

And as you pointed out....since the standards are lower for women, and the argument is that women can do the job meeting those standards, why are the standards for men higher? Logic dictates that either women are getting a pass because they can't meet the standards that are required to do the job or that men are being discriminated against by having to meet higher standards that are unnecessary to do the job. We both know what the answer is.

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?

OK, I had to make one more comment because you keep repeating the same falsehoods.....by this point it has to be deliberate. I find it very difficult to believe that you were in the Army and don't know that women DO NOT MEET THE SAME PHYSICAL STANDARDS. I've pointed it out numerous times. 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? You either don't know what the standards are and won't even bother to look them up or you know and ignore them because it undermines your position. Either way I'm done with you. Since you apparently don't know what the standards are I'll post them here: http://www.military.com/military-fitnes ... aining-pft

These are for the Army, the other branches have similar standards.

Age Group Gender Push-Ups Sit-Ups 2-Mile Run
17 - 21 Male 35 47 16:36
Female 13 47 19:42
22 - 26 Male 31 43 17:30
Female 11 43 20:36

I can't get the text to keep the format but it should be possible to figure out what is what. Those interested can look up the standards for older personnel.

Breny414 wrote:Obviously by joining this board I, too, support the 2nd Amendment. And I intend to get my CHL. But I didn't realize I'm a smug, condescending libtard because I have no qualms in opening up the combat arms units to women... if they can cut it. But the big issue you have with me is that I'm willing to express that conviction... on your forum.

All I've gotten from you is strawman argument and deflection. I'm only going to address this latest strawman/deflection then I'm out. I said you use the language and tactics of the left...I have no idea what your political inclinations are beyond what appears to be majoritarianism. I said you were smug and condescending solely because of the leftist terminology like "free your mind" and "don't road rage" and the dismissive and derisive attitude that language expresses, not because of your position on women in combat. You're completely unresponsive to evidence and logic and keep repeating slogans. My issue with you is your use of liberal non-debating tactics, not your position on women in combat.

Breny414 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Breny414 wrote:Abraham,

All I can say is that events have overtaken your point of view. So embrace it, and support those that make the cut.

Cheers,
Breny414

Oh yes, the mantra of the left...if we don't line up behind the cultural Marxists we're on the wrong side of history. You keep saying things like make the cut...as if women will have to meet existing standards for combat. They already don't have to meet the same standards in non-combat roles, but even if they did, as I've already pointed out going forward that isn't the way it is going to work.

Also, if at some point the left gets their way like they have in places like Australia, Canada, and the UK, and bans CC and various guns that are legal now....remember that events will have overtaken your point of view, so embrace it and support those who want to take your guns.

This is an off topic issues that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. it's about having the same opportunities for all folks if they can do the job. This same tired argument was used when the services were integrated... i.e, Morale will plummet, this will destroy our military, etc. I'm not buying it. And most republicans are on board.

Free your mind, don't road rage, etc. you will find your life that much more enjoyable.

You're comparing apples and oranges and spouting leftist nonsense. Which aspect of reality are you denying? For instance, are you denying that there are different PFT standards for men and women in the military? It only takes a few seconds on the internet to demonstrate that women don't have to meet male PFT standards and that's just one example. You keep spouting the same "if they can do the job" falsehood over and over. The standards are not the same now and they're not going to get more rigorous in the future.

Both the tiresome leftist comparison to racial integration and the plummeting morale and destroy the military misdirection's are strawmen. I will concede that the racial integration comparison could seem logical to someone who truly believes there are no physical differences between men and women. However, having been in the military with women, working with women, actually knowing women, being married to a woman with sisters, and part of the reality based world, I find such a contention absurd on its face. I have provided numerous examples of such differences and your only response is to repeat the same PC slogans and snarky remarks.

I haven't said morale will "plummet" or that it will "destroy our military." I said and will reiterate: it will get people killed. It already has, as I pointed out previously. The consequences will be bad for the majority of women...who now stand to be drafted...however much it benefits the very small minority of women who have any desire to enter combat arms. Women who didn't sign up to be in combat are now eligible for reassignment into combat billets as it suits the needs of the military. It will be detrimental to readiness...pregnancy already has this impact in support units...and the Navy has experienced it prior to long deployments.

You seem to be very concerned about who is "onboard" and whether or not your opinion is in the majority. My opinions are not informed by who is onboard or not onboard on this or any other issue. I most especially couldn't care less that "most Republicans" are onboard even if it was true --which I doubt as any poll no doubt solicited support based on the assumption that women would meet the same standards as men...which they don't now and won't in the future. I highly doubt that the majority of any group except SJWs would be in support if they understood the reality as opposed to the propaganda about "doing the job" that you keep repeating.

When I read the comments from men who have actually endured combat I see the same skepticism that I'm expressing. Check out the weaponsman blog...he's ex SF and many of those commenting on his site are combat veterans. So, no, I don't care what Republicans think, or Democrats, or SJWs, politicians, or the N.O.W....I'm listening to the people who've done the job the same as I don't listen to people who've never owned or fired a gun on the subject of gun control and self-defense.

Your attitude of "events have overtaken your point of view so embrace and support" the cultural Marxists is both condescending and logically specious....as are your smug and condescending admonitions to "free your mind" and "don't road rage." The "free your mind" snark is just a variation of the liberal tripe about how open minded they are compared to us reactionary right wingers so I'm rather surprised to see it on a gun blog. It's liberal self-congratulation. Claiming to be "open minded" is usually nothing more than self-expressed moral superiority over those who disagree and are therefore not "open minded." The 2nd Amendment analogy is relevant because a large number of people reject it and want to ignore or repeal it. Should they gain sufficient political power to do so you will be someone called upon to free your mind and embrace the new paradigm.

VMI77 wrote:

Breny414 wrote:Abraham,

All I can say is that events have overtaken your point of view. So embrace it, and support those that make the cut.

Cheers,
Breny414

Oh yes, the mantra of the left...if we don't line up behind the cultural Marxists we're on the wrong side of history. You keep saying things like make the cut...as if women will have to meet existing standards for combat. They already don't have to meet the same standards (women don't have to meet the same PFT standards as men among other things), but even if they did, as I've already pointed out going forward that isn't the way it is going to work.

Also, if at some point the left gets their way as they have in places like Australia, Canada, and the UK, and bans CC and various guns that are legal now....remember that events will have overtaken your point of view, so embrace it and support those who want to take your guns.

duplicate post deleted

anygunanywhere wrote:Jessica Lynch represents the most common woman in the military.

I don't think the "women can do everything a man can do" types are going to understand your point.

Breny414 wrote:

Abraham wrote:Breny414, (FIRE MISSION - A little Red Leg humor for you)

Supply clerks don't get to experience the up close/personal physical misery/monumental effort war fighters experience.

So, they don't really know the physical brutality it takes to keep up with the sheer, gut grinding effort to fight.

I will acknowledge a handful of women could hack it, but until and unless evolution creates mesomorphic Amazon women, few have what it takes to even be a simple Infantry soldier, never mind the extra it takes to be a Special Forces Operator.

I'm a bit curious with no insult whatsoever intended:

Are you a male or female?

I'm a male. FYI, Supply clerks are right there with their units, at least in the mechanized units like artillery. if they are hoofing it with light infantry, I couldn't tell you. So in a mechanized unit: no, we are not slogging, but in Germany (late 80's to early 90's in the 3rd ID) we were in the mud for sure.

And I have no doubt that women can slog with the best of us. The only problems I see are in harrasment, acceptance by their fellow soldiers, etc. Didn't you see Aliens? they can do it

Sounds like you've bought into the Hollywood hype where 5'6" 110 lb women beat up 6' 180 lb men. It's baloney. In fact, the Marines, through extensive testing, proved they can't pull their weight. Some of it, but not all the normal grunt stuff by any means. I served with women in the military and I remain distinctly unimpressed. I never encountered any of these fantastic equal or exceeding men specimens everyone keeps talking about and that are featured in Hollywood movies. Not one. What I saw were women who without exception couldn't or wouldn't perform at even moderately taxing physical standards.

All you guys that keep saying IF they meet the same standards.....well here's the news....they don't...and never have met the same standards. And even if they did in the past, the order from SecDef is that standards must be gender neutral. That means if women can't meet the existing standards they must be lowered...FOR WOMEN...PERIOD. There is not and never has been ANY INTENTION to require women to meet the same standards as the men. If you think this administration cares one whit about the military or the people in it you've bought the SJW propaganda hook line and sinker.

Special Forces and the Marines are the only ones that have even tried to hold the line on standards and they've been overruled. Years ago the Navy passed women pilots who couldn't meet the standards for night carrier landings and got people killed. This latest garbage will get people killed too. Of course this will never happen so it remains a thought experiment, but here's an experiment proposed by someone on the weaponsman blog:

DAN III
December 4, 2015 at 07:16

Here, I’ll state it again…..

Create a provisional battalion of female, ahem, “infantry”. Equip them the same as their now male counterparts. Drop them in the hills of Afghanistan for 30 days with a mission to hunt Hajii. No male support personnel allowed. No female “Supermen” on steroids allowed. Just your formerly average young American female who once dreamed of being married, having children and raising a family. Then we will see how soetoro-obama’s “fundamental change” works out.

In closing, here's very politically incorrect thought for you to ponder given that you're on a CHL forum. If women and men are equal why is rape an issue? You alluded to the movies....Hollywood has all these petite females beating the daylights out of men much bigger than them...why don't women simply beat up those men attempting rape? Sometimes yes, a given woman would be outmatched, but if they're "equal" physically you'd expect it to be about 50/50. Why are women considered more vulnerable and given more latitude in the use of deadly force? Shouldn't the average woman be able to deal with the average guy just as easily as the average guy can deal with the average guy? Why is wife beating an issue? If women can do what a man can do how come so many men, cowardly men actually, dare to assault women? Do these cowards who assault women usually dare to assault other men? If you're married, can your wife beat you up?

Let's flip the idea now...are you physically afraid of women? Are you at all concerned that if a woman attacked you physically you'd be unable to defend yourself? If so, what percentage of women are you afraid of? What percentage of men would you be afraid of? Do you get scared if a woman seems to be following you in a parking lot? Why or why not? Do you think a woman might be a little afraid or concerned about you following or seeming to follow her in a parking lot? Women are always talking about fearing strange men....why, if they're physically equal?

Abraham wrote:Javier730,

Were you in the military?

If so, what was your MOS?

Me, I was in the Army Infantry, MOS 11C10, 81mm mortars.

Ever hefted a mortar baseplate?

Very few women could. (It's a heck of a struggle for young, strong guys)

Yes, a very few women could, but not across the board. And, mortars aren't nearly as physically difficult to manhandle as mere ground pounders have to fight with, that is, vanilla Infantry soldiers (MOS11B10) who must ruck grueling, heavy loads for long distances while often under fire.

I do know that many feel compelled to over state what women can physically do. It feels chivalrous to say so, but it's simply not correct to equate the physical strength of women as the equal of men. It defies logic.

Do I sneer at women in the military? No! I admire them, but they cannot physically live up to the demands required of war fighters. Who, by the way, make up only 10% of the military. The other 90% are there in a support capacity.

Funny you mention mortar bases....I saw this comment on the weapons man blog:

Tim Canty
December 4, 2015 at 14:52

A friend who served as a Marine in Vietnam told me that his job involved humping a mortar base plate up and down mountains. When asked if a woman could do it, he replied that he doubted it, but as far as he was concerned she was welcome to the job.

Javier730 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

Abraham wrote:Can women do combat "type" work?

Oh yeah.

Think Russian women snipers...Think Israeli women soldiers.

Can they do Special Forces type combat?

No!

Why?

They're not physically built for it.

That's not a slur - They're simply not as strong as men in a multitude of physical ways...

Becca Swanson

I'm sure there are a lot like her in the military. She looks quick and agile too.

Yup and I bet most men could not bench or squat half of what she does. Sure her kind of power is rare but not all women are "weaker than men" like many say.

VMI77 wrote:Very very few women can ruck 90 to 120 lbs of gear, or load the main gun on an Abrams at the required rate.

Piece of cake for Becca. 551lb bench press and 843lb squat.

Mojo pretty much said it already but what's your point? As I already pointed out, they're not going to just allow the 1 woman in 1,000 or 10,000 that meet the existing standard...they've been ordered to create "gender neutral" standards.....meaning, lower standards for women wherever required to include them in significant numbers. This is not only bad for the military it's an insult to the few women who could actually meet the standards.

And that still ignores the fact of pregnancy on readiness and the gross inequity that women can escape combat by getting pregnant and some man will have to step up to replace them.

Another thing that is being ignored is the impact on all women in order to satisfy the social justice warriors who couldn't care less about the military or the people in it. There is already a lawsuit in progress, the gist of which is, that if combat positions are open to women, there is no reason why only men have to register for the draft. So the end result of this may be women being drafted. Personally, I'm sick of all the feminist garbage and I have two sons, so I say about time....if women are the same as men, draft them....but my more rational side realizes that as a society drafting women is a bad thing. And the reason the liberals want women in combat has more to do with destroying marriage and family than it does anything to do with "equality."

The "this really exceptional woman" could do it line reminds me of a famous quote of Johnson's about women preaching:

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
from Boswell's Life of Johnson

Abraham wrote:Can women do combat "type" work?

Oh yeah.

Think Russian women snipers...Think Israeli women soldiers.

Can they do Special Forces type combat?

No!

Why?

They're not physically built for it.

That's not a slur - They're simply not as strong as men in a multitude of physical ways...

The Marine Corp proved it with recent testing but the results were just ignored....regular grunt stuff, not SF.

Are there combat jobs women can do....sure....can they do all of them...even the non-SF jobs...no. I don't think much has changed since I got out of the military....there were and are double standards...or I should say, reduced standards for women in many areas. There is no reason a woman can't be a good or even a superior shot, for example, and the Israelis exploit that ability and use women for marksmanship instruction. Very very few women can ruck 90 to 120 lbs of gear, or load the main gun on an Abrams at the required rate. And that's without even considering the impact of pregnancy on readiness and deployment, or the fact that all any woman who wants to get out of going to combat has to do is get pregnant.

Take note that standards must be "gender neutral." What that means in English is that if women can't meet the existing standard it must be lowered. If they still do it like they did when I was in that doesn't mean lowering standards across the board, it just means lowering the standards applied to women.

mojo84 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

mojo84 wrote: ......same quality of vetting the administration plans for the Syrian refugees?

It is really tough the shooter was born and raised in US. Had the same "dumping down" cadering. What goes in one's mind is really tough to discover/monitor/predict.

There was more than one shooter. Not all of them were born in the US. Why do you only select part of the facts to try to make your point?

My comment is in regard to the vetting of refugees. I do not believe it is unreasonable for a sovereign country to be able to vet immigrants and refugees properly before letting them into the country. If it is not possible to vet them properly, then I believe a country has the right to deny entry. Do you agree or disagree with this?


I get and understand not all Muslims are bad people. I don't claim they are.

You are correct and I agree with you. Immigration is a selective process with National Security and adaptability of the immigrant are crucial. But in cass where a widow with 5 children all under 15 are seeking refuge, what do we do?

When I see pictures of the Syrian "refugees", I see very few women and children. The large majority are men in their 20's and 30's. Whether it's a man or woman, they should be able to be properly vetted. If not, they need to find asylum elsewhere. Otherwise, why have a sovereign country with borders? The Syrians need to stand up and fight for their country.

One of the shooters in this latest shooting was a woman. Women shouldn't be exempt and arbitrarily let in either. She even got past the DHS screening process.

Also, let's not forget, this administration now considers women good for all possible combat and has ordered the military to open all combat arms to them. If women can be SEALS and Rangers isn't it sexist and paternalistic to exempt them from consideration as terrorists? Despite our reluctance as conservatives I'm afraid we are forced to accept the wisdom of our president on this matter and consider women refugees to be just at threatening as men. In fact, it may be downright sexist not to consider them even more threatening.

rbwhatever1 wrote:I'm uneasy about meeting my maker before the barrels are hot and I'm out of ammo. We have enough takers in this country we don't need to import more. All immigration needs to cease until this global caliphate is destroyed. After that we can discuss new immigration rules with zero benefits. I don't exist to feed foreigners. Charity needs to stay where it belongs, with the churches.

And if violence is visited upon us and we do have to meet our maker, let us do so surrounded by a pile of brass.

Beiruty wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Our MSM and the Democratic party are a bigger existential threats to the American Republic than any terrorists.

And they do start with your kids at school. Socialism at liberalism at early age, also know as, dumbing down your kids.

True, and that's one of the reasons we homeschooled our kids. I didn't single out the schools because I consider them mostly to be a product of the Democratic party with the media as facilitators and enablers. What's really scary are the colleges....at least the liberal arts side. What I've heard about the professors and students from my youngest suggests a future that is absolutely terrifying to contemplate.

Our MSM and the Democratic party are a bigger existential threats to the American Republic than any terrorists.