TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Breny414 wrote:

Breny414 wrote:

MeMelYup 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.

That may be, but can they hump a 204 lb of HE round a hundred yards from battery 1 to battery 4 during a fire for effect? Been there and it is no fun. Especially with a center battery running low because they are firing the ranging rounds and need to borrow from other guns while the ammo people are getting another load of ammo.

Sounds like an 8" round.

Not too many of the guys could do that either.

Becca Swanson could...

TAM,
He didn't answer my question which was similar. Maybe he'll answer yours.

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?

The same physical standards as the men... for the combat arms units.

Breny414 wrote:The same physical standards as the men... for the combat arms units.

That's not the case though.

You have not touched on the mental aspect yet.

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?

Well, for one thing, I would think that older soldiers tend to move up in rank, and as they move up, the increased mental demands are offset by slightly decreasing physical ones. If not, then older soldiers should probably be moved at some point into MOS's that are commensurate with their physical abilities...... which come to think of it, until now was exactly the situation between genders - MOS's commensurate with physical abilities. For instance, combat roles for pilots have been available to women for a long time now. Not that flying an F/A-18 isn't hard work, but you're not having to do it while rucking a 100+ lb pack and a rifle for 20 miles.

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:

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.

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.

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.

VMI77 wrote:

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.

Those PT standards aren't that tough, many, many women can meet those. Not sure if they will have to have the same PT standards or not to be in combat arms, but they probably should. But you will probably raise the bar or move the goal post anyway.

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

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

FOR THE WIN!!!

anygunanywhere for president of the universe.