RE: Women In the Infantry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Kuokkanen -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2016 6:00:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

Chosen Infantry group (100-M, 95-M, 90-M, 85-M, 85-F)
Average infantry group score: 91

As you can see, the female with the best score was better than one of the males. She wasn't better than "the average male score", but she was better than an actual real life male. By doing so, she also improved the average score of 90 that the infantry unit would have achieved if only the male recruits had been chosen to the higher standard of 91.

That's what equality means. The best person for the job, gets the job. It's not a liberal ideal or a conservative ideal. It's an American ideal. The reason we have an army is to protect all of our nation's ideals.

Sounds good. So what is all the complaining about worse performing women in the infantry?



operating -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2016 3:29:47 AM)

Just read Jim D Burns post(s), quite interesting..

Got me to thinking: Would all women presently in the armed services be in favor of having all women of age to be forced into signing up for selective service (the draft) or not?



Alchenar -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2016 6:53:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Just read Jim D Burns post(s), quite interesting..

Got me to thinking: Would all women presently in the armed services be in favor of having all women of age to be forced into signing up for selective service (the draft) or not?


Nobody cares. I mean the answer is that if you have a draft then every able bodied adult should be eligible for it, but given the draft will never ever be used again it's a weird non-issue that only the Republican nominee race seems to care about. You could be in favour of requiring unborn foetuses to sign up for the draft knowing comfortably that nothing would ever come of it.

Side note: if the US ever is in a war which is going so badly it needs to activate the draft, the average woman being a few points less physically capable than the average man is not something that anyone will be worrying about.




Zap -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2016 8:15:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar


quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Just read Jim D Burns post(s), quite interesting..

Got me to thinking: Would all women presently in the armed services be in favor of having all women of age to be forced into signing up for selective service (the draft) or not?


Nobody cares. I mean the answer is that if you have a draft then every able bodied adult should be eligible for it, but given the draft will never ever be used again it's a weird non-issue that only the Republican nominee race seems to care about. You could be in favour of requiring unborn foetuses to sign up for the draft knowing comfortably that nothing would ever come of it.

Side note: if the US ever is in a war which is going so badly it needs to activate the draft, the average woman being a few points less physically capable than the average man is not something that anyone will be worrying about.




Why don't those seeking equality of women in the service care. Its a symbolic act(they like symbolic acts) to again show women are equal to men. Its obvious there is something they don't like about women registering for selective service but I'm stumped as to what it is. Unless it is the insincerity and inconsistency of the movement.



Poopyhead -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2016 1:32:57 PM)

For decades the law in the land permitted women to work any job for which they were qualified. Women were also eligible for every Military Occupation Specialty (MOS) in the armed forces except combat arms (armor, artillery and infantry). This is no longer a social experiment, it is a social reality. The only social experiment that is now going on is the all male combat arms.

Every soldier is a warfighter. If you can prove otherwise, then just tell Congress. I'm sure they would cut that position out of the military budget before you can play taps. If an infantry formation and a female General ever end up surrounded on a hill together, guess who will be giving the orders? This actually goes for any female officer of superior rank to the infantryman commander. All officers go to Commanding General Staff College to learn how to lead combined arms units. A friend of mine had a classmate at CGSC that was a chaplain! The chaplain wasn't there to give prayer during the meals. He was a staff officer and the Army expected him to lead troops in battle if it came down to it. So women can already lead infantry units in combat.

Women are in combat. Women soldiers have been shot, blown up, taken prisoner, molested, decorated for bravery in action against our enemies, been treated for PTSD, died fighting and yes, sadly, disrespected by our own troops and leaders. Remarkably, we still get women volunteering to join the fight.

Recapping, this is not a social experiment. This isn't a liberal trick to open the gates for the barbarians. The women soldiers I led had more in common with tigers than lambs. It's a violation of Art. 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to falsify a document, so if you have actual proof of fraudulent test results for any female training, then just let the DOJ know, not some dog with a blog. Women are in combat already, so this is not a question to be asked. If our nation ever goes to a draft again, then maybe more worthless, pajama-boy POS will be worried than women. I demonstrated how statistics can be constructed to tell a lie and that above average women soldiers might actually raise infantry standards by replacing below average grunts. Audie Murphy was turned down for service in the Marines for being underweight, but became the most decorated soldier in WW II. I recall a pearl of wisdom about "the size of the dog in the fight is not as important as the size of the fight in the dog". So what arguments remain?



gradenko2k -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2016 1:46:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap
Why don't those seeking equality of women in the service care. Its a symbolic act(they like symbolic acts) to again show women are equal to men. Its obvious there is something they don't like about women registering for selective service but I'm stumped as to what it is. Unless it is the insincerity and inconsistency of the movement.

Because it's a "gotcha" argument that's frankly patronizing.

Someone baiting you with "Well if you're all so tough why don't you go sign up for the draft then?" isn't arguing in good faith.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead
if you have actual proof of fraudulent test results for any female training, then just let the DOJ know, not some dog with a blog.

Certainly if Mr Jim D Burns had any werewithal at all to do something more about this supposed affirmative action hire beyond kicking his chair, then the series of events he shared with us might not have escalated to such unfortunate results, but lets not let an actionable response get in the way of a good anecdote.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2016 3:44:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
Certainly if Mr Jim D Burns had any werewithal at all to do something more about this supposed affirmative action hire beyond kicking his chair, then the series of events he shared with us might not have escalated to such unfortunate results, but lets not let an actionable response get in the way of a good anecdote.


For your info I did try many times to get him involved in our regular running group that ran lake Merit and study groups that met on the weekends at my place. He steadfastly refused any and all help and grew angry with anyone that tried to help him prepare for his exams. And why not, he was guaranteed to pass by the ideologues that took him into the one on one remedial exams. I mean come on they were giving him the answers...

On a side note one of the instructors (he must have gotten caught somehow, no one else was held to account at all) who passed him was allowed to retire with full benefits and was given a job at the DA's office as an investigator after the rapes, so no real accountability for the ones actually responsible for training the man. Had they actually tried to do their job and train him up to the same standards all police officers should be trained to then perhaps the tragedy may have been averted.

I find it funny that you would think I, another trainee at the time who was spending 60-80 hours a week studying law, was somehow responsible for the mans failed training and not the trainers themselves.

Jim



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2016 6:32:40 PM)

I see forcing women into combat roles via the draft as immoral. And it will remain immoral until such time as men can carry pregnancies to full term. Women currently must perform 100% of the child-bearing duty. If they also must perform 50% of the combat duty then that is an obvious injustice. The survival burden should remain equally distributed, as it is now.

Now, that does not preclude volunteer female combat units. That seems to be just an issue of efficacy, not morality. Presumably, we'll generate some volunteer female combat units and if they pull their own weight keep them; if not, disband them.



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2016 7:36:27 PM)

I have deleted a number of CLEARLY partisan political posts, rather than lock the thread. Jagdtiger14 - this was clearly derailed by you.

Cheers

Pip



Poopyhead -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2016 12:15:36 PM)

This is what is under discussion:
https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft
This is the existing law:
https://www.sss.gov/
These are the existing exemptions:
https://www.sss.gov/About/Return-to-the-Draft/Postponements-Deferments-Exemptions

Women in the military already continue to "perform 100% of the child-bearing duty". They also are still soldiers. We have married women soldiers raising families while fighting wars. During Desert Storm, a female Colonel who was a surgeon was essential, so her spouse was tasked with taking care of their children under her deployment plan. Her spouse was a General.

We already have great volunteer women soldiers. The military works for them. We don't have to change one thing to have great women draftees. The real argument is that this is an anachronism. In case we ever needed to draft anyone for another war, then the place where they keep the selective service records would be flat, black, burnt, dead and glow in the dark.



operating -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2016 3:47:57 PM)

Hmmm! It would take an act of Congress to draft women into the selective service: https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft

So which one of Hilldabeast's buddies is going to introduce a Bill to Congress to have women drafted?[:D]



Poopyhead -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2016 4:31:03 PM)

This is another instance of an attempt to create a group of one-issue voters. Congress might as well stipulate that the women draftees will only be assigned to the Balloon Corps or exclusively used to feed the dragons. The politics of any draft has no place in the reality of the 21st Century. Twenty million people with former military service training would be used before the hipsters.



wgfred -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2016 4:46:21 PM)

Well, just to add to my opinion to the discussion, world-wide historically and currently all types have served in combat including women and children; willingly or unwillingly. The questions in my mind are what kind of military force do we want to represent our country and project to others? What age limit should we have if the only measurement is physical and mental ability (without regard to gender)? Can a 14 year-old male perform as well as a 20 year-old female who is quailified? How about a 63 year-old, male or female? If so and they want to join, why not? Perhaps it comes down to where we think we should draw the line and what is the logical basis for drawing that line. In an all-out combat for the survival of the country anyone and everyone would likely have a place. Do we want to start putting the necessary structure in place now to train and equip all those who may be asked to fight sometime in the future?

I think we restricted women explicitly from combat roles generally as a more civilized gesture than as a purely sexist, gender-dominating response. Same reasoning for restricting children, or the mentally and physically less-abled, from serving in any role in the military. Many if not most fully-capable men today don't want to serve in the military and are not required to do so because it is not the most desirable of ways to make a living, so-to-speak, for most people. So any decisions on who should be allowed to serve should consider what is our objective with the military and how do we best accomplish that?



Zap -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2016 5:28:28 PM)

best point so far and+1



VPaulus -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2016 5:51:31 PM)

Unfortunately, some forum users just keeping derailing this thread, so we have decided to lock the thread.



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 17 18 [19]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125