Equal....but not here

11 years ago

I thought they judged today that you COULD. But MAN, WHY would a woman WANT that? HEY, I would be OK with it if you dressed and acted like the men, and didn't need different areas, and bound your self to NOT be complicit in any pregnancies unless they had a smooth abortion that YOU paid for, and lived up to the same standards as men with NO quotas! GRANTED, you would have to work harder than some of the men, but that is life. Even some MEN have to work harder than some of the men. and the ONLY absolute requirements made of men are based on ****NEED****! Women have the SAME need! MOST are RELATIVE and women, normally being lighter, would have lower absolute requirements there.

I bet if you did that, nearly EVERYONE would be ok with it. I am basically getting rid of most of the reasonable complaints against women serving. If you take time off for pregnancy that is not within those allowed by requirements of the men, you would be judged AWOL, and treated as the men.

And you want the enemy to be EQUALLY intimidated by ALL!!!!! Properly done, it is probably 10% killing, etc... 30% effort, and 60% intimidation. If the country is intimidated enough, the mere THREAT that you would be deployed would cause them to comply, and you would never even have to leave your neighborhood! But that 60% IS driven by the other 40%!

It is like the fonz on happy days. Richie was shocked to hear how few fights the fonz had and the fonz gave him advice that didn't work. The fonz said OH YEAH.....YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REP!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648577].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648582].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

The freezer one is good - I moved my freezer this morning! Skateboards are wonderful as moving equipment! My method for the freezer was a simple one - took the food out and then moved the freezer and put food back in. Easy peasey.

Another favorite of mine is a dog ramp I bought years ago for my aging shephard/dane mix. He was unable to jump into the car any more and the carpeted ramp allowed him to walk into the back of my SUV. I kept it after he was gone and most recently used it to push an electric fireplace with heater up onto a 20 inch high brick hearth in my home.

The women in combat positions is a done deal though it will take 2-3 years for full implementation. They have to qualify physically under the same tests as men do - and they can do it. Not all men can pass those tests, either.

Years ago when this was proposed (that women also be drafted) the talking point was "we don't want women coming home in body bags". Now that they are coming home in body bags - that argument won't fly.

It will allow more women to be promoted to high military positions - it will give women the respect for serving in combat they haven't been awarded. Almost 300,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and there are no front lines there.

This is a move by Panetta that makes sense.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648602].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Years ago when this was proposed (that women also be drafted) the talking point was "we don't want women coming home in body bags". Now that they are coming home in body bags - that argument won't fly.

Yours is NOT a valid argument! Almost 100% of those are due to pushing the envelope, or the implementation so far! The remaining maybe 1% or so are people in areas like administration and consulates, etc... That is a GIVEN just because they are in hostile areas and Americans or women. Women, for example, are not allowed to do much of ANYTHING in many middle east countries. Because AMERICAN women are treated as AMERICANS, but are women, they INCITE problems. A GIVEN.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648670].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Again the same old arguments for not allowing women to serve in military combat units. I hope this time these "but" people are not successful.

There is one very big reason women should be allowed in all military units. After service many ex-military are hired for various government jobs (at all levels of government) based on a point system earned in the military.

Women are at a disadvantage as they can be killed in war but barring them from combat units stops them from competing with men in the point system when they apply for jobs.

The argument that women "aren't as strong" is true - but - women find ways to get the job done. I can move stuff I can't lift - it's called leverage and learning to work with what you've got.

Just moved a desk (6 ft) from my car into the garage and through the house to my home office. Can I lift it? No way - it weighs more than I do. However, I can manipulate and leverage it to make it go where I want.

This is another one of those "women are equal...but" issues that needs to get resolved and left behind. If military women want to serve in combat units, let them do it.

I've always wondered that myself...

Well...if it's any consolation, women soldiers are allowed to carry umbrellas in parades...(why they would want to? I dunno...)

As for the leverage thing? That's just smart - I sometimes watch people try the stupidest things to move an object - I have lifted and moved objects weighing several hundred pounds alone that I've seen several people trying to move - they just don't think and use leverage...I guess they never heard of that Archimedes fella...

You reminded me of a housemate I had years ago - a bodybuilder btw...
I had been out on a date, and got home around 11pm - when I opened the garage door to find a chest freezer blocking the entrance - getting out of my car, my 'roomie' was standing at the door with a ticked-off look "I've been waiting over 4 hours for you to get home so I could get this freezer moved back here", he said. I looked to the side of the garage, where there were two items - a hand-truck, and a skateboard (makeshift dolly) picking up one end of the freezer with the hand-truck, putting the skateboard underneath, then going to the other side - I easily and quickly shuttled the freezer to the intended spot, and plugged it in! - job done! 60 seconds!

Which of course, only made "Conan the Barbarian" that much madder

You have to wonder sometimes...:rolleyes:

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648596].message }}

Dan Riffle

11 years ago

Sometimes it really is about "equal...but not here."

I'm personally torn on this issue. When we get down to it, why shouldn't women have an equal chance of dying on the front line? Why should men be expected to do all the dying? However, can a combat force maintain operational effectiveness with lower physicality? A fighting force's main reason for existing is to defend and defeat. Any alteration to its structure that decreases its ability to do that is a poor decision. -- It will take, probably, a couple decades to develop enough data to determine if this is a good decision or a poor one.

Sometimes gender roles are outdated and discriminatory. Sometimes gender roles are simply smart decisions made via a culture's combined experience through the ages.

Here's an interesting perspective from a female Marine combat unit commander:
Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648614].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

can a combat force maintain operational effectiveness with lower physicality

They don't have to, Steve - the women will be required to pass the SAME physical tests as the men now do. Not all will qualify but the ones that do deserve the chance to serve in jobs they want to do.

The article you linked to makes some interesting points about physical fatigue, etc - but I expect many men suffer the same problems.

Service in certain units, like having certain civilian jobs - shouldn't be a "right" to correct unfairness. It's opening a new opportunity for those women who want to be in combat units - and CAN do it. When you set limits for what women are allowed to do - you limit women to doing what you think they should. That's wrong.

[ 2 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648682].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

They don't have to, Steve - the women will be required to pass the SAME physical tests as the men now do. Not all will qualify but the ones that do deserve the chance to serve in jobs they want to do.

The article you linked to makes some interesting points about physical fatigue, etc - but I expect many men suffer the same problems.

Service in certain units, like having certain civilian jobs - shouldn't be a "right" to correct unfairness. It's opening a new opportunity for those women who want to be in combat units - and CAN do it. When you set limits for what women are allowed to do - you limit women to doing what you think they should. That's wrong.

Not to mention that even many jobs in forward zones now require deft and skill rather than brawn. I think it may ultimately boil down to the "if captured" scenario, which is also not really rational.

But then again, I don't really want to get beat up by some Krav Maga kickin' ass Israeli Lady either! (it might bruise my sensitive ego

)

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648749].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate

Not to mention that even many jobs in forward zones now require deft and skill rather than brawn. I think it may ultimately boil down to the "if captured" scenario, which is also not really rational.

But then again, I don't really want to get beat up by some Krav Maga kickin' ass Israeli Lady either! (it might bruise my sensitive ego

)

AGAIN, if WOMEN get captured, the aggressor figures they have TWO benefits! They don't have a hostage. They have a ****FEMALE**** HOSTAGE! That means maybe some torture , crying, and pleas, to get sympathy from the others. Unfortunately, there isn't anything to do about that other than to bring back the old ways that I have been saying they should have had in the 70s!!!!!!!

In the 70s, the US lost a LOT of respect, and some hostages were kept by iran. They said "We have HOSTAGES! Any attempt to betray us, and YOU will be responsible for hurting them."! WE should have said "You are attempting to hold AMERICA hostage! If you don't send them back safely NOW, YOU will be responsible for the deaths and injuries suffered by YOU and anyone else in Iran so hurt. Even a hair out of place on them YOU will be responsible for. You have ONE DAY to get them here safely!". If we did THAT, we might have gotten them back safely and averted all the garbage we are dealing with NOW. MAN, LOOK where we are NOW!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648811].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

They don't have to, Steve - the women will be required to pass the SAME physical tests as the men now do. Not all will qualify but the ones that do deserve the chance to serve in jobs they want to do.

DAN asked that, I didn't! As I said, many tests are RELATIVE! Smaller people have a lower absolute goal. Of course things, like the backpack, should be ABSOLUTE because they are based on NEED!

The article you linked to makes some interesting points about physical fatigue, etc - but I expect many men suffer the same problems.

Service in certain units, like having certain civilian jobs - shouldn't be a "right" to correct unfairness. It's opening a new opportunity for those women who want to be in combat units - and CAN do it. When you set limits for what women are allowed to do - you limit women to doing what you think they should. That's wrong.

Please reread what I said. I suspect much of the above is toward Dan ALSO.

I agree with you as long as we are saying equal is equal. A LOT of times, especially with women, equal is NOT equal! Getting time off, and discharged for being pregnant, for example, is not equal. Having special quarters to yourself is not equal. etc....

Even things like pushups(a RELATIVE based task), was, last I knew, LOWER for women. If you had to do the SAME number of pushups as a man, it would generally be a lower absolute goal because you are generally LIGHTER.

The determining factors should be.....

1. Ability to intimidate.
2. Ability to back that up.
3. Costs
4. "fairness".

WHY? The first 3 are about decency, cost, and usefulness to the WORLD! The 4th is about that one PERSON.

SUPPOSE the army didn't intimidate so much. There may be MORE wars and deaths all over, and costs go up. Suppose they couldn't back it up? SAME THING! Suppose costs went up? We would be in worse shape than we are now! Suppose it was a little less fair. A few would be miffed. EASY CHOICE! As spock would say... The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And this is dealing only with the DESIRES of the few.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648755].message }}

Dan Riffle

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

They don't have to, Steve - the women will be required to pass the SAME physical tests as the men now do. Not all will qualify but the ones that do deserve the chance to serve in jobs they want to do.

The article you linked to makes some interesting points about physical fatigue, etc - but I expect many men suffer the same problems.

Service in certain units, like having certain civilian jobs - shouldn't be a "right" to correct unfairness. It's opening a new opportunity for those women who want to be in combat units - and CAN do it. When you set limits for what women are allowed to do - you limit women to doing what you think they should. That's wrong.

Actually, that was my question. Please don't blame Steve for my comments. He gets enough grief as it is.

And it's simply a question because we don't currently have the data. Passing the same test isn't the same as possessing the same field effectiveness. Physical, psychological, emotional issues will need to be studied.

Quite honestly, I only give a damn about the effectiveness of our fighting forces. If women can maintain effectiveness, then so be it. If they can't, I don't care about their career aspirations. They shouldn't be out there. Lowering field effectiveness means more dead soldiers, both men and women.

Who knows, we might find out women are better in than field than men. With today's tech, maybe physicality is a moot point and with the closing of the gap of male and female aggression levels (just search youtube for "chick fights"), maybe the mental and emotional aspect is moot, as well. However, to put women in the field solely to equal the career playing field shouldn't be the point. The point should be putting to ground the most effective combat force possible.

Thanks

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648822].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

AMAZING! Who would have DREAMED that this stuff would be DESIRED by women. Do you have ANY idea how many MEN ran into problems trying to ESCAPE the DRAFT?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648674].message }}

Josh Monroe

11 years ago

If Women want equality, give it to them. This means, (in this case) they must pass the same physical tests as the men, and live under the same living conditions/standards as the men.

I don't know too much about this, but I do know that the physical for Women, is different than the physical males have to pass.

If they want equality, they pass the same test. Simple.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648766].message }}

waterotter

11 years ago

If they want equality, they pass the same test. Simple.

And I'd like to see men undergo Mammogram testing if you catch my drift:p

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648836].message }}

Dan Riffle 11 years ago

Originally Posted by waterotter

And I'd like to see men undergo Mammogram testing if you catch my drift:p

I'll trade you a prostate exam for a Mammogram.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648843].message }}
- waterotter 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Dan Riffle
  
  I'll trade you a prostate exam for a Mammogram.
  
  Any day! Us women are subjected to rectal examinations, so not much difference there:p
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648900].message }}
MoneyMagnetMagnate 11 years ago

Originally Posted by waterotter

And I'd like to see men undergo Mammogram testing if you catch my drift:p

I'm not putting anything into that 'squeezer' thing!
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648896].message }}
seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by waterotter

And I'd like to see men undergo Mammogram testing if you catch my drift:p

That is SO unlikely, that men simply aren't tested. But HEY, men might get a digital exam, and THAT is not comfortable. BTW Digital does NOT mean electronic r having to do with technology. YEAH, I KNOW, women might feel worse with papsmears, but I think mammograms are a relative walk in the park, from what I have seen.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7649296].message }}

waterotter

11 years ago

Sorry Kay, sometimes a response is just too hard to resist.

Back on topic..........

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648934].message }}

Dan Riffle 11 years ago

Originally Posted by waterotter

Sorry Kay, sometimes a response is just too hard to resist.

Back on topic..........

Agreed. It was a crappy attempt at humor on my part.
- Thanks
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648984].message }}

Robert Michael

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Again the same old arguments for not allowing women to serve in military combat units. I hope this time these "but" people are not successful.

There is one very big reason women should be allowed in all military units. After service many ex-military are hired for various government jobs (at all levels of government) based on a point system earned in the military.

Women are at a disadvantage as they can be killed in war but barring them from combat units stops them from competing with men in the point system when they apply for jobs.

The argument that women "aren't as strong" is true - but - women find ways to get the job done. I can move stuff I can't lift - it's called leverage and learning to work with what you've got.

Just moved a desk (6 ft) from my car into the garage and through the house to my home office. Can I lift it? No way - it weighs more than I do. However, I can manipulate and leverage it to make it go where I want.

This is another one of those "women are equal...but" issues that needs to get resolved and left behind. If military women want to serve in combat units, let them do it.

I agree they should be allowed to fight in combat IF they choose to. They would obviously understand the risks they are taking.

My biggest problem (more of a worry) is what would happen to them if those women were captured..

We already know what type of stuff happens to captured American males.. this would be just as bad, but adding the possibility of a brutal sexual assault to the mix.

I just have a very soft spot for women. I seriously can't even stand the thought of something happening to my wife, or any other woman.. Surely I can't be the only person who worries about that kind of thing.

Thanks

Signature

2017's BEST Facebook Group Management Tool
Professional Quality e-Covers | Private / Shared Proxies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7648991].message }}

whateverpedia

11 years ago

Women should be allowed to participate in front line combat if they want to.

The question is, why would they want to?

Why would any sane person want to experience something like this?

Saving private ryan d-day scene (1/4) - YouTube

Thanks

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7649183].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

I'll preface this by saying "I hope I'm not out of line"...

But though I agree the issue of equality for women in the US military is an important issue, and deserves the attention it is due - I think this issue of equality for women would be somewhere down on the importance scale for many subjugated women around the world, who can now only dream this would be their number one concern.

If I am out of line, let me know...but if there were women SEAL teams (someday there may be) or even a private group of women 'mercs', I would like to see them waging war against the extremely oppressive situations many women now face around the world - saying (in the words of Peter Finch as Howard Beale) "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore!" (just IMO)

(oh, and as long as you get home in time to fix dinner :rolleyes

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7649292].message }}

Young Financier

11 years ago

Women, for the most part, don't wanna be equal. Like other so-called unequal groups, they want equality when it benefits them and inferiority when it benefits them...basically jumping the fence when either side of beneficial at the time. Either women go all the way equal, taking all the downsides that comes with it, or stfu about wanting equality.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7649401].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

I just find it so hard to understand why some people think that the body of an 18 yr old girl blown to smithereens is so much more tragic than the body of an 18 yr old boy that is blown to smithereens.

In my estimation we should ALL just tell our governments to go shove it "we aren't fighting for your wealth and power any more, you want war, just go fight yourself."

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7649409].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

I just find it so hard to understand why some people think that the body of an 18 yr old girl blown to smithereens is so much more tragic than the body of an 18 yr old boy that is blown to smithereens.

In my estimation we should ALL just tell our governments to go shove it "we aren't fighting for your wealth and power any more, you want war, just go fight yourself."

You're right. Males and females will probably NEVER be "equal". They aren't SUPPOSED to be. That is NOT to say either sex is necessarily better or worse. But people often care more for females. Ever hear the "Sugar and spice, and everything nice...." rhyme? There is a LOT of truth in it even if it IS symbolic. And there is the old "Women and kids first" scenario. That does NOT make sense in time of war if they are combatants.

Moslems don't want women to even be able to look or act feminine, so they are often forbidden to do so in public AND, they are not given some basic freedoms. Basically they are treated as lower than young boys.

As for what you said about the government? The guy that sold me my gun made it CLEAR that he was told to SHUT UP until closing. I got him to talk a little earlier. He feels like you and I, and said he would be shocked if something doesn't happen in a few months. I would say, but....

If even HALF of what I heard is true, WOW!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7649554].message }}

Jeff Williams

11 years ago

Wild. I didn't know about the point advantage men had over women when applying for government jobs.

I live near an Army base and have talked with numerous soldiers before and their reasons for seeking combat usually involve patriotism, belief in the wars we fight, or simply a sense of duty to protect fellow Americans lives. I've even met some who said "it was either this or prison".

In any case, they are all compelling reasons.

But, if a woman wants to kill or be killed on the front lines of one of our many wars solely for the opportunity to add "points" to her resume' and feel "equal" ... she should be required to go. She should walk point.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7649671].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Jeff Williams

Wild. I didn't know about the point advantage men had over women when applying for government jobs.

I live near an Army base and have talked with numerous soldiers before and their reasons for seeking combat usually involve patriotism, belief in the wars we fight, or simply a sense of duty to protect fellow Americans lives. I've even met some who said "it was either this or prison".

In any case, they are all compelling reasons.

But, if a woman wants to kill or be killed on the front lines of one of our many wars solely for the opportunity to add "points" to her resume' and feel "equal" ... she should be required to go. She should walk point.

You have a point(No pun intended).

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7650057].message }}

Tina Golden

11 years ago

Wouldn't it be smarter to change the damn point system? That's where the inequity lies. That shouldn't apply to just combat.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7650167].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

It doesn't apply just to combat - it's a point system that reflect the level of military service. I don't know the full system but for years men leaving the military often had an advantage in the job market over ex-military women. The point reflect accomplishment, rank and perhaps more than that - but being able to get a point for combat service was out of reach for women.

Promotions will be easier to move women into higher areas of military rank as those take points into account, too.

I don't see a downside here. Only women who can qualify in the same testing men undergo will be accepted in a combat unit. To me, it's one of those issues people argue over for years - then 10 years after it becomes accepted, people wonder what the problem was in the first place.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7650299].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

It doesn't apply just to combat - it's a point system that reflect the level of military service. I don't know the full system but for years men leaving the military often had an advantage in the job market over ex-military women. The point reflect accomplishment, rank and perhaps more than that - but being able to get a point for combat service was out of reach for women.

Promotions will be easier to move women into higher areas of military rank as those take points into account, too.

I don't see a downside here. Only women who can qualify in the same testing men undergo will be accepted in a combat unit. To me, it's one of those issues people argue over for years - then 10 years after it becomes accepted, people wonder what the problem was in the first place.

Yeah, I don't know if that EVER happened. Every time things move all over the place and they wear some down, and other compromise, etc... ICSAWLM!!!!!

Like the whole $%^&* marriage thing. What happened to the first amendment? The first amendment IS written in 18th century terms, but makes it clear that the government is not to prefer, or interfere in the practice of any religion. They ARE trying to rewrite the bible to allow it. HECK, they actually DID rewrite history and the bible! Don't believe me? The Queen James Bible - A Gay Bible HECK, they don't even realize that the original bible was written in greek and hebrew, and they are rewriting the bible claiming to be scholars of it.

Their plan is apparently to make people believe that james wrote the bible, and specifically allowed such things.

In the US military, they at least USED to definitely have lower requirements for women. Let's say people are telling the truth, and *****NOW***** they are the same. It is DOUBTFUL they raised the women's, but let's say they did. WHAT do they do with the women already there? RETEST, and kick them out if they don't qualify, and take back everything they got? WHAT? SO, even if they DID raise the requirements, the inequality STANDS! What if the LOWERED the mens standards? Do they pay all the rejected men back pay, etc...?

And I don't know what interest YOU have. Frankly, I am too old, so I wouldn't be let in anyway. Is THAT fair?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7650425].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

Here is a good example of directions the military is going (some may or may not agree with this direction - depending of what side of the drone you're on)
In this interview promoting an upcoming NOVA - "Rise of the Drones"
The M.I.T Professor in Aeronautics and Astronautics (who mentions off-hand "I used to fly f-18's in the Navy...") - Missy Cummings
Missy Cummings - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/23/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

http://video.pbs.org/video/2314355060/ (aired 1/23/13 it will repeat)

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7650431].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

MMM,

I knew a woman that claimed she flew SR71s! She DID say she flew them AFTER they were "decommissioned". ANOTHER conspiracy theory proven TRUE! I can't say that SHE flew one, but I CAN say they were FLOWN, at a time when they said they WEREN'T. Of course the REAL question is where and why.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7652608].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

Steve - the "same" requirements refers only to the testing for combat duty positions.

That's different from the initial physical tests required for anyone joining the military.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7653538].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Steve - the "same" requirements refers only to the testing for combat duty positions.

That's different from the initial physical tests required for anyone joining the military.

OK, THAT's good.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7654292].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

Just an observation for consideration:

Tactical concerns In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948. The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of female soldiers, and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness.
However, in 2001, subsequent to the publication of Grossman's book, women did begin serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis. There is now an all-female infantry battalion, the Caracal Battalion.
Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghan civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers. However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving within a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians, and in some cases the female areas of segregated mosques, while causing less offense amongst the population. A notable example of this would be female US military personnel who are specially selected to participate in patrols and raids for this purpose. One example of this type of unit is the USMC Lioness program, which used female Marines to search females [27] at checkpoints both on the Iraq-Syrian border [28] and inside urban areas.[29] Another example is the US Army Cultural Support Teams (CSTs). These units, designed to accompany special operations teams and work alongside them in deployed environments, are intended to provide access to the information and needs of local community women in communities where contact between male soldiers and civilian women is culturally fraught.[30]
There has, however been evidence that shows that women in combat in OIF and OEF have had success acquiring intelligences from children and women more than men have due to cultural constraints. Men are not permitted to talk to women who are not in their family or are not married to them.[31] Besides the issue of women in combat, the've been a strategic advantage to help train women in police forces. This empowers women to have more of position in their community outside of their homes.[32]
Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers "are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it is not as easy to program men to neglect women."[33]

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7654055].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Well, just to show you that my view is not simply because I happen to be male, Ann Coulter feels the EXACT SAME WAY! Neither she NOR I could go in the military now. We are both too old. Today, she reiterated the points I made earlier!

It IS interesting. She was talking about how men had to be put in capture situations with women screaming, like they were tortured, etc... so the men would get used to it.
Juan claimed a man could do the same thing, screaming, etc.... *****WRONG***** Men are less likely to, and other men would be less likely to react the same way. I'm not saying women WOULD scream, etc..., but that they may. Men anywhere hopefully wouldn't torture women like that but, as they say in the US, and probably many other places.... "All's fair in love and war.". There IS a reason for such a saying. BTW note for foreigners. That saying is VERY old, and can't be attributed to ANYONE in the past 50 years and likely nobody in even the past 100. The concept is an international one going back thousands of years at least.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7654647].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

I thought Ann Coulter was a man - isn't that how she avoided the draft? (tip: check for Adam's apple)

Oh, wait - maybe that was Ted Nugent...easy mistake...:rolleyes:

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7654850].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate

I thought Ann Coulter was a man - isn't that how she avoided the draft? (tip: check for Adam's apple)

Oh, wait - maybe that was Ted Nugent...easy mistake...

A LOT of people tried to avoid the draft MANY ways for a LOT of reasons. And EVEN a conscientious objector(like I would have been) can later get a gun for protection! That is a FACT!!!!!!!

A conscientious objector is NOT one that will never hurt anyone! They are someone that does not WANT to hurt anyone! A burglar with a gun REMOVES that choice! A TYRANT REMOVES that choice! They were asked to fight an unknown foe for an unknown reason.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7654892].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

A LOT of people tried to avoid the draft MANY ways for a LOT of reasons. And EVEN a conscientious objector(like I would have been) can later get a gun for protection! That is a FACT!!!!!!!

A conscientious objector is NOT one that will never hurt anyone! They are someone that does not WANT to hurt anyone! A burglar with a gun REMOVES that choice! A TYRANT REMOVES that choice! They were asked to fight an unknown foe for an unknown reason.

Steve

I think sometimes the term 'conscientious objector' is a misnomer...

I don't necessarily object to killing anyone - I just object to killing anyone for the wrong reasons.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7654938].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate

I think sometimes the term 'conscientious objector' is a misnomer...

I don't necessarily object to killing anyone - I just object to killing anyone for the wrong reason.

Just my point. THEY didn't either. Were there some cowards? Probably. But do you REALLY want THOSE? Probably not. They don't take everyone anyway. HEY, it fits here! One woman that tried PX90 said she tried it to re certify for the military. As I recall, she said they have to pass a physical test every 6 months, and she came short.

I don't have the guns to use them, but in CASE I have to use them. There was recently a story about two robbers that came to rob a place. One had a hand gun. There were two residents, that were there. One woke up the other. The one that was asleep got out his AR15. The robbers opened the door, and found the barrel of an AR15 aimed at them. They backed away and left! I guess the press scared them, etc...

The punch line? The AR15 wasn't even loaded! It might have saved their lives, and it wasn't even loaded! NOBODY was hurt!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7654956].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Just my point. THEY didn't either. Were there some cowards? Probably. But do you REALLY want THOSE? Probably not. They don't take everyone anyway. HEY, it fits here! One woman that tried PX90 said she tried it to re certify for the military. As I recall, she said they have to pass a physical test every 6 months, and she came short.

I don't have the guns to use them, but in CASE I have to use them. There was recently a story about two robbers that came to rob a place. One had a hand gun. There were two residents, that were there. One woke up the other. The one that was asleep got out his AR15. The robbers opened the door, and found the barrel of an AR15 aimed at them. They backed away and left! I guess the press scared them, etc...

The punch line? The AR15 wasn't even loaded! It might have saved their lives, and it wasn't even loaded! NOBODY was hurt!

Steve

It don't woik dat way with the guvamint - it's either 'all or nothing' - to them, you can;t object to killing SOME people...you have to object to killing ALL people...(I wonder if 'vegetarian' counts :rolleyes

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7655102].message }}

Equal....but not here

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?