BF2S Forums U.S. military opens combat positions to women

If they have to meet the same standards im sure itll be fine.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

All U.S. military combat positions are being opened up to women, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The decision allows women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men -- including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/ … positions/


This is outrageous. Women cannot perform as well as men. This will make our country unsafer.


And I seriously doubt the fat dyed hair internet feminist who are pushing for this see themselves driving an APC through Aleppo in the future. This is more sexist than not having women in combat roles. Poor women and mothers are going to die for political correctness.

you mean some women cannot perform as well as some men.  Some men can't perform as well as some women.  The great thing is that it is a standardized process to weed out the weak, and there's no sort of affirmative action in the rank and file military.  If people have the physical and mental skills necessary, they will be allowed in positions, regardless of anatomy.

So basically you're a sexist pig.

I am 100% sure there will be a push for "fairer" standards that will lower the battle requirements for woman in the future.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

so you're being proactive in your sexism?

I'm trying to save the lives of poor women who will die in combat as a result of unnecessary changes in 3000 years of Western military tradition.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

All U.S. military combat positions are being opened up to women, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The decision allows women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men -- including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/ … positions/


This is outrageous. Women cannot perform as well as men. This will make our country unsafer.


And I seriously doubt the fat dyed hair internet feminist who are pushing for this see themselves driving an APC through Aleppo in the future. This is more sexist than not having women in combat roles. Poor women and mothers are going to die for political correctness.

you mean some women cannot perform as well as some men.  Some men can't perform as well as some women.  The great thing is that it is a standardized process to weed out the weak, and there's no sort of affirmative action in the rank and file military.  If people have the physical and mental skills necessary, they will be allowed in positions, regardless of anatomy.

So basically you're a sexist pig.

Yes, there is affirmative action. No, they aren't held to the same standards. Are they going to be machine gunners or mortarmen? Nope. And that means some marginal male is going to have to take up the role.

If we had all female units like other countries have, fine. Mixed? It's going to be a fairly major downgrade in overall combat effectiveness.

I don't care about periods, or pregnancy, or morale, I strictly care about physical ability, and it's a fact that the strongest female is still going to be weaker than the weakest males. Remember, weak males in the military aren't the same as weak males in the civilian world.

I was in a mixed unit and about half of the women suddenly wound up pregnant as soon as we got our deployment orders.

Jaekus wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

All U.S. military combat positions are being opened up to women, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The decision allows women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men -- including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/ … positions/


This is outrageous. Women cannot perform as well as men. This will make our country unsafer.

Your country's greatest issues are cultural, as are my country's, and women being a part of the military have very little to do with it.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard are not a cultural issue.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

so i guess you didn't read the article.  Or maybe you know something that the person setting the policy doesn't.

"This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.

He said the decision doesn't mean there will quickly become an even gender split in most combat positions. He said there are "physical differences on average" between men and women and that "thus far, we've only seen small numbers of women qualify to meet our high physical standards" for some units.

"the strongest female is still going to be weaker than the weakest male"

you're a dummy.  That's the nicest way I can react about the above statement

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

so i guess you didn't read the article.  Or maybe you know something that the person setting the policy doesn't.

"This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.

"the strongest female is still going to be weaker than the weakest male"

you're a dummy.  That's the nicest way I can react about the above statement

cool i guess?  It has no relevance to this conversation though.

Jay, what is the point of your little anecdote?

Most of the women I served with had no actual interest in being in the military. It was a way to get out of their podunk town and find a husband. When it came time to actually do their job, they found a way out of it. Hell, I worked with one girl who was pregnant for the entire three years after she finished basic training so she could take advantage of the free healthcare.

I'm sorry, I'm all for equality, but not when it comes to physical jobs. I don't like tiny women being cops because they depend on their weapons more and I don't like women firefighters because they can't carry people out of fires. The same goes for being a stonemason or a carpenter or a steamfitter. These jobs all require physical strength. If a women can hang with the crew and not be a drag, awesome. If a woman is going to be a detriment, which will happen in a politicized environment like the military, it's a problem. I'm not sure what the physical training tests look like these days, but when I was in, women had much lower standards. They had a few extra minutes on the run, about 1/3 of the pushups and roughly the same situps as minimums.

joining the military for less than altruistic reasons is surely something only women do.

guess what Jay?  The standards have probably changed now that the decision to open up  combat roles to women has been taken.  I don't know how i can make it more clear?  Oh yeah, I can quote the article.  Specifically:

"This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.

He said the decision doesn't mean there will quickly become an even gender split in most combat positions. He said there are "physical differences on average" between men and women and that "thus far, we've only seen small numbers of women qualify to meet our high physical standards" for some units.

It was really easy to find, seeing as I quoted it a few posts before.  But please tell us about your military experience 6 years ago and how it's relevant now.  Perhaps I can ask my brother or dad about their service experience from 10 and 30 years ago, respectively.  I'm sure my dad especially has a wealth of knowledge that is relevant to 2015.

that's for general physical fitness, and that is pre-doctrine shift.  IE that is not a good reference point.  I give you a C- for effort though.

Here, let me bold a very important piece of the quote:

"thus far, we've only seen small numbers of women qualify to meet our high physical standards" for some units.

So it could be true that women have a lower overall threshold for physical fitness, but based on that quote it seems that there are MORE standards you need to meet for a combat role.

Just to be clear, you've also used the following arguments for your position against allowing women in combat roles-

they don't join for altruistic reasons
they get pregnant too much

those aren't arguments based on logic or reason.

jay has already been emasculated by having a wife that is the breadwinner, he can't allow letting women into his private boy's club where maladjusted high school dropouts sit in a bunker and play halo on the Xbox for 6 hours a day and call it 'heroism'.

Last edited by uziq (2015-12-08 01:02:19)

Women in combat roles isn't going to be such a hot idea for feminist once the first combat soldier woman gets dragged off the battlefield and raped. Then everyone is going to go around saying "why didn't the government do more to protect her"? It doesn't work like that.