@Stressedlines: So why let them into the military at all if they are going to be disruptive? And why let homosexuals into the military for the same reason?

They will get over it. As yellowjacket said, they aren't a democracy they will take orders and get use to it.

@Fasces349
The average man is not a soldier. The strength of an average male soldier will always be greater than that of a female soldier. A combat unit will be not effective if all them are not one. A female soldier may be in top condition, but that would not reach the strength of a male soldier who is in top condition. Why? Human Anatomy.

wait yellowjacket, wtf? You just copy and pasted Stresseds argument...

Women as combat pilots, I am ok with, woman as combat medics I am also ok with, MPS, I am ok. etc/...

In a FRONT line combat unit, I am not sure. There are so many things tothink on here, so it is hard for me to think about it and make an exact judgement on it, I am just thinking off the top of my head with this, thats all.

There very well may be solutions to these problems (and probably are, since they OKd it) but, the cons far outweigh the pros from what I can see.

I know in Korea, on the DMZ< my unit would hump about 20 miles in less than 5 hours, wiht 90 or more pounds. That is moving at a VERY fast pace, with a lot of weight. I know a few women who could do this, and I think I would be ok with this, but, are we going to lower the standards for a Combat unit to allow more women to join?

lol jack klien I was thinking the very same thing. Almost posted it but there's just enough differences that the satire wouldn't come across too well.

@hyperion your like the 4th person to say that, and I'll say again, so the fuck what? Can she pass the same physical the men pass? Yes? Then you can't exclude her on "lack of strength," now can you?

@fasces I changed one word :)

I have yet to hear the order "keep your moral high" and seen it get followed. Moral is not an 'order' it is a feeling. Bad moral can tear a unit apart much faster than artillery fire.

@Hyperion: Ummm yeah but no.

I know the average man isn't a soldier. Lets say 25% of men have what it takes and 10% of women have what it likes (I'm bullshitting these numbers, I made them up based on what I think would sound right). Why should we exclude those 10%?

The strength of an average female soldier would be the same as the average male soldier if only the very best female soldiers could be cleared for combat. As I am saying, if a women is as strong, a great of a shot etc. etc. why should she be excluded because of her body parts?

" I know a few women who could do this, and I think I would be ok with this, but, are we going to lower the standards for a Combat unit to allow more women to join?"

Nobody is suggesting we do this. We've said over and over again they have to meet the same standards that your rugged Korean troopers meet.

"I know a few women who could do this, and I think I would be ok with this, but, are we going to lower the standards for a Combat unit to allow more women to join?"
Don't lower the standards but include the women who could qualify to do it.

"I have yet to hear the order "keep your moral high" and seen it get followed. Moral is not an 'order' it is a feeling. Bad moral can tear a unit apart much faster than artillery fire."

Well, it's just too bad that the military collapsed due to bad moral when blacks were integrated. Oh wait, no? Well when gays were then? Still no? hmmm...

@yellowjacket
You can't exclude her, yes I agree. But my point was female soldiers will never be as fit as men soldiers. And in the combat zone, you don't want to drag the unit because of differing soldiers in their physical capabilities.

"I have yet to hear the order "keep your moral high" and seen it get followed. Moral is not an 'order' it is a feeling. Bad moral can tear a unit apart much faster than artillery fire."
No shit, but this argument was used on blacks (as yellowjacket posted) during world war 2 and on gays before don't ask don't tell was repealed. Yes Moral goes down at the begining, but then they adapt and 60 years after the blacks were allowed in, I doubt there is any bad moral coming from 'too many blacks' being in the army. Back in the 50s it caused moral problems, but not any more.

by the way, fasces, I really appreciate your openmindedness on this issue. If somebody had bet me before now which side you would have landed on, I would have lost heavily.

"And in the combat zone, you don't want to drag the unit because of differing soldiers in their physical capabilities."

So all men are of the exact same physical capability?

No?

So there is a range of capability among men?

So any woman who passed the physical is SURE to be less physically capable than than the lowest man?

No?

Then what the fuck are you talking about?

damn, I should have hustled you into a bet, lol. I try to be open minded and agree with both liberals and conservatives on many issues.

This one I fall on the liberal side...

You know, we had gay men (although not openly) in my unit, and most of us knew they were gay, and they kept their sexuality to themselves (as was the rules then). It was never an issue for most of us (it was for some)

I think because gay men in combat units, are always going to be a much lower % of the unit male population, it just causes less chances for 'romantic stress'

@fasces349
as long as the superior female soldier can keep up with her average male fellow soldiers.. then its all good. however, i dont think there is such thing as average in the military. its all or nothing, and id just like to point out that this average which you speak of should be extremely high.

Look, let me put it to you this way...

Lets pick Corporal Teabag, for example. Corporal teabag is the WORST soldier in the entire US military. He's corrupt, lethargic, a terrible shot, cowardly, and unhealthy.

Are you saying the the #1 female candidate should not replace him on the front lines?

"i dont think there is such thing as average in the military. its all or nothing, and id just like to point out that this average which you speak of should be extremely high."

I think you need to look up the definition of average...

@yellowjacket
damn you troll man. excuse me, you delay man.
There are gaps between every man soldier, but the gap between a female soldier and male soldier is significant. There is indeed a range of capability among men, but a very small gap between each.
yes. it is sure that the fitness of a top male soldier will exceed that of a top female soldier.

"As long as the superior female soldier keep up with her average male fellow soldiers.. then its all good. however, i dont think there is such thing as average in the military."

Wha?

So you insist women be judged by a standard that you won't define?

The modern front-line soldier is a highly trained, highly skilled asset. This is not the age of mass armies anymore. If anything, our modern soldiers should have a higher standard than in the past--for physical and mental capacity. If there are women, and there may be, who can meet those demanding standards, and can handle the strain of long-term deployments, then more power to them. I think those sort of women will be few.

Obviously rear-echelon, air-force, navy, and other sorts of units are a different story. But our infantry and Marines have to be extremely rugged.

"it is sure that the fitness of a top male soldier will exceed that of a top female soldier."

Of course it will, I mean unless you get like the Jackie Joyner of soldiering. That's not at all the point.

If you were, hypothetically, to replace the bottom 10% of soldiers like Corporal Teabag, and replace them with the top 10% of female candidates, the average fitness of the military would INCREASE.

"You know, we had gay men (although not openly) in my unit, and most of us knew they were gay, and they kept their sexuality to themselves (as was the rules then). It was never an issue for most of us (it was for some)

I think because gay men in combat units, are always going to be a much lower % of the unit male population, it just causes less chances for 'romantic stress'"
The % of capable women is also lower then the % of capable men, as we have all pointed out. So I don't think you can use the there aren't many gays as an argument.

"There is indeed a range of capability among men, but a very small gap between each."

Nonsense. I'm sure stressedlines, who was in the military, can attest to this. There is a wide range of physical fitness among soldiers. Yes, they're generally more fit than my couch potato ass, and so must be the woman who will join their ranks.

"If you were, hypothetically, to replace the bottom 10% of soldiers like Corporal Teabag, and replace them with the top 10% of female candidates, the average fitness of the military would INCREASE."
I am not opposed to what you said YellowJacket.

Fasces349, I did not say anything regarding standards of who to recruit or not. I was only advocating effectiveness of male soldiers in a combat unit.

Ijust took a look at the Physical Tests, and tried to remember what we needed to score in our UNit (the army requirements were MUCH lower, but our unit commander was a hard ass, so he required higher of us).

For a 22 year old man to reach HIS standards, it was 68 push ups in 2 minutes, 73 sit-ups in 2 minutes, and a 2 mile in 13:54

So I just happened to look on the female side, to see what they needed to score the same 288, and this is what I found 37 push-ups in 2 minutes, 73 sit ups (shorter people actually have an easier time with this, so this did not shock me, as I am tall and struggled getting 100 in this area often) and 20:30 on the 2 mile.

So, let me ask this question. Would said female be required to pass these same 'unit standards' by the male #s or by the female #s? Will she cry discrimination if she fails to meet 'unit standards'?

A commander of a company, or battalion can set his own standards that are above thatof the Army, but, if she is going to be serving with all men, which set of scores will she be required to reach?

btw, I know of no woman I met in the service that could reach the lofty goals of my company, and I knew some healthy girls.

they could score a 290 on their own scale, but never get close on ours.

I do think there ARE women who can reach those #s, but they are VEry rare.
These tests are scaled by age, so I used 22 year old man, since that was the age I was when I went to Saudi/Kuwait.

OK, thanks Hyperion, so if you agree that allowing the best of the women in will improve the average fitness of our fighting force, then why aren't you advocating for doing so?