[The E]

For ****'s sake man! WE ARE NOT LOWERING ANY ****ING STANDARDS.

Alas, they do. As shown by some studies, women undergoing the same trails as men (for marine acceptance) have shown to be far more prone to injuries, especially back injuries, since they have to force themselves so much.
You will find out that standard for women are lowered in most, if not all cases.

[/quote]

Please read the first link Dilmah provided. It says, in far more detail than I want to spend, that of all the women serving in the Armed Forces, only 1 % has the physical prerequisites to perform at the same level as a male. It also says that the standards are not lowered; in other words, women can enter the Armed Forces, even the special forces branches provided they meet the entrance criteria, which are the same for males and females.

However, there are other combat roles where women can perform on the same level as men (Air Force pilot corps says hello), without adjusting the entrance criteria.

**** psychological basis. I'm talking purely physical. The thing is that she won't score in the top 50, and if she does, you'll be taking in the top 10, so she's still out.

And if she does score in the top 10? Or if you're looking for the top 50? TrashMan, your lack of argumentation skill is showing again.

[Colonol Dekker]

Maybe that's reflective of our benevolent overlords' personal lives.

ZING!

 
Oy!
 
It's called sporadic vigilance.

[Kosh]

Bullets from women can kill you just as well as bullets from men. Guns are the great equalizer regardless.

[NGTM-1R]

Bullets from women can kill you just as well as bullets from men. Guns are the great equalizer regardless.

I'm sure Trashman would be much more embaressed to be killed by a woman, except for the fact that the dead have no use for vanity.

[karajorma]

Don't need to kill him to prove him wrong. Maiming would achieve both goals.

[TrashMan]

in other words, women can enter the Armed Forces, even the special forces branches provided they meet the entrance criteria, which are the same for males and females.

Oh, I'm not trying to ban anyone from trying, but regular armed forces and Special Forces are NOT the same. If only a very small subset of all the males can even realisticly think of joining, then that 1% females can only dream.

And if she does score in the top 10? Or if you're looking for the top 50? TrashMan, your lack of argumentation skill is showing again.

Is she does - peachy. But she won't.
What if pigs could fly?

Bullets from women can kill you just as well as bullets from men. Guns are the great equalizer regardless.

True. But to think that eliminates physical prowess from the combat is pure fantasy. Not even for snipers. Let's say you are a sniper and your position is detected. The enemy is sending a artillery barrage your way and is sending troops to catch you. Speed and endurance suddenly because very important.

To be clear on this - physical fitness is not a prequisite from one to fight..or shoot. But it does improve your chances to actually survive.

I'm sure Trashman would be much more embaressed to be killed by a woman, except for the fact that the dead have no use for vanity.

I'm a realist NGTM-1R. Something you fail to grasp.
I don't doubt for a second a woman soldier could easily kill me.

[Dilmah G]

Oh, I'm not trying to ban anyone from trying, but regular armed forces and Special Forces are NOT the same. If only a very small subset of all the males can even realisticly think of joining, then that 1% females can only dream.

So why not allow them to try out? It hurts no-one but the egos of a few wankers if they do make it.

Is she does - peachy. But she won't.
What if pigs could fly?

You'll never know unless you let them.

[General Battuta]

There is absolutely zero reason to bar female soldiers from trying out for any position they desire.

There is also absolutely zero reason to give them any kind of lower standards. They should have to meet the same fitness requirements as men.

But don't be fooled - most of today's restrictions against women in combat are based on pure sexism. Same reason the (superior) female Mercury candidates were turned down.

[Nuclear1]

Wow, Trashman proves again he doesn't know a damned thing about women in the armed forces.

Batt's right--the main reason women aren't allowed to serve in combat roles is purely sexist...maybe not entirely chauvinistic as much as a misguided sense of chivalry amongst male soldiers, but it's still sexist nonetheless.

And I'm gonna say this for the millionth time--I know plenty of women serving just here at Offutt that can kick the physical fitness eval's ass every year.  All us aircrew folks went through SERE, where we all had to carry 85-90 pound rucks through the mountains.  We all learned how to hunt, set up shelter, avoid detection, and resist torture...and from what I remember, the last thing on guys' minds out there were our dicks.

It's the same thing with DADT.  The military is barring homosexuals/women from serving based on what they think might happen, rather than what actually happens. 

[StarSlayer]

I dunno why you're all wasting your breath.  It's obvious Trash is a misogynist and thats probably not gonna change by offerin' reasonable arguments.  Unless your going to go forward in time and bring back a female SAS or SEAL to beat the tar out of him just accept he's backward and move along.  Otherwise he'll just keep posting exacerbating drivel that'll make you beat your head against a wall.

[Blue Lion]

Yea you guys aren't going to see Trashman post a "oh you're right. I'm so sorry. Women should be able to try". It's just not going to happen.

[Liberator]

It's the same thing with DADT.  The military is barring homosexuals/women from serving based on what they think might will eventually happen, rather than what actually happens. 

Fixed.  If it's allowed it will happen eventually, humans are human and do stupid stuff.  Personally, I think soldiers should take libido suppressors for the duration of service.

[Nuclear1]

For once I don't disagree with you Lib.

[Colonol Dekker]

Well I bloody do
 
 
 
I know no less than six Females in my Regiment who are on-par with me and one insane woman who is going for her PTI course, that's a Physical Training Instructor (which means she's already a Lance Corporal. If they're fit enough then I believe they should do it. The monthly bleed thing is a minus obviously but to be honest that's not my call.

[Qent]

What's with all the physical stuff? Did anyone read Dilmah's link?

There are women who can pass the most rigorous tests that men are ever given, but they should not be put in an intense combat situation with men. Men are generally wired to be attracted to women, which can impair judgment. Fix it with training? Yeah, whatever... maybe. Can you be sure that the training will hold under all possible stressful situations? As that "Women in the Armed Forces" paper said, maybe, but we'd have to get some empirical data, and that means some people will die.

So yeah, it's sexist. But it ought to be, since sex is the fundamental difference here. And it has nothing to do with what women can or cannot do, but how the relationship between a man and a woman is different from that between two men. I suppose you could quantify and actively correct for that, but I suspect that the "correction" would just be pulling women from the front lines.

However, as modern militaries start incorporating more automation and unmanned gizmos, that will open up even more non-front-line positions. Even today, most killing is done from afar, not face-to-face.

EDIT: Where's iamzack?

[Nuclear1]

Again, I refer back to my SERE training.  Even in a training environment, I noticed very little, if any, of that behavior from guys serving in the same units as women. 

For some weird reason, the sense of danger, brutal beatings, despair, and extraordinary stress overwhelmed our male desire to ****.

[General Battuta]

There are women who can pass the most rigorous tests that men are ever given, but they should not be put in an intense combat situation with men. Men are generally wired to be attracted to women, which can impair judgment.

This claim has never really worked for me. Not only do men who are wired to be attracted to men serve alongside other men just fine, but men have served alongside women in intense combat and performed superbly during many of history's most intense battles.

You're also ignoring Nuclear's reports about SERE training.

The biggest problem with a gender integrated military is men raping women. And that's a problem with the men, and not one to be solved by isolating the genders.

[mxlm]

The biggest problem with a gender integrated military is men raping women. And that's a problem with the men, and not one to be solved by isolating the genders.

Incidentally, on another board I'm active on there's an Israeli woman who was (is? Whatever) in an...I want to say infantry...unit that had a fifty/fifty gender split. And, uh, sexual harassment? Unheard of.

[General Battuta]

Unsurprising, given that they've had a lot more practice with the gender-integrated business.

Just goes to prove that the best way to make it work is to bite the bullet.

[Nuclear1]

The US military is making some good strides in the area of preventing sexual harassment too--if I had nickel for every SARC (Sexual Assault Response Coordinator) briefing I've had since I've been in...