(09-17-2015 09:46 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-17-2015 09:24 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-17-2015 09:09 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 09:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  A USMC Sgt-Maj has apparently come out to defend the test and its results...

Link

"You will never see a female QB in the NFL." I think this pretty much says it all.

Not that I think it'd change the outcome much, but that's a pretty terrible analogy considering the realities of the sport and the fact at most levels it's decidedly male only.

Not that I'm a fan of sports being alluded to as forms of warfare, but I think the point the analogy was trying to present is that when the goal is winning, you open it to all and select the best. The problem is that the military's job is killing people and breaking things and its been proven in several different warfare areas that women are capable of accomplishing that mission as effectively as men. Most of those areas though lack the physical component that is uniquely inherent in combat infantry.

My point is that it's a particularly poor analogy because at most levels, football is closed to women. Use soccer or basketball or any of the other sports which isn't decidedly closed to women at most levels and you'd make a better overall argument. Again, I don't think it'd change the point he's trying to make, I'm simply pointing out that his analogy was a poor one.

As for the rest of your post, I have sincere problems with lowering standards, especially for any edge of the knife or elite type units like the Rangers, Seals, Recon, etc, but I think it is also an eventuality that many of the normal infantry roles could be done just as well by women even if they are lacking in specific areas (upper body strength being the most commonly cited).

OK, now I understand your point. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

(09-17-2015 07:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I can't believe that I'm agreeing with ZERO eight here. In Israel women are conscripted just like men and are in fighting units. In the Mexican revolution there were women carrying rifles alongside men and doing the same fighting. But, I say if they can't do the training for special ops units they shouldn't change the requirements to suit them.

Not totally true.

Israeli female troops are primarily assigned to two light infantry battalions tasked as border guards, the Caracal and the Lions of Jordan, along the Egyptian and Jordanian borders. They do not serve in armor units or in the heavy infantry brigades assigned to heavy combat.

We aren't the PC business and we sure aren't backing down http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/mi.../72421888/


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

(09-18-2015 01:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 12:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 02:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2015 07:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I can't believe that I'm agreeing with ZERO eight here. In Israel women are conscripted just like men and are in fighting units. In the Mexican revolution there were women carrying rifles alongside men and doing the same fighting. But, I say if they can't do the training for special ops units they shouldn't change the requirements to suit them.

I agree with you. But don't worry, we are not agreeing with Zero here. That last sentence is where we disagree with him.

From the post directly above his, the one he is responding to.

Quote:As for the rest of your post, I have sincere problems with lowering standards, especially for any edge of the knife or elite type units like the Rangers, Seals, Recon, etc, but I think it is also an eventuality that many of the normal infantry roles could be done just as well by women even if they are lacking in specific areas (upper body strength being the most commonly cited).

My mistake, I read over the "eight" the first time, and thought that by ZERO he was referring to Obama, as that word is often used in that manner here, as I myself refer on occasion to Shrub and Zero. I do think the comment is appropriate and correct if we are referring to Obama.

I agree that you have expressed a very reasonable opinion here, and I think it is one that you have expressed consistently in the past, and I agree with you 100% on this issue. Sorry about the confusion, my bad.

No worries, completely reasonable mistake on your part. Cheers.