Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Oct 27, 2013.
Should females be permitted to join special forces such as Green Berets, Navy SEALS, ect?
So long as they can complete the training and pass all the drills/requirements that men have to pass and complete, I have no problem with them being part.
Equal part requires equal effort.
Men and women have different PT Standards.
For Special forces, should women have the exact same standards?
That's what I said.
Well I do not even believe they should go into combat. So no
IF they will be doing the same thing as men then yes. Exact same standards.
Why on earth would they be different if they're doing the same thing?
If they're going to vote and legislate, then they should be drafted and sent into combat.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
The problem with females in SF or any combat arms is not the women themselves, but what some refer to as KISA syndrome. Knight In Shining Armor syndrome. Any man wants to protect a woman and may make wrong decisions in stressful situations due to this.
Granted, the more commonplace women in combat becomes, the less likely this is. But until then, I see it as a problem.
On the women's part, I agree with what has been said so far. As long as they are held to the same standard, then yes, it's OK. And that means ALL standards.
I don't agree with that. One has nothing to do with the other.
No, they shouldn’t.
Whether it is right or wrong this would change the combat effectiveness of the unit. I say this for several reasons. It has been my experience that combined gender units produce … well, drama. It is inappropriate and shouldn’t happen, and those involved are sometimes disciplined – but we are not talking about being politically correct or even equal opportunity, we are talking about combat effectiveness. Also, there is the equal standards argument – but insofar as PT is concerned it is not a good argument. The APFT measures the strength and cardio health – not one’s effectiveness to do the physical portion of any MOS. So differing standards (in the APFT) is not different standards regarding actually being able to do one’s job. But it does reflect a difference in strength and physical ability based on one’s gender. So perhaps in general female soldiers would be at a disadvantage when it comes to survivability in certain combat situations.
They absolutely do have to do with each other. Equal is equal. Period. Equal rights = equal responsibility. Of they can send someone to war, they can go to war.
And I don't say this with any hatred, just sincerity. If someone wants to lead, then they should be eligible to do the job of the people they are leading.
As far as PT goes, I've always been upset about the differing standards. If I go down in combat, I'm not suddenly going to get lighter simply because it's a female that is trying to drag me to safety. I don't want someone who weighs 120lbs (male or female) trying to wear their 50-80lbs of gear and drag my 300lbs (in gear) to safety. When I was in Afghanistan, my driver was always someone of comparable size to myself, just in case.
If I were you....id get my weight down. 300 lbs under any condition is well, just too much.
I think you have posts crossed. My post was in reference to "if one votes one should serve in the service." statement made by another poster.
I think he was talking about his body weight plus all his combat gear combined.
Come on man, ridiculous post. He's talking about combined weight with gear. This has no place in this thread.
The assertion was that if gender is a qualifier for combat, it is also a qualifier for other civic responsibilities.
Yes, but they shouldn't change the men's standards so women can complete the rigourous training program. That, however, is precisely what the Navy is going to do.
Yeah. That's why I put (in gear) in there. I'm only 225lbs at 6' 1". Plus a 40lb vest, 8lb weapon, (10 with a mag), 7lbs of fatigues, and about 25lbs of ammunition, plus any other accoutrements I have.