Yes, all military jobs require physical strength-that's why they will kick you out if you don't pass your PT test, that's also why they won't let the physically disabled join. You still haven't addressed the issue of whether or not an Army 5 ton has power steering and pointing out that most large vehicles do is completely beside the point.
I never said male Marines struggle to outdo female Marines, I said that all-male boot camp presents males with the opportunity to prove themselves men (to prove their masculinity). And yes, males have to do things to graduate boot camp that females do not. Female Marines do not have to do a single chin-up to graduate, but males are expected to meet a much stricter standard. When you have mixed gender boot camp standards are set according to the least common denominator. So when females are present physical standards are not as exacting (this has been well documented in books such as "Making the Corps" and "Women in Military: Flirting with Disaster") as when the training is done with males alone. The Clinton era policy of mixed gender boot camp results in a watered down training environment that does not prepare young soldiers as well for combat as well as they might be.
Why don't you point out a job that you think does not require physical strength to preform and I will show you how you are wrong in that assumption?
The difference between us is that I am talking about things that I have direct, first hand knowledge of and you are making wild generalizations about things you have absolutely no clue about.
Up until this point I have avoided talking about Jessica Lynch directly because I prefer to focus on the larger issue of women in the military and the problems that come from ignoring basic human biology. I will use what happened to Lynch to illustrate how this applies in the real world. Suppose for a minute that Lynch had not been rendered unconcious during the fighting. And suppose that one of her male compatriots in the vehicle with her would have lived (I believe that the 1SG was in her vehicle so let's use him for our example). The male is injured and cannot escape under his own power. Do you think that Lynch-five foot three and 120 pounds-could have carried him to safety? The policy that you are defending is dangerous and can cost people their lives. It is only in place to placate feminists like Patsy Schroder who don't give a fig about who gets hurt so long as she can advance her agenda.
You are her useful idiot.
Here we go with the "don't discuss military matters if you've never served" speech. Terrell started it with me, don't blame me for discussing this.
Yes, all military jobs require physical strength-that's why they will kick you out if you don't pass your PT test, that's also why they won't let the physically disabled join. You still haven't addressed the issue of whether or not an Army 5 ton has power steering and pointing out that most large vehicles do is completely beside the point.
I'm not that worried about it. It probably does. If you want to look up the statistics of that truck, knock yourself out.
I never said male Marines struggle to outdo female Marines, I said that all-male boot camp presents males with the opportunity to prove themselves men (to prove their masculinity). And yes, males have to do things to graduate boot camp that females do not. Female Marines do not have to do a single chin-up to graduate, but males are expected to meet a much stricter standard. When you have mixed gender boot camp standards are set according to the least common denominator. So when females are present physical standards are not as exacting (this has been well documented in books such as "Making the Corps" and "Women in Military: Flirting with Disaster") as when the training is done with males alone. The Clinton era policy of mixed gender boot camp results in a watered down training environment that does not prepare young soldiers as well for combat as well as they might be.
Then separate them in boot camp.
Why don't you point out a job that you think does not require physical strength to preform and I will show you how you are wrong in that assumption?
How am I supposed to do that if I've never served? I have my theories and will vote my theories. I'm not an economist and yet I support those that go for flatter taxes. I'm not about to change that. If I can vote for those who support flatter taxes without being an economist, then I can support those who have the same military theories as I without being a veteran (if it comes to that, which it probably never will, it's all we can do to keep socialists out, let alone decide between those that agree on everything but military structure).
The difference between us is that I am talking about things that I have direct, first hand knowledge of and you are making wild generalizations about things you have absolutely no clue about.
Common sense and logic go a long way and it decides most of the issues I vote about. I don't have a stack of documentation that proves why I should vote one way or another on any issue. And again, Terrell started this with me, so quit blsaming me for discussing this subject.
Up until this point I have avoided talking about Jessica Lynch directly because I prefer to focus on the larger issue of women in the military and the problems that come from ignoring basic human biology. I will use what happened to Lynch to illustrate how this applies in the real world.
Why? She did no worse than the men in that Humvee. If you want a sample case of women in combat, pick a woman that wasn't immediately incapacitated.
Suppose for a minute that Lynch had not been rendered unconcious during the fighting. And suppose that one of her male compatriots in the vehicle with her would have lived (I believe that the 1SG was in her vehicle so let's use him for our example). The male is injured and cannot escape under his own power. Do you think that Lynch-five foot three and 120 pounds-could have carried him to safety?
I've said over and over that I don't believe women should be in the infantry. So this is a case that will happen only once every 12 years according to the stats we have so far. In that time there will be 10,000 incidents where a better choice of men due to women filling less-demanding jobs will save lives here and there.
The policy that you are defending is dangerous and can cost people their lives.
I think it saves lives over the long run.
It is only in place to placate feminists like Patsy Schroder who don't give a fig about who gets hurt so long as she can advance her agenda.
Then why isn't Bush, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz saying anything about it?
You are her useful idiot
Looks like your disposition is typical of those that discuss this issue and use Lynch as their poster child for whatever agenda they have.