Posted on 02/27/2006 5:39:04 AM PST by aculeus
Only by the left but what do you expect? why the surpise?
"No doubt your a fan of the current crop of Hollywood movies where one svelte woman beats the crap out of twenty guys in a fight."You noticed that too?It's become chronic.You see males(wm's in particular)portrayed as stupid,bigoted,sexist,cowardly,etc,etc.There may be one male who is the antithisis of the above description,but he's usually a lib.More Hollyweird propaganda.
Above photo from this great thread: More Photos of my soldier in Iraq (Lots of photos)
You know what, if she can fly ANVIS 6's, if she can kick in some pedal and do an RTT, if she can maintain an OGE hover when her available power is nil, lay down suppressive fire, hit something with her rockets instead of skipping them through the target area, cover my six, kill as many bad guys as her .50 cal will allow and stand last in line for chow then she gets my vote. If she balls it up and she is the only one able to pull my burning body from the wreckage then she better be ready to haul what the weight and balance on file says is the weight of the average crewman. We use to figure ours at 280 (gear included, extraction gear, body armor, flight vest and supplies in the back). Does she look like she could haul 280 lbs away from a burning airplane?
And none of your post to which I responded, about women in the military "damaging our culture" had anything to do with combat either.
And the snide little cutesie about "hysteria"...Stop being patronizing. It demeans any suggestion that you "appreciate my service". Much less that of Sarah Piro's, a true combat hero. Now, you are off my scope.
You live and learn. I used to fly UH-60's and we always joked that the 58's could barely carry two pilots.
While I have no reason to doubt your veracity, there's a big, big difference between range shooting and combat shooting because of the effects of adrenalin. The closest that sport shooting comes to the physiological environment of combat is the biathlon.
And there, women are held to, and compete at, a different standard than men. For example, the Women's Pursuit event is only 10km, while the Men's Pursuit is 12.5km. What's more, the men on average finish about 10% faster than the women in spite of the the additional 25% distance, reflecting both skiing and shooting performance (a miss translates to an extra 150m of skiing distance). This is also evident when looking at shooting averages of the various athletes (especially offhand).
This is an apples-oranges comparison. The physiological differences between men of different races are negligible, and relevant-to-combat differences nonexistent. The differences between men and women, however, are considerable; moreover those differences have relevance in combat situations. The current system acknowleges those differences in differing physical fitness standards for men and women.
I do agree that women should meet the same physical strength and other requirements that are required of the men.
This is a contradition with your apples-oranges comparison. If in fact women were held to the same standard, far fewer women would qualify, because there's at least one standard deviation of difference -- which is why there are different standards.
It has been decided somewhere that every combat brigade or pilot corp will from now on "look like America".
Hell, she can't go in the CHU, even for perfectly innocuous reasons. She can't because no female can be in male quarters (and vice versa) because anyone who is in the opposite sexes quarters for hanky panky is violating theater general order #1 and commands are forbidding opposite sex visitation just to safeguard against accusations. There are 100 reasons against gender integration in the military, but many Freepers won't listen.
Did your work involve pulling the bodies of the RAF pilots out of the wreckage? No? Then you're not really responding to the post that you're so amazed with.
Back to the 50's, right? Or whatever era you figure was better. Before women got the vote perhaps?
What's with the ad hominem attack?
I'd ride with these four any day.
I dig the chicks too. But this is war.
If the woman is in a non-combat role then it is no problem.
The problem is deluding ourselves into thinking that women and men are not different and that combat is a social experiment.
How long do you think a 'all women fire-dept, police dept or military would survive?
So, the women who are getting into these professions are being shielded from their own weakeness of being women by the fact that there is a majority of men around them.
imo Absolutely...spend twice as much making accommodations for a few at the expense of the whole...in order to manufacture data that supports a phony premise in the first place.
Affirmative action...necessitating two militarys...one to do the fighting and another to support the political agenda of the minority.
No, but one chick with a Hellfire missile is worth more than 100 male ground-pounders!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
