Posted on 02/08/2013 9:37:49 AM PST by Kaslin
The disparity starts at BIRTH and furthered when the Army conducts physical fitness tests.
Make ALL of the women pass the men’s standard or muster out, and I won’t say another word about it.
Until then, accept the wise words of one un-named Marine general officer;
“Any system that judges both sexes by the same standard can only shortchange one and victimize the other.”
It is indeed a privilege to be a general in the US military. However, to serve as a grunt on the front line during hand to hand combat often takes coercion. Can we compel women to fight this way? Do we want to compel them to fight? The general is full of pc bs.
I’m Amanda!? Lol. I was assigned as General Patton’s (the younger) driver for about a year. Saying “Hi, I’m John was a thought that never crossed my mind.” Keeping my M16 in fine fettle was something that did however because he was a stickler on that.
There’s assessing the situation as one arrives or just winging it. They still teach that in war college? How this guy ever made it to the top,, I’m too lazy to check his bio.. what a sad commentary.. sad. jmo
Because that chic was a turret gunner once proves women are fierce combat warriors!
When a general asks a soldier to identify themself, the correct answer is not "Amanda" -- nor is it "Steve", "Bill" or "Stan".
"Corporal Henderson, sir!" might be a good attempt.
“I’m Amanda”?
That’s pretty informal. Not even a sir?
She was in the turret BECAUSE Dempsey would be present and photographers would record it. It’s called PC.
Hi, I'm Amanda a man da.
A soldier would not answer the General’s question like that.
My BS meter is smokin’.
It’s probably true. He was a DIV commander, so he was in a DIV HHB, meaning there were likely plenty of females around, and one of them got tasked to be a turret gunner (it’s probably a rotational basis kind of tasking).
If the good general actually believes that standing in a Humvee turret is the same as being an Infantry Soldier, well....I don’t know what to tell him.
You may be able to do all this, but I doubt if most of the men in my basic unit would have been able to match your feats. You can beat a man in hand-to-hand until you meet a man that can beat you in hand-to-hand.
You can beat a man in hand-to-hand until you meet a man that can beat you in hand-to-hand.
There is no man who would always win in all fights. A women fighting hand-to-hand against men are going to just about always die.
They can with practice and the build up of their strength. I would come pretty fast in dedicated training. You can't train a women to do this without metamorphosing their DNA.
Furthermore, This is standard training for Air Force PJs to have the ability to carry a man while keeping a free arm to engage the enemy with their rifle while he evacuates the injured flyer/comrade.
If women had stormed ashore at Omaha Beach or Iwo Jima, and newsreels showed them being blown apart, it would have caused a national outrage.
women should not be in combat.
I didn’t say they belonged in combat. I was merely pointing out the fact that the basic PT test would not exclude large portion of physically fit women.
I = It
It only takes one to ruin someone’s career.
Ok fine. Just being clear that basic PT is not a good measure of combat fitness.
Women in battle = BAD IDEA.
1. Temperment
2. Sex
3. Sexual Roles (It’s in the very nature of men to protect women, which interferes with the freeing-up of one’s mind given by the “Joe’s got my back” factor.)
4. Field Hygene—yea, “that” and more!
War is NOT a social experiment.
(Besides, we need to stay home with the kids and keep our weapons clean for any problems that get passed the men.)
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.