linsook Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 I read all that and dismissed it.? If you would like me to dot the i's and cross the t's for you, I will.First paragraph.? Keyword: average.? Clearly 30% of women have better aerobic capacity than a 50 year old man.? Some, therefore would like have the same aerobic capacity as a 40 year man.? A small percentage would have the same aerobic capacity as a 35 year old man.? Stop me whenever we reach an age that a man would still be eligible for combat. Second paragraph.? I already quoted the 3.4% statistic.? Therefore I clearly read the highlighted sentance, assumed it to be fact and incorporated it into my previous argument. Third paragraph.? 30% of women would survive their junior year.? 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge.? I don't know if a man who received the Recondo badge would be eligible for combat.? Perhaps you can correct me. Last point.? Not one (of that sample of 623 women) would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.? This is all the more reason not to create a discriminatory law.? Apparently there is no need for it.? This is on the assumption that receiving the Army Physical Fitness badge is a prerequisite for combat duty. 585949394[/snapback] ok good. you read opauls post. now read macondins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreAming in DigITal Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Women should definately be allowed in combat if they so choose. Machine guns level the playing field...so hook them up with some gats and let them go to it. A bunch of people that I know who are in the Army are little skinny scrawny dudes that I could throw about 15 yards, so there is no difference. Weapons and tactics are the key to success in combat...not push-ups, sit-ups, and bench presses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfay Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Ok, So lets say that women are able to haul around the nessesary equipment, and walk/run/jog the distance while carrying said equipment. Lets say that they are as accurate, deadly, aggressive as the guy standing right next to them. Men talk and treat each other differently then they do women, even equals and coworkers. Just amplify that with bullets flying and people dropping ... a big mess. Its human nature not backwoods discrimination. Gender equality during war time is bad news. Lets work out the details when lives are not on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted May 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 21, 2005 ok good. you read opauls post. now read macondins 585949650[/snapback] I thought that had less validity that opaul's. We can't allow women to be equal because there are systemic problems and people would have to change? That type of attitude would have kept the blacks on the back of the bus. Obviously Canada has solved this "recruitment" problem. The fact is that very few women would seek a combat job but I am not prepared to exclude for one non-perfromance characteristic if they can meet all the other requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts