Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: parusski

I want to join the army. But I am 46 and was told "your to old". That is discrimination.

The reason I want to join is because of the young woman below, a newly promoted captain:

Might I say ... tenshun ... hand saluuuuuute! [X(]

RR

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Its also comical, as you put it, to listen to you "progressives" who want to encourage women to be men and men to be women. I would rather be a caveman than a progressive liberal any day of the week.

I think this has been said already but is worth repeating. To me this has nothing to do with how fit you are or how many press-ups you can do. It's far more important than that. Like it or not, females have the babies, they bring life into the world and nurture those children - they have THE most important job in the world.

Well, in the UK I'd be a conservative, and the only organized political party I've ever joined was the Republicans, although I"m an independant now.

Like it or not, the ship has sailed. Women are in the military--in the US military over 20% of the force--and they're in combat. They don't need us men to tell them they're baby-machines. Quite a few US women aren't anymore for what it's worth. You could look up the numbers for women under 40, but I think it's about a third. Regardless, it isn't for us men to define their roles. They're citizens. It's their country too. They are the majority. And they can fight.

Also, FWIW, this policy change was proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That well-known nest of "progressives." Polls this week show the American public favors allowing women in combat at 66% pro. I saw it on TV, so it must be true.

ORIGINAL: parusski

How about this thought concerning women in combat: An assumption is that only women who volunteer for combat will ever have to engage in it. It has been reasonably well understood until now that any man who joins the military, whatever his reasons for doing it, becomes the military’s to use as it sees fit. There is no reason to think women will be treated any differently by a military that officially denies that average differences between the sexes should have any impact on its treatment of individuals. (Nor will there be any reason to restrict draft registration to men — as we trust the courts will find in short order once this policy takes effect.) So, would you support allowing women to choose whether or not to be used in combat?? If you do, then you must allow men in the military to say they do not want to be in combat. Does anyone not see a problem here?

Many women who have volunteered to serve our country in the military do not wish to play a combat role. As people come to see that a woman who joins the military may be effectively signing up for the possibility of combat, the number of female applicants may actually decline. The military bureaucracy will presumably see that as another reason to lower standards.

Engage in slippery slope much?

You don't know how this is going to work at a nuts-and-bolts level. The services have a year or more to propose a transition plan, so no one can say how the system will look in five years. It's possible women will still be excluded from some jobs. While what you say is true about the military assigning personnel, the MOS is the primary driver of that and I don't see a lot of possibility that women will be forced into comabt MOSes against their will, at least not at first. IF it really bothers them they have the Navy and Air Force as options.

As for the draft, that's up to Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled that a male-only registration is constitutional. If Congress wants to change that they can and the Court will go along. The Court has historically given Congress extrordinary leeway in internal military matters.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: parusski

I want to join the army. But I am 46 and was told "your to old". That is discrimination.

The reason I want to join is because of the young woman below, a newly promoted captain:

Might I say ... tenshun ... hand saluuuuuute! [X(]

RR

TENSHUN indeed.[&o]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: parusski

How about this thought concerning women in combat: An assumption is that only women who volunteer for combat will ever have to engage in it. It has been reasonably well understood until now that any man who joins the military, whatever his reasons for doing it, becomes the military’s to use as it sees fit. There is no reason to think women will be treated any differently by a military that officially denies that average differences between the sexes should have any impact on its treatment of individuals. (Nor will there be any reason to restrict draft registration to men — as we trust the courts will find in short order once this policy takes effect.) So, would you support allowing women to choose whether or not to be used in combat?? If you do, then you must allow men in the military to say they do not want to be in combat. Does anyone not see a problem here?

Many women who have volunteered to serve our country in the military do not wish to play a combat role. As people come to see that a woman who joins the military may be effectively signing up for the possibility of combat, the number of female applicants may actually decline. The military bureaucracy will presumably see that as another reason to lower standards.

Engage in slippery slope much?

You don't know how this is going to work at a nuts-and-bolts level. The services have a year or more to propose a transition plan, so no one can say how the system will look in five years. It's possible women will still be excluded from some jobs. While what you say is true about the military assigning personnel, the MOS is the primary driver of that and I don't see a lot of possibility that women will be forced into comabt MOSes against their will, at least not at first. IF it really bothers them they have the Navy and Air Force as options.

As for the draft, that's up to Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled that a male-only registration is constitutional. If Congress wants to change that they can and the Court will go along. The Court has historically given Congress extrordinary leeway in internal military matters.

Yeah, but the U.S. Supreme Court also handed down the Dred-Scott decision, so you never know. I am glad that changed.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
Women should have the opportunity to serve in any position in the US Military if they can do the job... period.

I can’t believe anyone is delusional enough to really think this is about “ANY” job, cut the BS this isn’t about enlisted or even NCO’s this is about women CO’s looking for CIB's.............period

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
Women should have the opportunity to serve in any position in the US Military if they can do the job... period.

I can’t believe anyone is delusional enough to really think this is about “ANY” job, cut the BS this isn’t about enlisted or even NCO’s this is about women CO’s looking for CIB's.............period

Interesting, I had a female friend in the US Army say the same thing recently.

Interesting

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Interesting

Quiet interesting.[:-]

Try this

First Pullups, Then Combat, Marines Say

I think this follows my own thinking on the issue.

And, for the record, we are not "baby machines" designed to stay at home and service our husbands as some here seem to be advocating. Yes, it is noble and important to be a mother and lifebringer, but to define the role of women in this narrow view is archaic and wrong.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Try this

First Pullups, Then Combat, Marines Say

I think this follows my own thinking on the issue.

And, for the record, we are not "baby machines" designed to stay at home and service our husbands as some here seem to be advocating. Yes, it is noble and important to be a mother and lifebringer, but to define the role of women in this narrow view is archaic and wrong.

warspite1

To be fair no one has said they are "baby machines" much less "designed to stay at home and service our husbands". The fact that some of us do not like the thought of women in frontline combat units does not automatically make us cave men.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Try this

First Pullups, Then Combat, Marines Say

I think this follows my own thinking on the issue.

And, for the record, we are not "baby machines" designed to stay at home and service our husbands as some here seem to be advocating. Yes, it is noble and important to be a mother and lifebringer, but to define the role of women in this narrow view is archaic and wrong.

Try this, from the link you provided:

A) "the Army has no immediate plans to change its sex-adjusted recruitment and annual fitness tests, even though the Marine Corps, which tenaciously promotes itself as the most hard-bodied service, has started to toughen up its standards for women."

Why did they have to "start"? Because they did not in the past?

B) "even for the pull-ups, the Marines are still making some exceptions. To get a perfect grade, women will have to do only 8, compared with the 20 required for men."

Women are not supposed to meet the men's standard. Even if going into combat?

C) "an advocacy group that worked to end the female combat ban, acknowledged the physiological differences between men and women, but said they were overstated. “There are lots of men who don’t have the same muscle mass as other men,” he said. “There is physical diversity regardless of gender.”"

I'm so glad advocacy groups exist. Not!

D) "A 17- to 26-year-old man in the Army has to run two miles in 15 minutes, 54 seconds or less and do at least 42 push-ups; a woman in the same age group has to run two miles in 18 minutes, 54 seconds or less and do at least 19 push-ups."

Oops! Hey boys you want women in your unit because they cannot run as fast. You'll have to slow down so that they can keep up?

It is what I said since the beginning. Women are not made to meet the standards that men meet. In combat failing to keep up can get someone else killed. In the military is fine by me. In combat is not.

Lastly, the "baby machine" comment was condescending and was not even part of the argument. Why put it in? (And, don't say you were just responding to another persons post.)

RR

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Try this

First Pullups, Then Combat, Marines Say

I think this follows my own thinking on the issue.

And, for the record, we are not "baby machines" designed to stay at home and service our husbands as some here seem to be advocating. Yes, it is noble and important to be a mother and lifebringer, but to define the role of women in this narrow view is archaic and wrong.

warspite1

To be fair no one has said they are "baby machines" much less "designed to stay at home and service our husbands". The fact that some of us do not like the thought of women in frontline combat units does not automatically make us cave men.

While I have never said such a thing myself, women I know(wife and daughter included) much prefer to be stay at home wives/moms(when possible). I have said before that I take a big cue from the numerous women in my sphere of existence. But the views of women who oppose combat, and other l**t wing ideas, are usually ignored and sometimes insulted. ODD type of inclusiveness, don't you think?

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Try this

First Pullups, Then Combat, Marines Say

I think this follows my own thinking on the issue.

And, for the record, we are not "baby machines" designed to stay at home and service our husbands as some here seem to be advocating. Yes, it is noble and important to be a mother and lifebringer, but to define the role of women in this narrow view is archaic and wrong.

lmao.............where the hell did that come from ?

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Try this

First Pullups, Then Combat, Marines Say

I think this follows my own thinking on the issue.

And, for the record, we are not "baby machines" designed to stay at home and service our husbands as some here seem to be advocating. Yes, it is noble and important to be a mother and lifebringer, but to define the role of women in this narrow view is archaic and wrong.

lmao.............where the hell did that come from ?

When in doubt or fear for being caught in something, toss in a flashbang?
Just another rabbit trail to lead off topic?

RR

This person said she won't let her grand kids play football because its to dangerous . Good grief really??? Oh my I may post this on YouTube...

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Try this

First Pullups, Then Combat, Marines Say

I think this follows my own thinking on the issue.

And, for the record, we are not "baby machines" designed to stay at home and service our husbands as some here seem to be advocating. Yes, it is noble and important to be a mother and lifebringer, but to define the role of women in this narrow view is archaic and wrong.

What have we become that we would throw our women into the cauldron?

If they want to see how women will do, they can always assemble an all women unit and put them in direct combat duty against the taliban right now.

The part that bothers me the most is that they didn't say they were doing this to increase combat effectiveness, which is the only goal they should be after.

Period.

The reason you don't see women in direct offensive combat is the same reason you don't see women as bouncers at nightclubs.

Maybe someone already stated this but I really don't feel like reading through 6 pages. Lazy? A little.

I often wondered what would have happened in the Germans deployed woman on the front lines as the Russians did.

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I often wondered what would have happened in the Germans deployed woman on the front lines as the Russians did.

Corporal hitler would have lost power very quickly. Of course he didn't mind sending little children to their death amid hopeless circumstances. This photo still haunts me.

I don't know about losing power quickly but I agree he had no second thoughts about sending children into battle. I often wondered how many of those boys in the pic survived the war.