Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
So are you, dude. it's just the vagina that hangs you up.

You are not getting it. The male requirements are harder no matter what age compared to women.

You have never served in the military have you?

Catz Part Deux · Jul 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
You are not getting it. The male requirements are harder no matter what age compared to women.

You have never served in the military have you?

I work in criminal justice, it's comparable. Most military personnel will tell you that the current physical requirements don't necessarily fit the job. I'm a fan of us restructuring requirements to fit the role that the person is going to be serving, and making them gender neutral.

Does that work for you? Or are you still hung up on the ovaries?

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
I work in criminal justice, it's comparable.

I am an X LEO, no they are not.

Catz Part Deux said:
Most military personnel will tell you that the current physical requirements don't necessarily fit the job. I'm a fan of us restructuring requirements to fit the role that the person is going to be serving, and making them gender neutral.

This post should fill you in...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...lize-infantry-military-47.html#post1058134837

Catz Part Deux said:
Does that work for you? Or are you still hung up on the ovaries?

Ad-hom. Nice. :roll:

Catz Part Deux · Jul 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
I am an X LEO, no they are not.

This post should fill you in...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...lize-infantry-military-47.html#post1058134837

The problem is that the post you referenced was debunked ages ago, by guys who served in the infantry.

jamesrage · Jul 14, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
I work in criminal justice, it's comparable.

I could be wrong but I have never seen cops carry 249 SAW,m240s, a heavy ruck sack, rocket launchers or any other heavy equipment like that while traveling long distances on foot, nor have I seen cops take out criminals with m240s,249 SAWs,rocket launchers.The sole purpose of someone in a combat occupation is to kill. The sole purpose of a police officer is to uphold the law and act basically as crime historians.

Most military personnel will tell you that the current physical requirements don't necessarily fit the job. I'm a fan of us restructuring requirements to fit the role that the person is going to be serving, and making them gender neutral.

Does that work for you? Or are you still hung up on the ovaries?

If you are going to be a solder then you should train like a solder and if you are going to be a marine you should train like a marine. Not well Bob wants to be a cook lets just send him to cooking school and thats it. Training standards should not be lowered just so someone can be a civilian in military clothing.

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
The problem is that the post you referenced was debunked ages ago, by guys who served in the infantry.

Well I guess I can take your word for that? Or are you going to post some proof contradicting the evidence I posted.

"The cross-gender (F/M) odds ratio for discharges because of overuse injury rose from 4.0 (95% CI 2.8 to 5.7) under the gender-fair system to 7.5 (5.8 to 9.7) under the gender-free system (P=0.001). Despite reducing the number of women selected, the gender-free policy led to higher losses from overuse injuries.

This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits, and highlights the conflict between health and safety legislation and equal opportunities legislation." - Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation -- Gemmell 95 (1): 23 -- JRSM[/QUOTE]

rivrrat · Jul 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
This is true but as I have shown in a latter post, even that is not necessarily a good thing for females due to increased injurys.

WTF? The injuries and decreased acceptance are GOOD things. They weed out the weaker links.

rivrrat · Jul 14, 2009

Apocalypse said:
Women are indeed not equal to men, and when it comes to important issues such as combat, we cannot base our judgment on the value of equality.
Yet, they are indeed capable to some degree of combat, and there are many support roles in the army that can be manned by females just as males.
Those support roles involve combat, but do not require the same physical effort a fully-combat infantry would require.

On a side note, my own sister is currently an active combat-supporter in the northern part of the country.

No one person is equal to another when it comes to important issues such as combat. We cannot base our judgment on the value of individual equality.

That's why we have training to weed out those who cannot perform adequately. Women should be set to the same standards as men for that very reason.

Blackdog said:
For example if I am trapped in a burning building and unconscious, I would need someone to rescues me who can actually lift 200lbs of dead weight. Not to many female Firemen up to the job. Yet they go through the exact same training.

From where do you get that presumption? I've not had fireman training. I'm 5'3". I can carry my 6'0, 200lb boyfriend on my back. It's really not that difficult. Especially if that person has had training on how to carry correctly, which all firemen do. (As have I)

ANY fireman, male or female should be able to perform the job. I know plenty of men who couldn't do half the **** I can.

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

rivrrat said:
WTF? The injuries and decreased acceptance are GOOD things. They weed out the weaker links.

Not when you look at the big picture. Smaller numbers of females made it through the training and then a larger percentage had to be discharged for medical injuries.

So not only do you have a reduction in raw manpower, but a higher rate if disabled veterans coming out of nothing more than training. In the end they found it was a complete waste of time and money.

It was a lose, lose situation.

rivrrat · Jul 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
Not when you look at the big picture. Smaller numbers of females made it through the training and then a larger percentage had to be discharged for medical injuries.

So not only do you have a reduction in raw manpower, but a higher rate if disabled veterans coming out of nothing more than training. In the end they found it was a complete waste of time and money.

It was a lose, lose situation.

Perhaps they need a better screening process.

And, why would they be disabled veterans when they didn't even complete the training? That's pretty retarded, and should be rectified immediately.

Everyone should be at the same standard and those who cannot do it should be immediately removed and dismissed. No "disabled veterans", no severance, no nothing. Just a 'pack your bags and GTFO'.

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

rivrrat said:
From where do you get that presumption? I've not had fireman training. I'm 5'3". I can carry my 6'0, 200lb boyfriend on my back. It's really not that difficult. Especially if that person has had training on how to carry correctly, which all firemen do. (As have I)

ANY fireman, male or female should be able to perform the job. I know plenty of men who couldn't do half the **** I can.

Carrying a conscious 200lb person on your back is very different from 200lbs of dead weight. Anyone with military or police training can tell you that.

It happens all the time...

"Woman Sues Chicago Police After Failing Department's Sit-Up Test" - Woman Sues Chicago Police After Failing Department's Sit-Up Test - Topix

"It is impossible not to notice that every one of the 42 rookies graduating on December 7 is male.

Three women were supposed to graduate. One was a 48-year-old grandmother — an emergency medical technician and former airport baggage handler who failed key physical tests just weeks into the fire-academy training. Another, a young former soccer player for Notre Dame, nearly made it through, but failed on drills to raise heavy wooden ladders against a building — as firefighters must do during a fire. The third was a tough former Air Force intelligence officer, terminated from the academy because she couldn't maintain the grueling pace." - Los Angeles News - Women Firefighters: The Gender Boondoggle - page 1

rivrrat · Jul 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
Carrying a conscious 200lb person on your back is very different from 200lbs of dead weight. Anyone with military or police training can tell you that.

I've done both. It's not hard.

And I've never noticed any perceptible difference between someone pretending to be unconscious and someone actually unconscious. Not as an EMT. Not as ski patrol. Not as a Rescue Diver. etc, etc.

It happens all the time...

"Woman Sues Chicago Police After Failing Department's Sit-Up Test" - Woman Sues Chicago Police After Failing Department's Sit-Up Test - Topix

"It is impossible not to notice that every one of the 42 rookies graduating on December 7 is male.

Three women were supposed to graduate. One was a 48-year-old grandmother — an emergency medical technician and former airport baggage handler who failed key physical tests just weeks into the fire-academy training. Another, a young former soccer player for Notre Dame, nearly made it through, but failed on drills to raise heavy wooden ladders against a building — as firefighters must do during a fire. The third was a tough former Air Force intelligence officer, terminated from the academy because she couldn't maintain the grueling pace." - Los Angeles News - Women Firefighters: The Gender Boondoggle - page 1

What happens all the time?

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

rivrrat said:
Perhaps they need a better screening process.

And, why would they be disabled veterans when they didn't even complete the training? That's pretty retarded, and should be rectified immediately.

Everyone should be at the same standard and those who cannot do it should be immediately removed and dismissed. No "disabled veterans", no severance, no nothing. Just a 'pack your bags and GTFO'.

It does not make a difference if higher numbers of injuries are caused With fewer recruits.

Did you read the study? Or are you just assuming?

So far you have put forth opinion only. Please get some evidence to back your argument up. We could sit here and argue opinion all night and it would mean nothing.

apdst · Jul 14, 2009

Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

That answer would be NO! Unless, of course there was an agreement that females who wanted to serve in infantry units were required to meet the same standards as male soldiers, or there was the creation of all female units.

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

rivrrat said:
I've done both. It's not hard.

That is not true and you know it.

rivrrat said:
What happens all the time?

Females entering jobs they are not physically able to do and then taking someone to court.

rivrrat · Jul 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
That is not true and you know it.

Yes, it is. And I do know it.

Females entering jobs they are not physically able to do and then taking someone to court.

Who said anything about taking anyone to court? I did'n't.

However, I agree that we are in dire need of tort reform to prevent dumbass lawsuits from clogging up our system

rivrrat · Jul 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
It does not make a difference if higher numbers of injuries are caused With fewer recruits.

Did you read the study? Or are you just assuming?

So far you have put forth opinion only. Please get some evidence to back your argument up. We could sit here and argue opinion all night and it would mean nothing.

What are you talking about? "Evidence" to back up the 'argument' that people who didn't complete the training shouldn't be veterans???

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

rivrrat said:
Yes, it is. And I do know it.

I am a 5'10 200lb man. I know damn well it is much MUCH harder to lift 200lbs of dead weight.

It is simple physics, and your statement is not at all true.

rivrrat said:
Who said anything about taking anyone to court? I did'n't.

It is all part of the same argument. If they can't pass the same test (and most can't) they go to court.

rivrrat said:
However, I agree that we are in dire need of tort reform to prevent dumbass lawsuits from clogging up our system

I agree but it does not change the fact that females should not be in front line combat units. I have posted evidence to show this.

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

rivrrat said:
What are you talking about? "Evidence" to back up the 'argument' that people who didn't complete the training shouldn't be veterans???

Nice fallacy.

rivrrat · Jul 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
I am a 5'10 200lb man. I know damn well it is much MUCH harder to lift 200lbs of dead weight.

It is simple physics, and your statement is not at all true.

Well, I've done it and it's really not that hard. I've never noticed the difference between someone pretending to be unconscious and someone who actually is. Not in any of my training or practical application of it.

It is all part of the same argument. If they can't pass the same test (and most can't) they go to court.

And hopefully thrown out. Whether or not they go to court is irrelevant unless we're talking about tort reform.

I agree but it does not change the fact that females should not be in front line combat units. I have posted evidence to show this.

What evidence? I've not seen any at all. I've seen only opinions and conjecture.

Blackdog said:
Nice fallacy.

Dude... WHAT are you talking about??! I posted that people who don't finish training shouldn't be considered veterans. You posted, in reply to that, that I needed "evidence" to back up my 'argument'. I asked you a question to clarify if that was seriously what you wanted 'evidence' for and your reply is "nice fallacy"??

Seriously, WTF am I missing here? I stated "What are you talking about" for a reason. Because I didn't have a ****ing clue what you were talking about and how anything you said related to what you quoted.

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

rivrrat said:
Well, I've done it and it's really not that hard. I've never noticed the difference between someone pretending to be unconscious and someone who actually is. Not in any of my training or practical application of it.

I have done it as well and I know it is harder. Like I said you can't argue with the physics of it.

When a person is awake, they do a few things that enhance their weight distribution in your arms.

First, they tend to try to equalize their weight distribution so their center of gravity is adjusted for their personal comfort. This tends to distribute their weight, and therefore the force you feel on your arms, over a broader area. This makes them easier to carry, and you find that the weight does not feel the same.

Second, if they are more than 7 or 8 months old, they will cling or hold on to you, supporting their own weight somewhat across the broader parts of your body. For instance, carrying a toddler, they will wrap their arms around your neck and shoulders for their own comfort and safety. This then distributes more weight across your upper body and shoulders, where it is easier to bear.

"Dead Weight" is the entire center of mass being wherever you are supporting them, absent any effort on their part, and therefore concentrated in one spot, more or less. A similar perceptive effect can be felt by holding some heavy weight with your feet spread apart, then the same weight with your feet together, or on one foot. The difference in "feel" is very perceptible, but no less real. - [ame=http://askville.amazon.com/dead-weight-feel-heavier-noticeable-gain-perception/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=25826360]Why does dead weight feel heavier than just weight? What causes this noticeable weight gain or perception[/ame]

rivrrat said:
And hopefully thrown out. Whether or not they go to court is irrelevant unless we're talking about tort reform.

It was part of the story, you decided it was some kind of major part of it not me.

rivrrat said:
What evidence? I've not seen any at all. I've seen only opinions and conjecture.

You have got to be kidding?

"It is impossible not to notice that every one of the 42 rookies graduating on December 7 is male.

Three women were supposed to graduate. One was a 48-year-old grandmother — an emergency medical technician and former airport baggage handler who failed key physical tests just weeks into the fire-academy training. Another, a young former soccer player for Notre Dame, nearly made it through, but failed on drills to raise heavy wooden ladders against a building — as firefighters must do during a fire. The third was a tough former Air Force intelligence officer, terminated from the academy because she couldn't maintain the grueling pace."

"The cross-gender (F/M) odds ratio for discharges because of overuse injury rose from 4.0 (95% CI 2.8 to 5.7) under the gender-fair system to 7.5 (5.8 to 9.7) under the gender-free system (P=0.001). Despite reducing the number of women selected, the gender-free policy led to higher losses from overuse injuries.

This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits, and highlights the conflict between health and safety legislation and equal opportunities legislation." - Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation -- Gemmell 95 (1): 23 -- JRSM[/QUOTE]

I suppose you missed all that? :roll:

rivrrat said:
Dude... WHAT are you talking about??! I posted that people who don't finish training shouldn't be considered veterans. You posted, in reply to that, that I needed "evidence" to back up my 'argument'.

I was talking about evidence to back up your positions in general. You have posted nothing.

rivrrat said:
I asked you a question to clarify if that was seriously what you wanted 'evidence' for and your reply is "nice fallacy"??

Yes because it has nothing to do with my original point and you are dragging this off topic.

rivrrat said:
Seriously, WTF am I missing here? I stated "What are you talking about" for a reason. Because I didn't have a ****ing clue what you were talking about and how anything you said related to what you quoted.

I covered it all above.

rivrrat · Jul 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
I have done it as well and I know it is harder. Like I said you can't argue with the physics of it.

Physics or not, I've never noticed any perceptible difference.

It was part of the story, you decided it was some kind of major part of it not me.

No, actually, I didn't. I didn't even bring it up. You did.

You have got to be kidding?

"It is impossible not to notice that every one of the 42 rookies graduating on December 7 is male.

Three women were supposed to graduate. One was a 48-year-old grandmother — an emergency medical technician and former airport baggage handler who failed key physical tests just weeks into the fire-academy training. Another, a young former soccer player for Notre Dame, nearly made it through, but failed on drills to raise heavy wooden ladders against a building — as firefighters must do during a fire. The third was a tough former Air Force intelligence officer, terminated from the academy because she couldn't maintain the grueling pace."

"The cross-gender (F/M) odds ratio for discharges because of overuse injury rose from 4.0 (95% CI 2.8 to 5.7) under the gender-fair system to 7.5 (5.8 to 9.7) under the gender-free system (P=0.001). Despite reducing the number of women selected, the gender-free policy led to higher losses from overuse injuries.

This study confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the same arduous training as male recruits, and highlights the conflict between health and safety legislation and equal opportunities legislation." - Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation -- Gemmell 95 (1): 23 -- JRSM

I suppose you missed all that? :roll:
[/quote]
All that shows is that not all women are up to the task. (Nor all men, for that matter) Nothing more. Where is your evidence that women who pass all required training are not 'cut out' for what they were trained for?

I was talking about evidence to back up your positions in general. You have posted nothing.

Which position, specifically?

Yes because it has nothing to do with my original point and you are dragging this off topic.

Well, you're the one who posted what I replied to. If it had nothing to do with your point and was off topic, perhaps you shouldn't have posted it?

Black Dog · Jul 14, 2009

rivrrat said:
Physics or not, I've never noticed any perceptible difference.

I don't believe you did, and the real world physics backs me up.

Also someone pretending to be dead weight is not the same thing.

rivrrat said:
No, actually, I didn't. I didn't even bring it up. You did.

This is exactly what I mean.

I did not say you brought anything up first. I said it was part of the story, and you made a big deal out of it, not me.

rivrrat said:
All that shows is that not all women are up to the task. (Nor all men, for that matter) Nothing more. Where is your evidence that women who pass all required training are not 'cut out' for what they were trained for?

That is not the whole story. You are not looking at the big picture.

In the military the majority of men pass the physical requirements that the majority of women cannot. This sets up a bad situation for ground combat units.

Not enough women could pass to put them in separate units, and this is just for starters. Now lets add the special needs women have and it gets just a little worse.

We can't put men and women into ground combat units due to the possibility of pregnancy etc and unit cohesion. The military is already having problems with this in non-combat units. Actually it has always been a problem. This will make it worse.

All of this adds up to a no win situation for our ground combat units.

Many more reasons exist, but it would take many pages to list it all.

rivrrat said:
Well, you're the one who posted what I replied to. If it had nothing to do with your point and was off topic, perhaps you shouldn't have posted it?

I did, but you instead of looking at my point went for a pretty irrelevant part. But in your defense I probably could have worded it better.

rivrrat · Jul 15, 2009

Blackdog said:
That is not the whole story. You are not looking at the big picture.

In the military the majority of men pass the physical requirements that the majority of women cannot. This sets up a bad situation for ground combat units.

Not enough women could pass to put them in separate units, and this is just for starters. Now lets add the special needs women have and it gets just a little worse.

We can't put men and women into ground combat units due to the possibility of pregnancy etc and unit cohesion. The military is already having problems with this in non-combat units. Actually it has always been a problem. This will make it worse.

All of this adds up to a no win situation for our ground combat units.

Many more reasons exist, but it would take many pages to list it all.

I don't see a problem at all with fewer women being able to pass the tests. I do, however, see an issue with separating the units. As far as pregnancy goes, with required birth control - for both genders - this wouldn't be an issue in the slightest.

The unit cohesion is a problem with the men, not the women. They just need to grow the **** up.

Black Dog · Jul 15, 2009

rivrrat said:
I don't see a problem at all with fewer women being able to pass the tests. I do, however, see an issue with separating the units. As far as pregnancy goes, with required birth control - for both genders - this wouldn't be an issue in the slightest.

Like I said it is a whole list of things. Can you see to people in a combat unit being involved protected sex or not? It would be a disaster.

rivrrat said:
The unit cohesion is a problem with the men, not the women. They just need to grow the **** up.

Oh that is not a sexist statement without any evidence to back it up.

Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

Should women be allowed to specialize as infantry

Yes, and they should be integrated with the males

Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units

No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training

No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat

Other....

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Goddess of Bacon

Goddess of Bacon

King Of The Dog Pound

Goddess of Bacon

King Of The Dog Pound

Goddess of Bacon

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Goddess of Bacon

Goddess of Bacon

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Goddess of Bacon

King Of The Dog Pound

Goddess of Bacon

King Of The Dog Pound

Goddess of Bacon

King Of The Dog Pound