- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 88,374
- Reaction score
- 39,507
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That's nature for you.
Riiiiiiight. nature. NOT a direct measure to get out of having to deploy. nature. Got it.
That's nature for you.
Women represent a significant portion of manpower in the combat units that they serve in; in the Anti-Aircraft Division and in the Artillery Corps, women represent 20 percent of soldiers, 25 percent of soldiers in Search and Rescue units, 10 percent of the Border Police, and the Caracal Battalion - a combat battalion - is made up of 70 percent female soldiers. In addition, this year marked the first year in which women are eligible to serve in the Field Intelligence Corps.
The Border Police:
Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Other than the National Service (Sherut Leumi), IDF conscripts may serve in bodies other than the IDF in a number of ways. The combat option is Israel Border Police (Magav) service, part of the Israel Police. Some soldiers complete their IDF combat training and later undergo additional terror and Border Police training. These are assigned to Border Police units. The Border Police units fight side by side with the regular IDF combat units. They are also responsible for security in heavy urban areas such as Jerusalem.
What part of them not being as adaptable or efficient as whites did you miss? or that segregation on board ship was not feasible?
Riiiiiiight. nature. NOT a direct measure to get out of having to deploy. nature. Got it.
It's an all volunteer force. Why would someone not want to deploy?
At presant no woman is serving in a combat arms style MOS in the IDF.
Sounds like combat to me.
Sounds like combat to me.
And besides, it's an easy fix.It's an all volunteer force. Why would someone not want to deploy?
Are you certain you were in the military during Vietnam????
It's an all volunteer force. Why would someone not want to deploy?
And besides, it's an easy fix.
Just require that females in the military take a pregnancy test each month, or something, and then you always know which of your female personnel are going to be available for deployment.
This would be much less of an issue if someone gets that artificial womb invented…
The Mark <-- Reads too many sci-fi books.
You're mixing your arguments, and have been doing so for quite some time.blackdog said:You cannot compare race to sex in this case.
Do you have anything else irrelevant to add?
Fact: Males have greater upper body strength than females.
Fact: The majority of black men and white men have the same upper body strength.
Fact: Males have a different mindset than females. Men and women are wired differently.
Fact: The majority of men are wired the same way as are females.
You cannot compare race to sex in this case.
Do you have anything else irrelevant to add?
Just so everyone is aware, I am 99.9999% sure that male and female physical standards are ALREADY different - as in, the female ones are lower - in all branches of the military.Your only remaining argument, from what I can see, is that there is a risk that standards will be lowered in order that more women get accepted. Personally, I think that's unlikely - but there's no way of proving it, either way. You'll just have to wait and see.
Just so everyone is aware, I am 99.9999% sure that male and female physical standards are ALREADY different - as in, the female ones are lower - in all branches of the military.
As to combat/non-combat standards, I couldn't say.
Don't hold your breath.And it should be changed to one standard.
I agree, with conditions.And it should be changed to one standard.
So I would think a “job-based” standard system would be more reasonable.
I agree, with conditions.
I think we can all agree that a large percentage of females will not be able to match any given male, given the same general physical conditioning start point, training time, motivation and opportunities.
But females can serve in many positions that do not require high physical conditioning, or which require high physical conditioning to a lesser extent.
Some could, but not most.
Thus, if the basic “one size fits all” standard prevents too many females with above average female physical condition, or allows too many males with sub-standard male physical condition….
So I would think a “job-based” standard system would be more reasonable.
I assume such is the case already, in most cases.
However, perhaps entrance-wise it would be reasonable as well.
Trainee T1 performs to X standard in the physical department, so Trainee T1 is eligible for positions requiring physical conditioning levels of X standard.
Trainee T2 performs to X-2 standard in the physical department, so Trainee T2 is eligible for positions requiring physical conditioning levels of X-2 standard.
Now, I have no idea if this is already the case (I assume it is, however, in some fashion).
But…
You get the idea.
Well, so far it seems we cannot even agree on what the direct benefits or the direct costs would be, never mind quantifying them into a directly comparable manner. Analogies might work though - one analogy I can think of which supports women on subs is the fact that women have been (successfully) resident on places such as the international space station - although this doesn't have such a requirement on brute strength, there are equally high qualification levels to get into space, and it's equally a potentially claustrophobic and undeniably isolated situation.Can anyone present any evidence that the direct benefits to allowing women to serve on subs will outweigh the direct costs?
So far, I've seen posts primarily comprised of "but but but some girls have big muscles too!" and "it's so nice when we all get along and have one fair standard." Hardly convincing. When it comes to the military, I'm less concerned about being fair and more concerned about maximizing a unit's efficacy.
The government wants women in the military to succeed and the only way that can happen is to lower the physical standards.....If you did not do that then there would be few women in the military, with the exception of your medical field because very few can handle the physical standards set for a man....
I know a couple of people are going to slam me for this but it is the truth.....
its like the old joke where you have a bunch of men and women in formation and the Sgt says we have this dangerous mission...6 men step forward so that happenes and then the Sgt says any women that want to volunteer for this mission step forward..........
I hope everyone can see the hypocrisy.......
Then having one standard should solve all of the problems you guys are continuously here bitching and moaning about. One standard, less women. So where's the ****ing issue having one standard? Why are all of you whining guys so opposed to have an equal and fair standard for ALL? It's absolutely baffling to me. If such a teeny tiny percent of women would actually pass, wouldn't that just suit the sexists just fine? If no woman could EVER pass the requirements to be on a sub, then it seems you guys would welcome one set of standards.The government wants women in the military to succeed and the only way that can happen is to lower the physical standards.....If you did not do that then there would be few women in the military, with the exception of your medical field because very few can handle the physical standards set for a man....
I know a couple of people are going to slam me for this but it is the truth.....
What I see is your sexism and ignorance.its like the old joke where you have a bunch of men and women in formation and the Sgt says we have this dangerous mission...6 men step forward so that happenes and then the Sgt says any women that want to volunteer for this mission step forward..........
I hope everyone can see the hypocrisy.......
Then having one standard should solve all of the problems you guys are continuously here bitching and moaning about. One standard, less women. So where's the ****ing issue having one standard? Why are all of you whining guys so opposed to have an equal and fair standard for ALL? It's absolutely baffling to me. If such a teeny tiny percent of women would actually pass, wouldn't that just suit the sexists just fine? If no woman could EVER pass the requirements to be on a sub, then it seems you guys would welcome one set of standards.
And yet, you guys persist in getting your panties in a wad about even THAT. We want to make the requirements fair for all, decrease the burden on the men, increase the strength of the women who serve and according to you guys, decrease the amount of women who would be serving. Why are you guys opposed to any of that?
What I see is your sexism and ignorance.