• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

That was then, this is now. It is also to get you ready for the stresses of combat aboard ship or ground.

If a woman cannot pass the same physical standards as the men, they should not be in that MOS , period.

OK, apparently got to slow this down quite a bit for you. There are no different standards for different MOS's(called ratings in the navy, at least when I was in). The only exception to this is for Seals/UDT. There is a test given every one, every 6 months called a PFT, that is designed to measure overall fitness. The different standards based on age and gender result in roughly the same level of overall fitness. So, in point of fact, women do meet the same physical standards as men.

My position is not, as age is not part of this. That is a completely different subject. This is about females being able to do the same job as a man where physical strength and endurance make a huge difference.

Wait a minute, you cannot have it both ways. You want some people to have to meet your new arbitrary standards, but not others, based on who you are comfortable around.
 
Oooohhhhhh, yeah...:rofl. I've lost alotta sleep, just so I could ****, in my lifetime.



Why jack-off when you have a female two feet away that is just as horny as you are?



We both know what the reality is, don't we?

I know the reality is that I, like many, many others, certainly kept my hormones in check while on the ship, let alone on watch. You may know someone who slept with someone else on watch, but I don't. And I'm pretty sure it's a very rare occurrence when it's a lot easier to just wait until you're off watch, especially when it's a security watch. I think it would be an even rarer occurrence when such an act could put you're entire base/unit at risk.

You are the one who suggested that it was hard enough to keep a watchstander awake, how could we expect to keep the watchstanders who are attracted to each other from going at it right there while on watch. I certainly worked with a lot more professional personnel than you if you actually believe that two personnel who attracted to each other and horny are more likely to sleep together than they are to fall asleep on watch when they haven't had enough sleep. Staying awake after not sleeping for 2 days is hard and requires a considerable effort to achieve. Having sex requires an absolute effort to perform. It is deliberate act, unless you want to claim that uniforms can accidentally fall off while on watch, and they just happened to get close enough for it to slip in? Big difference between falling asleep on watch and having sex on watch. Sleep is a necessity of each individual's survival. Sex, although even I would admit, is very important to most people, is not a necessity for an individual's survival, and is therefore completely controllable as to when it occurs and the situations in which it occurs and can be put off long enough to not be on watch.
 
You are completely incorrect. Read the article I linked to once more - military standards for education, health, weight, morals, drugs, and criminal records were all lowered so more recruits could be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to die. They were NOT lowered to encourage more women to enlist.

Here's another article about lowering military standards for all recruits:

Military Lowers Standards To Fill Ranks
The Army Is Taking Chances On Recruits With Rap Sheets


and another:

Army tops recruit goal by lowering standards

and another:

Army relaxes its standards to fill ranks
Critics say push to meet quotas may let unstable recruits join up


and another:

The Dumbing-Down of the U.S. Army

So.... you all can drop the argument that the military will have to lower its standards to permit women to serve on submarines. Military recruitment standards were lowered years ago.

:doh

This is absolutely correct, recently they were. They have been lowered for females since the induction of females into the military since post WWII.

So again this has little bearing as even the lowered standards for men are HIGHER than the female standards. :2wave:
 
This is absolutely correct, recently they were. They have been lowered for females since the induction of females into the military since post WWII.

So again this has little bearing as even the lowered standards for men are HIGHER than the female standards. :2wave:

Um, no.

When the military began lowering recruitment standards for our current wars, for things such as education, health, weight, morals, drugs, and criminal records, they were lowered equally for men and for women.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different educational standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different health standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different height-to-weight ratio standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different morals standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different drug-use standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different criminal-records standard than male recruits.

The standards were lowered across the board for males and females alike.
 
Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different height-to-weight ratio standard than male recruits.

This is not 100 % accurate, at least based on my experience. The measurement in question is body fat, and women where allowed to have more body fat than men, but that is because women's bodies are different than men's and and the healthy level of body fat is different.
 
OK, apparently got to slow this down quite a bit for you.

Ad hom, nice. :roll:

There are no different standards for different MOS's(called ratings in the navy, at least when I was in).

No one has said they do. And you say you are going slow for me? OK.

The only exception to this is for Seals/UDT.

Which is exactly what I said in an earlier post.

There is a test given every one, every 6 months called a PFT, that is designed to measure overall fitness. The different standards based on age and gender result in roughly the same level of overall fitness. So, in point of fact, women do meet the same physical standards as men.

No, they don't.

Female requirements Navy 17-19...

Push-ups: 24
Sit-ups: 62
1.5 mile run: 13:30

Male requirements Navy 17-19...

Push-ups: 51
Sit-ups: 62
1.5 Mile Run" 11:00

They are not required at any age level to compare. They score the same amount of points for less.

This whole thing has nothing to do with being in shape either. It has to do with having the physical strength to preform demanding and heavy physical work. Most females in shape or not really cannot do this.

Wait a minute, you cannot have it both ways. You want some people to have to meet your new arbitrary standards, but not others, based on who you are comfortable around.

That's bull**** and you know it. I want them to have to pass the same test the guys do, period. That is if they want to do the same jobs in the military such as combat arms.
 
Last edited:
Um, no.

When the military began lowering recruitment standards for our current wars, for things such as education, health, weight, morals, drugs, and criminal records, they were lowered equally for men and for women.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different educational standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different health standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different height-to-weight ratio standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different morals standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different drug-use standard than male recruits.

Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different criminal-records standard than male recruits.

The standards were lowered across the board for males and females alike.

We are talking about physical standards. Please catch up. :roll:

They have ALWAYS been lower for females.
 
Last edited:
Ad hom, nice. :roll:



No one has said they do. And you say you are going slow for me? OK.



Which is exactly what I said in an earlier post.



No, they don't.

Female requirements Navy 17-19...

Push-ups: 24
Sit-ups: 62
1.5 mile run: 13:30

Male requirements Navy 17-19...

Push-ups: 51
Sit-ups: 62
1.5 Mile Run" 11:00

They are not required at any age level to compare. They score the same amount of points for less.

This whole thing has nothing to do with being in shape either. It has to do with having the physical strength to preform demanding and heavy physical work. Most females in shape or not really cannot do this.



That's bull**** and you know it. I want them to have to pass the same test the guys do, period.

Ok, this must be super complex, or you are being intentionally obtuse. The test is not to measure anything beyond overall physical fitness. Men and women are different. Different numerical requirements lead to roughly the same level of fitness. In the same way that a man at 17 who can run the mile and half in 11 minutes is unexceptional, but a man at 40 who can is remarkable, a woman who can do 51 pushups is super exceptionally fit, while for a man it is unexceptionally fit.

The tests are not deigned to determine specific ability, but to ensure you are basically fit. Once you figure that out, the rest might finally make sense to you.
 
Ok, this must be super complex, or you are being intentionally obtuse. The test is not to measure anything beyond overall physical fitness.

Red, I am not trying to be obtuse. I understand what you are saying about general fitness. I understand completely. My point is that general fitness for a female is not good enough for allot of the jobs in the military. Definitely not in the Army in combat arms.

Men and women are different. Different numerical requirements lead to roughly the same level of fitness. In the same way that a man at 17 who can run the mile and half in 11 minutes is unexceptional, but a man at 40 who can is remarkable, a woman who can do 51 pushups is super exceptionally fit, while for a man it is unexceptionally fit.

Again this is fine but it will not help a female carry a SAW in the field plus ammo.

Being in shape is just part of it, not the total picture. Most here are arguing that they should be the same for a reason.

The tests are not deigned to determine specific ability, but to ensure you are basically fit. Once you figure that out, the rest might finally make sense to you.

I understand and as I have explained it makes no difference at all.

If a female wants to be in a combat unit, she needs to be able to preform at the minimal male standard, or go home.

As the study I posted shows. Females tend to score 50% below the bottom 5% of males. These kind of numbers spell out the correct picture. And they dont get much better.
 
Last edited:
a woman who can do 51 pushups is super exceptionally fit, while for a man it is unexceptionally fit.
See... I don't get this. I'm not in the best shape right now (but working on it) and I can do 30 pushups. I can't see how 20 more would be 'exceptional'. :shock: A couple of weeks of steady workouts and I'll be able to do 50 as easily as I can do 30.
 
Red, I am not trying to be obtuse. I understand what you are saying about general fitness. I understand completely. My point is that general fitness for a female is not good enough for allot of the jobs in the military. Definitely not in the Army in combat arms.

And the light comes on. Ok, I see what you are saying. I disagree, but I at least see what you are saying.

Again this is fine but it will not help a female carry a SAW in the field plus ammo.

Being in shape is just part of it, not the total picture. Most here are arguing that they should be the same for a reason.

We are talking navy sub duty here, not the military in general. For 99 % of all navy jobs, PFT is a good measure of physical ability to perform the job. What heavy lifting there is is not done by just one person for the most part.

I understand and as I have explained it makes no difference at all.

If a female wants to be in a combat unit, she needs to be able to preform at the minimal male standard, or go home.

As the study I posted shows. Females tend to score 50% below the bottom 5% of males. These kind of numbers spell out the correct picture. And they dont get much better.

Performance is the key. Do women perform on the job 50 % below the bottom 5 % of males? If not, the number is irrelevant.
 
See... I don't get this. I'm not in the best shape right now (but working on it) and I can do 30 pushups. I can't see how 20 more would be 'exceptional'. :shock: A couple of weeks of steady workouts and I'll be able to do 50 as easily as I can do 30.

A fair portion of men in the 20-29 age group would not be able to do 51 pushups in the navy based on my experience, probably 15 to 20 % of them if I had to guess at the number. I also think you underestimate the difficulty of increasing the number of pushups doable by 60 %. Pushups where my bane in the military, and it took the full 8 weeks of bootcamp to gain the 12 more I needed.
 
For my bro, it was the situps.

And those where no issue for me, as was the run. Pushups however make me want to cry.

By the way, as an aside, most people significantly exceed the overall standards, and have trouble with at most 1 event. The few who do have problems overall are generally also struggling with body fat standards. I had a friend who was in this group, and I felt bad for all she went through. She just liked to eat, and no matter how much she did, it stayed on and made everything else difficult in PFT.
 
A fair portion of men in the 20-29 age group would not be able to do 51 pushups in the navy based on my experience, probably 15 to 20 % of them if I had to guess at the number. I also think you underestimate the difficulty of increasing the number of pushups doable by 60 %. Pushups where my bane in the military, and it took the full 8 weeks of bootcamp to gain the 12 more I needed.

I had difficulty with the run in ROTC. I could do 100s of situps, and the pushups weren't an issue. But the run kicked my ass because I'd never run like that before. Steady training on it, and I guess I'd be able to do it better. I can walk and hike for miles, carrying lots of weight. (like a kayak on my shoulder, or a raft over my head, or pack full of climbing/rappelling equipment) But jogging? Bah. Jogging sucks. LOL
 
Originally Posted by Navy Pride A woman in shape is probably worse of all......I can see someone like Angelina Jolie carrying a 200 lb back pack or a 50 mile hike with that pack on where you run 5 miles and then walk 5 miles alternating...........I beter be some 6 ft 180 lb amazon otherwise no way......?[/QUOTE said:
Why the **** am I responding to you............I already said byeeeeeeeeee ....




200 lbs? Is that all?

First of all a 200 lbs rucksack is for any distance at all more than the vast majority of men in the Millitary can handle. My MOS rucks some of the heaviest packs of anyone in the millitary if not the heaviest and the heaviest I have ever carried is 165. Let me tell you that you dont want to be going to far with that and it better not be too rough of terrain. And there aint anybody running with a 200lbs ruck thats for dam sure.

Second rivrrat I dont doubt that you are in very good shape and can do more that a large % of men but I would be willing to bet that you would have a very hard time standing up with a 200lbs pack and weapon.Let alone travel 20klicks through tuff terrain. 200lbs is a lot harder for a 130lbs (I am not saying you weigh that just used as a number LOL) female than it is for a
210lbs man. That dosent take anything away from you it is just the facts of life.
 
Last edited:
First of all a 200 lbs rucksack is for any distance at all more than the vast majority of men in the Millitary can handle. My MOS rucks some of the heaviest packs of anyone in the millitary if not the heaviest and the heaviest I have ever carried is 165. Let me tell you that you dont want to be going to far with that and it better not be too rough of terrain. And there aint anybody running with a 200lbs ruck thats for dam sure.

Second rivrrat I dont doubt that you are in very good shape and can do more that a large % of men but I would be willing to bet that you would have a very hard time standing up with a 200lbs pack and weapon.Let alone travel 20klicks through tuff terrain. 200lbs is a lot harder for a 130lbs (I am not saying you weigh that just used as a number LOL) female than it is for a
210lbs man. That dosent take anything away from you it is just the facts of life.

I'm quite aware of what I can and cannot do, and I'm also very aware of what I did years ago when I was in better shape. I was being sarcastic with my "is that all" comment, because I knew damn well he was exaggerating. I also know, however, that I hiked for miles carrying 100lbs on my shoulder, and more than that over my head. Something on my back would have been a ****ing godsend as opposed to on my shoulder or over my head.
 
cheese!!!

.........
 
I know 90% of the females out there would have no chance. The other 9% mite give me a good run. About 1% could actually beat me. I also know more about you than you think.

So like I said, until you can kick my ass... :2razz:

It is a shame and disgrace that you think of women as lesser than males.

You know Nothing about me! If you do? Feel free to PM me all about ME. Til then? I think you would be better served to shut your mouth on things you have no clue about.

Based on your post? You know a lot about nothing and are very closed-minded. But carry on with ya bad self:roll:
 
We are talking about physical standards. Please catch up. :roll:

They have ALWAYS been lower for females.

I'll just quote Redress, as she understands the point I'm making with absolute clarity.

The test is not to measure anything beyond overall physical fitness. Men and women are different. Different numerical requirements lead to roughly the same level of fitness. In the same way that a man at 17 who can run the mile and half in 11 minutes is unexceptional, but a man at 40 who can is remarkable, a woman who can do 51 pushups is super exceptionally fit, while for a man it is unexceptionally fit.

The tests are not deigned to determine specific ability, but to ensure you are basically fit. Once you figure that out, the rest might finally make sense to you. --Redress


"Please catch up. :roll:"
 
I'll just quote Redress, as she understands the point I'm making with absolute clarity.
"Please catch up. :roll:"

Your point is you have no point.

Read the responses to Red, and then you mite actually see my point. :roll:
 
It is a shame and disgrace that you think of women as lesser than males.

Please point out where I said this? It is news to me.

You know Nothing about me! If you do? Feel free to PM me all about ME. Til then? I think you would be better served to shut your mouth on things you have no clue about.

Please Kali, I have been in the Tavern more than one time. I know enough to know you are no match for me.

Based on your post?

Based on the fact that females are physically weaker than males. You can deny nature and science all you want, but it will not float

Here don't take my word for it....

"Which is the weaker sex? It's a long-running argument - men point to women's weaker physical strength, while women are likely to mutter about 'man' flu. But who is better built to withstand disease? LOWRI TURNER asked a panel of medical experts to settle the matter once and for all ....

Overall, when you add up the number of individuals affected by all these conditions, women are the weaker sex.
" - Are women really the weaker sex? The intriguing medical facts that settle the oldest argument of all | Mail Online

"After looking at all the different data and accounts I have studied on this topic, I have come to a sad conclusion for women ultra runners today. I feel that women will never be able to be competitive with a man on an elite level. The evidence in Dr. Daniels study and by Andy Milroy leads me to believe that due to biological differences, women's bodies do not function in the same way as a mans and are held back in ways that men are not. This was not the outcome that I had planned for my paper. My original idea was that I would prove that women could be competitive with men and on some levels, they can. My beliefs matched the quote at the beginning of this paper explicitly but in reality I have decided that the strength of the woman's mind cannot overcome the differences in body composition. Although I agree that men are faster at ultrarunning than women, I do not share this view in other venues of life. My ideas on the subject best match those of Joan Benoit when she says, "I want to emphasize that the differences between men and women stem from their separate strengths. Let's remember, our bodies have many functions, and running is just one of many uplifting experiences of our physical existence." (Samuelson 15)" - Weaker Sex?

"Here is some news for all the feminists. Latest research have finally proved that women are weaker than men physically. For their study, the researchers observed activity levels in school children and adults over 70 years of age discovered that males are more active. - Physical Fitness | Man Vs Woman | Health Care | Good Health

Would you like to ignore all that as well?

You know a lot about nothing and are very closed-minded. But carry on with ya bad self:roll:

Ad-hom. nice. :doh
 
Your point is you have no point.

Read the responses to Red, and then you mite actually see my point. :roll:

You failed to make your point to me though. You did finally make yourself clear, but it did not make the point. As long as the tests are not there to measure ability to do the job, but to measure general overall fitness, your point fails.

You have failed to show that women are physically unable to serve aboard sub. You have failed to show it will reduce military readiness. You have failed to make a relevant point.
 
You failed to make your point to me though. You did finally make yourself clear, but it did not make the point. As long as the tests are not there to measure ability to do the job, but to measure general overall fitness, your point fails.

No it does not. You tried to avoid my answers by saying well this is about submarines, which is true. But we as a group are discussing more than that. At this point your example falls flat. I also said long before in this thread on ships and in planes females are just as capable in most of the jobs required. I am referring to ground troops, not subs.

You have failed to show that women are physically unable to serve aboard sub.

Please point out anyplace I said this in this thread, or anything even close?

You have failed to show it will reduce military readiness.

You need to read the articles I posted out of West Point then.

You have failed to make a relevant point.

Considering nothing you have said applies to my argument, I beg to differ. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom