• 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

Glinda said:
Yes it is. Aren't we discussing our CURRENT military? :doh

The whining about possibly lowering standards to accept women is happening TODAY. Yet, the military has already lowered its standards to accept sub-par men for four or five years, now.

The ZOMG! :shock: WE CAN'T LOWER MILITARY STANDARDS! argument falls flat.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Not the physical standards, though.
 
apdst said:
Not the physical standards, though.
Click to expand...

Actually they have. The physical requirements for a 35 year old male are different than that of a 20 year old male. At least in the Army it is that way.
 
I stand corrected. In my initial reply to this thread I did most definitely say females should not serve on subs unless they can pass the same physical qualifications as men.

I will stand by this.

I will also say to Red, she is correct on this as far as determining fitness for duty on the sub, but it does not apply to ground combat and it never will.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So they have not enlisted in the military? They are not subject to the UCMJ? Oh wait, yes they are, you are only creating an arbitrary distinction because your point does not actually work unless you do so, and even then falls apart because of this arbitrary distinction.
Click to expand...

Yet, doctors and nurses aren't required to perform weapons qual, nor soldier skills training. A fact that supports everything Blackdog has been saying.
 
TheNextEra said:
Actually they have. The physical requirements for a 35 year old male are different than that of a 20 year old male. At least in the Army it is that way.
Click to expand...

That is for age. That is acceptable.
 
I think that people who are qualified to serve on a sub should be allowed to, and people who aren't qualified souldn't be allowed to.

I know, crazy talk.
 
misterman said:
I think that people who are qualified to serve on a sub should be allowed to, and people who aren't qualified souldn't be allowed to.

I know, crazy talk.
Click to expand...

Crazy as the Hatter!
 
Redress said:
Since the purpose is to measure overall fitness, and the different standards result in equal levels of fitness(cuz there are differences between the sexes), then in point of fact, they are measuring to equal standards.

Or do you propose we eliminate differences for age in the standards too? Should that 40 year old chief have to meet the same standard as the 18 year old? Are you seeing how illogical your position is yet?
Click to expand...


I hope you're not trying to say that a woman who can only do 30 pushups is at the same physical fitness level of a man that can do 60 pushups.
 
misterman said:
Why is it acceptable?
Click to expand...

Because as we age or physical ability changes.

You don't see a 50 year old solider carrying around the squad saw or as a loader on a tank.
 
Redress said:
Since the purpose is to measure overall fitness, and the different standards result in equal levels of fitness(cuz there are differences between the sexes), then in point of fact, they are measuring to equal standards.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Different standards = the same standards?

When there are more than one standard, that's called a double-standard.

Or do you propose we eliminate differences for age in the standards too? Should that 40 year old chief have to meet the same standard as the 18 year old?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, if they are doing the same job.

The standards should be for the job, not the person who wants the job. That's the purpose of standards - to make sure the job is occupied by people who can do it. Otherwise they aren't really standards.
 
Blackdog said:
Because as we age or physical ability changes.

You don't see a 50 year old solider carrying around the squad saw or as a loader on a tank.
Click to expand...

So what's the difference between letting a 50-year-old soldier have lesser standards and a woman have lesser standards?
 
misterman said:
So what's the difference between letting a 50-year-old soldier have lesser standards and a woman have lesser standards?
Click to expand...

Because the female at age 19 cannot carry the squad weapon etc. A male can. As you get older in the military you also gain rank. With this rank, you don't have to do the grunt work anymore. Hence your physical ability matches your rank.

Most solders over the age of 40 are in command or pencil pushing jobs.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
So what's the difference between letting a 50-year-old soldier have lesser standards and a woman have lesser standards?
Click to expand...

Because a 19 y/o female will be serving as a loader on a tank, or the driver and will eventually have to, "break-track", in the field, or tote a squad machine gun. If she's a Bradley crew member, she will have to dismount the main gun barrel which weigh's 90 pounds, or the feeder which weighs 60 pounds that has to be lifted from a sitting position. Or, if she's in a light infantry unit she'll have to hump a 60 pound ruck.

That's why.
 
Weeh, another females in the military thread.

I love those. :2razz:
 
Blackdog said:
Because the female at age 19 cannot carry the squad weapon etc. A male can.
Click to expand...

Says who?

Some females could. Some males couldn't. So you let whoever can meet the standards do it.

Are you saying there are no jobs females can do in the military?

Use logic.
 
apdst said:
Because a 19 y/o female will be serving as a loader on a tank, or the driver and will eventually have to, "break-track", in the field, or tote a squad machine gun. If she's a Bradley crew member, she will have to dismount the main gun barrel which weigh's 90 pounds, or the feeder which weighs 60 pounds that has to be lifted from a sitting position. Or, if she's in a light infantry unit she'll have to hump a 60 pound ruck.

That's why.
Click to expand...

Like I said - anyone who can meet the standards should get the job. Pretty simple concept.

Apparently older male soldiers can't do it either - so why aren't they expelled?
 
misterman said:
Says who?

Some females could. Some males couldn't. So you let whoever can meet the standards do it.

Are you saying there are no jobs females can do in the military?

Use logic.
Click to expand...

The males that can't do it get their butts kicked out and can't fall back on the, "they're being mean to me because I'm [write in your "oppressed" group of choice].
 
misterman said:
Says who?
Click to expand...

The West Point Academy.

I have already posted the information.

misterman said:
Some females could. Some males couldn't. So you let whoever can meet the standards do it.
Click to expand...

All males who pass the basic physical training can. All females who pass with lessoned standards don't even come close.

misterman said:
Are you saying there are no jobs females can do in the military?

Use logic.
Click to expand...

I will ask you to point out where I have said this? :doh

You should use some logic this time. :roll:
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Like I said - anyone who can meet the standards should get the job. Pretty simple concept.

Apparently older male soldiers can't do it either - so why aren't they expelled?
Click to expand...

Like I've said a gazillion times not only this thread, nor this forum, it ain't just about ability. Co-ed combat arms units will cause breakdowns in discipline.
 
misterman said:
Like I said - anyone who can meet the standards should get the job. Pretty simple concept.
Click to expand...

And 99.9% of females can't.

misterman said:
Apparently older male soldiers can't do it either - so why aren't they expelled?
Click to expand...

What a moronic statement. Actually they can, they don't have to. :roll:
 
misterman said:
Huh?

Different standards = the same standards?

When there are more than one standard, that's called a double-standard.



Well, yes, if they are doing the same job.

The standards should be for the job, not the person who wants the job. That's the purpose of standards - to make sure the job is occupied by people who can do it. Otherwise they aren't really standards.
Click to expand...

You would be right, if the PFT was designed to measure ability to do a job. It's not, it's designed to measure how fit(or healthy) a person is.
 
apdst said:
I hope you're not trying to say that a woman who can only do 30 pushups is at the same physical fitness level of a man that can do 60 pushups.
Click to expand...

It's tenuous at best. A woman who can do 30 is not as physically strong as a man who can do 60, at least in upper body strength. However, the level of overall fitness is roughly the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom