Women in Combat - Page 7
+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 80
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: Women in Combat

  1. #61
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    So do you feel the same if they have a different set of requirements for women?
    No, I already said that they need to be able to meet the physical requirements for the job. If the particular job demands that you be able to run a 5 minute mile and lift 200 lbs over your head, or whatever, then I think that they should only consider candidates that meet the requirments. I just don't think that your gender should bar you from even trying to reach that goal. If a woman dreams of being a SEAL (for example) and wants to train her @$$ off to try to meet the requirements, why should we stop her? If after all her training, she can't meet the requirements, then fine, don't let her in, just like you wouldn't let in a man. But if she *can*, then I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  2. #62
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Do you think that the standards allowing women to serve have weakened our military, police, or firefighters? Do you personally feel less safe because people like Lillie are serving our country?
    That depends on the job. For police I think there is a need for women because they are working in a community where there are men and women. For firefighters I think it could be a problem in some circumstances because of the physical strength necessary. If a woman were required to carry a 200 lb unconscious man out of a burning building it could be a problem. If women want to do the same job they need to meet the same physical requirements, not a lower standard for women. And knowing the way the government works, they will set a lower physical standard for women in combat roles just as they have in the rest of the military.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  3. #63
    Prolific Poster bunnyfufu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    If women want to do the same job they need to meet the same physical requirements, not a lower standard for women. And knowing the way the government works, they will set a lower physical standard for women in combat roles just as they have in the rest of the military.
    I think everyone here, and truly any rational person agrees with you about the needs to meet the physical standards to do the job. I've said it, many other posters have said it. . .

    The hypothetical that the gov't will make a lame decision to meet quotas just doesn't strike me as a reality. Who is pushing for weaker troops. There is no feminist agenda that wishes the world to be less safer place for the sake of numbers. That is the epitome of a phyrric victory.

  4. #64
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    So do you feel the same if they have a different set of requirements for women?
    Panetta and Dempsey have both said that the standards for these jobs will not change, and any woman who wanted these jobs *would* need to meet the same standards as men. Why don't you believe them?
    PANETTA: 'Not Everyone Able To Be A Combat Soldier, But Everyone Is Entitled To A Chance' - Business Insider

    And I don't know about Texas, but in California, the physical testing for men & women firefighters is exactly the same. For peace officers, there are five tests that are individually scored and you need to get a minimum total score. A woman who might take a bit longer to scale a wall or run an obstacle course could make it up on a body drag or long run. But so could a man.

    CA Fire Fighter Joint Apprenticeship Committee - Orientation Guide
    General Questions - Commission on POST (click on "physical ability testing" for the drop-down.)
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

  5. #65
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,336

    Default

    Changing or having different requirements for men and women is not innately bad.

    *We* as a society determine requirements all the time.

    Let's say I want to build an amusement park. I consult all of the best engineers and explain that I want rides where you must be at least 6'2" and less than 190 pounds. They would look at me funny and explain, "Ma'am, if that is going to be your requirement, few people will be able to ride." We'd work together to maximize the number of people who meet the height and weight requirements to ride the rides at my amusement park.

    Let's say I am in charge for setting the requirements for firefighters. I can easily use criteria that will eliminate a great deal of the population. All I have to do is look at height/weight/average physical strength and adjust my criteria accordingly. If I set the requirement at a minimum height of 5'10", I can exclude many people from Central and South America and Asia. Likewise, if I set the requirement for a maximum height of 5'11" I can exclude a different demographic.

    Over time "averages" change. The average weight of Americans is 20+ pounds heavier than the 1960s; height is 1" taller. Do we ever adjust the requirements as the average adjusts or do we start looking for shorter, thinner applicants?

    Is the answer to fit the people to the requirements or the requirements to the people?

  6. #66
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    No, fitting the requirements to the people won't work. It's not innately bad, but it's not acceptable for this debate. At all. If women can't meet the requirements, we don't have women in these positions.

  7. #67
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    Changing or having different requirements for men and women is not innately bad.

    *We* as a society determine requirements all the time.

    Let's say I want to build an amusement park. I consult all of the best engineers and explain that I want rides where you must be at least 6'2" and less than 190 pounds. They would look at me funny and explain, "Ma'am, if that is going to be your requirement, few people will be able to ride." We'd work together to maximize the number of people who meet the height and weight requirements to ride the rides at my amusement park.

    Let's say I am in charge for setting the requirements for firefighters. I can easily use criteria that will eliminate a great deal of the population. All I have to do is look at height/weight/average physical strength and adjust my criteria accordingly. If I set the requirement at a minimum height of 5'10", I can exclude many people from Central and South America and Asia. Likewise, if I set the requirement for a maximum height of 5'11" I can exclude a different demographic.

    Over time "averages" change. The average weight of Americans is 20+ pounds heavier than the 1960s; height is 1" taller. Do we ever adjust the requirements as the average adjusts or do we start looking for shorter, thinner applicants?

    Is the answer to fit the people to the requirements or the requirements to the people?
    This is a good point too; I think that the requirements should accurately fit the true expectations of the job, not just be high enough to exclude a bunch of people needlessly. For example, if women in Lillie's position can effectively perform their job with the standards that have been put in place, I don't really see why men would need to adhere to higher standards. If they are both doing the exact same job and Lillie can do hers with her level of physical fitness, having a higher standard just seems unnecessary to me, whether it is for men or women. When I'm talking about women being able to meet the standards, I am doing so in the assumption that the standards are actually an accurate representation of what is truly needed to effectively perform in that job position.
    fuchsiasky, Jessica80 and blather like this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  8. #68
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MissyJ View Post
    Gloria, it appears that this may be a part of the plan:


    Lowering the standards currently in place for these combat forces jobs in order to make them "gender-neutral" is cause for concern.
    It would be cause for concern but that's not what has been said. What was said was there will be gender-neutral standards for combat jobs. That means it will be the same for men and women, not that it will be lowered or raised.

  9. #69
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    That's not how it works. Men and women in the military should strive to be in the best shape that they can be. The standards shouldn't be the same for a 60 year old female as they are for an 18 year old male. We are generally capable of doing much different things. A 35 inch waist would have me fail my PT test, but a guy could still get a good score with it. Because women have a real waist. I can get away with 14 pushups, but the minimum for men is in the upper 30s. Because men generally have more upper body strength. It's not our "job" that decides what the standards are, it actually is your age and gender. I'm an Airman first and a computer programmer second. Navy Seals are seals first and Sailors second.

    It's not like a civilian job where if somebody tells you to do something you didn't sign up for you can just say no. You can't just have the bare minimum when it comes to physical fitness because you never know what you are going to be asked to do.

  10. #70
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blather View Post
    It would be cause for concern but that's not what has been said. What was said was there will be gender-neutral standards for combat jobs. That means it will be the same for men and women, not that it will be lowered or raised.
    Agreed. One of the standards currently in place for these special forces jobs is to be male. That is going to be changed, but nothing else will be.
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions