In response to:

Women in Combat

Resist, We Much!!! Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 12:02 PM
Women In Combat: 80% Does NOT Equal 100%. M2RB: Goo Goo Dolls http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2013/01/women-in-combat-80-does-not-equal-100.html
Resist, We Much!!! Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 12:02 PM
I wrote:

"If women want to serve in combat roles on the front lines, then they should have to meet the same physical strength requirements that men must...and I say this as a woman. I don't believe that men are superior to women, but I do think that, in most cases, men are stronger than women...

A woman must possess the strength required of a man in combat because the enemy is, generally, as strong as the man. We’ve come a long way, baby. That’s true. Whether we are strong enough to physically fight in combat should be determined by the same standards used to certify men. If we demand less or special treatment, then we not only have a long way still to go, we should stop it with the taunt that “We can do anything a man can do!”
Resist, We Much!!! Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 12:03 PM
CNS News reports:

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense Department policy opening up all combat positions to women…

… Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn’t put it in terms of operations, Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that
Resist, We Much!!! Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 12:05 PM
apply across all of those.”

He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

"Does it really have to be that high???"

Girlfriends, 80% performance requirements for women are, BY DEFINITION, an indication that women are not equal to men. If we are equal, then we should have to meet the same requirements. Demanding that they be lowered still to accommodate us is a de facto admission of inequality.

A senior Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted because the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." I'd like to think the goal of the military should be to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let's look at "gender-neutral playing field."

The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age,...