In response to:

Women in Combat

RichardsKY Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 8:09 AM
Mr. Williams, you seem to be engaging in a degree of stereotyping. The question is (should be) not at all whether the person is male or female; it is only whether he or she can do the job. Whatever requirements, physical or otherwise, that the military believes will make someone qualified to be in combat should be applied across the board. Gender, by itself, is completely irrelevant.
mshapiro Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 11:17 AM
By all means. Let women pass the standard. The day that happens then you can talk about this stuff. WOMEN DO NOT QUALIFY ON THE SAME STANDARDS. The minimum qualifications for a man to GO to boot camp are greater than the minimum qualifications for a woman to enter ACTIVE DUTY. Take out a loan and buy a clue. Women are not fit for military service unless the standard is relaxed. If every MALE has to pass the standard regardless of MOS then so should every woman. But that would result in an almost all male Military and that would be a public relations disaster. GI Jane was a Propaganda piece. Here in the real world women can't hack it. But by all means let them try. I don't have a problem with women who meet the standard joining units....
HongKongCharlie4 Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 8:45 AM
Stereotyping should be the metric guiding us here. My little rabbit person!

HKC
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 8:36 AM
in REAL LIFE,that is not the case.
in REAL LIFE,the standards ARE lowered for women,and WOE to the soldier that does not get with the program and vocally "support" it,despite the plain evidence it doesn't work.
In REAL LIFE,women are advanced for the sale of advancement,to -show- that their program is "working".
Frog Man Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 8:15 AM
Wait---did you actually READ the column? Oh that's right, you're a lib and facts are irrelevant. And you obviously have never been in the military.
Marc_H Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 8:13 AM
you are just another fool that wants to ignore biology and reality skippy
Men and Women are simply not equal to doing all jobs
(excepting those Russian Women wieght lifters)

you along with most libs want the world to be as yout think it should be
good luck with your delusions.....
Captain-Jeff Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 8:29 AM
I think you miss Richard's point. One set of standards, based on a rational assessment of what a combat soldier must be able to perform! If a woman can't do 35 pushups, she's out. If she can't carry a standard combat load for a two mile run in the sand, she's out. If she can't carry a 165# injured fellow soldier, she's out. A much lower percentage of women can perform at that level than men, but the opportunity is there.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 2:41 PM
buy you STILL have to have separate barracks,latrines,showers,custom body armor,women-sized uniforms,and other special accommodations that cost money,just for a couple of women?
And then they still get hurt easier,or get PG,and are unfit for duty,unusable.
Seawolf Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 8:11 AM
You've never been in the military have you?

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,...