- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,560
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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.
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?
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:
Female recruits did/do not have to meet a different height-to-weight ratio standard than male recruits.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 woman who can do 51 pushups is super exceptionally fit, while for a man it is unexceptionally fit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 already did. Try to keep up, old man.
Moderator's Warning: |
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:
We are talking about physical standards. Please catch up. :roll:
They have ALWAYS been lower for females.
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
I'll just quote Redress, as she understands the point I'm making with absolute clarity.
"Please catch up. :roll:"
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:
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?