NationStates Jolt Archive

This idea was sparked by the Affermative Action thread. In the US military (dunno about other countries, care to enlighten us?), men and women have different physical fitness standards. This seems blatantly wrong to me, as the point is to have a viable fighting force, and separate standards detract from that. It also seems that the military is telling women that they don't have to be as competant as the men. Isn't that degrading to the women?

What are your thoughts?

Of coure. It isn't a matter of afirimitive action so much as it is that the beleive that women are physically weaker than men.

Standards should be the same for everyone.
However, there are more important matters to deal with first. Skin color segregation ended decades ago but gender segregation is not only tollerated, it is encouraged.

Everywhere I go I see "mens" and "womens" restrooms and no one says anything about it. If there were "white" and "collored" restrooms everyone would be screaming about bigotry and discrimination. Why is gender segreation still considered right and good when racial segregation is considered evil?

Not too long ago I was walking around my college's main building and had to use the restroom. It is difficult to tell the difference between the doors to the mens restrooms and the women's restrooms and I wasn't paying close attention. As I result I steped through the wrong one. When I saw that I was in the restroom I immediatly left hoping that no one would notice. Now that I think about it I was frightened that I would have been labeled a pervret, assaulted by a frightened woman, or arrested for the honest mistake. I assume that it must have been similar to the feeling a black guy would have had if he accidently walked into a white restroom in the 60s.

We shouldn't start by changing the military. We should start by changing the civilian world. Unisex restrooms should be mandatory.

All college dorms should be co-ed with the possibility of roommates having different genders unless specificly requested otherwise.

Untill all gender segretation is eleminated just as gender segregation has been women and men will never be considered equals.

This idea was sparked by the Affermative Action thread. In the US military (dunno about other countries, care to enlighten us?), men and women have different physical fitness standards. This seems blatantly wrong to me, as the point is to have a viable fighting force, and separate standards detract from that. It also seems that the military is telling women that they don't have to be as competant as the men. Isn't that degrading to the women?

What are your thoughts?

It depends. The military does not typically put women into a combat role; if their assertion is that non-combat troops have different standards than combat troops, then fine.

However, I suspect that is not the case, I belive men are actually held to different standards then women. This is folly. Why would one group be held to different standards than the other? Either lower then men's standard or raise the women's standard.

If the theory behind such standards is to ensure that a soldier can perform basic duties and function within the US military, it should hold the standard for all applicants; whatever that standard is. To do otherwise means that some soldiers may be unfit for duty, or that the standards are fabricated and need to be re-assesed.

This only makes sense; either a soldier is read for duty or they aren't. That's what standards are for, to measure the progress and suitability of a canidate.

This idea was sparked by the Affermative Action thread. In the US military (dunno about other countries, care to enlighten us?), men and women have different physical fitness standards. This seems blatantly wrong to me, as the point is to have a viable fighting force, and separate standards detract from that. It also seems that the military is telling women that they don't have to be as competant as the men. Isn't that degrading to the women?

What are your thoughts?

Ironic that you assume the standards are necessary for a viable fighting force (i.e., the military knows what it is doing in setting the standards) but also assume seperate standards detract from that (i.e., the military does not know what it is doing in setting the standards).

Some standards have not a damn thing to do with qualifications, fitness for battle, etc.

Some standards have simply to do with overall fitness -- which can be different between men and women.

There are many categories that could well be relevant to fitness where the standards could be higher for women than for men (or we could have one standard -- above where men would generally qualify).

I love the mind of the "oppressed" white male. Only sees sexism and racism when it could conceivably be against white males.

-snip-

I love the mind of the "oppressed" white male. Only sees sexism and racism when it could conceivably be against white males.

That goes for people of other races and sexes too.

That goes for people of other races and sexes too.

To a far lesser degree, yes.

But as a general rule, no.

I love the mind of the "oppressed" white male. Only sees sexism and racism when it could conceivably be against white males.

The differing physical fitness stardards aren't discriminitory to white males or male at all.
No man has been refused enlistment in any branch of the US military because there were too many female enlistees.

They are, however, discriminitory against women. One of the first justifications for denying women the oppertunity to enter combat specilizations, if not the very first, is "women aren't as physically fit as men. They can't meet the same standards that men do."
Not " they aren't men so their fitness can't be measured by different standards" but "If they were measured at the same standard as men all of them would fail."

That is prejudical against all women in the military and discriminatory against those who want to be in combat roles.

The differing physical fitness stardards aren't discriminitory to white males or male at all.
No man has been refused enlistment in any branch of the US military because there were too many female enlistees.

They are, however, discriminitory against women. One of the first justifications for denying women the oppertunity to enter combat specilizations, if not the very first, is "women aren't as physically fit as men. They can't meet the same standards that men do."
Not " they aren't men so their fitness can't be measured by different standards" but "If they were measured at the same standard as men all of them would fail."

That is prejudical against all women in the military and discriminatory against those who want to be in combat roles.

You put the cart before the horse.

The prejudice is against puting women in combat roles.

And perhaps I was not clear. Some of the standards are inherently sexist and/or are not really necessary. Rather than get rid of unnecessary standards or making the standards more relevant to a modern military, one response has been to simply make 2 sets of standards.

But not all of the standards are different for men and women. And some are based simply on differences between what is the equivalent of a certain level of physical fitness for a man versus a woman.

But neither the 2 sets of standards nor keeping women out of combat have anything to do with "gender Affirmative Action."

Was the superior physical size and strength of American soldiers in Vietnan anything but a hinderance? After all, the smaller you are, the smaller a target you are, and more importantly, the easier it is to hide.

Everywhere I go I see "mens" and "womens" restrooms and no one says anything about it. If there were "white" and "collored" restrooms everyone would be screaming about bigotry and discrimination. Why is gender segreation still considered right and good when racial segregation is considered evil?

It could be fears of sexual issues (as in related to sexual acts, not as in related to the sex of a person). After all, the difference between a black man and a white man is for the most part cosmetic. The difference between a man and a woman goes a bit further.

It could be fears of sexual issues (as in related to sexual acts, not as in related to the sex of a person). After all, the difference between a black man and a white man is for the most part cosmetic. The difference between a man and a woman goes a bit further.

Although if you take thisfurther, maybe there should be restrooms for straight men/lesbians,and gay men/women. On the other hand, we could put security cameras in. That'd just be better for everyone, except for the criminals.

Although if you take thisfurther, maybe there should be restrooms for straight men/lesbians,and gay men/women. On the other hand, we could put security cameras in. That'd just be better for everyone, except for the criminals.

*shrugs* The straight/guy issue follows the same logic, yes. I don't believe this is necessarily the reason (after all, pure "tradition" is a powerful force). I was simply offerring a possibility.

Ironic that you assume the standards are necessary for a viable fighting force (i.e., the military knows what it is doing in setting the standards) but also assume seperate standards detract from that (i.e., the military does not know what it is doing in setting the standards).

Some standards have not a damn thing to do with qualifications, fitness for battle, etc.

Some standards have simply to do with overall fitness -- which can be different between men and women.

There are many categories that could well be relevant to fitness where the standards could be higher for women than for men (or we could have one standard -- above where men would generally qualify).

I love the mind of the "oppressed" white male. Only sees sexism and racism when it could conceivably be against white males.

Surely two random people who sign up for the army, one male, one female, should have to attain the exact same (or higher) standard of fitness/capability to be considered for the same role, and that the setting of two distinct standards does detract from that? Unless I'm missing something, I don't see the irony of the statement that you do.

Ok, everyone who has served in the military in a combat-related role, raise your hand.....

Ooo, look, mine is up. (I know that doesn't make me an authority or anything, but it is relevant)

There are some combat roles where the physical differences between the genders (and there are physical differences, kids) don't make a difference.

Example: Helicopter Pilots.
And lo and behold, several of the world's military's have female chopper pilots!

Other roles really do require you to be able to run 80 km with a ****load of crap on your back.
Many women cannot easily acheive this. Many men can't either, but statistically, the male physical build is more suited, i.e. more men can do this than women.
It therefore makes a certain amount of sense to focus training time on applicants who are more likely to succeed.
Remember that the military isn't Social Services. Its about getting the job done.

I know this approach can be (and had been) abused.
That doesn't make it entirely wrong.

It could be fears of sexual issues (as in related to sexual acts, not as in related to the sex of a person). After all, the difference between a black man and a white man is for the most part cosmetic. The difference between a man and a woman goes a bit further.

The difference can't really be described as much more than cosmetic in this context.
As far as sex acts go, they are probably less likely in unisex restrooms than in single sex restrooms. People have sex in pubic for thrill, not for the convience.
More importantly, however, is that fact that sexual violence is less likely in unisex facilities compared to single sex facilities.

However, more than discriminating against women single gender restrooms disciriminate against famlies with children, people with disabilities, transgenderd persons and intersexed persons.

I'm sure some parents here have experenced the awkwardness of of having to take a child of the opposite gender into a public restroom.
Further, adults who cannot use the restroom without assistance from a caregiver can experience problems when that caregiver is of the opposite gender.
As for transgendered and intersexed persons, the problems there should be obvious.

There is some movement in the direction of "family" restrooms which corrects these problems.
http://www.buildings.com/Articles/detail.asp?ArticleID=1701

This idea was sparked by the Affermative Action thread. In the US military (dunno about other countries, care to enlighten us?), men and women have different physical fitness standards. This seems blatantly wrong to me, as the point is to have a viable fighting force, and separate standards detract from that. It also seems that the military is telling women that they don't have to be as competant as the men. Isn't that degrading to the women?

What are your thoughts?
Yes, this is very sad. They also do the same thing on the presidential fitness test in schools. :mad:

More importantly, however, is that fact that sexual violence is less likely in unisex facilities compared to single sex facilities.

How so?

More importantly, however, is that fact that sexual violence is less likely in unisex facilities compared to single sex facilities.

As Dempublicents asked, how so? Got some sort of source for this? I'm interested.

Is there ever going to be Affrimative Action for ugly people? It's just not fair that some people end up with all the looks and some look like they should be pulling a plow. Damn it what about the ugly people. They need help.

We know ugly kids aren't treated as well. I think ugly people should be able to flash a government issued card/recording device (to ensure enforcement) that will manditorily exscalate the relationship to the next level once per social event.

first base to second base, or second to third and so on...

Of coure. It isn't a matter of afirimitive action so much as it is that the beleive that women are physically weaker than men.

Standards should be the same for everyone.
However, there are more important matters to deal with first. Skin color segregation ended decades ago but gender segregation is not only tollerated, it is encouraged.

Everywhere I go I see "mens" and "womens" restrooms and no one says anything about it. If there were "white" and "collored" restrooms everyone would be screaming about bigotry and discrimination. Why is gender segreation still considered right and good when racial segregation is considered evil?

Not too long ago I was walking around my college's main building and had to use the restroom. It is difficult to tell the difference between the doors to the mens restrooms and the women's restrooms and I wasn't paying close attention. As I result I steped through the wrong one. When I saw that I was in the restroom I immediatly left hoping that no one would notice. Now that I think about it I was frightened that I would have been labeled a pervret, assaulted by a frightened woman, or arrested for the honest mistake. I assume that it must have been similar to the feeling a black guy would have had if he accidently walked into a white restroom in the 60s.

We shouldn't start by changing the military. We should start by changing the civilian world. Unisex restrooms should be mandatory.

All college dorms should be co-ed with the possibility of roommates having different genders unless specificly requested otherwise.

Untill all gender segretation is eleminated just as gender segregation has been women and men will never be considered equals.
i think the problem with unisex washrooms is obvious....especially, say, changerooms...maybe not for the secular world so much, but, as a christian, i would have great difficulty using a unisex changeroom...i'd rather not hafta just hope and pray everytime i go swimming that there won't be any women changing.

The differing physical fitness stardards aren't discriminitory to white males or male at all.
No man has been refused enlistment in any branch of the US military because there were too many female enlistees.
(snip)

True, yet, not quite accurate. While no man has been refusd enlistment, men have been refused assignments because there has been too many female enlistees.

The sea/shore rotation for my rating went from 3 or 4 years at sea followed by 2 or 3 years at a shore billet. As women started entering my rating, they were filling the shore billits leaving no room for the men. The rotation went to 5 or 6 years at sea to 2 years at shore.

As Dempublicents asked, how so? Got some sort of source for this? I'm interested.

How? Quite simply, the buddy system.

The most obvious and preventable sexual violence in public restrooms is perpertrated against children whose parents are unable to accompany them due to gender restrictions.

To a sexual predator a potential victim alone is much more enticing than a potential victim with an escort. When a sexual predatory sees a potential victim being escorted by a person of the opposite gender it knows one thing for certain, they will have to split up if one of them needs to use a restroom. That's more than enough opportunity for a predatory rapist.
Certainly, rapists wouldn't bother obeying the gender restrictions placed on restrooms.

The family restroom movement is currently fueled by incidents in which children were raped and/or murdered simply because their parents couldn't accompany them into public restrooms.

http://www.icontactweb.com/SiteArchive/PamSlater/law_s2.html

The same principals can be applied with adults, as well. There is safety in numbers.

Heres the thing with chicks in the military. I have seem the vast majority of them barely pass the lesser standards they have to meet. Niver mind the male standards. Heck if we raised the bar, females would be dropping out left and right because they cant keep up with the men. Then all of those whiney liberals would be crying that women aren't given a fair chance in the military because the standards are too tough.

Ok, everyone who has served in the military in a combat-related role, raise your hand.....

Ooo, look, mine is up. (I know that doesn't make me an authority or anything, but it is relevant)

There are some combat roles where the physical differences between the genders (and there are physical differences, kids) don't make a difference.

Example: Helicopter Pilots.
And lo and behold, several of the world's military's have female chopper pilots!

Other roles really do require you to be able to run 80 km with a ****load of crap on your back.
Many women cannot easily acheive this. Many men can't either, but statistically, the male physical build is more suited, i.e. more men can do this than women.
It therefore makes a certain amount of sense to focus training time on applicants who are more likely to succeed.
Remember that the military isn't Social Services. Its about getting the job done.

I know this approach can be (and had been) abused.
That doesn't make it entirely wrong.

-Raises hand-

Submariner.... The most contention against making female submariners is the actual design of our submarines; there is no way to physically alter the innards and create segregated berthing like they have on surface combatants.... Not to mention there is no such thing as privacy.. Not to mention the issues involving "hot-racking" (sharing bunks) and the like... It's not hard to imagine when you factor that more than 1/2 of a submarine is devoted to engineering, the other 1/2 makes up the weapons platforms, electronics packages, and if they can fit anywhere, the crew and officers...

How much physical strength does it take to operate the remote controlled turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle?? Or fire a Tomahawk from an AEGIS? It's just point and click these days. You don't even have to load rounds any more.

Fighter pilots still need to be in good shape these days because of the G's, but all other vehicle operators really don't need to be.

When sailors had to load 2-ton shells into 16-inch cannons it made sense to recuit men who were in shape, but gender discrmination makes less and less sense the more advanced we get.

At the end of the day, positive discrimination is still discrimination, and discrimination is not a good thing.

How much physical strength does it take to operate the remote controlled turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle?? Or fire a Tomahawk from an AEGIS? It's just point and click these days. You don't even have to load rounds any more.

Fighter pilots still need to be in good shape these days because of the G's, but all other vehicle operators really don't need to be.

When sailors had to load 2-ton shells into 16-inch cannons it made sense to recuit men who were in shape, but gender discrmination makes less and less sense the more advanced we get.
What happens when a tank gets blown up and you become a grunt?

This idea was sparked by the Affermative Action thread. In the US military (dunno about other countries, care to enlighten us?), men and women have different physical fitness standards. This seems blatantly wrong to me, as the point is to have a viable fighting force, and separate standards detract from that. It also seems that the military is telling women that they don't have to be as competant as the men. Isn't that degrading to the women?

What are your thoughts?

The fact that the military standards for men are higher than for women assumes that women are generally weaker than men. This is true.

It would be interesting to see how women perform in comparison to men in a combat situation, this assuming that the military standards are exactly the same for both genders.

If women moan about different standards, then they should lobby not to have the male standards lowered, but rather to be cable of attaining the men's standards. I really don't think it would be wise to lower the standards given the amount of fat American soldiers I see.

Surely two random people who sign up for the army, one male, one female, should have to attain the exact same (or higher) standard of fitness/capability to be considered for the same role, and that the setting of two distinct standards does detract from that? Unless I'm missing something, I don't see the irony of the statement that you do.

The military sets both standards.

Robbopolis assumes one standard is right and the other is wrong. Why?

How does he know either standard is right?

Why is the male standard the ideal and the female standard merely a subversion of that standard?

And, I'll note once again that there are many categories -- such as manual dexterity -- relevant to military service in which females in top physical fitness can meet a higher standard than men -- but the male dominanted US military has never required that higher standard for either gender.

What happens when a tank gets blown up and you become a grunt?

When your tank blows up while your in it you generally die. At the very most, crawl out and radio for help while trying to hold your guts in. Modern anti-tank rockets cause modern tank armor to fragment into shrapnel that a tank crew would be lucky to survive.

If its just a mobility kill that's different. I'm sure there is a SOP for such a situation but I don't know what it is.

The military sets both standards.

Robbopolis assumes one standard is right and the other is wrong. Why?

How does he know either standard is right?

Why is the male standard the ideal and the female standard merely a subversion of that standard?

And, I'll note once again that there are many categories -- such as manual dexterity -- relevant to military service in which females in top physical fitness can meet a higher standard than men -- but the male dominanted US military has never required that higher standard for either gender.


Yes it is true, a use her hands a little better then a man. of course if I gotta carry he weak ass all the way to the point where we need her, why take her along. Though I do know something that that dexterity would be useful for...cooking and cleaning like they should be

Of coure. It isn't a matter of afirimitive action so much as it is that the beleive that women are physically weaker than men.

Standards should be the same for everyone.
However, there are more important matters to deal with first. Skin color segregation ended decades ago but gender segregation is not only tollerated, it is encouraged.

Everywhere I go I see "mens" and "womens" restrooms and no one says anything about it. If there were "white" and "collored" restrooms everyone would be screaming about bigotry and discrimination. Why is gender segreation still considered right and good when racial segregation is considered evil?

Not too long ago I was walking around my college's main building and had to use the restroom. It is difficult to tell the difference between the doors to the mens restrooms and the women's restrooms and I wasn't paying close attention. As I result I steped through the wrong one. When I saw that I was in the restroom I immediatly left hoping that no one would notice. Now that I think about it I was frightened that I would have been labeled a pervret, assaulted by a frightened woman, or arrested for the honest mistake. I assume that it must have been similar to the feeling a black guy would have had if he accidently walked into a white restroom in the 60s.

We shouldn't start by changing the military. We should start by changing the civilian world. Unisex restrooms should be mandatory.

All college dorms should be co-ed with the possibility of roommates having different genders unless specificly requested otherwise.

Untill all gender segretation is eleminated just as gender segregation has been women and men will never be considered equals.


Unisex Restrooms? Mandatory?
Are you mad? I really don't think anyone cares about Unisex toilets. Really. When I'm taking a slash I don't want my genitles suddenly aroused by a fine looking young piece of meat, and I'm sure women would not want to feel as if they are being gawped at, as they almsot certianly would. By people like me. With arrays of mirrors on sticks and newspapers with holes in them.

In this day and age, I hardly think any real gender discriminiation exists. Yes there are :eek: segregated :eek: toilets/washrooms, yes woman are treated differently in the military, but these things are negligible, not life changing.
It really is very hard for an employer to pay a female worker differently to a male worker, and if an employer does do this, it is incredibly easy to get sued.

And the whole "you walking into the wrong college toilets"....yeah...sure...MISTAKE ;)

Yes it is true, a use her hands a little better then a man. of course if I gotta carry he weak ass all the way to the point where we need her, why take her along. Though I do know something that that dexterity would be useful for...cooking and cleaning like they should be

You wouldn't be carrying her, Conan. This is the 21st century. You'd both be dropped off by a military transport.
And as for dexterity, there's nothing worse than a clumsy gunner on the battlefield.

Yes it is true, a use her hands a little better then a man. of course if I gotta carry he weak ass all the way to the point where we need her, why take her along. Though I do know something that that dexterity would be useful for...cooking and cleaning like they should be

Women make better sharpshooters and snipers than men do.

Dr. Ruth was a sniper. If she wanted to, Dr. Ruth could kill you just as easily as she could treat your sexual hang-ups. Remember that.

You wouldn't be carrying her, Conan. This is the 21st century. You'd both be dropped off by a military transport.
And as for dexterity, there's nothing worse than a clumsy gunner on the battlefield.
There are places a transport cant go or there isnt one available. You have to walk alot! true, we can cross terrain very quickly now adays, but there is plenty of foot work done. I will agree you dont want a clumsy gunner, thats y we train them.

Unisex Restrooms? Mandatory?
Are you mad? I really don't think anyone cares about Unisex toilets. Really. When I'm taking a slash I don't want my genitles suddenly aroused by a fine looking young piece of meat, and I'm sure women would not want to feel as if they are being gawped at, as they almsot certianly would. By people like me. With arrays of mirrors on sticks and newspapers with holes in them.

In this day and age, I hardly think any real gender discriminiation exists. Yes there are :eek: segregated :eek: toilets/washrooms, yes woman are treated differently in the military, but these things are negligible, not life changing.
It really is very hard for an employer to pay a female worker differently to a male worker, and if an employer does do this, it is incredibly easy to get sued.

And the whole "you walking into the wrong college toilets"....yeah...sure...MISTAKE ;)

Gawping? The advantage is desensitation. People gawk at that are unuasl to them. Why would anyone gawk at a natural everyday thing? Of course, most restrooms have lockable stalls.

Women make better sharpshooters and snipers than men do.

Dr. Ruth was a sniper. If she wanted to, Dr. Ruth could kill you just as easily as she could treat your sexual hang-ups. Remember that.
Never been out shot yet by a chick. And they gotta get to the place they are shooting first. And god forbid they get captured. After a good rape fest in addition to anyother torture, those girls will be singing like its cool

Gawping? The advantage is desensitation. People gawk at that are unuasl to them. Why would anyone gawk at a natural everyday thing? Of course, most restrooms have lockable stalls.

But...dude...boobies.....*starts to foam*

Never been out shot yet by a chick. And they gotta get to the place they are shooting first. And god forbid they get captured. After a good rape fest in addition to anyother torture, those girls will be singing like its cool

I bet you've never your testicle ripped off and eaten by a chick, either. Never the less, there are chicks that do that.

You won't find a good rape fest to be much fun when it turns into to a mountain oyster feast

Want to know why women have lower standards? Cause generally speaking they are weaker then men. Women though have better fine motor skills which is why they are as previously posted better snipers. How ever, when you need to march 20 miles a day with 60 pounds of gear on your back, males will generally do better. There are differences in the sexes. Need an example? Breasts, womens breasts shold be larger then males do to the whole milking thing. Men have broader shoulders, women have broader hips. Women need wide hips to help with child birth. Males don't need to worry about that. Women have a lower center of gravity, thanks to the uterus. Women are not and will not be front line soldiers because of menstruation. Front line soldiers, don't get to shower often and if it's that time of the month, there are a lot of health risks. Don't be stupid, we have specialization for a reason. Physical differences do exist between the sexes, those physical differences should affect what role they have in the military. In civilian life, no. No reason for a male to get a spot in an architectural firm over a female. Please do some research before you try to blast this. It would be much appreciated.

The military sets both standards.

Robbopolis assumes one standard is right and the other is wrong. Why?

How does he know either standard is right?

Why is the male standard the ideal and the female standard merely a subversion of that standard?

And, I'll note once again that there are many categories -- such as manual dexterity -- relevant to military service in which females in top physical fitness can meet a higher standard than men -- but the male dominanted US military has never required that higher standard for either gender.

I still dont understand your posistion Cat tribe. We know a woman is more suited to some tasks than men, like manual dexterity, as you mentioned. Indeed I've heard that some women performed better in the tests for the first american astronauts than men did but were subsequently denied the oppotunity to go into space because the government wanted men, that was discrimination, and so is different fitness standards for men and women in the military.

I dont know which fitness standard is more suited, the male or female one, but its reasonable to assume the male one is as its higher. I dont know what constitutes a good level of fitness in the military but they probably do. But I dont see how that matters to this debate, surely one standard of fitness would be best, whether that involves testing attributes men generally score better at or ones that women do.

I bet you've never your testicle ripped off and eaten by a chick, either. Never the less, there are chicks that do that.

You won't find a good rape fest to be much fun when it turns into to a mountain oyster feast


Never met a woman who could put up a good fight either.

Want to know why women have lower standards? Cause generally speaking they are weaker then men. Women though have better fine motor skills which is why they are as previously posted better snipers. How ever, when you need to march 20 miles a day with 60 pounds of gear on your back, males will generally do better. There are differences in the sexes. Need an example? Breasts, womens breasts shold be larger then males do to the whole milking thing. Men have broader shoulders, women have broader hips. Women need wide hips to help with child birth. Males don't need to worry about that. Women have a lower center of gravity, thanks to the uterus. Women are not and will not be front line soldiers because of menstruation. Front line soldiers, don't get to shower often and if it's that time of the month, there are a lot of health risks. Don't be stupid, we have specialization for a reason. Physical differences do exist between the sexes, those physical differences should affect what role they have in the military. In civilian life, no. No reason for a male to get a spot in an architectural firm over a female. Please do some research before you try to blast this. It would be much appreciated.


This man must have a cookie. And milk.

http://www.nurseweek.com/news/ShowNews.asp?251177


Women arent even mentally made for combat. Never mind just the physical, chicks bring baggage out to the field with them that keeps them from being useful.

http://search.foxnews.com/_1_25B8TC3033F6EW4__info.foxnws/search/web/women%2Bmore%2Blikely%2Bfor%2BPTSD%2Bin%2Bcombat

Here are some more places for info

Never met a woman who could put up a good fight either.

Then I truely pitty you.

Women are, for the most part, more deadly and viscious than men. It is jsut that women are socialized to internalize their agressive impulses and men are socialized to externalize ours.

Then I truely pitty you.

Women are, for the most part, more deadly and viscious than men. It is jsut that women are socialized to internalize their agressive impulses and men are socialized to externalize ours.



Wow, dude, you are another victim of feminism. GET BACK YOUR TESTIES AND PUT AWAY THE INTERIOR DECORATING MAUNAL

The military sets both standards.

Robbopolis assumes one standard is right and the other is wrong. Why?

How does he know either standard is right?

Why is the male standard the ideal and the female standard merely a subversion of that standard?

And, I'll note once again that there are many categories -- such as manual dexterity -- relevant to military service in which females in top physical fitness can meet a higher standard than men -- but the male dominanted US military has never required that higher standard for either gender.

I'm not saying which standard should be adopted. I'm simply saying that there should be ONE standard for everyone, whether we're talking physical strength or manual dexterity. Of course there are also extra requirements for specific jobs (eyesight for pilots, etc.), but the base standard should be the same for both sexes. Why is it that a man who can't meet the standards cn't join, but a woman who can't meet the standard can join because she gets to meet a lower one? Doesn't that detract from the job that the military is trying to do?

Wow, dude, you are another victim of feminism. GET BACK YOUR TESTIES AND PUT AWAY THE INTERIOR DECORATING MAUNAL

I'm pretty sure I never had "testies." My testicles (or testes) are fine. Thank you for asking.

But, unlike you, some of us actually like women. Intimately.

And we are rather happy not being members of the He Man Women Hater's Club.

I'm pretty sure I never had "testies." My testicles (or testes) are fine. Thank you for asking.

But, unlike you, some of us actually like women. Intimately.

And we are rather happy not being members of the He Man Women Hater's Club.
I love women too. Infact my woman is at home right now with our kids where she belongs.

I say we call it even considering women weren't drafted.

Wow, dude, you are another victim of feminism. GET BACK YOUR TESTIES AND PUT AWAY THE INTERIOR DECORATING MAUNAL
you dont get many girlfriends, do you?

I'm not saying which standard should be adopted. I'm simply saying that there should be ONE standard for everyone, whether we're talking physical strength or manual dexterity. Of course there are also extra requirements for specific jobs (eyesight for pilots, etc.), but the base standard should be the same for both sexes. Why is it that a man who can't meet the standards cn't join, but a woman who can't meet the standard can join because she gets to meet a lower one? Doesn't that detract from the job that the military is trying to do?


OK.

Let us try this again.

Perhaps one standard would be best. Perhaps not. WHATEVER IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MILITARY.

You assume the "lower" standard does not ensure military fitness. Maybe. Maybe not.

I would not blindly sacrifice national security in the interests of a "single standard."

Nor, if seperate standards best measure fitness for service for each sex, would I require one standard in order to create a false appearance of equality.

You are assuming that the inability of the military to make standards that ensure fitness for service and assuming the difference in standards is based on some "affirmative action" attempt to allow unfit women into the military. You also assume that a "higher" or "better" standard is one suited for males.

I refuse to draw these conclusions from thin air.

Never met a woman who could put up a good fight either.Bring it on, little boy.
I can see you now. A pimple faced fifteen year-old who's afraid he'll never get laid because he still wets the bed. This frustrates him so much he puts on his "I'm macho while anonymous" persona and goes to diss those evil bitches on the laptop mommy bought him.

OK.

Let us try this again.

Perhaps one standard would be best. Perhaps not. WHATEVER IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MILITARY.

You assume the "lower" standard does not ensure military fitness. Maybe. Maybe not.

I would not blindly sacrifice national security in the interests of a "single standard."

Nor, if seperate standards best measure fitness for service for each sex, would I require one standard in order to create a false appearance of equality.

You are assuming that the inability of the military to make standards that ensure fitness for service and assuming the difference in standards is based on some "affirmative action" attempt to allow unfit women into the military. You also assume that a "higher" or "better" standard is one suited for males.

I refuse to draw these conclusions from thin air.

Why do you assume that it's not for that reason? I know that women in the military has been and continues to be a serious political issue.

For the standards, I don't see how it could possibly be better for the military to get two different standards. When I go to get a job in the civilian world, there is one standard of what is required for the job. Why would it be any different in the military?

Also, I am not assuming that the "higher male" standard is the better one. I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that there should be one standard for both sexes.

I love women too. Infact my woman is at home right now with our kids where she belongs.
Oh fuck. I think DA is back.

Why do you assume that it's not for that reason? I know that women in the military has been and continues to be a serious political issue.

For the standards, I don't see how it could possibly be better for the military to get two different standards. When I go to get a job in the civilian world, there is one standard of what is required for the job. Why would it be any different in the military?

Also, I am not assuming that the "higher male" standard is the better one. I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that there should be one standard for both sexes.
Because not all military jobs are the same, perhaps the standards for the different specialties should come into play from the beginning.
That way we can seperate the predominately male grunts from the frequently female specialists.

I have no military experiance.. nope I'm a journo.. for me war's a spectator sport

all I can say is that physical standards matter but not half as much as psychological conditioning; in Iraq I saw MANY of the grunts there just weren't prepared for the rigors of combat... under even a light mortar bombardment they cracked..

big macho men who 5 minutes ago were telling me they ate Iraqis for breakfast cowering in the corner...

combat these days frequently has little to do with physical condition and everything to do with mental conditioning; most of the combatants out there.. men women.. American.. British or Iraqi just aren't mentally suited to modern warfare.. do what you like with the physical tests but tighten up the mental ones..

that's an aweful lot of lives completely f**ked because the military can;t legally test that kind of thing..

and from what I saw? reservists are breakdowns waiting to happen.. male or female.. these days you have to be incredibly mentally resilient and not hesitate.. that's really all it comes down to

"Everywhere I go I see "mens" and "womens" restrooms and no one says anything about it. If there were "white" and "collored" restrooms everyone would be screaming about bigotry and discrimination. Why is gender segreation still considered right and good when racial segregation is considered evil?"

Men and women have seperate restrooms because they are physically different, the majority of men prefer to have sex with women and vise versa and men or women can take sexual pleasure from watching the opposite sex do restroom stuff. That is why they have different restrooms. Homosexuals are a small part of the population and so are not as big a problem as straight people peeping at eachother would be. (inthat because there are less gays it would happen less, not because its OK)
People with different colored skin are biologically the same except for their skin pigmentation (some claim there is a difference in penis size, ass size or athletic abilities but men and women are generally the same)


The military has different fitness standards for men and women simply because its easier for men to acheive a certain level of fitness because of males role in the past as the hunter and provider. In the future this may not be the case and expectations will be adjusted accordingly. They have different fitness expectations because having a standard for all humans would prevent the majority of women from entering the military. This in turn would probably piss more people off than the 10 seconds that males in the US navy have to have off their split-per-mile that women do not.

Men and women have seperate restrooms because they are physically different,

Physically different, but not so much that they can't use the same toilet.

the majority of men prefer to have sex with women and vise versa and men or women can take sexual pleasure from watching the opposite sex do restroom stuff. That is why they have different restrooms.

I can take sexual pleasure by watching a woman drinking a milkshake through a long straw, if I actually try. Does that mean that we should segregate resturants that serve milkshakes?

As I said before most stalls have locking doors and urinials are fequently seperated by dividing walls in decent restrooms.
Besides, desensitization is very usefull. For most people it might be exciting once or twice but would quickly become boring.


Homosexuals are a small part of the population and so are not as big a problem as straight people peeping at eachother would be. (inthat because there are less gays it would happen less, not because its OK)

So now we're discriminating against minorities or are we saying that it is okay for minorities to prey on majorities because it doesn't happen often?


People with different colored skin are biologically the same except for their skin pigmentation (some claim there is a difference in penis size, ass size or athletic abilities but men and women are generally the same)

Males and females are externally biologically identical except for the shape of the genitals.
Before someone says breasts, I contend that Arnold Schwarzenegger has (or had) larger breasts than most women. Male and female breasts are idnetical in material composetion. The only difference is the ammount of material.
Also, people don't have to take off their tops to use the restroom, although some like to.


The military has different fitness standards for men and women simply because its easier for men to acheive a certain level of fitness because of males role in the past as the hunter and provider. In the future this may not be the case and expectations will be adjusted accordingly. They have different fitness expectations because having a standard for all humans would prevent the majority of women from entering the military. This in turn would probably piss more people off than the 10 seconds that males in the US navy have to have off their split-per-mile that women do not.

I'd vote for simply having MOS-based fitness starndards. There are some cryptologists and linguists who will do nothing in their careers but sit in a dark room deciphering grainy audio tapes and Arabic internet message board posts. What does it matter if those people are fat?

The military sets both standards.

Robbopolis assumes one standard is right and the other is wrong. Why?

How does he know either standard is right?

Why is the male standard the ideal and the female standard merely a subversion of that standard?

And, I'll note once again that there are many categories -- such as manual dexterity -- relevant to military service in which females in top physical fitness can meet a higher standard than men -- but the male dominanted US military has never required that higher standard for either gender.

For the same job, there should only be one standard. If one part of society only needs to meet a lesser standard, then it is discrimination, as it makes it EASIER for them to succeed. You'll notice that I don't call either the male or the female standard the correct standard, nor the female standard a subversion of the "ideal" male standard. If I have implied that, it was not my intent.

do not know what the "ideal" standard is, or should be, but we must assume, for anything to get done, that there is someone to set it. In the case of the army, it should be the army that sets that standard, and for one job, there should be one standard. I'm not saying that the army as a whole should have one standard. But each distinct job within it should have its own requirements that, regardless of gender, a candidate must fulfil to get the job.