Camicon wrote:Llamalandia wrote:
Of course I can't prove that anyone has actually died as a direct result of being less fit there simply isn't enough data available especially from a war zone. But that in no way means I've somehow lost the argument. The whole point is that army sets standards for a reason, because they are necessary for a soldier to function and in extreme cases even survive in a war zone. SO for what reason would the army set seperate standards for men and women when either may find themselves in a combat (or even non-combat) role which would require them to utilize a certain amount of strength or retreat as quickly as possible when there position is about to be over run? How does that make any logical sense.
And also aside from this I'm still waiting to hear what well known feminists I should be listening to according to your standards.
That's exactly what it means. When you make a claim that has absolutely zero evidence to back it, then the claim can be dismissed and the argument can be recognized for the complete and utter bullshit that it really is. Particularly because the Pentagon is actively revising the military's standards to find a uniform level of physical ability that all soldiers must meet, that assesses male and female recruits in an unbiased manner.
And I'll say this for the last time: use Google. I'm not going to hold you hand, so show a bit of initiative, show a bit of critical thinking, and go educate yourself.
I'm not going to waste my time "educating myself" about feminists if you won't even name one. I mean, your the one who claims that the rest of us are ignorant and need to what was it not buy into so much right wing propaganda or something.
Also I gave you an example of when a women was involved in "frontline" type combat as an MP (and in her case acquitted herself quite honorably. this proves that though women aren't yet offically allowed on the frontline (or more specifically allowed in combat mos's) they still find themselves fighting in frontline engagements. Therefor because any soldier can theoretically at anytime find themselves essentially on the frontline and given that fitness standards are set accordingly I ask again why in the heck men and women would ever be held to two different standards? (and even if I were to somehow concede this point about the frontline there is still the issue of non-combat roles requiring for instance upper body strength, lifting large objects and whatnot.
Also there's this:
Marines Postpone Pull-Up Requirement for Female Recruits
After more than half fail test, the Marine Corps struggles to find fair fitness test for women pursuing combat jobs
More than half of the women in the Marines’ boot camp cannot complete three pull-ups, the minimum requirement for the New Year. The issue has forced the Marine Corps to delay the prerequisite as it tries to integrate thousands of women into combat roles by 2016, the Associated Press reports.
The delay has prompted some to question whether women have the physical strength to take on military jobs traditionally reserved for men. The Marines argue that pull-ups require the same muscular strength necessary to carry munitions, climb walls and perform other common military tasks.
But Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to “continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed,” Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, told the Associated Press on Thursday.
For now, women will be able to choose whether their upper-body strength is graded on the pull-ups or a 15-second-minimum flexed-arm hang.
http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/marines-postpone-pull-up-requirement-for-female-recruits/