no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

from the Canadian Free Press
Food for thought, not with hatred toward women but with the scientific understanding that men and women are not physically the same, no matter what the L***Q would like to brainwash you into believing



Our Enemies’ Dream: An Equal Opportunity Military
Author
By Michael Fumento -- Bio and Archives September 14, 2015

Surprise! A study released by the Marine Corps shows that all male units greatly outperformed mixed g****r units in just about every capacity. The women performed their tasks more slowly, fired weapons with less accuracy, and sustained far more injuries during training than their male counterparts. Male Marines with no formal infantry training outperformed infantry-trained women on each weapons system! Nevertheless, unless Congress intervenes the military must start integrating women into combat units in January.

That’s great if your goal is to feminize the military. But let’s say that the goal is combat mission accomplishment with minimal casualties. Now you have to start taking into account all sorts of pesky factors that two women graduating from a physically tough course doesn’t address. As a former paratrooper who’s been in combat, I can address some of those a bit better than some policy wonks.

Even more so than with sports teams, the military must be a meritocracy. We’re not talking about balls and pucks, after all. How do sports teams determine eligibility? The best person for the slots available: G****r is irrelevant, as is race. Else we’d see a lot more w****s playing basketball; a lot more b****s playing hockey. To the extent possible, the military must do the same.

Yet outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey put an impossible burden on the military to show that if physical training standards are so high that they’re keeping women out, “Does it really have to be that high?” That would be like forcing a sports team to prove what it required to beat another team, rather than simply hiring the best people for the job – than hiring to win.
THE BURDEN OF BODY ARMOR

There’s one aspect of modern warfare that will almost certainly surprise you if you haven’t actually been in combat. It’s called body armor.

While Obama seems to believe that wars can be won from the air, folks like ISIS beg to differ. Other than perhaps in set-piece conflicts like the Gulf War, air power remains a supplement. Wars are won by those wearing boots – and nowadays all those in boots are also in body armor. That wasn’t true in Vietnam or any previous U.S. war.

Body armor saves lives, but is heavy as hell, with the newest armor 30-35 pounds depending on the size, plus helmet adding another 3-4 pounds. Counting all equipment, the Marine Corps puts the average combat load at 83 pounds. Armor slows down and wears out everybody.

But of course, it’s hardest on the smallest and weakest. That’s women.

A 1992 P**********l Commission report found, “The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.” Further, “The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.”

According to the Surgeon General’s office in 2011, “Army women are more likely to be disabled than men and are approximately 67 percent more likely than Army men to receive a physical disability discharge for a musculoskeletal disorder.” They’re more than five times as likely to suffer stress fractures.

Now consider d**gging to safety a 200-pound soldier with his 83-pound load while wearing your own? Snipers will love you; a good sniper tries to just wound the first target in order to acquire more targets – exactly what happened to one of my photojournalist predecessors in Ramadi.

Body armor also exacerbates exhaustion, reducing the ability to shoot well or to make good decisions – with consequences for lives and limbs.

But what if even only a few women are able to perform as well men? Or even just one? Can’t we let those handful into combat slots?

No. See above. Politics will ensure the bar will be lowered. Dempsey is already pushing the idea of women SEALs.

Only a very bright line can prevent this. No women in combat units. Period. End of story.

Women have long been vital to the U.S. military, but somehow we (and the militaries of virtually every other country) have gotten by without putting them in combat slots. With those slots actually being drastically reduced because of budget cuts, if anything the armed forces should be considering raising physical standards. As much as it would delight our enemies, we cannot afford an equal-opportunity military.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Yep, centuries old misconceptions and other weirdness, must not be challenged. Remember when B****s were considered unfit for combat as well? Way back when, some dummy did an experiment with Black fighter pilots - and found they were equal and sometimes, superior, to white pilots.

So, it appears to me, that someone is feeling a little insecure. Many, if not most, other countries have had females serving in combat and none of them have had their societies collapse as a result.

Ve'hoe

No,, it doesnt to me,,, and besides medical corps isnt infantry,,, not the same thing at all.....

Just the facts: nothing sexual to it....

http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-g****r-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

What an absolutely horrid comparison. Now let's hear your battle roar !

Insecurities ? Nope. Realities.
You are the reason men stopped opening doors 20 years ago.
Dingbattery.

Misconceptions ? :roll: :roll:




:roll: :roll:

Unclet Loc: Amarillo, Tx

Yep, just look at the Israeli Forces - Women don't seem to hold them back in the least. Kinda ruthless when it comes to enemies!

Ve'hoe

actually,,, not so much

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/?page=all

dwallace2015

It sounds sexist and sensible at the same time. Why can't they serve in offices as aides and hospitals as doctors and nurses as I would think they did in previous periods of conflict. There are other ways to fight an enemy than with guns.

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

The real question?? Why do some wemon strive to be a man ? Why do some men strive to be a women ? awnser ,, MENTAL issue's,,, I suspect.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

That isboth sensible and wise, which is why the "progressives" reject that concept. As far as they are concerned men and women are EXACTLY the same, and they refuse to admit that make bodies are different than female bodies and it goes way past their g*****lia. It goes all the way to bone structure, metabolism, and, of prime importance, the way the brain processes information. We are not the same, period. Homosexual and heterosexual men have the same body structure, bone formation and brain processing order and mechanisms but they are way different from heterosexual women and homosexual women who are the same as each other but entirely different from men. Once we admit that then we can admit that there are some jobs women are better at, and some jobs men are better at. with a few exceptions men have more brute strength than women, but the armed forces prefers to lower the standards to make sure women can pass the test. Now they are pushing for women as SEALS, a job only one out of a couple hundred men in the service can pass the tests to do, and unless the standards are changed no woman can pass. This would be one place for people who are really male but think they are female as they have the structure to do the job. However, the severe depression that seems to be the basis for g****r confusion would get in the way.