If the females do not have to meet the physical requirements of the men, you already have them at a disadvantage in a test comparing them to men. Hence flawed test. They should have to meet the same requirements to start with, when that happens then you see how those women do compared to the men.
One standard and anyone who meets this standard can play. Seems pretty straight forward and common sense to me but some people struggle with the concept.
According to the article, the women had to pass the minimum male score on the PFT. So, they did have to meet the minimum male PFT, I'm not sure of any additional PFT or school requirements. So, I do not understand how the women were placed at a disadvantage. What this does tell me, is that the women selected were in the upper percentile of women physically. If we are talking about this across the board, is that truly representative of women we would send into combat as infantry? If this is the precursor for more elite forces with higher physical and mental standards then it does not look good for female integration. After all, the attrition rate for some of these types of units is over 50% for some very physically fit mofo's. Guys who excel in infantry and other communities.
Okay, now read the thread - I obviously missed that part and specifically asked if the women had to meet the same specs as the males and was told no. Based on that no I made the comments you seem to have some issue with, the no I quoted in my first post about it. I have no clue what we'd send into combat as far as females are concerned, at this point there are way too many he man women haters involved in the entire process to have a slight clue if it's feasible. But looking at it is a start. The press the women rangers got will help a lot down the line as more females who are not in the service because they don't want to be office drones see there are opportunities. Anyway, I still think the Secretary of the Navy has an idea if the whole thing was biased one way or another. Even if he dares to be a civilian.
great article from guys who have seen more shit and know more about it from the inside. http://www.oafnation.com/hitter-feed/2015/8/21/sorry-women-in-combat-units-is-still-a-bad-idea-sorry
If I had to go into combat I think I'll go in the all male squad... http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines...es-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/?utm_source=YPL
the article mentions a failure of experimental design: "The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs." it'll be interesting to see whether the Marines look to get an exception to the integration mandate.
If it means anything, men who meet the bare minimum PT standards are not going to handle combat very well. For a woman to just make the minimum standards that a man must meet means nothing to me other than she can do the minimum of a man. We had two women on our SRT, both had to meet the same physical standards as the men, which included body dragging 225 lbs 60 feet (heaviest member on the team with gear). Building entry and CQB is a different animal than sustained combat operations. Of the two women on the team, there was only one who I would go to combat with.
Dead man.... I think I'd rather have guys fighting alongside me than women. Getting laid can happen while on R & R after the firefight...
So you'd go with 50% of the women you were dealing with - not a bad percentage given their numbers in the military as a whole. Seriously though, the first step needs to be women meet the same standards as men, until that point it's all silly.
Damn, another loss in the war on women! Maybe that guy bringing his wife along to massacre folks at work changed some minds? In historic decision, Pentagon chief opens all jobs in combat units to women
Since it's been shown that a group of women, when living together long enough, will tend to have their periods at the same time, I still say that a combat Division of women, during their prime time, would/could defeat any standing army on the face of this planet within fifteen minutes. Girls of the PMS Division, go get em. (I am in so much trouble.)
I know that women are capable of many great things (and are the equal of men in every way other than biology). However, putting women in jobs that they physically cannot do (Special Forces, SEALS, MARSOC, Ranger Battalion), is an absolute disaster and serves no purpose other than destroying the best collection of Special Operation units in the world. People who think otherwise may be well intentioned, but have no idea what is involved to operate in one of these units.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps came out with a brief statement yesterday saying that he will fully support integration and start it immediately but will not lower standards to reduce our effectiveness.
Which is exactly how it should be. Let them try - just like all soldiers - and let them fail if they can't meet the requirements.
Does anyone seriously believe that the forces behind this will settle for no successful candidates? Accommodations will be made; they always are.
Yeah but the women will end up in the company office or as a supply clerk as to not reduce effectiveness should someone "make it"