Please explain.

Wow, I'm new here. But should I be suprised that this version of the thread is shaping up to be 10 times worse than the OOT original?

Welcome! Some posters in unchained are the worst on the entire site, so no need for suprise.

A woman can never achieve the physical demands a man can. It is just simple biology. A man has 50% more upper body strength, 33% more lower body strength, 30% more lung capacity, and 20% more red cells giving men more endurance. You know, pretty much the qualities you are looking for in a foot soldier.

With that said I think women should be allowed to serve as long as they can meet the standards but, the standards should'nt be altered to accomodate women.

The standard might be unreasonably high. My point is set a reasonable expectation then ask soldiers-in-training to meet said expectation. Do NOT compromise your physical requirements of soldiers though by creating a less-than-desirable expectation for female soldiers-in-training.

Yeah me too. If rape and sexual abuse is so rampant in the military than this speaks volumes to the integrity of our fighting forces. What else are they capable of doing? This leads me to believe we need better psychological standards for our soldiers-in-training to meet in order to not have a standing army plagued with myriad armed rapists. I wonder what having rigid psychological requirements would mean for the gender make up of our military...?

Have you met Silverman? He throws s*** out without regard to accuracy or factual support. GL getting some elaborate and/or articulated response from him.

It says nothing about our military as what happens there happens outside of the military. As for what they are capable of doing. Who knows? I don't think someone who is capable of sexual assualt is necessarily capable of burning a village full of innocent people. That is like saying a man who hits a woman is the next, Ted Bundy.

I'm all for psych evals but, don't really know how they would weed out potential rapists. Not sure there is really a profile for that.

This is the kind of logic you get from someone trying to invest dollars to make fewer dollars in order to "stick it to the system"

Am curious who made Ben Carson the sheeple baaaaaaaaahhhhhing point for the week.

More sensitivity training!!!!

If it's good enough for Rico's Roughnecks....

Speaking of which, is a future with personal powered armor going to make the physical strength variables practically insignificant?

Reading through the wiki page on exoskeletons would suggest no.

Someone I seem to like.

Its telling that DudeImBetter started this thread here. The OOT version is pretty civil but I guess that isn't his cup of tea.

I find it amusing that at the point in history where women would have had no problem whatsoever being a professional soldier was the same point and time in history where they basically had no rights.

Back in the napolean days and revolutionalry war and such... soldiers would just get in a big line to oppose a big line, pack some powder and boom...

the only physical requiment back in the days of early gunfare wars was that you could march 1000 miles without boots or socks in the middle of winter...

I realize that mel gibson changed that kind of warfare when he went gorilla in the woods with the axe and his kids. I'm not sure if changing warfare like that was good or bad...probably good.

Battles would be too quick these days if people just got in a line and everyone had uzi's or gattling guns.... but women should have been able to fight in that time period as there was no requirments at all but to just stand in a line.... if they were allowed then they could have been grandfathered in as combat soldiers and everything woudl be fine....

I don't blame mel gibson or anything but if you can run a few miles and hump a pack and pull a trigger I don't see why anyone should be denied armed service

lots of militaries around the world have females in the infantry..

ok, I'll cast a line and see if any chicken hawk fish bite:

why would any morally defensible woman ever want to join such an organization that is - in truth - only in existence to kill, capture and clear an area? And commit such morally repulsive acts 99% for the benefit of Western corporations, and about 1% for "freedums?"?

The free education?

No better place on earth for ugly women to find themselves in high demand.

This will blow your mind and might be simply inconceivable to you: Women join the military for essentially the exact same reasons that men join for.

Right.... state-sanctioned killing (for corporate profit), limited mental rehab for it, and ... the free education. But my question stands: Why would any morally defensible individual want to?

Joining the military is a good thing. You should show the men and women who join more respect because they're better than you.

Disagreed fully. And if you could qualify why/how it's a "good thing" (in this day and age of advanced technology), you would have.

Marines are tools to corporations, and I'm confident you know it.

Fist of God, Jiggs.

lol jiggs

Our mental health system is a complete disgrace.

I had a strong feeling you wouldn't bother to try...

Why would anyone bother taking you seriously jiggs? You're comments itt are laughably out of scope and assume that everyone thinks the same way you do. They're just ****ing dumb.

I'd be curious to see a non-snarky serious discussion regarding Jiggs' post.

I think there's a lot of merit to his questions.

fwiw- I only ever discussed reasons for joining with ROTC candidates when I was in college (over 20 years ago) and it wasn't about patriotism or such. Most who I talked to did it for college. And I don't get the impression most of them ever thought they were going to have to actually be in a war.

I can see an argument why super-patriots (maybe following a family tradition) would feel a compulsion to enlist. That being said, I have a lot of issues with nationalism and am a little wary of anyone who is zealously patriotic.

I know that I, as an adult, have pondered the idea of being a part of the army and thought that the way our military is often used now would be a moral quandary for me.

I think Jiggs is posting an interesting question stated very aggressively.