Originally posted by ImpedimentThat's true, but couldn't there just be woman only squads or something? So they fight alongside other woman?
IMO, it's not about men seeing women die. I've seen people of both sexes die and I was equally affected when it occurred.Speaking in terms of biology and evolution, men are larger, stronger, and taller than women (for the most part). A 5'4" woman who weighs 150 pounds would probably have a very hard time picking up a wounded man who weighs 250 pounds and is 6'3" while in combat, under fire, and trying to get that man to safety.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Speaking of which you have what have more experience in, combat and seeing women die, or dating teenage women?
LOL. Good one. I'd like to see how any country's military would last in a real war if women outnumbered the men in combat roles.
My guess is that it wouldn't end well for them.
Altering the requirements for elite combat roles so everyone can participate so nobody will have hert feelz is no different that schools lowering the passing grade so everyone can feel smart and get an A+ to make the schools look good.
Lowering and changing the requirements for Ranger School for females is a bad, bad idea. If other countries have women in combat, then huzzah. This isn't another country. The standards are set for a very good reason.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I, and some other people said, making it "worse" in one aspect, may actually make it better overall.Additionally there are armies that have women in combat roles, and it does work, so your claim is incorrect.
His claim is not incorrect. You don't even understand what a Ranger is.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
That's true, but couldn't there just be woman only squads or something? So they fight alongside other woman?
Again, how long do you really think they'd last in a real battle against a trained military that was mostly or all men? I don't mean to sound mean but half of them would probably run away before the fighting even started.
Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Good one. I'd like to see how any country's military would last in a real war if women outnumbered the men in combat roles.
My guess is that it wouldn't end well for them.
Well women in combat roles doesn't mean it becomes any woman. If only the upper tier of fit women were able to pass (basically the small percentage of women who do fit qualifications) would you still be against them joining?
Originally posted by Impediment
Altering the requirements for elite combat roles so everyone can participate so nobody will have hert feelz is no different that schools lowering the passing grade so everyone can feel smart and get an A+ to make the schools look good.Lowering and changing the requirements for Ranger School for females is a bad, bad idea. If other countries have women in combat, then huzzah. This isn't another country. The standards are set for a very good reason.
Your school example is actually really good. It's no different to a school lowering the passing maths requirements from an A+ to a B, so that more people who may not be skilled in maths, but have other really valuable qualities can pass and become productive members of society. Now we could say everyone needs to have A+ maths skills, but perhaps that's not actually the case, even though we've traditionally always done it that way.
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Well women in combat roles doesn't mean it becomes any woman. If only the upper tier of fit women were able to pass (basically the small percentage of women who do fit qualifications) would you still be against them joining?
Sure if they want to join, and they can pass the same test, go for it, the idea that we have to lower the standard is being idiotic.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your school example is actually really good. It's no different to a school lowering the passing maths requirements from an A+ to a B, so that more people who may not be skilled in maths, but have other really valuable qualities can pass and become productive members of society. Now we could say everyone needs to have A+ maths skills, but perhaps that's not actually the case, even though we've traditionally always done it that way.
Thats not what he said. He didn't say we have to change the passing grade, there is a different between getting an A and B in math vs being able to run 10 miles in a bad situation with a pack, or only making it 2 miles, its called life and death.
Originally posted by Star428Unless they engage in a CQC fight against the men, I honestly don't know.
Again, how long do you really think they'd last in a real battle against a trained military that was mostly or all men? I don't mean to sound mean but half of them would probably run away before the fighting even started.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Thats not what he said. He didn't say we have to change the passing grade, there is a different between getting an A and B in math vs being able to run 10 miles in a bad situation with a pack, or only making it 2 miles, its called life and death.
Surely you agree that the rules for passing should be assessed from time to time to ensure no mistakes in the thinking of the creators of the test?
This is basically what is being suggested, with people advocating that the creators of the tests have made a mistake with some of their standards.