US Military rejects 700 for being homosexual, accepts 900 felons

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Thanks for the clarification. You feel it is a social experiment instead of an honest attempt at balancing responsibility?

The only responsibility to our infantry is keeping them alive and best capable to performing their mission.

After all, shouldn't women do their part for the country too?

Nobody is saying they can't

How do you feel about women serving in roles where raw physical stamina isn't as paramount, but do see combat activity?

and what of gays/felons? ..in any/all capacity.

I could care less if gays are in the military to be honest as long as they use the don't ask don't tell policy. No harm no foul. Women, seeing "combat" I'm against. I don't mind them in support roles where shit may happen on the rare occasion though. But giving them the 11MOS series to me is wrong.
Felons same thing. Depending on their crime and the person. When I was in bootcamp there were a lot of "felons." Most of them are people who were given the option, join the military for 4 years or go to prison for 4 years over drug charges. It was the best thing to ever happen to them and their lives.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The only responsibility to our infantry is keeping them alive and best capable to performing their mission.

I agree. I was referring to 'civil' responsibility. I hope we never see a serious female majority in congress. It's bad enough as it is today with politicians sending people to die in wars when they have no real idea what it is they're asking for. Long gone are the days when leaders led the charge (not that I expect this today). I would like to see some of these politicians sweat like your fellow infantrymen. Just a bit. I wouldn't want to give them heart attacks, but I would like them to consider more carefully before asking people to risk making the ultimate sacrifice.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I could care less if gays are in the military to be honest as long as they use the don't ask don't tell policy. No harm no foul.

Why? What 'harm' are you referring to?

Originally Posted by JaJae

Women, seeing "combat" I'm against. I don't mind them in support roles where shit may happen on the rare occasion though. But giving them the 11MOS series to me is wrong.

if there was only a single standard, and a few did make it, would you be comfortable serving with them on the front lines? I'm assuming here that there would be no expectation of special treatment in any way.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Felons same thing. Depending on their crime and the person. When I was in bootcamp there were a lot of "felons." Most of them are people who were given the option, join the military for 4 years or go to prison for 4 years over drug charges. It was the best thing to ever happen to them and their lives.

As long as it's not compulsory, explicitly or via a false choice, I have no issue with it either.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by R-Type

I agree. I was referring to 'civil' responsibility.

There is no such thing as a civil responsibility in the military nor should there be.

Why? What 'harm' are you referring to?

Stereotypes against gays. Unfortunately a gay man can be a distraction to training. It sucks that that's the reality, but it is.

if there was only a single standard, and a few did make it, would you be comfortable serving with them on the front lines? I'm assuming here that there would be no expectation of special treatment in any way.

Strongly depends. Women are different from men in a lot of ways other than physical requirements. I don't have an answer for you here. But as said above, women as well as gays can be a distraction to training. Sucks that that's the reality, but it is.

As long as it's not compulsory, explicitly or via a false choice, I have no issue with it either.

Yea I don't understand why people attack the military for accepting felons. A felon is just a prison term of a year or more. Typically people get sent to the military for drug charges, they're not there cause they're rapists or murderers. It's a "second chance" type thing typically only offered to people who the judge feels has potential and needs to be removed from their environment. I'd rather give them the option of serving in the military over sitting behind in a prison cell cause they got caught getting high. I don't understand why liberals are attacking the military for this. You'd think they'd like this. From what I saw it was the best god damn rehabilitation they got. If they went to prison they'd likely become hardened criminals.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

There is no such thing as a civil responsibility in the military nor should there be.

hmm maybe I used sloppy terminology. I meant the 'duty' each citizen has to defend the nation when necessary. This is the foundation of the draft, is it not? ..and that card you sign at age 16 that signs you up for it? Shouldn't women owe a responsibility to this as men do?

Originally Posted by JaJae

Stereotypes against gays. Unfortunately a gay man can be a distraction to training. It sucks that that's the reality, but it is.

I realize that. But from what I've heard, the services actually encourage this mentality through the ranks, thus being the true cause of the distraction. Is this true? Be honest. I think this is what really fires people up.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Strongly depends. Women are different from men in a lot of ways other than physical requirements. I don't have an answer for you here. But as said above, women as well as gays can be a distraction to training. Sucks that that's the reality, but it is.

Sure, their psychology is different. I would think that brings a different set of strengths/weaknesses to the table, not just added liability. I'm having trouble imagining what would entice male enlistees to be distracted by female enlistees during high tension combat.. it's not like they dress as sex queens while on duty. Perhaps it triggers the 'protector' instinct in the male? though again, in high stress combat scenarios, I would think this reaction would be a wash survival-wise since everyone's concerned with everyone else's safety to begin with. Any other scenario I can think of really depends more on the individual personalities and physical abilities in the group than any inherent sexual biases. I suppose romance between two soldiers could be a distraction, but that happens anyway (the stereotypical soldier has a woman on his mind, right?). Perhaps a standing policy of not allowing couples to serve in the same unit would resolve these rare occurrences.

I realize survival is 'the' most important thing and that male brotherhood plays a huge part. While I cannot speak for every female enlistee, the two I know are more like 'one of the guys' than anything else, so I don't see too much conflict. I assumed most of arguments against women and gays serving were based on old stereotypes, and in reality their service would not alter a unit's statistical survival rate much (again, working within my supposition about standards because that's another whole debate). There are so many other variables that can cause mission/survival failure, it makes me wonder how much this particular issue matters.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yea I don't understand why people attack the military for accepting felons. A felon is just a prison term of a year or more. Typically people get sent to the military for drug charges, they're not there cause they're rapists or murderers. It's a "second chance" type thing typically only offered to people who the judge feels has potential and needs to be removed from their environment. I'd rather give them the option of serving in the military over sitting behind in a prison cell cause they got caught getting high. I don't understand why liberals are attacking the military for this. You'd think they'd like this. From what I saw it was the best god damn rehabilitation they got. If they went to prison they'd likely become hardened criminals.

Well, I have issues with treating all drug users as criminals to begin with, but I hear you. If the personality fits, military service can be quite beneficial for getting life into order.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Have you actually served in any of the armed forces?

Medically rejected from officer training do to bad hands.

If not, perhaps someone who has can fill us in. From what I was told by family members in the air force, women are given firearms training and are expected to handle themselves in such situations.

And what does that have to do with anything ?

You argued that women are serving today and the world hasnt fell apart, WHEN THEY ARENT. Women are in support roles.

Some, ARE effective, and some aren't. I've never debated the biology. Let bootcamp shake out the weak regardless of sex or other minutia. I don't understand why preset biases are necessary. It's even more suspicious when these biases line up perfectly with 'traditional' lines of bigotry. I NEVER implied we should weaken effectiveness for the sake of political correctness.

At what cost ? How many women do you have to go through to find the few that are equal to the minimum male standard.

Take a look at the olympics for more proof, the best women are miles behind the men in almost every event. High school male track teams can beat the women's records in some events. And that is the top 0.1% of women.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

i can't imagine what MODERN MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT PTs women would be terrible at

Upper body strength and running.

You can change the tests to make women look better, but that doesnt make the packs any lighter or wounded soldiers any lighter etc....

[kinggovernor]

I weigh well over 250+ pounds when I am strapped up with a combat load of gear. I would like to see a woman fire carry me for 100 yards. That is just one of my problems with woman serving in combat

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Take a look at the olympics for more proof, the best women are miles behind the men in almost every event. High school male track teams can beat the women's records in some even

True story:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0115052.html
Women's Olympic records 800m = 1:56 - 2:15

Some random highschool I googled
High School Track Records
800m run Paul Rozak 1:58.9

For the 100m run as King mentioned:
Women's olympic records: 10.9 - 12.2
Random male highschool record: 10.8

Women have a huge handicap when it comes to physical activities. And allowing them to be "weeded" out during boot camp means they're still training with the males and very likely holding them back.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Women have a huge handicap when it comes to physical activities. And allowing them to be "weeded" out during boot camp means they're still training with the males and very likely holding them back.

After bootcamp marines are split into two groups
Infantry, all male all go to Infantry Training
Non-infantry, mixed and all go to common skills

I have seen their humps, they constantly slow down and wait for females.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And what does that have to do with anything ?

You argued that women are serving today and the world hasnt fell apart, WHEN THEY ARENT. Women are in support roles.

My inlaw was taught basic ground combat tactics and how to shoot firearms used in such scenarios. While this doesn't equal the kind of training received at higher levels, why bother training her for these skills at all if she''s only meant to serve in non-combat roles? Seems like a waste of time/money to me.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Women have a huge handicap when it comes to physical activities. And allowing them to be "weeded" out during boot camp means they're still training with the males and very likely holding them back.

If recruits are expected not to hold others back during a training period that's supposed to get them to their best (or weed them out) in the first place, then I'm not sure what to think. You've got some self-defeating logic there. There are males who wouldn't make the cut. Why should they be given the chance? ..or worse, forced into it because of a draft? I know I'd literally kill myself trying to meet those requirements. Not every female is automatically too weak because she's female, and not every male can be made strong enough just because he's male. It seems the sensible solution is to pick a single set of standards that will build dependable soldiers for a given branch and leave it at that. This way the stronger won't be stuck holding up for the weak, and it shuts down the womens' lib politics that trouble the services so.

..and none of this is relevant for gay recruits. If there're 'uncomfortable feelings' over petty insecurities for any reason, discipline the slacker who's supposed to be maintaining unit discipline in the first place. Homophobia is right up there with fear of the dark on the pussy scale. Seriously, a bunch of hardened, psychologically conditioned warriors uncomfortable with a gay man in their midst? I can't even imagine that. It's ripe material for late night comedy. Anyway, if this 'don't tell' policy is still in effect when the next unpopular war crops up, expect to see a lot of draftees (and currently enlisted) coming out of closets...whether they exist or not.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by R-Type

My inlaw was taught basic ground combat tactics and how to shoot firearms used in such scenarios. While this doesn't equal the kind of training received at higher levels, why bother training her for these skills at all if she''s only meant to serve in non-combat roles? Seems like a waste of time/money to me.

in case the enemy attacks her unit in the back. Famous example, Jessica Lynch's unit.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

in case the enemy attacks her unit in the back. Famous example, Jessica Lynch's unit.

hmm..sounds like combat to me. I guess authority placed her in a situation that was too dangerous because, according to some, women cannot meet proper conditioning levels.

...of course this isn't realistic.. ALL roles carry the potential for combat. Perhaps the standards aren't reflective of real life requirements. What does the difference between 42 and 19 pushups (I'll bet most female recruits do more than this), and 3 minutes on the 2 mile run mean to survival across an average set of real life scenarios throughout the life of the soldier? You got me on that one.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by R-Type

hmm..sounds like combat to me.

I guess authority placed her in a situation that was too dangerous because, according to some, women cannot meet proper conditioning levels.

yes. Women shouldnt be in combat units or combat support.

...of course this isn't realistic.. ALL roles carry the potential for combat.

We arent talking about potential to get shot at, we are talking about combat units. Infantry,Artillery, Armor, Cav and those that directly support them.

Perhaps the standards aren't reflective of real life requirements. What does the difference between 42 and 19 pushups (I'll bet most female recruits do more than this),

you bet most female recruits get a perfect score on the APFT ? It shows that their upper body strength is very low. Think the average woman is going to be able to pickup an average man with combat gear and get him to safety ?

and 3 minutes on the 2 mile run mean to survival across an average set of real life scenarios throughout the life of the soldier? You got me on that one.

so now running/humping has no military application ?

[R-Type]

forget it.. I give up. I'm sick of weeding through ego/perceived disrespect and who knows what other cruft. Either I'm not being clear enough or there's too many misconstrued definitions in the thread now to make sense of it.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by R-Type

forget it.. I give up. I'm sick of weeding through ego/perceived disrespect and who knows what other cruft. Either I'm not being clear enough or there's too many misconstrued definitions in the thread now to make sense of it.

you are crystal clear, but you dont get the concept that a 100lb woman cannot carry a 250lb man.

And it would be a huge waste of money to sort through all the female candidates to find the one or two that is equal to the average male.

[Thorgrim]

I still have yet to see one thing women can't do that makes them unfit soliders

What, they can't run as fast? Well good thing we based the Iraq war on who could run the quickest 40

They don't bench nearly as much as men do? Well good thing commanding a tank requires a high bench press ability

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

They don't bench nearly as much as men do? Well good thing commanding a tank requires a high bench press ability

Let's pretend you're in that tank and it gets attacked. It's badly damaged and you're forced to evacuate, you're hurt in the blast and have shrapnel in your legs and torso. Do you want KingGovernor next to you pulling your ass up and out of the tank and to cover while under fire or Jessica Lynch? No difference? Which scenario has a better chance of survivability for both involved? Be honest with yourself here.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Let's pretend you're in that tank and it gets attacked. It's badly damaged and you're forced to evacuate, you're hurt in the blast and have shrapnel in your legs and torso. Do you want KingGovernor next to you pulling your ass up and out of the tank and to cover while under fire or Jessica Lynch? No difference? Which scenario has a better chance of survivability for both involved? Be honest with yourself here.

Yeah because KG and Lynch were both enlisted Marines

If i were stuck and i had to choose between a power forward from the WNBA or Joe the national guard reserve who is out of shape but forced into Iraq do to manpower probems

I'll pick Lisa Leslie everytime