cawacko
Well-known member
Would you suggest we lower the physical standards needed to fight for our country so more people can be on the front lines?
Explaining women in combat arms
- Thread starter SR_
- Start date
Would you suggest we lower the physical standards needed to fight for our country so more people can be on the front lines?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
It depends. how far do we have to lower them to get yurt signed up and shipped off?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Howey does bring up an interesting question. I am not saying i support lowering the standards. But I'd love to hear the conversation. Remember Rumsfeld was "transforming" the military. Remember what he said about how?
And with all of our drones and other technology...that's an interesting conversation. What does the future of warfare look like? What does the soldier of the future look like?
And with all of our drones and other technology...that's an interesting conversation. What does the future of warfare look like? What does the soldier of the future look like?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Hmm. if that's your viewpoint then I can't see many agreeing with you. Frontline infantry is not for the physically challenged, where would you draw the line? How long before there will be calls for the disabled and transgender to be allowed as well.
I think they did after 2003...
I hope they are nonexistent!
Seriously though, this is a good question. I imagine these are the issues that will be addressed. Different branches will naturally have different requirements. I have a lot of family membrs in the military that I will have to ask.
cawacko
Well-known member
What favors are they doing for anyone by lowering the physical standards and possibly putting non combat ready people in positions where they risk getting hurt and risks the lives of others around them?
That question has nothing to do with sex, race or gender.
cawacko
Well-known member
Who's to say the physical standards are wrong now?
There it is, sexism rears its head. We need to protect women from the harsh realities of war... why? Because they are the weaker sex.
Nobody, but if they are not wrong now, they will be in 5 years. Technology changes things, combat changes, so much changes, the standards should be constantly updated to ensure they keep up with the times.
See below
Precisely...Bush lowered recruitment standards to get every criminal, gang member and grade school dropout available to fight his two unnecessary wars. To this day we're still paying for that.
We don't know the future of war, but I guarantee it won' t be like anything we've seen before. Our new front lone troop may very well be sitting behind a computer. Wars will be fought with brains, not brawn.
cawacko
Well-known member
Darla and Rana I was about to ask this question yesterday. BAC said it was instinct to not want women to fight because he wants to protect them. Now bac is in a unique position because his daughter is serving so he can be excused as a concerned parent. But if/when you read his comment did you initially think it was sexist?
cawacko
Well-known member
Whether you are a criminal or a gang banger has nothing to do with the physical standards one needs to meet.
,
My point is that Bush didn't give a damn about physical standards. He wanted bodies.
My point is that Bush didn't give a damn about physical standards. He wanted bodies.
And he got them...6000 plus so far.
cawacko
Well-known member
So there is no physical standard or test one needs to pass today to become a soldier on the front line?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
BAC's comment can't be qualified because he is thinking of his daughter when he speaks. Of course he wants to protect her. If you say that you want to protect all women, then you are being paternalistic and chivalrous. Chivalry is a form of sexism. This gets very complicated because of course, you are entering a minefield of emotions and cultural baggage here. If BAC said I wouldn't want to see you fight because my instinct is to protect you, I might personally find that sexy. I might personally not be attracted to a man who wasn't willing and able to physically protect me. Or I might be. It all depends on who I am. But what I do know is that we can't take a personal feeling, and a personal preference, and extrapolate that to all women, or to all men. And we can't all take project our life preferences into military policy. Which I think it is very difficult to do in this situation. In a way it's like asking if someone should be put to death because they ran over someone's child. The mother may say yes...it's understandable, but it cannot be permitted to set policy.
I will be interested in what Rana has to say. I've never talked about this before, and I have to say, I haven't thought much about it.
I have thought for a long time that if they ever needed to reinstate the draft, they would not get away with only drafting men this time. And I think this confirms that. But again, the face of war is changing, so it might never be an issue. But then again...
BAC is not a sexist. If it was the first comment I ever heard the man make, I probably would have challenged him, but knowing his history and knowing the content in which he was speaking, I understood.
I don't want men or women to go to war, but that isn't realistic, I think those who wish to serve should serve.
Last edited: