Posted on 04/25/2015 7:08:04 PM PDT by markomalley
Exactly. Women are much more valuable in the propagation of the species. Men instinctively know it.
Oh Hell.
I knew the ‘Perfumed Princes’ (or is it now the Perfumed Princesses?) were talking about it, but I didn’t think it would actually happen, at least until President Hillary or President Warren commanded it.
This is depressing. Major Rogers and Colonel Darby are rolling in their graves.
No, not at all. I am talking about this generations sex biases are different than yours.
Times change.
I am not comparing it to combat. Your reading comprehension is bad. I was talking about the assumption that men and women in this generation do not have the sexual bias that your generation has.
It’s not 1965 any more.
Yep - same here. I'm 62 and use my Bow Flex 3 days a week and also walk/run a lot. 8 minute miles is not difficult to keep up for 5+ miles and I usually do a single set of 70+ push ups to finish my workout. While some of us old timers are the exception to the rule, it seems odd that we may be fit enough to be special forces material.
“Is protect another word for boink?”
A gentleman today is defined as a man who protects a woman from everyone but himself.
Would like some corroboration here: in the early 1990’s I read that there was a physical abilities study of Army trainees, male & female.
The sample was large enough for the study to conclude that given 100 males and 100 females, that the ten strongest females were only as strong as the ten weakest males.
Anyone know more about this? Real question.
Thanks for your service, Boonie. I was lucky, serving in Chaparral/Vulcan units...no women allowed. I saw how badly the Army integrated Nike/Herc units with women. I’m glad I didn’t have to put up with that BS.
I was shocked to see how easy it is to get into the supposed special forces and for the marines you only have to do 2 pulls up, 2 yes 2 and 3 to finish up.
For women to get in they only have to do 1 pull up and 2 to finish.
It’s a joke the Airforce special forces is much harder as is the Navy seals.
You are right, to think we can qualify fitness wise and I’m 46 to get into this and 20 year olds are failing.
I did mountain and Arctic warfare and spent a lot of times in the Arctic of north Norway and there were guys with tights to keep their legs war. When it’s minus 70 with the wind chill ten you use what you can to stay warm and flexible.
Your daughter carrying a part of a stretcher is hardly the same as this.
So biases are now different and it is a bias because in your view women have changed.
Have you ever served in combat and had women about?
Shaving your head for the Ranger Course. Such a sacrifice for “equality”. If female Ranger students are so equal, why are they allowed to shower before the male students do? If female Ranger students are so equal, why do they have a staff of Army pogue female observers hovering over them 24/7?
I’m pretty sure that study was done by and/or publicized by Elaine Donnelly’s Center for Military Readiness.
IIRC, it also showed that even Olympic-level female athletes could only compete with the lower 50th percentile of average men in most tests of physical strength and endurance.
Silly girls cutting off their hair isn’t going to matter one little bit.
Regards,
Times change.
Genetics don't.
You are completely missing my point.
No, I have not served in combat, nor would I ever have quailed for SF. Of course, 99% of men would not either.
My point is that the biases of the genders have changed since most folks on this forum have served.
If you are telling me your service, in combat in the last five years or so included women, then I will defer to your experience.
MY experience, dealing with college aged athletes across the spectrum from small schools to large schools shows me that many of the barriers that used to be in place when I was that age have changed. The deference to women is there, but the degree is much different. The high level athletes do not give each other any quarter.
Are they capable to operate under stress? I don’t know. Could they carry a man larger than them? Some could. Would I trust them with my life? Some of them, yes.
This is my point: women at that level do not come across as anything other than serious competitors. The men, at that high level, will play them as equals and not see them as helpless baby makers. The equality issues have been pounded into them since kindergarten.
I am not talking about your average coed. I am not talking about “girly girls.” I am talking about peak athletes with a competitive nature far superior to most men I know.
That is my experience and where I am “coming from.”
See #56.
See #56
You are missing my point entirely.
You don’t seem to understand that is a complete difference in athletics and combat.
Unless and until you face REAL combat, you do not know how you will react...PERIOD...
You may think you know, but you really don’t....
The toughest, most grueling athletic events will be walked away from at the end whether you win or lose...
You can DIE in combat...Trying to equate the two is ridiculous.....
I’m through with this subject...
Unless you’ve been there, you haven’t clue what you are talking about....
The top 1% of males (who our special forces are drawn from... maybe even the top 10% of the 1%) so outperform the very strongest, fastest, etc. women on the planet as for there to be no comparison. That's biology. That's genetics. And it doesn't matter what this generation thinks about it. Anyone arguing differently is simply promulgating a lie. That's the modern liberal way: if you don't like reality, simply make it up and browbeat others until they won't contradict your lies...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.