Women would have to pass the male requirements under the same standards in place now
___________________________________
well whatever they used to be...
I don’t think they can continue to ban women from applying for the jobs now that its been changed but as a veteran I think women should be held to the same high requirements..
AND not “helped” when they fail to meet and pass the tests..
This is the correct answer. A level playing field, no lowering of standards. But, that being said, two lone people in a foxhole, one male, one female, at a lonely outpost... I have issues with that.
This and the border are the two most fundamentally important issues this election. Cruz needs to come down like a ton of bricks on both.
"Women would have to pass the male requirements under the same standards in place now."
I don't care if some genetically freakish girl can pass the male standards. Combat just isn't the place to put women. Period.
What has Trump said about this important question?
nice promises
never gonna happen
this is not 1950 and wars are not fought like 1950
we are way technologically and socially past that point
women are not going back home
have we learned NOTHING about sitting Senators who give nice speeches and have a no track record of effective team building that accomplished any contentious goal?
However, the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be the ones to decide who and what the military needs for the sole purpose of defending the U.S.A.
And the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be selected because of their ability, dedication, and above all their patriotism (and not whether they will deliver the military votes to Democrat politicians).
yadda, yadda, yadda. I would’ve hoped that he’s past considering it, and it’s decisively what he would do, first day in office, executive order.
Would consider... not good enough. And bow about homosexuals? I expect nothing to change until the US military is severely stressed in a major homeland defensive war situation.
“reconsider”
It’s women in combat
The actions Obama has taken with the military have been solely to destroy it. Anyone not totally cognizant of that is not fit to vote, much less run the country
Would reconsider. It’s not even will reconsider.
Wispiness. The fear of donors’ backlash. There is no way that will win against Hillary. She s not afraid of offending her donors they’re always on the same page. her voters don’t care they’re rhythm along with them destroying
Cruz cannot beat hillary
My son (army) says yes.
Women have no business being in combat. They also have no business being in certain careers such as firefighting. Paid fire departments such as New York City lower their physical agility standards to allow women into the department. This is wrong and is dangerous to their fellow fire fighter brothers and the public that they take an oath to serve and protect. If a woman can pass the physical agility standards the same as a man, then by all means, she should be given the job. In the past 30 years, women have been hired into police and fire departments by judicial fiat, not by fair standards.
Why change it?
Women want to be “equal”, then let them be in all-female units.
And they have to sign up for selective services.
I’m bothered there’s no qualifier. Like “combat ban on 7s and higher”
Cruz’s default position is always couched in lawyer talk. Lawyer talk always presents wiggle room, first and foremost.
I don't think meeting the same standards is the key reason that women should not be integrated in direct combat units. You don't want young soldiers thinking about sex and competing for female attention when they should be totally focused on their mission; it is a biological imperative, so they will. Men will also biologically act to protect women no matter how much they try not to. Women will be attracted to some men, and not others. Even if they don't act on this, they will still behave differently, more favorably towards some while rejecting others; men will pick up on this and it will lead to significant loss of unit cohesion. If there are actual romantic relationships going on, it will cause utter chaos on a small team. If some women with no moral compass are banging multiple guys at the same time, it will completely destroy the entire team. If women use their influence to get special favors from their leaders, or alternately to punish by false claims of harassment/assault, that will destroy cohesiveness as well.
During my time in the Army I have seen all of the things I mentioned (and worse) happen in integrated combat support units, but it isn't life or death there. These units can tolerate poor command climates, reduced cohesion, lukewarm morale, and no espirit de corps. In an infantry unit the focus is on a small team performing under very high stress as one entity, like a well oiled machine, with high confidence and energy. They can't tolerate even a small loss of cohesion, lack of confidence in their team and leaders, and need a high state of espirit de corps.
Female soldiers are a good psy-opp against muzzies but an American female soldier held as a prisoner is a good one against us.
No women in ground combat roles
Re-instate DADT: no open homosexuality
Disband DACOWITS
No women in submarine service
End the use of biofuels for political reasons: go with lowest-cost providers
No funding for anything related to 'climate change'
And many others!
This was a survey sent to all of the candidates by the Center for Military Readiness. The term "reconsider" was in the question itself, so you would need to talk with the people who wrote the survey.
Please put: “I am/am not a veteran of the armed forces” at the beginning of your post so I can skip over the civilian comments with out wasting my time on them.