Bitcoin Forum

More...http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/4/army-ranger-prep-course-passed-5-out-26-women/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/4/army-ranger-prep-course-passed-5-out-26-women/)

All sexist jokes aside, well done to each of them that passed. Regardless of gender.

Why do women have short feet?
To be closer to the stove...

 8)

If the Ranger test results and focal points were equal across the board and these females passed them accordingly then a big round of applause is needed for them. Either way, the testing criteria that these females passed was epic, as in this wasn't girlscout practice, but top dog status. There's often a male and female standard in law enforcement standards in physical fitness tests and it's why I bring it up. I'm staying neutral for now.

Bombs and bullets don't discriminate. For this reason I don't think the standards should be any different between men and women. To all those (men and women) that didn't pass... their lives (and the lives of anyone who would've been teamed up with them) were likely spared.

Standards are standards regardless of sex.  I'm proud of all those who serve with honor.

Those, who made it have to be incredibly tough. I know I wouldn't make it although I always liked sports and know a lot about survival.

females have no place on the front line

Why not? Ever heard of field medics?
In previous world wars women were were radio operators, loaded rifle magazines, took care of the wounded and performed many other tasks. I wouldn't be amazed if I saw a woman in the special forces, as gender does not influence certain skills like aiming or strategic thinking.

I will say that military training is one example of where it does not make sense to have dual standards. I'm assuming the standard is set for a reason, and that's because it's the minimum strength and skill necessary to competently complete a variety of tasks that might arise on the battlefield. If you can't meet the standard, having a lesser standard you can accomplish for the purpose of having gender equality can put your life and the lives of those in your unit at risk.

I don't see a perfect parity with police work, so would be more willing to accept a dual standard there, especially since most police work is administrative anyway.

That's exactly right, the last thing you want when it comes to a persons life being in danger is for them to be put into a false sense of security that goes for anyone regardless of them being a woman, you don't want to 'trick' anyone into thinking they can be special forces or for that matter whether they can defend themselves in general. Really basic example but if for instance female doctors were placed on tests that were somehow easier than what men would go through not only would it be unfair to both genders but patients would be totally fucked especially if the sole purpose of the new tests were to put more female doctors in the hospital wing.

People who talk about gender equality and try to fix the problem by simply flooding a profession with numbers don't live in the real world, the bar shouldn't be lowered, it should be kept exactly the same, though sometimes depending on the job I'd argue it may even be a good idea to put the women through more because of how differently they'd be treated out in the real world so they'd be better prepared but that's just me.

I totally agree with people here, particularly with the military, bullets and bombs definitely don't discriminate.

unless they are your foe.

The only distinction I would make on this line is that there is no reason to create a separate standard for men and women on intellectual grounds. There is nothing inherent in gender that would cause one gender to be smarter or more capable of being a doctor than the other. I understand the the notion of strength-based double standards because generally the male gender is physically stronger than female gender, all other things being equal. I understand this point, I just don't think it's applicable for soldiers.

I think a better example is golf. In golf, nobody's life is at risk when women hit from tees that are closer to the green. The logic of this is also strength-based, but without potentially adverse consequences for having the double standard. Not true for elite soldiers.

What ever you think now, I encourage you to write it. so thank you for your post. As one of the poster asked, could you please tell us why do you think that?

Chivalry or sexism? I'm also interested to know.

Women also play combat roles now.  ::)

I'm proud of those who do not "serve" the elitists' desire for death and destruction. War is nothing to be glorified. There wouldn't be any war if there were no soldiers. It's that simple.


War is not a sport. What's your survival plan for having a bomb dropped on your head?


Neither do men.

Overly simplistic to the point of being inaccurate.

Curious. How do you figure? Can you name a single war that was fought without them?

<edit> Just so there's no question as to what we are talking about:

War: War must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within a broad military strategy subject to military logistics.

Soldier: A soldier is one who fights as part of an organized land-based armed forces.

I'll explain my thinking, as I offered a conclusion without the reasoning before.

It seems like a semantic game. "Soldiers are necessary to fight war, therefore if there are no soldiers, there cannot be war." Semantically and logically, I think the statement is accurate, but I think it loses applicability in the real world. Everyone's goal ostensibly is to end war, but getting rid of soldiers won't end war because soldiers aren't what cause war. To end war, you have to address the root causes: cultural differences, a lack of empathy, the violent tendency of mankind, and nationalistic fervor, among other things, are the root causes of war. Your statement makes it sounds like the cause to effect would be listed as soldiers ---> war, instead of the violent tendency of man ---> war. If we eliminated all the soldiers, mankind would not suddenly be peaceful, and the soldiers would return instantly once there is a cause for a new nationalistic fervor.

You are quite correct when you state that soldiers are not the cause of war, but this was not my point. It is also quite true that every human being has the inherent ability to be selfish and despicable. My point is that without the support of the war machine we are extremely limited to the extent of violence and destruction we are capable of inflicting upon others. Now, while you and I, and most everyone, would like to live in peace and see an end put to war once and for all, it is the elite who conspire for and profit from its continued use. While I know it's just a pipe dream and it won't solve all our problems, this is why I'd like to see an end to standing armies, because without them the ability to wage war is extremely diminished.

Serve with honor? How could anyone feel honor in the US military today?
You serve with honor only is you have no brain and believe your government's foreign policy.
Kill others in foreign countries for the benefit of the US economy.

Very fair. In order to eliminate standing armies though, you have to eliminate people's perceptions for the need of one. That's the underlying reason we have them, politicians whipping us into a fury or a fear of people who are different than us, and would harm us if we ever let our guard down or stopped spending money on war machines.