Do women really feel empowered by a woman in the military...?

Question

...knowing that she had a much easier physical test than the men and wasn't held to the same standards?

Should physical tests be toned down to let women pass them?

Is that fair to weaker men that also can't pass the standard test?

Do you think it oversteps the boundaries of equality to fight for equal outcome instead of just equal opportunity?

EDIT:

(snowbunny)

Letting women in is fine. Lowering standards is not fine. Feminists fight for equal outcome without a whit of concern for actual equality. The military is at the mercy of politicians, who are at the mercy of feminists.

Would it be fine with you if the standards for nurses were lowered to get people into nursing?

EDIT:

(RoVale)

Your views do not explain why tests should be lowered & why equality has to include "equal outcome." Did you plan to answer any of the questions or just try to shame whites with your racism?

EDIT:

(patios)

If you think strength isn't important when our soldiers have to do door to door raids in urban situations in Iraq, sometimes busting down the door & throwing people to the floor, I will tell you to speak to some soldiers that have done it.

I have.

The military isn't just lobbing missiles. Sometimes physical force must be used. You are fooling yourself if you think the average woman could handle hand-to-hand combat as well as a man.

Answer 1

You place WAY too much value on physical strength. What the military aims for is physical "fitness". Fitness and strength are not the same thing and do not have the same value. Per a large military research project that was recently reported here on Yahoo news, women achieve the same physical fitness standards as do men with training. The problem with women in our society achieving optimum physical fitness is largely cultural. For only four generations now, for instance, have women been free of those horrible deforming corsets that weakened and sickened them. Our society is still heavily laden with morbid influences and messages which women grow up with that continue to "deform" them with unhealthy physical expectations and which lead them to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression and unpotentiated physical fitness. But, as I mentioned above, with proper training, women meet the same standards for physical fitness.

When I was in basic training in the 70's, I was trained in a mixed female-male troop experiment. The women were not "cutting it", were lining up at sick call with some "weak excuse" ( as some men referred to it) of sore feet. Turned out that some moron had designed the female basic issue boot with a seam up the heel that was causing hundreds of stress fractures. The reason females were issued a defective boot? Why, the boot would be for "show" only if worn by females. (!) As society gets caught up with reality, expect numerous inequalities and mistakes like that to happen. The federal government's Defence Women's Health Research Program (DWHRP) found that in every area in which women failed to score as highly in physical and functional competence, the problem was caused by equipment that did not fit women's bodies and was remedied by having approprately designed equipment suitable for female physiology. Here's an overview of that on-going project:
http://www.momrp.org/dwhrp_index.html

Good physical health begins in childhood and without equal opportunities for physical conditioning and without equal expectations for young girls to be active and strong, they will not mature physically to their potential. When I was in high school, the girl's varsity basketball team, for example, was not allowed to practice in the school gym except for one hour on Sunday afternoons because the school's boys teams took precedence. Thanks to feminism, public schools cannot violate girl's rights like that anymore. You DO get my point, right? Without practice, proper equipment and access to facilities, those same girls would not when enlisting for the military achieve the same physical scores as do boys. It amazes me when people don't get that point. Rather than putting girls down for being "weaker", men and boys should encourage girls and women to be more physically active, encourage them to potentiate their fitness, and indicate through behaviors that they are attracted to physically fit girls and women and not as much to girls who are weak and fashionable "delicate".

Also, the military is not at all interested in physical "strength". Like I said, they want physical fitness. Only a very tiny percentage of the military is actually combat forces. And, only a very tiny percentage of that percentage are actually expected to "win" a battle with their bare hands. The vast majority of the military are "support" troops. The vast majority of those support troops are men. And, the vast majority of those men could not overpower their own mother if they had to. But, as individuals with individual merit, they are ALL vital to our military. The military is NOT about pre-adolescent "alpha" male stuff. Oh, that may be what you've grown accustomed to from playing too many video games. It is important to remember that video games are only fancy cartoons. In reality, the military wants intelligent team-players who can cooperate and be strong together as cohesive units of varied and complimentary individual merit. The military today is anti-draft because a draft means a lowering of current I.Q. troop averages. Modern equipment and high tech require BRAINS, not brawn. And, in matter of brains, women in the military are excelling over men in training.

Answer 2

The military has always been a place for social engineering anyway. That has nothing to do with morality or what is considered "right" by society at the time. That's because the military constantly needs more people to replace those who die, leave, or retire. Would some of these people who think that the only careers for women in the military should be nursing jobs be so supportive about restricting non-whites to the hottest, dirtiest, and the most dangerous jobs, like they used to do in the past? That was because white men didn't want to do those jobs so they needed someone else to perform them.

Answer 3

I agree with Rio. However, let's remember that the need for nurses (a job men didn't want to do) is what opened the door for women's acceptance into the military in the first place. There was a need and the military filled it by making it possible. If you have a qualm, take it up with them.

Okay, in response to your edit:

Letting women in is fine. Lowering standards is not fine. * I agree*
Feminists fight for equal outcome without a whit of concern for actual equality. The military is at the mercy of politicians, who are at the mercy of feminists. *Well, I don't believe that the feminists in the country are strong-arming the government and the military. They (government, military) are getting something out of this arrangement, trust. It would never have happened otherwise*

Would it be fine with you if the standards for nurses were lowered to get people into nursing?
* This is not a good comparison...a military nurse (female) who can't do 100 pushups at once, but can do 50 pushups can still treat a patient in their job...nursing. I would definitely have a problem if the standards for obtaining a job were lowered. All you are talking about is basic training and PT's...which are just to make sure that people are in shape...not some sort of Arnold*

So, although I do agree with you on a level, I am not sure it matters so much how many pushups a female can do if she is not going to be allowed to fight/combat. If her job has something to do with doing pushups...then yeah, I can see it. You are trying to place blame and point fingers here, but trust me, the military is getting something out of this and so is our government.

Answer 4

I agree that the standards should be the same. I mean, if you are held hostage (not a likely situation, but possible) who are you going to want to save you? Of course most would answer the person who is most capable. If the woman has been held to lower standards, then the man would most likely be more capable.

However I do feel that these women are leading he way for change. If they never joined, there would never be unfair standards in the first place. Maybe someday we can have true equality in the military and have women held to the same standards.

Answer 5

You don't know many military people if you think it's all about the physical. The vast majority of military jobs these days are all about knowing how to man a desk / computer, or how to handle equipment.

Yes, a person in the service needs to be physically fit, but I ask a soldier you know the last time he or she had to go hand to hand with an opponent.

It doesn't take muscles to fly a plane, or shoot a gun, or handle supplies, run computers or repair equipment.

Answer 6

Why do women like Patois continue to utter nonsense about women being able to achieve similar fitness results as men? For the last 50 years we have seen women try to compete with men in sports and continually it is proved they cannot.

Why, b/c men, on average, have 35% more upper body strength than women and 20-25% more lower body strength than woman. That is a FACT. And thus, a 150lb male and 150lb female are put through the same training regimen, the man's strength, speed and fitness results are going to outperform the woman's in accordance with the BIOLOGICAL differences in the two.

Can women be in the military and even on the front line--yes, some of them can. Can the majority of them--no. Why, because of BIOLOGY.

Why can't women like Patois accept BIOLOGY and FACTS.

Answer 7

Standards should not be lowered for anyone. Neither should rules be changed.

I'm not too keen on letting women on the front lines anyway. A man in battle is a man in battle -a woman in battle is a target and at risk of becoming a symbol of all that other cultures hate about the western culture. Like salt in the wound. These women are risking more than their male comrades. And they endanger the people around them.
(I have the utmost respect for anyone's decision to enter active duty. I am, in no way putting their accomplishments down. I just do not agree with it. But then again, I don't agree with sending boys off to die for stupid reasons either, so who am I?)

Answer 8

I think there is one reason for this; I am fit and strong woman who does light weightlifting, strength training and aerobics, but even my wimpy husband who gets no intentional exercise is still a little stronger than me and still faster than me. I think it has nothing to due with social equality, and more to do with the physical make up of women compared to men. That weaker guy taking the test has the capacity, with a little training, to be a strong, fit man, whereas the woman needs A LOT of hardcore physical training (that can be dangerous to her health) to ever be as strong as that reformed, now stronger, weaker man.

Answer 9

I am a air force vet. I don't think any woman I ever served with ever felt empowered simply by enlisting. Women who join the military tend to be "different" than other women. They tend be be less conventional in their thinking. They don't feel limited as women. They don't understand anyone who feel being a woman is a hindrance to personal and career growth. Their focus is their mission.

No military woman would insist on lowering standards. It would compromise mission effectiveness.

Answer 10

In the military women arent allowed to do combat missions. They are needed to free up more warm bodies for the front lines. So it is aright in the military. Now police and firefighters is another story. There have been several incidents in the force involving unfit women.

Answer 11

We like that the woman at least wanted to go into the military and into combat; however, we resent needing lower standards. That's hardly conducive to equality.