Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 138

Thread: All of the services must allow women into all fields

  1. #81
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Women are not banned from the NFL, either.
    6 minutes since we sounded the alarm! What on Earth took you so long?

  2. #82
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Women are not banned from the NFL, either.
    You're about to get interrogated, as if you're the one responsible for there not being any women in the NFL... and then the thread will have officially been hijacked.

    I was about to answer the question myself, until I stepped back and thought about this.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  3. #83
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    The "tough girl" in high school tried out for the football team. Day 1 of practice she separated her shoulder on the tackling dummy.

    I was going to try out for the girls tennis team but I wasn't nearly manly enough.

    /hijack over

  4. #84
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    WTF Bos?? It's been over 30 minutes and still no word from your handmaiden @Absinthe Anecdote....

    There Must've been traffic jam over at the Pentagon's "Diversity & Inclusion" Directorate!!
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 12-08-2015 at 03:08 PM.

  5. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Mike...since you've avoided this question twice already, I'll ask it one last time, in a different manner.

    You're standing on the street. You see two guys arguing. One guy hits the other guy. Do you get involved? Now, you see a guy and a woman arguing. The guy hits the woman. Do you get involved? Do you view it any different, or respond any different, than if guy hits a guy?

    Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer because it's a no-win for you. If you say that you do view it different when the guy hits the woman then you are contradicting yourself. If you say you wouldn't get involved when a guy hits the woman than you are an embarrassment.
    It depends on a lot of thing if I see a big guy hitting a little guy I intervene, if i I see someone like My future daughter-in law being hit by a 5'5" 120 pond man, I watch and laugh as he is taken apart. I would intervene when the power deferential is too great, thus protecting the weak.

    That is a clear win for me becasue I am not stuck in the past.
    Last edited by MikeKerriii; 12-09-2015 at 01:20 AM.

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Younger men who think like Garhkal are going to start thinking again real soon if shit hits the fan. Especially in a situation where a married man's wife has a lower number than he does.
    I have been hearing the same type of line, about different tings my entire life. My father And I joked about him hearing it in the 40s and we both thought that my grandfather heard it in WWI.
    Last edited by MikeKerriii; 12-08-2015 at 05:38 PM.

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Ok...WTF is up with these two posts? One all jacked up...the other, almost identical, but much more coherent. Exactly how many people are we conversing with here?
    One post one of the got hung up and I thought it was lost

  8. #88
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,559
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Sergeant Major Speaks Out On Women In Combat

    Ok, been silent long enough on this. I have been a part of this process from the beginning and I am just going to put it out there. The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this and to say the things he is saying is flat out counter to the interests of national security and is unfair to the women who participated in this study.

    ...

    The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations.



    https://www.funker530.com/sergeant-m...men-in-combat/




    I don't really doubt what the SgtMaj says is true...I guess my question would be, though, why is it necessary then to ban women? If they don't make it, they don't make it...and maybe we won't ever have a woman batting 4th for the Yankess...but, maybe batting 8th for the Marlins one day...or kicking for the Buffalo Bills? Maybe never...and if that's the case, why do they need to be banned?

    IF one of those Top Women is in the bottom 5% of the men...doesn't that allow you to drop the lowest 1% of men and improve your team?


    The Voice of Reason

  9. #89
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    [/SIZE]

    I don't really doubt what the SgtMaj says is true...I guess my question would be, though, why is it necessary then to ban women? If they don't make it, they don't make it...and maybe we won't ever have a woman batting 4th for the Yankess...but, maybe batting 8th for the Marlins one day...or kicking for the Buffalo Bills? Maybe never...and if that's the case, why do they need to be banned?

    IF one of those Top Women is in the bottom 5% of the men...doesn't that allow you to drop the lowest 1% of men and improve your team?
    [/h]
    It costs a lot of money to train people. There are only a certain amount of slots to be filled based on manning levels. If you fill those slots with people who are extremely likely to fail, then it's wasting time and money. It's the reason we have minimum requirements on ASVAB scores for career fields. Is it likely that some of those who scored below the cutoffs could succeed and become outstanding troops/technicians and improve the force as a whole? Absolutely. But it's not worth the cost to take that risk.

  10. #90
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,559
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    It costs a lot of money to train people. There are only a certain amount of slots to be filled based on manning levels. If you fill those slots with people who are extremely likely to fail, then it's wasting time and money. It's the reason we have minimum requirements on ASVAB scores for career fields. Is it likely that some of those who scored below the cutoffs could succeed and become outstanding troops/technicians and improve the force as a whole? Absolutely. But it's not worth the cost to take that risk.
    The difference there is "ASVAB scores" shows individual aptitude. If we eliminated people because "A lot of people from Florida get low ASVAB scores, so we're not gonna let Floridians test anymore...the tests cost money, you know"...then it's not based on individual.

    I don't know how they select people for the various training, I'm sure they have some kind of pre-screen test...but shouldn't it just be on individual achievement and lack thereof instead of on their demographics and how their group as a whole performs?

    Again, we're at the...if a male fails we say, "there is one weak man"...if a woman fails we say "see, women can't do this."

    Don't misconstrue that as me saying men and women are equally capable...clearly they are not. Opening up all jobs to women probably won't make much of a difference...very few, if any, will make it...so why go out of way to ban them from trying..I don't see the point.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 12-08-2015 at 11:41 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •