Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/30/2013 3:06:37 AM EST
Women are allowed in combat nowadays, and are considered "equal".

In a national emergency, why wouldn't the gov want to draft women? Now it's only men...
http://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 3:08:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Women are allowed in combat nowadays, and are considered "equal".

In a national emergency, why wouldn't the gov want to draft women? Now it's only men...
http://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm
View Quote



Double standard bro....
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 3:08:56 AM EST
There are only some equal rights they want.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 3:09:55 AM EST
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Women are allowed in combat nowadays, and are considered "equal".

In a national emergency, why wouldn't the gov want to draft women? Now it's only men...
http://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm
View Quote



"We demand equal treatment... Except for the dratft, and PT standards, and grooming..."

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 3:17:58 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
There are only some equal rights they want.
View Quote


This
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 3:18:35 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MAJClem:



"We demand equal treatment... Except for the dratft, and PT standards, and grooming..."

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MAJClem:
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Women are allowed in combat nowadays, and are considered "equal".

In a national emergency, why wouldn't the gov want to draft women? Now it's only men...
http://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm



"We demand equal treatment... Except for the dratft, and PT standards, and grooming..."

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
this
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 3:31:56 AM EST
Requiring females to register for Selective Service would be the height of Political Correctness.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 3:36:34 AM EST
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Women are allowed in combat nowadays, and are considered "equal".

In a national emergency, why wouldn't the gov want to draft women? Now it's only men...
http://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm
View Quote



Who would make the sammiches
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:03:28 AM EST
People want equal rights without equal responsibility.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:06:39 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MAJClem:



"We demand equal treatment... Except for the dratft, and PT standards, and grooming..."

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MAJClem:
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Women are allowed in combat nowadays, and are considered "equal".

In a national emergency, why wouldn't the gov want to draft women? Now it's only men...
http://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm



"We demand equal treatment... Except for the dratft, and PT standards, and grooming..."

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:07:52 AM EST
Equal rights = equal responsibility, must be treated equally.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:09:53 AM EST
Need a new MOS just for the draft: 69W.

It's an MWR position.

Only single females are eligible.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:21:09 AM EST
A simple reality check for the "Equal Rights=Equal Responsibility" crowd.

The US military has been a all volunteer force since January 1973. That's over 40 years for the mathematically challenged.

There are absolutely no restriction on females volunteering to serve.

At peak strength during WW2, the US military had about 16 million men and women in service at one time. The US total population was about 170 million at the time.

The Selective Service program is just a registry for last ditch resources.

There is only one possible scenario where the US military will ever resort to widespread conscripted service again.... and that one scenario is a WW3 type situation.

That is the ONLY fucking way it will ever happen again.

In that one possible scenario, conscripting child bearing age females for military service would not just be useless, it would be totally counter-fucking-productive.


Apply some simple common sense and skip the PC bullshit.



Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:31:56 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bob58:
A simple reality check for the "Equal Rights=Equal Responsibility" crowd.

The US military has been a all volunteer force since January 1973. That's over 40 years for the mathematically challenged.

There are absolutely no restriction on females volunteering to serve.

At peak strength during WW2, the US military had about 16 million men and women in service at one time. The US total population was about 170 million at the time.

The Selective Service program is just a registry for last ditch resources.

There is only one possible scenario where the US military will ever resort to widespread conscripted service again.... and that one scenario is a WW3 type situation.

That is the ONLY fucking way it will ever happen again.

In that one possible scenario, conscripting child bearing age females for military service would not just be useless, it would be totally counter-fucking-productive.


Apply some simple common sense and skip the PC bullshit.



View Quote

Women in the military can be counterproductive in more ways than you know. It doesn't change the fact that what I said is right.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:35:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2013 4:35:54 AM EST by Bob58]
Women in the military can be counterproductive in more ways than you know. It doesn't change the fact that what I said is right.
View Quote


I've only been retired from the Army for 7 years..

What you wrote may be generally true in society but it has absolutely no rational relation to Selective Service.

Thinking it could is politically correct bullshit.

Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:35:16 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wag_bag:
People want equal rights without equal responsibility.
View Quote

Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:39:37 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bob58:
A simple reality check for the "Equal Rights=Equal Responsibility" crowd.

The US military has been a all volunteer force since January 1973. That's over 40 years for the mathematically challenged.

There are absolutely no restriction on females volunteering to serve.

At peak strength during WW2, the US military had about 16 million men and women in service at one time. The US total population was about 170 million at the time.

The Selective Service program is just a registry for last ditch resources.

There is only one possible scenario where the US military will ever resort to widespread conscripted service again.... and that one scenario is a WW3 type situation.

That is the ONLY fucking way it will ever happen again.

In that one possible scenario, conscripting child bearing age females for military service would not just be useless, it would be totally counter-fucking-productive.


Apply some simple common sense and skip the PC bullshit.



View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bob58:
A simple reality check for the "Equal Rights=Equal Responsibility" crowd.

The US military has been a all volunteer force since January 1973. That's over 40 years for the mathematically challenged.

There are absolutely no restriction on females volunteering to serve.

At peak strength during WW2, the US military had about 16 million men and women in service at one time. The US total population was about 170 million at the time.

The Selective Service program is just a registry for last ditch resources.

There is only one possible scenario where the US military will ever resort to widespread conscripted service again.... and that one scenario is a WW3 type situation.

That is the ONLY fucking way it will ever happen again.

In that one possible scenario, conscripting child bearing age females for military service would not just be useless, it would be totally counter-fucking-productive.


Apply some simple common sense and skip the PC bullshit.





You are applying common sense to the nonsensical situation we currently find ourselves in.

Jessica L. Wright, the acting under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said today that the Defense Department must maintain its commitment to diversity and inclusion, which contribute to mission success.

She asserted that diversity helps civilian and military employees perform well because they “represent the nation in our workforce.”

The Defense Department not only talks “about diversity in terms of race and gender, and ethnicity, but it is much more than that in my mind,” Wright said. She declared that diversity included “your thought process, how you grew up, [and] what you can add to the greater good because of your background.”


Fuck it I'm all for this at this point. The weaker the Federal Government makes the military now will make it just that much easier when to resist them when it finally falls apart and they start making last ditch efforts to make us all hang (pun intended) together.

Force real soldiers out for weaker less capable diverse soldiers - good.

Cut back on pensions and medical care promise to generations of warriors - good (for our side - reprehensible otherwise)

and so on.

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play. - Kipling
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:48:59 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bob58:


I've only been retired from the Army for 7 years..

What you wrote may be generally true in society but it has absolutely no rational relation to Selective Service.

Thinking it could is politically correct bullshit.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bob58:
Women in the military can be counterproductive in more ways than you know. It doesn't change the fact that what I said is right.


I've only been retired from the Army for 7 years..

What you wrote may be generally true in society but it has absolutely no rational relation to Selective Service.

Thinking it could is politically correct bullshit.


Fair enough. I was speaking in general about society.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:49:38 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
There are only some equal rights they want.
View Quote

Link Posted: 10/30/2013 4:55:40 AM EST
because theyre equal
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:05:06 AM EST
Because they have no problem with recruiting women and it would be a destructive hot potato for the liberals to vote for mandatory registration.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:05:55 AM EST
Everyone should have to register and take the ASVAB.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:07:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Women are allowed in combat nowadays, and are considered "equal".

In a national emergency, why wouldn't the gov want to draft women? Now it's only men...
http://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm
View Quote


I've long maintained that if women want true equality, it should be law that they have to register for the draft as well. And why not? We all derive benefits from living in America, one group shouldn't ride free. Even if you're of the belief that women should not be allowed in combat, there are still lots of non-combat positions in the military that need to be filled.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:10:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2013 5:13:54 AM EST by Bob58]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chisum:
Because they have no problem with recruiting women and it would be a destructive hot potato for the liberals to vote for mandatory registration.
View Quote


It has faced legal challenges many times.

Those challenges have come, almost, universally from the Progressive / Femi-Nazi side.

I say "almost" because there was at least one challenge from the Uber-Anti-Femi-Nazi side as a general "Fuck you" to the Femi-Nazis.

The courts, essentially, said "Take it up with Congress".

You'll notice that, in the last 20+ years, the only mentions of conscripted service by any politician have come from the professional race baiters. And they only bring it up as a possibility because they KNOW that it will NEVER happen. Ever.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:11:24 AM EST
It's the way the femnazi's want it---double standard
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:12:55 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mountaintarheel:
It's the way the femnazi's want it---double standard
View Quote


History has proven it to be the exact opposite.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:16:57 AM EST
My wife will not be signing up for the draft. We'll move to Canada first.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:35:55 AM EST
Women should have to sign up.

However, they should be drafted for clerical and non combat, non war theater area roles, to free more men up for combat.

Having the keep the women stateside, or in allied countries at the most, and free all of those men up for jobs in theater.

Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:38:32 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By M95Mauser:
My wife will not be signing up for the draft. We'll move to Canada first.
View Quote


What if female draftee jobs were limited to non combat, non theater of war clerical, administrative, medical etc. ?

Do you think your country would be worth her service with those exclusions?
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:38:56 AM EST

They want to be equal, just not that equal.

Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:43:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2013 5:44:28 AM EST by Zcwilkins]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By M95Mauser:
My wife will not be signing up for the draft. We'll move to Canada first.
View Quote

I guess I don't understand that attitude. You going to move to Canada if/when you have a son that's forced to sign up for selective service?

I'd look at it this way, the government is likely to call up all the males, for any sort of combat roles, before females. The likelyhood that your/my wife would end up in combat is minimal.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:46:45 AM EST
Because we didn't pass the ERA. (And this was one of the biggest arguments against passing it.)
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:46:57 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RECONSIX:

They want to be equal, just not that equal.

View Quote
Yeah - if we tried to impose a 1:1 ratio of women-to-men in combat arms, it would not go over well.

If feminist activists were intellectually honest, they would have pushed for female participation in the selective service program before pushing to have women in Ranger school.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:47:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:50:19 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wag_bag:

Women in the military can be counterproductive in more ways than you know. It doesn't change the fact that what I said is right.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wag_bag:
Originally Posted By Bob58:
A simple reality check for the "Equal Rights=Equal Responsibility" crowd.

The US military has been a all volunteer force since January 1973. That's over 40 years for the mathematically challenged.

There are absolutely no restriction on females volunteering to serve.

At peak strength during WW2, the US military had about 16 million men and women in service at one time. The US total population was about 170 million at the time.

The Selective Service program is just a registry for last ditch resources.

There is only one possible scenario where the US military will ever resort to widespread conscripted service again.... and that one scenario is a WW3 type situation.

That is the ONLY fucking way it will ever happen again.

In that one possible scenario, conscripting child bearing age females for military service would not just be useless, it would be totally counter-fucking-productive.


Apply some simple common sense and skip the PC bullshit.




Women in the military can be counterproductive in more ways than you know. It doesn't change the fact that what I said is right.


Read my prior post about the Equal Rights Amendment. It was conservatives who shot it down, not the liberals.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:54:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2013 5:55:08 AM EST by The_Beer_Slayer]
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:55:24 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Carabinero1979:
Yeah - if we tried to impose a 1:1 ratio of women-to-men in combat arms, it would not go over well.

If feminist activists were intellectually honest, they would have pushed for female participation in the selective service program before pushing to have women in Ranger school.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Carabinero1979:
Originally Posted By RECONSIX:

They want to be equal, just not that equal.

Yeah - if we tried to impose a 1:1 ratio of women-to-men in combat arms, it would not go over well.

If feminist activists were intellectually honest, they would have pushed for female participation in the selective service program before pushing to have women in Ranger school.


They did. They lost.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:57:32 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bob58:


They did. They lost.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bob58:
Originally Posted By Carabinero1979:
Originally Posted By RECONSIX:

They want to be equal, just not that equal.

Yeah - if we tried to impose a 1:1 ratio of women-to-men in combat arms, it would not go over well.

If feminist activists were intellectually honest, they would have pushed for female participation in the selective service program before pushing to have women in Ranger school.


They did. They lost.


Can you substantiate that claim?
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:58:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2013 6:01:58 AM EST by geekz0r]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MAJClem:



"We demand equal treatment... Except for the dratft, and PT standards, and grooming..."

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MAJClem:
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Women are allowed in combat nowadays, and are considered "equal".

In a national emergency, why wouldn't the gov want to draft women? Now it's only men...
http://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm



"We demand equal treatment... Except for the dratft, and PT standards, and grooming..."

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile



although ... grooming standards... keep in mind some branches also have rules against "fads", so a woman would not be allowed to shave her head because it's faddish. So, it's hard to enact identical grooming standards when it conflicts with other rules.

Of course identical grooming standards could go the other way too with guidelines for men on what kind of nailpolish & makeup they could wear in uniform, and if they can wear earrings in or out of uniform. (Navy disallows earrings on men on any military installation or at military functions).


PT standards don't bother me, except in situations such as say Navy Seals or something like that. A regular tech working at a bench, big whoop, but when your buddy's life depends on whether or not you can haul his ass into a boat, then yes.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 5:58:17 AM EST
Combat, noncombat, doesn't matter. I'll volunteer myself happily. She needs to be at home caring for the kids.

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:


What if female draftee jobs were limited to non combat, non theater of war clerical, administrative, medical etc. ?

Do you think your country would be worth her service with those exclusions?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
Originally Posted By M95Mauser:
My wife will not be signing up for the draft. We'll move to Canada first.


What if female draftee jobs were limited to non combat, non theater of war clerical, administrative, medical etc. ?

Do you think your country would be worth her service with those exclusions?
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 6:00:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2013 6:03:22 AM EST by Bob58]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:


except for nam and korea, Conscription ended in 1973. PRIOR to 1973 the model was small standing force and conscript as needed.

it was discussed for iraq and was banted around shortly for afghanistan. It was ONLY "discussed" by the Charlie Rangel race baiting crowd. It was NEVER a consideration.

don't think it "won't" be done again.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
Originally Posted By Bob58:
A simple reality check for the "Equal Rights=Equal Responsibility" crowd.

The US military has been a all volunteer force since January 1973. That's over 40 years for the mathematically challenged.

There are absolutely no restriction on females volunteering to serve.

At peak strength during WW2, the US military had about 16 million men and women in service at one time. The US total population was about 170 million at the time.

The Selective Service program is just a registry for last ditch resources.

There is only one possible scenario where the US military will ever resort to widespread conscripted service again.... and that one scenario is a WW3 type situation.

That is the ONLY fucking way it will ever happen again.

In that one possible scenario, conscripting child bearing age females for military service would not just be useless, it would be totally counter-fucking-productive.


Apply some simple common sense and skip the PC bullshit.





except for nam and korea, Conscription ended in 1973. PRIOR to 1973 the model was small standing force and conscript as needed.

it was discussed for iraq and was banted around shortly for afghanistan. It was ONLY "discussed" by the Charlie Rangel race baiting crowd. It was NEVER a consideration.

don't think it "won't" be done again.
A US citizen might end up being conscripted into service but it won't be by the US government. It will be by the militia that is trying to control the regional cinder. And women will be conscripted too but it won't be for fighting.


The simple reality is that Desert Shield/Desert Storm put the last nail in the coffin of any chance of a return to conscripted service short of a Total War National emergency. And if THAT comes to pass, things will fall apart before they could even implement it.


Link Posted: 10/30/2013 6:01:46 AM EST
Because a large percentage of them would suddenly become pregnant after receiving their draft notice. Then how many would claim they lost their baby in boot camp.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 6:04:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2013 6:05:48 AM EST by geekz0r]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Glock031:
Because a large percentage of them would suddenly become pregnant after receiving their draft notice. Then how many would claim they lost their baby in boot camp.
View Quote

that is a good point as well.

rumor on my first ship was that one of the women had gotten out of deployment for a pregnancy and then as soon as she was off, she went and had an abortion. dunno how true that is but i'm sure there are some who'd waste a child's life just for shit like that.



Then again... in this day and age it's all volunteers and not draftees. So I assume it won't be much different than the draft during Viet Nam, where some served and some chickened the fuck out and fled to Canada or did other stuff to get disqualified.
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 6:04:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 6:05:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2013 6:13:34 AM EST by Bob58]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MultipleFractures:


Can you substantiate that claim?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MultipleFractures:
Originally Posted By Bob58:
Originally Posted By Carabinero1979:
Originally Posted By RECONSIX:

They want to be equal, just not that equal.

Yeah - if we tried to impose a 1:1 ratio of women-to-men in combat arms, it would not go over well.

If feminist activists were intellectually honest, they would have pushed for female participation in the selective service program before pushing to have women in Ranger school.


They did. They lost.


Can you substantiate that claim?


NOW and the ACLU both sued in the '80s.

{Edit to add}- In fairness, their intention was not just to require women to register for the SS. That was intended to be the first stepping stone in forcing the military to eliminate any gender "bias" for service. I.E. - "They now have to register for the draft so how can you say they can't be allowed to do X"?
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 6:25:14 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By geekz0r:



although ... grooming standards... keep in mind some branches also have rules against "fads", so a woman would not be allowed to shave her head because it's faddish. So, it's hard to enact identical grooming standards when it conflicts with other rules.

Of course identical grooming standards could go the other way too with guidelines for men on what kind of nailpolish & makeup they could wear in uniform, and if they can wear earrings in or out of uniform. (Navy disallows earrings on men on any military installation or at military functions).


PT standards don't bother me, except in situations such as say Navy Seals or something like that. A regular tech working at a bench, big whoop, but when your buddy's life depends on whether or not you can haul his ass into a boat, then yes.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By geekz0r:
Originally Posted By MAJClem:
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Women are allowed in combat nowadays, and are considered "equal".

In a national emergency, why wouldn't the gov want to draft women? Now it's only men...
http://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm



"We demand equal treatment... Except for the dratft, and PT standards, and grooming..."

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile



although ... grooming standards... keep in mind some branches also have rules against "fads", so a woman would not be allowed to shave her head because it's faddish. So, it's hard to enact identical grooming standards when it conflicts with other rules.

Of course identical grooming standards could go the other way too with guidelines for men on what kind of nailpolish & makeup they could wear in uniform, and if they can wear earrings in or out of uniform. (Navy disallows earrings on men on any military installation or at military functions).


PT standards don't bother me, except in situations such as say Navy Seals or something like that. A regular tech working at a bench, big whoop, but when your buddy's life depends on whether or not you can haul his ass into a boat, then yes.



You don't have to shave your head to meet the male grooming standard. Rachel Maddow would pass just fine but most women don't want to look like a 13 year old boy. Why should women be allowed long nails, jewelry and such... One standard would be simpler, it will never happen but it would be simpler.

As far as the PT standards go, there are more jobs than "Navy Seal" that require a base level of fitness far above what female soldiers are graded on in the APFT. Set that issue aside, however, and think about this. APFT scores are used by promotion boards for both officers and enlisted. That female soldier who scores 300 every time is gaining a significant advantage over a male soldier scoring 250. The male soldier is stronger and faster, but the female is a 300 PT stud. Look at the scoring tables and note the disparity. When the tables were changed back in 1998, the male and female sit-up tables were merged. The bitching from female soldiers was unrelenting because they had to do more reps or "the same as the guys"
Link Posted: 10/30/2013 6:27:07 AM EST
.mil doesn't really want them when push comes to shove?
Top Top