On 2012-07-19 21:36, mastermindreader wrote:
In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver.

On 2012-07-19 21:52, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-19 21:36, mastermindreader wrote:
In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver.

Ruth Westheimer.

On 2012-07-20 00:08, MagicSanta wrote:
Wonderful! Maryland is the only state I want to visit that I have not been to solely for crabcakes.

On 2012-07-19 19:59, critter wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-19 19:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Let me put this REALLY simply. And I believe I can safely speak for Bob here as well as myself, but I apologize in advance if I misstate his position (and I'm sure he'll correct me). But our position appears to be the same, and unless I'm badly misreading Bob's post, his seems to coincide with mine.

1. For the types of positions we're talking about, there should be a single standard, and it should be reasonably related to the job, i.e. not arbitrary and/or capricious.

2. Nobody who meets the standard should be excluded from the job on the basis of gender.

3. Nobody who fails to meet the standard should be included to the job on the basis of gender.

The end.

+1

On 2012-07-19 13:25, mastermindreader wrote:
I am fascinated by the reference to combat troops as being those "on the front lines." In most of today's combat situations there is no such thing. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq the are/were no real front lines. And as the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced earlier made clear, there are situations in such combat theaters of operations where women play vital roles in de facto combat assignments.

On 2012-07-19 21:36, mastermindreader wrote:

I think that something that is being overlooked here is the obvious fact that different combat jobs require different physical skills and characteristics.

In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver. Combat roles, like almost everything else in today's society, have become increasingly specialized. Hand- to-hand combat requires different skills than those needed to disarm IED's. Some roles would seem to favor men and others would seem to favor women or are gender neutral in regards to the physical skills required to carry them out.

The statement that men are better suited than women for all combat roles - particularly in today's military - completely ignores the different skill sets required in different combat related specialties.

On 2012-07-20 05:36, rowdymagi5 wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-19 13:25, mastermindreader wrote:
I am fascinated by the reference to combat troops as being those "on the front lines." In most of today's combat situations there is no such thing. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq the are/were no real front lines. And as the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced earlier made clear, there are situations in such combat theaters of operations where women play vital roles in de facto combat assignments.

There most certainly is such a thing as "front line". Tell the Navy Seals and the Grunts in the Marines that todays military has no front lines. Somebody has to be the first in. What do you call the team that is going in and sweeping buildings and securing the area? Then when it is secured, the rest of the troops come marching in and set up.

There is more front line fighting going on than most realize. The liberal media has kept most of the stuff like this from us and most people really believe that the war is somehow "sanitized" now. Ask General Norman Schwarzkopf. People like him shoot straight about the war.

On 2012-07-20 08:48, Marlin1894 wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-19 21:36, mastermindreader wrote:

I think that something that is being overlooked here is the obvious fact that different combat jobs require different physical skills and characteristics.

In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver. Combat roles, like almost everything else in today's society, have become increasingly specialized. Hand- to-hand combat requires different skills than those needed to disarm IED's. Some roles would seem to favor men and others would seem to favor women or are gender neutral in regards to the physical skills required to carry them out.

The statement that men are better suited than women for all combat roles - particularly in today's military - completely ignores the different skill sets required in different combat related specialties.

Yes, but to be fair the original question specified "infantry". Not "combat roles". So the discussion should probably stay near to that specific combat role. We discussed the fact that women serve in combat roles already. But they don't serve in the infantry.

Infantry is it's own occupational field. Tankers aren't infantry. Explosive ordinace specialists aren't infantry. Field artillery isn't infantry. Motor transpost isn't infantry etc.

On 2012-07-20 05:36, rowdymagi5 wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-19 13:25, mastermindreader wrote:
I am fascinated by the reference to combat troops as being those "on the front lines." In most of today's combat situations there is no such thing. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq the are/were no real front lines. And as the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced earlier made clear, there are situations in such combat theaters of operations where women play vital roles in de facto combat assignments.

There most certainly is such a thing as "front line". Tell the Navy Seals and the Grunts in the Marines that todays military has no front lines. Somebody has to be the first in. What do you call the team that is going in and sweeping buildings and securing the area? Then when it is secured, the rest of the troops come marching in and set up.

There is more front line fighting going on than most realize. The liberal media has kept most of the stuff like this from us and most people really believe that the war is somehow "sanitized" now. Ask General Norman Schwarzkopf. People like him shoot straight about the war.

On 2012-07-20 10:42, mastermindreader wrote:
War isn't really fought on that model any more and even the commanders in the field refer to combat positions rather that whether they are specifically infantry or not. (Navy Seals, for example, are hardly "infantry" but I doubt that anyone would dispute that they are a combat unit as are many others.)