Enigmatic Variations N0 1669 By Kcit
Crosswords2 mins ago
Raf Regiment First To Officially Become Laughing Stock
89 Answers
http://
OK, the OP title is a little harsh on the Rockapes, but hey-ho.
PC gone mad......
OK, the OP title is a little harsh on the Rockapes, but hey-ho.
PC gone mad......
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
https:/
https:/
https:/
The first google link is American - if the Americans can't keep their johnsons in their pants, that is their problem.
The second one, I can't make head nor tail of.
Ok, so men and women have intercourse, so do men and men and women and women but if they are good at their job having been trained and subsequently proved their worth, why not let them do what they have trained for?
The second one, I can't make head nor tail of.
Ok, so men and women have intercourse, so do men and men and women and women but if they are good at their job having been trained and subsequently proved their worth, why not let them do what they have trained for?
From another link:
The tiny few who are willing and maybe able still bring much higher risk of injury, lesser performance and are higher value targets to our enemies, all of which unnecessarily adds risk and weakness for everyone involved. The Marine Corps’ recent 9-month integration study showed that all-male teams outperformed coed teams in 69 percent of combat tasks.
LifeZette
Jude Eden in Poli
Women in Combat: Bad Idea
Putting women on the front lines reduces military effectiveness and sets equality back
Many are not surprised that Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter chose to fully repeal the women’s combat exemption, especially those who’ve been pushing for it.
But many regular Americans are surprised at what it actually means.
The mother of a new female Marine I spoke with last week was understandably upset to find out women can now be involuntarily assigned to these units, just like men.
Carter confirmed this when he said, “People are assigned to missions, tasks, and functions according to need as well as their capabilities. And women will be subject to the same standard and rules that men will.” Women may also now be subject to selective service obligations.
These may be classified as decisions in the name of “equality,” except that women don’t have an equal opportunity for survival and success in the violence of real combat at point-blank range. For many Americans, the reality is only now starting to sink in.
The tiny few who are willing and maybe able still bring much higher risk of injury, lesser performance and are higher value targets to our enemies, all of which unnecessarily adds risk and weakness for everyone involved. The Marine Corps’ recent 9-month integration study showed that all-male teams outperformed coed teams in 69 percent of combat tasks.
Women — top performers who had made men’s minimum fitness standards and passed enlisted infantry training — were slower, were less accurate shooters, struggled with tasks requiring upper body strength, and suffered more than double the injuries of men.
These factors can’t be ignored when speed is a weapon and brute strength is at a premium, but that’s exactly what Carter did in his decision.
Women are also at a significant disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat against men who want to kill them.
The secretary assured us that women will have to meet the same high standards as men, but how is that really possible when, for example, none of the 29 women who attempted the Marine’s Officer Infantry Course were able to pass? In the initial announcement of repeal, Gen. Martin Dempsey called for the standards to be “re-evaluated,” putting the onus on the combat units to prove why their standards are so high if women can’t make them, while also requiring “that there are a sufficient number of females entering the career field and already assigned to the related commands and leadership positions.”
Where will these women come from? We couldn’t even get a solid 30 to try for OIC. Most who did dropped due to injury, and none were able to show they could match the men’s physical ability.
The only way to achieve “sufficient numbers” and make up for both higher injuries and weaker performance is to lower the standards. Not formally, of course, but the standards have been lowered every time more military jobs have been opened to women.
This policy decision also won’t really help women’s military careers, the entire foundation of the argument for putting women in combat. The real effect will more likely be to handicap them. Take a woman at the top of her field in a noncombat military occupational specialty and drop her in a combat unit with the highest performing males and you’ve just killed her career prospects. No matter the standards, men especially at this level will always outperform women, permanently relegating them at best to the bottom half of their units.
-----------
Need I continue?
The tiny few who are willing and maybe able still bring much higher risk of injury, lesser performance and are higher value targets to our enemies, all of which unnecessarily adds risk and weakness for everyone involved. The Marine Corps’ recent 9-month integration study showed that all-male teams outperformed coed teams in 69 percent of combat tasks.
LifeZette
Jude Eden in Poli
Women in Combat: Bad Idea
Putting women on the front lines reduces military effectiveness and sets equality back
Many are not surprised that Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter chose to fully repeal the women’s combat exemption, especially those who’ve been pushing for it.
But many regular Americans are surprised at what it actually means.
The mother of a new female Marine I spoke with last week was understandably upset to find out women can now be involuntarily assigned to these units, just like men.
Carter confirmed this when he said, “People are assigned to missions, tasks, and functions according to need as well as their capabilities. And women will be subject to the same standard and rules that men will.” Women may also now be subject to selective service obligations.
These may be classified as decisions in the name of “equality,” except that women don’t have an equal opportunity for survival and success in the violence of real combat at point-blank range. For many Americans, the reality is only now starting to sink in.
The tiny few who are willing and maybe able still bring much higher risk of injury, lesser performance and are higher value targets to our enemies, all of which unnecessarily adds risk and weakness for everyone involved. The Marine Corps’ recent 9-month integration study showed that all-male teams outperformed coed teams in 69 percent of combat tasks.
Women — top performers who had made men’s minimum fitness standards and passed enlisted infantry training — were slower, were less accurate shooters, struggled with tasks requiring upper body strength, and suffered more than double the injuries of men.
These factors can’t be ignored when speed is a weapon and brute strength is at a premium, but that’s exactly what Carter did in his decision.
Women are also at a significant disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat against men who want to kill them.
The secretary assured us that women will have to meet the same high standards as men, but how is that really possible when, for example, none of the 29 women who attempted the Marine’s Officer Infantry Course were able to pass? In the initial announcement of repeal, Gen. Martin Dempsey called for the standards to be “re-evaluated,” putting the onus on the combat units to prove why their standards are so high if women can’t make them, while also requiring “that there are a sufficient number of females entering the career field and already assigned to the related commands and leadership positions.”
Where will these women come from? We couldn’t even get a solid 30 to try for OIC. Most who did dropped due to injury, and none were able to show they could match the men’s physical ability.
The only way to achieve “sufficient numbers” and make up for both higher injuries and weaker performance is to lower the standards. Not formally, of course, but the standards have been lowered every time more military jobs have been opened to women.
This policy decision also won’t really help women’s military careers, the entire foundation of the argument for putting women in combat. The real effect will more likely be to handicap them. Take a woman at the top of her field in a noncombat military occupational specialty and drop her in a combat unit with the highest performing males and you’ve just killed her career prospects. No matter the standards, men especially at this level will always outperform women, permanently relegating them at best to the bottom half of their units.
-----------
Need I continue?
The Israelis don't seem to have any problem with them women soldiers.
https:/
https:/
Yes alba, I'm using examples from the US military because they've undergone the changes, the UK military haven't as yet (used females in an infantry role).
At some point a female combatant will be captured by the Taliban/IS/other Islamic terrorist group.
https:/
I've no doubt her torture and death will be recorded in full technicolour glory and if rumours of Pte McLaren's torture are true (and I've no doubt they are, I'll spare AB'ers the details) she'll befall a similar fate, after which there'll be a huge debate about the initial decision as a result of PC madness.
The whole experiment is doomed to failure.
Have all female units as the Russians did in WWII by all means but don't mix the 2 sexes in a combat unit, it's madness.
That said, an infantry unit is made up of 650 men upwards. It'll take decades to get that many female recruits to infantry standard.
At some point a female combatant will be captured by the Taliban/IS/other Islamic terrorist group.
https:/
I've no doubt her torture and death will be recorded in full technicolour glory and if rumours of Pte McLaren's torture are true (and I've no doubt they are, I'll spare AB'ers the details) she'll befall a similar fate, after which there'll be a huge debate about the initial decision as a result of PC madness.
The whole experiment is doomed to failure.
Have all female units as the Russians did in WWII by all means but don't mix the 2 sexes in a combat unit, it's madness.
That said, an infantry unit is made up of 650 men upwards. It'll take decades to get that many female recruits to infantry standard.
Interesting last paragraph in your link danny, they share my concerns!
------------
Harel questions whether the military will follow through and allow women to serve in all roles at the risk of what has concerned many: one of them being kidnapped.
The kidnapping of male soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006 by Hamas caused shock nationwide.
“One cannot help wonder whether the response to the abduction of a female soldier would be more extreme,” Harel wrote recently in Haaretz.
------------
Harel questions whether the military will follow through and allow women to serve in all roles at the risk of what has concerned many: one of them being kidnapped.
The kidnapping of male soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006 by Hamas caused shock nationwide.
“One cannot help wonder whether the response to the abduction of a female soldier would be more extreme,” Harel wrote recently in Haaretz.
Latest Posts
Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Home & Garden8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
It's A Snowflake...shut Things!
News11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.