she should not be on a battlefield. The military is not nor should ever be a social experiment.
Unless a female soldier can pick up a 189 pound soldier(average weight of a male soldier) and throw him over her back....
- Thread starter ThreeDawgNight
- Start date
That’s misogynistic… There’s not enough women in the NFL either!
Women should not be in the military period. God did not create women to fight.
I would not say that. I think there are some roles in which they could and do serve very effectively. Analytical, logistical and roles that require technological skills are ones they can and do do with a high level of efficiency.
There are definitely rolls in the military where women can thrive and function, but front line is not. It just doesn’t make sense physically unless the girl is abnormally jacked.
It's perfectly fine for the female soldiers to give the men massages. That's what you're talking about, right?
The male soldier is at fault for putting himself in a distressful situation for the female to carry him,...otherwise she would not be burdened with the facts of life of carrying a distressed, heavy male,....or so the DEI manual teaches it
I do think women are too emotional to make life and death decisions. Look at all of the women that are leaders of cities in this country. They have destroyed them with their bleeding heart mentality.
One of the ways God punishes nations is to have women rule over them
I was surprised to learn there were over 200 women in our infantry now. I honestly did not know that. That’s why these hearings are important.
Is Pete going to kick them out? Wouldn’t seem good.
Yes, I am sure you heard that from the fat butch LA DEI Fire Chief telling us that the other day in a press conference.
These people need to be in mental institutes, not in leadership positions.
Sec. Hegseth will transfer them into non-combat support positions. They can still serve without needing to pass the old battlefield standards that Biden's Sec. of Defense lowered.
So, the standards were never lowered. I thought they were because I heard it so many times and frankly, it seems logical. But they were never lowered.
You should go watch Kiersten Hildebrand questioning of Pete, she was very clear that the standards have never been lowered.
He claims that he “heard” they were… She asked him to provide a single example, and he could not.
She literally held the printed out standards in front of him, they have not changed. Was news to me.
Do you have some information that they were? Like a printout of the old standards and then a printout of the new standards?
To be clear, Pete never refuted anything Kiersten said.
That’s basically terminating them from the current job.
I supported not having women in infantry when I thought that there were none and I thought this was a hypothetical. If there are already hundreds of women doing this job and, supposedly, performing at a high level, then I see no reason to remove them.
The question is, are they performing at a high level?
The whole hearing proved why we need a dude like Hegseth:
A focus on whether or not he wants women holding rifles in combat as a disqualifying factor in his leadership.
Our military's purpose is to defend the nation. Period. Recruiting and morale is down. In large part due to a complete disconnect between would be fighting enlisted and the methodology / personnel being pushed at the higher levels by political and civilian roles.
Does anyone truly give a shit whether or not we have women holding rifles when our national security is at stake?
This dude will be highly effective in improving what matters in our Military. As for his "inexperience," I challenge anyone to tell me why an "inexperienced" Trump / Hegseth team is inferior to an "experienced" Biden / Lloyd team (I'm looking at you Afghanistan).
"But he cheated on his wife and doesn't want women Navy seals!"
Fair point.
The bigger point is whether or not the "potential" removal of 200 women from rifle-toting tip of the spear positions is even remotely relevant to whether this guy will be an effective figure-head of the Military. The fact that the entire hearing focused on this issue is exhibit A on why we need someone like this to figure-head our fighting force, which is suffering morale and recruiting issues in a big way.
I don't agree with or care that much about the arguments against his experience, but at least those are focused on things that actually matter within the context of the deadly serious issue of national defense. Personally I believe the lack of experience is a plus - this is a highly talented disruptor sorely needed, who will be surrounded by a ton of experience, both inside and out of the Pentagon.
His appointment signals to our own military, and more importantly, the World.....that our Military is there for only one reason. To kill anyone who would try to harm the US. Period. This guy will be very effective, and anyone who doesn't think he is very talented didn't watch the entirety of the hearing yesterday - I did. Specifically because this is an appointment that is incredibly important.
I agree with most of what you posted. I do think experience matters, it certainly matters in the business world, and he has virtually none that would apply to this role.
There are plenty of far right generals, and far right admirals who would’ve been a better fit, in my opinion,
From the beginning, I have said that this appointment could possibly work. Possibly.
If he can, boost morale, help our nation get in shape, and get our military spending to be more efficient, it will be a smashing success
The way Biden pulled out out of Afghanistan is a disgrace. I don’t put it on the chair of the department of defense, he does not make that call.
Also, Pete is the one who has made women in the military and women in the infantry part of his focus. He literally wrote a book about this. If these talking points are not important to you, so be it. But he’s the one who determined this discussion.
It’s not like the senators are making this up, they are repeating his own words back to him. That is completely fair game.
Israel has a huge amount of women in their Armed Forces and seems to be doing okay fighting.
Yes he wrote about it. The point remains that instead of focusing on issues that actually effect national defense, the democrats chose to try and disqualify him on the basis of his writings.
Who. Gives. A. Phuck? As Colonel Nathan R. Jessup says: "We are in the business of saving lives." The lazer focus on equity as a qualifying issue for SOD is more of an indictment on why we need a change agent like Pete than anything else.
Did anyone ever read what, two time MOH recipient, Smedley Butler said about War?
War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. Smedley Butler
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/smedley-butler-quotes
There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Smedley Butler
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/smedley-butler-quotes
We must take the profit out of war. Smedley Butler
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/smedley-butler-quotes
War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. Smedley Butler
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/smedley-butler-quotes
There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Smedley Butler
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/smedley-butler-quotes
We must take the profit out of war. Smedley Butler
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/smedley-butler-quotes
"The standards for women in the infantry are generally the same as for men, but there are some differences in the physical fitness requirements. The Army has introduced the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), which includes six events: deadlifts, power throws, push-ups, planks, a run, and a sprint-drag-carry event. However, due to differences in physical capabilities, the scoring scales have been adjusted to allow women to perform slightly less in some events and still pass."
The Hill
The Hill, March 23, 2022
APFT Standards
1) if that is accurate, it’s fuggin outrageous. We cannot weaken our own military to appease woke DEI kooks
2) I wonder if this ever went into production. Pete did not mention during his entire day of questioning yesterday, which would be weird, right?
If there is this obvious smoking gun that the standards were lowered, which makes our military weaker, shouldn’t he have brought it up?
I would like to see the original paper. Also, if this was well known (and factual), then why didn't Pete brinng it up? There's a lot of stuff on social media like this. So is/ was Pete unaware? Seems weird.
Again, I always have heard stuff like this, just never seen the data.
Can't get any clearer than the US Army's "original paper", standards based on age and gender.
22yo male minimum pushups = 30
22yo female minimum pushups = 11
https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards/
So, the standards for males might not have been lowered, same for the (lower) standards for females. But they are not the same.
22yo male minimum pushups = 30
22yo female minimum pushups = 11
https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards/
So, the standards for males might not have been lowered, same for the (lower) standards for females. But they are not the same.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Whether they have “changed” or not is not really relevant… Are they the exact same standard for every military person? This would point to the answer being “no“.
I don’t want to make you search all over the Internet, but do you have the same thing with a .gov URL? This could be any commercial site
"As a general physical fitness test, an age and gender performance-normed scoring scale will be used to evaluate a Soldier’s physical fitness."
This is from the official army.mil site.
I think the issue with Hegseth, at the confirmation hearing on standards, is they have started using the basic unchanged standards for females that were just for enlistment, but now also use them for their combat standards.
An official Army site
I got much easier standards to meet when enlisting back in '67. Especially since it was the US Navy. It was during the Vietnam War, but the closest I got to Vietnam was Los Angeles. 🙄
This is what I'm talking about. So, in the Army, the standards for all our fighters are not the same.
I can tolerate that because, as many people who never served don't know, most military people are not fighters. Last I looked, there were 218 jobs in the Army. Cooks, janitors, dentists, barbers, etc. Not every person is infantry.
That being said, ANYONE serving in combat units must all meet the same EQUAL standard for fighting performance. ANYONE!
I am surprised Pete did not reference any of the links you've posted, but am grateful you posted them.
Similar threads
