Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/12/06 03:01:07
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
There's nothing wrong with working at McDonald's or being a street cleaner. That said, soldiers willingly put themselves into harms way for the benefit of others.
Spoken like someone who's never been posted at the fry cooker. I still wake up in a cold sweat from that 10+ years later. You don't know, man, you weren't there.
There's nothing wrong with working at McDonald's or being a street cleaner. That said, soldiers willingly put themselves into harms way for the benefit of others.
Spoken like someone who's never been posted at the fry cooker. I still wake up in a cold sweat from that 10+ years later. You don't know, man, you weren't there.
It's funny you say that. I actually was a fry cook for quite a while, and I know exactly what you mean.
Note that I've been quite adamant this whole time that there is nothing wrong with those sorts of jobs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/06 03:17:02
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Also the thing about one standard being set and equal opportunity not equal outcome needs to be repeated several times if necessary.
It does need to be repeated, but it's not going to matter. This is a political decision, and the military has seen how those go when it comes to integrating women. If there aren't "enough" women in combat MOSes within a few years, somebody (and my money's on Warren) is going to start raising hell about it. And just like when special interests decided the Navy needed female F-14 pilots, people are going to die when standards get waived in the name of producing an acceptable result.
That's the reality. There are going to be a very small number of women suited for things like your standard issue infantry, and even fewer - perhaps none - with the capability to make it past intense special operations selection courses. And it's all so self-defeating, because it ultimately hurts women more than it helps. None of the first crop of female naval aviators from the '90s stuck around; even the ones who weren't getting their carrier quals fudged were iced out by their peers in the ready room, and the same thing's going to happen in infantry units.
2015/12/06 10:25:09
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
However, in 20 years when the culture has changed, you will see a much more natural progression of women into these roles. Much like you saw with black soldiers and pilots, women in business, science, engineering and other professions.
It is all about leading an initial shock and awe assault, then settling in for the long occupation until things can govern themselves along the lines you wanted.
Now... where have I heard something like that before?
SilverMK2 wrote: However, in 20 years when the culture has changed, you will see a much more natural progression of women into these roles. Much like you saw with black soldiers and pilots, women in business, science, engineering and other professions.
I don't know how cultural transition changes skeletal structure and muscle distribution differences.
2015/12/07 08:40:56
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
SilverMK2 wrote: However, in 20 years when the culture has changed, you will see a much more natural progression of women into these roles. Much like you saw with black soldiers and pilots, women in business, science, engineering and other professions.
I don't know how cultural transition changes skeletal structure and muscle distribution differences.
It would take time, but it is definitely possible. That's called evolution.
Scientia potentia est.
In girum imus nocte ecce et consumimur igni.
2015/12/07 08:49:42
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Hordini wrote: being in the military entails more sacrifice in order to provide something that is necessary for a free society...
I think this is the part I object to, and what is at the heart of soldier worship. The idea that soldiers are fighting for my freedom, so I should be grateful. I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and more often than not I think military intervention makes situations worse. The latest example being "bomb Syria", which even Bashar al-Assad said is generating more rebels.
Also my "freedom" is highly overrated. Freedom to be owned by global corporations? Freedom to pay tax "or else"? If someone wants to fight for my freedom, go and fight the corrupt "political donations" system, which is just a moniker for bribery. Go and fight to not have the quality of our food, our health, and our environment dictated by someone's bottom line. Then I'll thank you for your service.
Shipping overseas to drive around in the dessert and achieve very little, so that shares in Halliburton and arms manufacturing can enjoy a few extra points, does nothing for my freedom. And, may actually have stirred up a wasps nest of global terrorism, which has led to my freedoms being eroded. Now the world is more dangerous than ever, and new "counter terrorism" laws mean that just about anyone can be arrested, held indefinitely without charge, and possibly tortured... Fan-fething-tastic!
So while I appreciate that soldiers do get shot at, and might even mistakenly believe they're doing it for a good cause. I don't personally owe you anything.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/12/07 15:53:04
2015/12/07 15:54:26
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
SilverMK2 wrote: However, in 20 years when the culture has changed, you will see a much more natural progression of women into these roles. Much like you saw with black soldiers and pilots, women in business, science, engineering and other professions.
I don't know how cultural transition changes skeletal structure and muscle distribution differences.
It would take time, but it is definitely possible. That's called evolution.
Or a breeding program like they did with slaves. You could make above average humans by mixing a few select genes together
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
2015/12/07 15:58:00
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Hordini wrote: being in the military entails more sacrifice in order to provide something that is necessary for a free society...
I think this is the part I object to, and what is at the heart of soldier worship. The idea that soldiers are fighting for my freedom, so I should be grateful. I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and more often than not I think military intervention makes situations worse. The latest example being "bomb Syria", which even Bashar al-Assad said is generating more rebels.
Also my "freedom" is highly overrated. Freedom to be owned by global corporations? Freedom to pay tax "or else"? If someone wants to fight for my freedom, go and fight the corrupt "political donations" system, which is just a moniker for bribery. Go and fight to not have the quality of our food, our health, and our environment dictated by someone's bottom line. Then I'll thank you for your service.
Shipping overseas to drive around in the dessert and achieve very little, so that shares in Halliburton and arms manufacturing can enjoy a few extra points, does nothing for my freedom. And, may actually have stirred up a wasps nest of global terrorism, which has led to my freedoms being eroded. Now the world is more dangerous than ever, and new "counter terrorism" laws mean that just about anyone can be arrested, held indefinitely without charge, and possibly tortured... Fan-fething-tastic!
So while I appreciate that soldiers do get shot at, and might even mistakenly believe they're doing it for a good cause. I don't personally owe you anything.
You have the freedom to go online and make this complaint, because be damn sure without any kind of military, those same corps you refer to will happy erode ALL of your rights. Or another military power will do so to keep you under control, the threat of a military uprising is enough to keep even our goverment under a modicum of control, so yes, indirectly you do owe the military and every uniformed service respect, your thanks are not required nor wanted, your respect is.
2015/12/07 16:06:29
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Obama operates like an Ethereal. We are already the Tau
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
2015/12/07 16:19:10
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Formosa wrote: You have the freedom to go online and make this complaint, because be damn sure without any kind of military, those same corps you refer to will happy erode ALL of your rights. Or another military power will do so to keep you under control, the threat of a military uprising is enough to keep even our goverment under a modicum of control, so yes, indirectly you do owe the military and every uniformed service respect, your thanks are not required nor wanted, your respect is.
The military is an instrument of the government, and governments are rapidly becoming the instruments of corporations.They are in no way protecting me. Most of my freedoms are probably owed to political movements and things like union action.
Also controlling people with guns is old news, the new weapon to enslave a population is economics, and it's going strong. Uniformed servicemen, however well meaning, are actually part of the problem, giving their lives to further the agenda of global powers that couldn't care less about them or me. At risk of repeating myself, I don't owe them anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/07 16:33:56
2015/12/07 17:32:43
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
While I'm generally more on the 'friend to the armed forces' side of the fence, I will say that there's often something I tend to find... creepy... about the way, particularly America, but I've seen some situations elsewhere, about the reverence that soldiers are treated. It can feel quite unsettling.
2015/12/07 17:55:40
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Sigvatr wrote: Putting less able fighters in the front line seems like a good idea.
LOL, its similar to US idea of mediocrity and No Child Left Behind. So they lower combat standards so women can see combat duty, because its wrong and sexist to think they can't.
As long as they could pass the current (or is it old now) standards I'd wouldn't care. I've seen some tough ass women in the military and they would've been able to get the job done for sure, but they were rare. Most unfortunately were not combat able. Is this view sexist? meh. truth is truth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/07 17:56:24
22 yrs in the hobby
:Eldar: 10K+ pts, 2500 pts
1850 pts
Vampire Counts 4000+
2015/12/07 18:01:22
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
djones520 wrote: People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.
I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there.
That would be true in almost every profession, and if you follow it to its conclusion you end up with: "women shouldn't have jobs", which is absurd.
That is not true of every profession. You only get a few months leave where I work (and most corporate places). Not 15 months. Not 15 months down one tank driver or muzzle loader (is that a thing?) or communications whatever (Is that a thing?). The rest of the deployed unit sucks it up for 15 months.
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2015/12/08 03:34:17
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Compel wrote: While I'm generally more on the 'friend to the armed forces' side of the fence, I will say that there's often something I tend to find... creepy... about the way, particularly America, but I've seen some situations elsewhere, about the reverence that soldiers are treated. It can feel quite unsettling.
In the U.S. Part of the issue is from trying to make up for how vets returning from Vietnam were treated. I was even called a baby killer in the 1980's while in uniform, freaking hippies
Voxed from Salamander 84-24020
2015/12/08 05:30:11
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
djones520 wrote: People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.
I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there.
That would be true in almost every profession, and if you follow it to its conclusion you end up with: "women shouldn't have jobs", which is absurd.
That is not true of every profession. You only get a few months leave where I work (and most corporate places). Not 15 months. Not 15 months down one tank driver or muzzle loader (is that a thing?) or communications whatever (Is that a thing?). The rest of the deployed unit sucks it up for 15 months.
As a proud former communications whatever, I can with great sincerity say that that is indeed a thing.
2015/12/08 09:32:01
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
kronk wrote: That is not true of every profession. You only get a few months leave where I work (and most corporate places). Not 15 months. Not 15 months down one tank driver or muzzle loader (is that a thing?) or communications whatever (Is that a thing?). The rest of the deployed unit sucks it up for 15 months.
Sorry, what I was trying to say is that women potentially taking time off because of pregnancy is an argument that can be made against women in almost any profession. I had a teacher at high-school who basically went from pregnancy to pregnancy. During the five years I was there I only remember her being present for a few sparse months. I'm sure it was very disruptive for the children she taught, her tutor group, and her colleagues. To be honest, as kids, we felt that she was working some kind of scam. However, that does not mean women shouldn't be teachers. The vast majority of my teachers have been women, and they were at work the whole time.
Admittedly, there will be some differences between professions (more physical jobs will necessitate more time off, as you point out), but the pregnancy argument against women in the work place is essentially the same. Unless someone is willing to argue that women shouldn't do any job where absence might be disruptive, then the pregnancy angle is just special pleading.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/12/08 09:36:28
2015/12/08 12:37:50
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?
I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.
I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.
Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.
It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.
Yeah but feminism is finally cutting both ways!
What about in Sweden where female firefighters get another 30 seconds to chop down a door? If I'm dying I can't say to the fire 'hold on inferno its a female firefighter don't burn me yet'.
At least their wounded bodies will be easier to carry? #alwayslookonthebrightsideoflife#
2015/12/08 13:09:59
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
I had a job once where a 90-100 lbs. (40-45Kg) girl was on the work crew. Me and another crew member had to carry extra equipment constantly because she was physically unable to. How should this be handled? What was even better during slack time (weekly), she did office work while we repaired equipment and monkey wrenched vehicles.
I think she should have never been hired, minimum requirements dictated she need to be able to lift and carry 50lbs for extended periods. 30-35 lbs. (14-16Kg) backpack along with shovels/post-hole digger/axes in hand.
was this equal labor? She got paid the same.
22 yrs in the hobby
:Eldar: 10K+ pts, 2500 pts
1850 pts
Vampire Counts 4000+
2015/12/08 14:24:50
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
What about in Sweden where female firefighters get another 30 seconds to chop down a door?
Did you know that we also eat our babies and have to sing patriotic hymns to the great Fatherbörk, aren't allowed to eat anything other than Börk on Wednesdays and that börk börk börk börk?
On a more serious note, "citation needed".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/08 14:25:08
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2015/12/08 14:25:29
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: I had a job once where a 90-100 lbs. (40-45Kg) girl was on the work crew. Me and another crew member had to carry extra equipment constantly because she was physically unable to.
When I moved house, I strategically packed all my boxes to be around 25Kg. I think it's silly to have one feather light box of clothes and then another back breaking box full of books. I was really quite particular about it, I'm not puny by any means, and I thought 25Kg was a comfortable weight for a person to carry (especially when we had to move them up and down stairs). When the removal guys turned up, I explained that I'd measured the boxes so none of them were too heavy. They then proceeded to stack one box on top of another and carry them out two at a time.
Moral of the story: you don't have to be a girl to meet people who can carry a lot more than you.
2015/12/08 14:38:32
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
What about in Sweden where female firefighters get another 30 seconds to chop down a door?
Did you know that we also eat our babies and have to sing patriotic hymns to the great Fatherbörk, aren't allowed to eat anything other than Börk on Wednesdays and that börk börk börk börk?
Equal rights for firemen constitutes a public hazard
Ingrid Carlqvist
Feb. 22, 2013
Female firefighters in Lund need eleven minutes to force a security door – no one will be left alive
If your apartment catches fire, firemen need to get in there fast to save you. A common apartment door can be forced open in 10 to 20 seconds; a security-enforced door takes 45 to 60 seconds.
Now information has leaked that female firefighters take more than 10 minutes to break through a secured door.
“If this is true, it is deeply serious. After that amount of time, there will be no life left to save on the other side,” says Henrik Persson, fire chief in Höganäs.
After the article in Dispatch International on January 26th [not in English!] on how the diversity agitation within the Emergency Services South endangers public safety, the editors have received several hints about how bad things are in Swedish fire brigades. The situation seems to be worst in the city of Lund, whose fire brigade has been highlighted as “exemplary” due to an almost perfectly equal gender balance.
Some time ago the firefighters were practicing forcing open security doors while wearing full protective clothing. When two female firefighters were put to the task, it reportedly took them eleven minutes.
“That is quite remarkable. We will have to look at this, says Peter Bergh,” a spokesman for the National Union of Firefighters.
Peter Bergh says that the union, which represents around 9,000 of the 15,000 Swedish firefighters, has been watching with increasing concern how the emergency services in recent years have focused more and more on diversity, and accordingly less on professional skills.
“In 2011, in cooperation with Centrum för Rättvisa (’Center for Justice’), we brought a case to court concerning a Swedish firefighter who, in spite of two years of education, was refused employment at Södertörns Brandförsvar. While at the same time a number of women with poorer or irrelevant skills were hired as firefighters,” recalls Peter Bergh.
“As the case was settled out of court and Södertörns Brandförsvar was forced to pay Skr 100,000 (€11,600) in compensation (a large figure by Swedish standards), we thought that the emergency services would reconsider the matters,” says Peter Bergh.
But that does not seem to be the case. When Räddningstjänsten Sydoes hired ten new workers in Malmö, the ones with the best skills and longest experience were turned down. Five positions went to women with very superficial professional skills.
And at the “exemplary brigade” in Lund, exercises show that some female firefighters are not able to enter a burning apartment with a secured front door. Henrik Persson, who for many years worked in Malmö as both a firefighter and a group leader, and now employed as fire chief in Höganäs, is gravely concerned.
“The conditions when saving lives in buildings keep getting tougher. It is more common now that that we encounter security doors of various classifications when we need to enter an apartment,” says Henrik Persson.
“Forcing oneself through a security door requires strenuous muscle-effort and teamwork, under intense time pressure. And although I do not know of the specific exercise in Lund, where women took eleven minute to force the security door open, I am aware that competence is falling in several areas, simply because the demands for physical strength have been lowered.”
Can people survive eleven minutes in a burning apartment?
“No, after eleven minutes there is, in theory, no life left to save on the other side of the door,” replies Henrik Persson.
Henrik Persson as well as Peter Bergh confirm that such results have been hushed up and pushed aside. No one will acknowledge that over the last decade, the competence of firemen has deteriorated severely.
“As a logical consequence, this is a risk for the general public. In order to fix these problems, we must have the courage to talk about them; the demands must be in line with what the job requires,” says Henrik Persson.
The change started at the end of the 1990′s. Previously most of those who went on to become firefighters had been carpenters, electricians or plumbers, people with solid physical ability. The personnel consisted of people capable of practical work under heavy physical and psychological strain.
“This is actually what the operative side of the trade is about. A hundred percent,” says Henrik Persson.
“Then suddenly we got the idea that it was vitally important that the force consisted not only of big, strong Swedish men, and they worked eagerly to recruit women, and not least men of immigrant background.”
In order to motivate this, a problem was constructed, Henrik Persson believes. It was claimed that the jargon among firefighters was offensive and condescending, a macho culture, and that had to be countered, no matter the cost. This later spread like wildfire through all of Sweden.
“But that was not my impression. Yes, there were some who openly and loudly argued that women do not make good firefighters, and certainly the jargon could be rude, but it has always been cordial. As frequently is the case in workplaces handling matters of life and death, says Henrik Persson.
According to Persson, firefighters are actually the most broadminded and tolerant profession towards various beliefs, sexual orientation and other issues that could be perceived as dissenting or in the minority. Taking care of people is a part of the job.
“And has one ever heard of the jargon being such a problem in other single-gender professions, such as garbage truck drivers, nannies or nurses? A problem so worrisome that it justified a lowering of professional standards?”
But this is exactly what is happening within the emergency services. The normal tests for physical skills were scrapped, enabling a much wider range of people to become firefighters.
“But the fact remains that even the best woman cannot physically match the best man, this is simply the truth. What makes it so emotionally loaded to acknowledge this? That does not mean that the physical tests are to be the single determining factor. I have worked with female colleagues myself, and know that there are both competent and skillful women in the force,” says Henrik Persson.
In Höganäs, the fire brigade is in the midst of an organizational reform, while at the same time several have retired due to age.
“We have a series of operative special tasks here, such as advance rescues with ropes, a large lifeboat requiring good boatmanship, tracked vehicles and traditional firefighting tasks. We are a small force which places large demands on individual skills. Furthermore, we must make sure that some have the potential to become leaders in the future. We cannot recruit staff based on gender or ethnicity – if we did so, we would not be able to deliver the required operative capabilities.
“First and foremost, we need to hire the best candidate – regardless of gender or origin of the given person, that is my firm conviction.”
Henrik Persson is dead scared of getting into a situation like those that occurred during his time in Malmö. When he had to call the supreme fire chief to report that on that day, they did not have the required competence.
“That was due to the lack of required education and capability among the personnel. That has happened several times in recent years, much more frequently than people in general dare to believe. At times, when the alarm went, we would have to go to the scene, merely to await reinforcement in order to handle some types of operations, for example stopping a simple water leak.”
The spokesman for the National Union of Firefighters, Peter Bergh, takes the news very seriously that it took firefighters in Lund more than 10 minutes to force open a security door, and intends to take action on it.
“If there ever is a time in life where people expect value for their tax money, it is when their lives are at risk. In that situation, they must have the best possible help,” says Peter Bergh.
“Pluralism is great, and there can be good reasons for the force to reflect society at large, not least when we have to respond to inhabitants in areas like Rosengård, where the fire brigades are not liked. But one fact remains – one cannot talk away a fire.”
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: I had a job once where a 90-100 lbs. (40-45Kg) girl was on the work crew. Me and another crew member had to carry extra equipment constantly because she was physically unable to.
When I moved house, I strategically packed all my boxes to be around 25Kg. I think it's silly to have one feather light box of clothes and then another back breaking box full of books. I was really quite particular about it, I'm not puny by any means, and I thought 25Kg was a comfortable weight for a person to carry (especially when we had to move them up and down stairs). When the removal guys turned up, I explained that I'd measured the boxes so none of them were too heavy. They then proceeded to stack one box on top of another and carry them out two at a time.
Moral of the story: you don't have to be a girl to meet people who can carry a lot more than you.
But was it right for her to accept a job that she couldn't fully accomplish and had to burden other works with her share of the work? These were 4 day hiking expeditions in the Rocky Mountains to fix fence lines. Axes to cut small trees to be used as posts (chainsaws weight more and you'd need to carry a lot of gas, so no chainsaws)...post-hole diggers, shovels and picks to dig holes. Fencing tolls and extra wire to repair fences etc.
Guess who barely touched a shovel too help dig and couldn't swig a 10 lbs (4.5 Kg) sledge-axe to save their life?
22 yrs in the hobby
:Eldar: 10K+ pts, 2500 pts
1850 pts
Vampire Counts 4000+
2015/12/08 15:42:31
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: But was it right for her to accept a job that she couldn't fully accomplish and had to burden other works with her share of the work?
No, probably not. But there are also men who couldn't do that job. The problem is you're taking one woman from your anecdote, and then trying to make a general statement about all women based on that. That kind of inductive reasoning has been criticized since the time of Aristotle for being illogical.
You might be right that there are plenty of women who can't do the job, but there are also men who can't, and there might be a few women who can do the job. My argument would be that people should be judged based on whether they can do the job, not whether they are male or female. Doesn't that seem sensible?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/08 15:43:55
2015/12/08 15:54:12
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
On this topic, it does seem like the SECDEF is allowing each branch to establish physical fitness standards, as such we should see "equality" amongst the sexes in physical requirements.
Not like us male desk jockeys who have to be able to do more push ups then female desk jockeys for some reason.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2015/12/08 15:59:13
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
I would say that people from either sex who could actually do that job would be fine.
If she couldn't do it, she should not have been hired/should be fired.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
bag!"
2500 pts
1850 pts
