Quote:
|
Originally Posted by soezgg
I'm not going to quote anyone, because I think that's dumb.
|
Please refrain from comments that will discredit your personage, and have no relevance in light of the thread. The fact that you did not quote someone sends the message that you are not doing so, you have no need to state it in an immature way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by soezgg
Little does everyone know, there are DIFFERENT STANDARDS for men and women in the military. While women have over 21 minutes to run two miles on their physical training test, men have only 15 minutes and 43 seconds. While women have to do only 17 pushups, men have to do 47. These are only examples, but as you can see, it would be easy for weak people of both sexes, but the weaker male is still much stronger than a weak female.
|
I know almost nothing about the army, but I knew that they have different requirements. Does the fact that women have more time to pass a physical test make them less apt at doing so? For example, in the sport of swimming Men's times are a bit speedier than women's, maybe a few seconds for state cuts. Just because a woman of a certain age group has more leeway as to how fast she goes, it does not mean she is incapable of obtaining a certain level. A woman that can pass a men's cut is stronger than a man who can't pass a men's cut, by your definition I'm assuming.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by soezgg
I am not going to trust that a woman will be able to have the physical strength and endurance to perform in situations where peoples lives are in danger.
|
If women felt they did not have the ability to save their friends lives, I do not think they would risk their friends lives by joining in the military. Purdue has a very active ROTC program that did a demonstration at a convocation I attended. A very small woman, maybe 5'3" (my heightish) was able to carry a much larger man for more than a good deal than I'd imagine of most individuals.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by soezgg
And again, on the DRAFT issue. The draft would only happen if the US needed millions of bullet sponges (infantry) so women are not needed.
|
Once again, I'd ask that you be more detailed in your explanations. According to recruiters that have come to our school and various events, a gigantic majority of army personel do not fight on front lines. With the many soldeirs that would be sent to a draft, the need for personel to take care of mechanical and health issues would increase expontentially. Yes, women are just as capable at these jobs. I'm sure even the people who don't want them on the front lines and wrote the laws can understand that by now due to the increase in female inlistment since we were permitted to enlist.
Please explain your posts carefully and be cordial, for everyone's sake. I have no intention of insulting you with this reply, I just wish to clarify some points that may counter your evidence. Please feel free to prove me wrong, I'd welcome it.