[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Nah, we wouldn’t lose 'em all. I recommend that they still be allowed to do support type jobs, ie nurse or admin roles. Just as long as they’re not involved in anything physical or in a war zone. And yes, the website I linked earlier has valuable info in regards to this. I’ve personally been at the shitty end of the hypocrisy of the military’s equal employment opportunity policy, where men and women supposedly have the same chances for advancement. Tell me, what’s equal about the standards for the physical assessment? Either you admit that women are physically weaker and simply shouldn’t do some jobs, or you have the same requirements. Can’t have it both ways.
A purely anecdotal story, but anytime I was alone with one of the females in my shop and a pilot called for a radar transmittter to the flight deck on the run for the next sortie (120 pound awkward ass piece of equipment) it was invariably me who had to do it. Now, I’m not complaining, it’s part of the job, but when ol’ girl gets the same eval as me, there’s a problem. Shit like this goes on ALL the time. Not to mention the headaches they cause with missed work cuz of pregnancy and their emotional instability in a stressful workplace.
And losing 20 percent of the military works out perfectly, since they’re trying to downsize last I heard anyway. Simple solution, just get rid of all the women not in support roles.[/quote]
There are different standards for age and gender, probably because of their capabilities.
You weren’t saying that only women filling certain positions or possessing certain physical capabilities should be able to serve, you were saying they shouldn’t be allowed to serve period. If a woman meets the requirements then she should be able to fill that position.[/quote]
No shit it’s because of their capabilities. As in, women aren’t as capable as men when it comes to physically demanding jobs.
And to be clear, I wasn’t flip flopping, I’ve always thought that women should still be allowed support roles, I just wasn’t detailing what i thought should happen in my previous post on the matter for the sake of simplicity. If it makes you happy I’ll formally withdraw whatever it was I said about women not serving earlier in favor of my most recent post. My apologies.
As for women that ARE capable of physical jobs, you’ll find in the website I linked that its absurdly unlikely. Even if you did find some freak of a chick who could pull it off, you’d still have to address the issue of deployability because of pregnancy.
Assuming anybody would want to impregnate a chick that looked like she-hulk, of course.
[/quote]
If they meet the requirements then they should be able to fill the position. "If the United States is to remain the world’s most capable and most powerful military power, we need to have the best person in each job, regardless of their gender. "
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
While I think ending this policy is good. I don�??�??�??�?�¢??t think it�??�??�??�?�¢??s an answer. While gays should be able to be who they are and fight for their country, so should people uncomfortable with situations this will create.
If per chance I wouldn�??�??�??�?�¢??t want to shower with a gay man in the room or bunk with one, I should still be able to serve my country too, right?
Additionally, if homosexuality is now an acceptable topic for people serving in the military it�??�??�??�?�¢??s got to be acceptable from all sides. If they are allowing people to come out in support of being homosexual, you must also allow people to express their beliefs on the subject even if they disagree with it.
Like I said, ending the policy is good, banning gays is wrong. But some things still need to be addressed. I don�??�??�??�?�¢??t know what the answer is.
[/quote]
Well to be honest soldiers were already showering with gays soldiers, just not openly gay soldiers. A soldier being openly gay doesn’t mean that he’ll automatically try to have an intimate relationship with a heterosexual soldier or harass a heterosexual soldier either. If someone is bothered by the thought of interacting with a gay soldier then they’re under no obligations to join the military or remain in the military.
[/quote]
Never said that they did. I Just wouldn’t be comfortable with it. It’s just who I am. Shouldn’t I be allowed to both be myself and serve?[/quote]
Sure, people can say they dislike the thought of serving with a homosexual, that dislike is patently irrelevant as to whether or not that soldier should be able to be openly gay while serving in the military though.[/quote]
I was talking about being openly anti-gay in the military. That should be tolerated, no?
[/quote]
So long as you don’t violate the code of conduct you must follow, yes.
