login
Women to be cleared for combat roles (Page 11)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-01-29 2:17 PM in reply to: #4599990 |
Champion  18680       Lost in the Luminiferous Aether |  Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat rolesjmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:14 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:06 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:02 PM crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. So in place of defined metrics you will let personal bias decide if women are allowed the same opportunities as men?
These aren't some random guys off the street. We've put these men in charge of the strongest military the world has ever seen. Yes, I believe we should trust their judgement on something like this. We put these people in place for a number of reasons. That does not mean they are either infallable or free from bias. Power corrupts and aboslute power corrupts absolutely so I am sorry if I do think there needs to be some check on just their "judgement".
|
| 2013-01-29 2:29 PM in reply to: #4600000 |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:14 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:06 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:02 PM crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. So in place of defined metrics you will let personal bias decide if women are allowed the same opportunities as men?
These aren't some random guys off the street. We've put these men in charge of the strongest military the world has ever seen. Yes, I believe we should trust their judgement on something like this. We put these people in place for a number of reasons. That does not mean they are either infallable or free from bias. Power corrupts and aboslute power corrupts absolutely so I am sorry if I do think there needs to be some check on just their "judgement".
How exactly should a decision like this be made then? Popular vote? No one believes that having women serve in these positions has 0 affect. The decision has be made if the benefits outweigh the negatives. The best people to make that decision would be those familiar with the situation. My personal belief is that opening many of the combat positions will have a net positive effect due to the increased pool of candidates. Of course, I've never been in a war so my decision rightfully means nothing. |
| 2013-01-29 2:33 PM in reply to: #4600038 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:29 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:14 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:06 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:02 PM crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. So in place of defined metrics you will let personal bias decide if women are allowed the same opportunities as men?
These aren't some random guys off the street. We've put these men in charge of the strongest military the world has ever seen. Yes, I believe we should trust their judgement on something like this. We put these people in place for a number of reasons. That does not mean they are either infallable or free from bias. Power corrupts and aboslute power corrupts absolutely so I am sorry if I do think there needs to be some check on just their "judgement".
How exactly should a decision like this be made then? Popular vote? No one believes that having women serve in these positions has 0 affect. The decision has be made if the benefits outweigh the negatives. The best people to make that decision would be those familiar with the situation. My personal belief is that opening many of the combat positions will have a net positive effect due to the increased pool of candidates. Of course, I've never been in a war so my decision rightfully means nothing. No the same way the decision is made for the guys; if she can pass the test she can be placed in those roles. How do you know what outweighs what if you have never tried? One's personal opinion? If it had been left up to personal opinion would racial integration in the military have happened when it did or would many of those same generals decided that unit cohesion would be disrupted due to their own personal biases? |
| 2013-01-29 2:40 PM in reply to: #4600046 |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:33 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:29 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:14 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:06 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:02 PM crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. So in place of defined metrics you will let personal bias decide if women are allowed the same opportunities as men?
These aren't some random guys off the street. We've put these men in charge of the strongest military the world has ever seen. Yes, I believe we should trust their judgement on something like this. We put these people in place for a number of reasons. That does not mean they are either infallable or free from bias. Power corrupts and aboslute power corrupts absolutely so I am sorry if I do think there needs to be some check on just their "judgement".
How exactly should a decision like this be made then? Popular vote? No one believes that having women serve in these positions has 0 affect. The decision has be made if the benefits outweigh the negatives. The best people to make that decision would be those familiar with the situation. My personal belief is that opening many of the combat positions will have a net positive effect due to the increased pool of candidates. Of course, I've never been in a war so my decision rightfully means nothing. No the same way the decision is made for the guys; if she can pass the test she can be placed in those roles. How do you know what outweighs what if you have never tried? One's personal opinion? If it had been left up to personal opinion would racial integration in the military have happened when it did or would many of those same generals decided that unit cohesion would be disrupted due to their own personal biases? Was there forced integration in the NBA or MLB? I'm honestly not sure. If not, then I don't see any reason why races wouldn't have been integrated eventually in the armed forces. The people in charge just want to win with as few negative repercussions as possible. If it is found that a person in charge doesn't have this at the heart of their decisions, then they should be replaced. |
| 2013-01-29 2:46 PM in reply to: #4600062 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:40 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:33 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:29 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:14 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:06 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:02 PM crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. So in place of defined metrics you will let personal bias decide if women are allowed the same opportunities as men?
These aren't some random guys off the street. We've put these men in charge of the strongest military the world has ever seen. Yes, I believe we should trust their judgement on something like this. We put these people in place for a number of reasons. That does not mean they are either infallable or free from bias. Power corrupts and aboslute power corrupts absolutely so I am sorry if I do think there needs to be some check on just their "judgement".
How exactly should a decision like this be made then? Popular vote? No one believes that having women serve in these positions has 0 affect. The decision has be made if the benefits outweigh the negatives. The best people to make that decision would be those familiar with the situation. My personal belief is that opening many of the combat positions will have a net positive effect due to the increased pool of candidates. Of course, I've never been in a war so my decision rightfully means nothing. No the same way the decision is made for the guys; if she can pass the test she can be placed in those roles. How do you know what outweighs what if you have never tried? One's personal opinion? If it had been left up to personal opinion would racial integration in the military have happened when it did or would many of those same generals decided that unit cohesion would be disrupted due to their own personal biases? Was there forced integration in the NBA or MLB? I'm honestly not sure. If not, then I don't see any reason why races wouldn't have been integrated eventually in the armed forces. The people in charge just want to win with as few negative repercussions as possible. If it is found that a person in charge doesn't have this at the heart of their decisions, then they should be replaced. That is a very nice sentiment but those same people have their own personal biases and I do not see them as above the fray. I see them as human as the rest of us and therefore subject to their own biases. Will some make their decisions based on empirical evidence? Most certainly! Will all make their decisions based on emprical evidence? Most certainly not! |
| 2013-01-29 2:56 PM in reply to: #4600084 |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:46 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:40 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:33 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:29 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:14 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:06 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:02 PM crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. So in place of defined metrics you will let personal bias decide if women are allowed the same opportunities as men?
These aren't some random guys off the street. We've put these men in charge of the strongest military the world has ever seen. Yes, I believe we should trust their judgement on something like this. We put these people in place for a number of reasons. That does not mean they are either infallable or free from bias. Power corrupts and aboslute power corrupts absolutely so I am sorry if I do think there needs to be some check on just their "judgement".
How exactly should a decision like this be made then? Popular vote? No one believes that having women serve in these positions has 0 affect. The decision has be made if the benefits outweigh the negatives. The best people to make that decision would be those familiar with the situation. My personal belief is that opening many of the combat positions will have a net positive effect due to the increased pool of candidates. Of course, I've never been in a war so my decision rightfully means nothing. No the same way the decision is made for the guys; if she can pass the test she can be placed in those roles. How do you know what outweighs what if you have never tried? One's personal opinion? If it had been left up to personal opinion would racial integration in the military have happened when it did or would many of those same generals decided that unit cohesion would be disrupted due to their own personal biases? Was there forced integration in the NBA or MLB? I'm honestly not sure. If not, then I don't see any reason why races wouldn't have been integrated eventually in the armed forces. The people in charge just want to win with as few negative repercussions as possible. If it is found that a person in charge doesn't have this at the heart of their decisions, then they should be replaced. That is a very nice sentiment but those same people have their own personal biases and I do not see them as above the fray. I see them as human as the rest of us and therefore subject to their own biases. Will some make their decisions based on empirical evidence? Most certainly! Will all make their decisions based on emprical evidence? Most certainly not! Do you believe that putting women into various combat roles will have 0 impact on the overall team and their effectiveness? Do you think it's worth lives to test? Hopefully they'll be given the opportunity to watch women in the roles where they are uncertain of the negative consequences in as real a simulation as possible without actually getting shot at. Someone with vast amounts of knowledge and experience in the military can then decide. Being able to do a specific number of pushups or run a number of miles is not everything that is required to get into combat. We have to leave these decisions to those with the best experience possible. |
| 2013-01-29 3:03 PM in reply to: #4600105 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:56 PM Do you believe that putting women into various combat roles will have 0 impact on the overall team and their effectiveness? Do you think it's worth lives to test? Hopefully they'll be given the opportunity to watch women in the roles where they are uncertain of the negative consequences in as real a simulation as possible without actually getting shot at. Someone with vast amounts of knowledge and experience in the military can then decide. Being able to do a specific number of pushups or run a number of miles is not everything that is required to get into combat. We have to leave these decisions to those with the best experience possible. Nothing ever has zero impact but is it not possible that it costs lives not to? If that is the case then why is that all that is required for the men. Do you expect a general to approve each and every one of them? |
| 2013-01-29 3:10 PM in reply to: #4600105 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles jmcconne - 2013-01-29 2:56 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:46 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:40 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:33 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:29 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:14 PM trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:06 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:02 PM crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. So in place of defined metrics you will let personal bias decide if women are allowed the same opportunities as men?
These aren't some random guys off the street. We've put these men in charge of the strongest military the world has ever seen. Yes, I believe we should trust their judgement on something like this. We put these people in place for a number of reasons. That does not mean they are either infallable or free from bias. Power corrupts and aboslute power corrupts absolutely so I am sorry if I do think there needs to be some check on just their "judgement".
How exactly should a decision like this be made then? Popular vote? No one believes that having women serve in these positions has 0 affect. The decision has be made if the benefits outweigh the negatives. The best people to make that decision would be those familiar with the situation. My personal belief is that opening many of the combat positions will have a net positive effect due to the increased pool of candidates. Of course, I've never been in a war so my decision rightfully means nothing. No the same way the decision is made for the guys; if she can pass the test she can be placed in those roles. How do you know what outweighs what if you have never tried? One's personal opinion? If it had been left up to personal opinion would racial integration in the military have happened when it did or would many of those same generals decided that unit cohesion would be disrupted due to their own personal biases? Was there forced integration in the NBA or MLB? I'm honestly not sure. If not, then I don't see any reason why races wouldn't have been integrated eventually in the armed forces. The people in charge just want to win with as few negative repercussions as possible. If it is found that a person in charge doesn't have this at the heart of their decisions, then they should be replaced. That is a very nice sentiment but those same people have their own personal biases and I do not see them as above the fray. I see them as human as the rest of us and therefore subject to their own biases. Will some make their decisions based on empirical evidence? Most certainly! Will all make their decisions based on emprical evidence? Most certainly not! Do you believe that putting women into various combat roles will have 0 impact on the overall team and their effectiveness? Do you think it's worth lives to test? Hopefully they'll be given the opportunity to watch women in the roles where they are uncertain of the negative consequences in as real a simulation as possible without actually getting shot at. Someone with vast amounts of knowledge and experience in the military can then decide. Being able to do a specific number of pushups or run a number of miles is not everything that is required to get into combat. We have to leave these decisions to those with the best experience possible. Weren't there the same concerns when the military was desegregated? |
| 2013-01-29 3:11 PM in reply to: #4592006 |
Master 4118 Toronto Bronze member | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles I think several women who are currently serving have already chimed in on their ability to be part of effective teams and lead. Personally, I also think that we are forgetting the generational gap here. Most new recruits were now born in the 1990's. I am guessing that to them this is a complete non-issue. They have grown up in a more 'integrated' (for lack of a better word) world. For them, this discussion wouldn't even matter in the slightest because in most environments 'boys and girls' can and do work together, socialize together and even compete against one another (think academics). I myself am not particularly 'old' at 32 but I realize that its even different for this generation. My nieces are young only 5 and 7 and when they went skating in school more than 50% of the girls in their class play hockey. Contrast that to when i was a kid and ringette was barely available and the first girls team was just being put together. Anyone around 18 years old and want to comment? This matters a whole lot more to you ... |
| 2013-01-29 4:47 PM in reply to: #4600139 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles juniperjen - 2013-01-29 3:11 PM I think several women who are currently serving have already chimed in on their ability to be part of effective teams and lead. Personally, I also think that we are forgetting the generational gap here. Most new recruits were now born in the 1990's. I am guessing that to them this is a complete non-issue. They have grown up in a more 'integrated' (for lack of a better word) world. For them, this discussion wouldn't even matter in the slightest because in most environments 'boys and girls' can and do work together, socialize together and even compete against one another (think academics). I myself am not particularly 'old' at 32 but I realize that its even different for this generation. My nieces are young only 5 and 7 and when they went skating in school more than 50% of the girls in their class play hockey. Contrast that to when i was a kid and ringette was barely available and the first girls team was just being put together. Anyone around 18 years old and want to comment? This matters a whole lot more to you ... I would also say they've grown up in a more Politically Correct world where everybody gets a trophy and we're all the same. No winners or losers. Personally I don't see that as a good thing for society as a whole. I haven't read the last couple pages here, but I still have an issue with bringing women down to the level of men in combat, but I guess it is what it is. I would also be willing to bet $5 (because I've got that kind of money) that within 5 years there will be physical requirements that get lowered to include more women in various combat roles. |
| 2013-01-29 5:27 PM in reply to: #4600105 |
Veteran 698 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles jmcconne - 2013-01-29 12:56 PMWe have to leave these decisions to those with the best experience possible.
That would exempt the generals in question, then, since they do not have experience with women in combat units. They might, however, go talk to people in other countries who do have women in these roles, and see what they have to say.
Just a suggestion that will never happen.... |
| 2013-01-29 7:07 PM in reply to: #4600300 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles tuwood - 2013-01-29 4:47 PM I would also be willing to bet $5 (because I've got that kind of money) that within 5 years there will be physical requirements that get lowered to include more women in various combat roles. I think it's more likely that the physical standards will get lowered because the generation of overweight, unhealthy kids we're raising as a nation won't be able to pass the existing physical requirements. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-01-29 7:08 PM |
| 2013-01-29 7:54 PM in reply to: #4600420 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles jmk-brooklyn - 2013-01-29 7:07 PM tuwood - 2013-01-29 4:47 PM I think it's more likely that the physical standards will get lowered because the generation of overweight, unhealthy kids we're raising as a nation won't be able to pass the existing physical requirements. I would also be willing to bet $5 (because I've got that kind of money) that within 5 years there will be physical requirements that get lowered to include more women in various combat roles. Anyone know if those standards have changed at all in the past 50 years or so? Either up or down? |
| 2013-01-29 9:28 PM in reply to: #4600328 |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles r1237h - 2013-01-29 5:27 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 12:56 PMWe have to leave these decisions to those with the best experience possible.
That would exempt the generals in question, then, since they do not have experience with women in combat units. They might, however, go talk to people in other countries who do have women in these roles, and see what they have to say.
Just a suggestion that will never happen.... There are already women fighting, while not in some specific groups, it wouldn't be that tough to extrapolate. Does everyone just assume that the military leaders cannot make the best decisions on how to complete the tasks they are given? If women are put into a few different areas and have a net positive effect, it won't be long before all parts of the military start looking at women as candidates. How could it possibly be a good idea to just make these decisions based on politics? Btw, I looked it up and the NFL and MLB weren't forced to integrate by the government. Coaches figured out that by increasing the pool of candidates they ended up with a better team. I'll admit I did a solid ten minutes on this, but nothing I saw said the government had anything to do with it. |
| 2013-01-29 9:44 PM in reply to: #4600596 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles jmcconne - 2013-01-29 10:28 PM r1237h - 2013-01-29 5:27 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 12:56 PMWe have to leave these decisions to those with the best experience possible.
That would exempt the generals in question, then, since they do not have experience with women in combat units. They might, however, go talk to people in other countries who do have women in these roles, and see what they have to say.
Just a suggestion that will never happen.... There are already women fighting, while not in some specific groups, it wouldn't be that tough to extrapolate. Does everyone just assume that the military leaders cannot make the best decisions on how to complete the tasks they are given? If women are put into a few different areas and have a net positive effect, it won't be long before all parts of the military start looking at women as candidates. How could it possibly be a good idea to just make these decisions based on politics? Btw, I looked it up and the NFL and MLB weren't forced to integrate by the government. Coaches figured out that by increasing the pool of candidates they ended up with a better team. I'll admit I did a solid ten minutes on this, but nothing I saw said the government had anything to do with it. Perhaps if the government had better sense at the time, integration wouldn't have had to wait so dang long. |
| 2013-01-29 10:07 PM in reply to: #4600616 |
| Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles ChineseDemocracy - 2013-01-29 7:44 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 10:28 PM r1237h - 2013-01-29 5:27 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 12:56 PMWe have to leave these decisions to those with the best experience possible.
That would exempt the generals in question, then, since they do not have experience with women in combat units. They might, however, go talk to people in other countries who do have women in these roles, and see what they have to say.
Just a suggestion that will never happen.... There are already women fighting, while not in some specific groups, it wouldn't be that tough to extrapolate. Does everyone just assume that the military leaders cannot make the best decisions on how to complete the tasks they are given? If women are put into a few different areas and have a net positive effect, it won't be long before all parts of the military start looking at women as candidates. How could it possibly be a good idea to just make these decisions based on politics? Btw, I looked it up and the NFL and MLB weren't forced to integrate by the government. Coaches figured out that by increasing the pool of candidates they ended up with a better team. I'll admit I did a solid ten minutes on this, but nothing I saw said the government had anything to do with it. Perhaps if the government had better sense at the time, integration wouldn't have had to wait so dang long. That's cute. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK