That is, should the 100 meter dash (do they still call them “dashes”?), weight-lifting, discus tossing and the like enter (what used to be called) males and females indistinguishably? May the best person win and not the best man and best woman? After all, the current “theory of gender” holds there are no important differences between the sexes.
Most will say Keep the sexes separate. Why? Well, the obvious. But it’s those who say yes, and mean it, that are of interest here. It’s these same folks who say that the military should eliminate distinction by sex for ground combat positions.
People hold this position because (they say) banning females from ground combat is “unfair”. Certain senior positions in the military require combat experience, and if no females were allowed to fill combat roles, they naturally would be barred from these senior positions. This is intolerable.
So the Marines have been ordered to discover a way to integrate women into ground combat units. The first batch of female trainees are nearing the end of their initiation. According to the far-left Think Progress, “Four Women Pass Marine Corps Infantry Test For The First Time“,
…raising the possibility that the historically all-male infantry force may become the next frontier to open for female soldiers…
[This] decision…was met with skepticism about whether or not women could meet the physical demands. In January, Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) argued that opening the infantry to women ignored gender differences in “nature, upper body strength, and physical movements, and speed, and endurance, and so forth.”
Where did that old-fashioned politician arrive at his opinions, what the magazine called “long-held ideas”, as if, as ideas, they could very well be wrong?
Perhaps from events such as the Olympics. A few numbers. The record for the 200m dash is 19.19 seconds by the aptly named Usain Bolt. In spot 28 at 19.86s is Isiah Young. I don’t know who 29 or 30 is. Point is that these record holders are male. The top female is 21.34s, Florence Griffith-Joyner. This top number for a female is far, far below not just the best man but also below good males.
Times for Marathons (endurance) tell a similar tale.
The best hammer throw, to illustrate (in part) upper-body strength is 86.74m, held by the male Yuriy Sedykh. The number 10 spot is also occupied by a male (83.68m Tibor Gécsek). The very best female is 79.42m Betty Heidler. Quite a difference again separates the very pinnacle of female ability from male.
How about weightlifting (overall strength)? Top Snatch is 212kg (467lbs) Hossein Rezazadeh, top Clean & Jerk is held by the same male at 263kg (580lbs). The top Snatch for a female is Snatch is 151kg (333lbs) by Tatiana Kashirina; Clean & Jerk 187kg (412lbs) by Zhou Lulu. Not even in the same ballpark.
Incidentally, weightlifting records are classed by body weight, just like in boxing. The men in any class outclass females by enormous amounts.
And what about boxing records? Not directly comparable, but I would be anxious to back any male against any female in the same weight classes. I wonder if Think Progress followers would take the bet?
Cotton wasn’t quoted as holding an opinion about the difference between male and female aggressiveness and willingness to kill. The latter is particularly important. Cotton was also mute on the differences in physique, in sheer ruddiness. Whose bodies, male or female, are apt to break down faster or malfunction at regular intervals? Pregnancy? Touchiness? Do we really need to cite the evidence?
Think Progress is cautiously optimistic. “The four women…still have to…do a certain number of pull-ups as part of their final fitness test.” Good luck with that. “If they can do it, they will likely graduate next month, putting the ball in Congress’s court to officially open the infantry to women.”
Yours Truly was in the Air Force, which included males and females. Officially, females were held to “the same” physical standards as males. But, of course, “the same” meant “not the same”. Females had to run shorter distances and do fewer push-ups—and on their knees; regular push-ups are too taxing—and so forth. These were called “equivalent.” Ways of accommodation had to be found. Quotas must needs be filled.
Therefore there is no doubt what Congress will do.
To be consistent, all differences in sex in all physical events should be eliminated, too. I wonder how the Enlightened will explain the complete lack of females from the victory podiums?
Of course the army should eliminate sex as a discriminant in selecting soldiers. The only requirement should be fitness for the task with the tests being the same for everyone (otherwise discrimination on the grounds of sex is back).
Of course men and women should perform in separate events in the Olympics otherwise the girls don’t get to play.
“Playing” is not what soldiers do.
Perhaps male olympians will be required to wear fake boobs for fairness sake. Then we’ll see how well Usain Bolt does against Florence Griffith-Joyner.
The purpose of a military is to destroy people and things. If (some) women are better at doing that than (some) men AND the overall effectiveness of the military is not reduced, then sign them up. Any other rationale is social engineering — which, as history demonstrates, is a less than optimal strategy for cultural success.
I’m inclined to agree with Rich. If the forces are allowed to set the tests without interference and women pass those tests, then why not?
Some years ago there was a BBC TV series that selected groups of people to go on full SAS training. It attracted mostly the super fit males, but there were a few females as well. It became apparent that *some* women were well able to keep up with the blokes including carrying the heavy packs and weaponry. Obviously there weren’t that many women that managed it, but some did. None of them looked like an eastern European weight lifter. They were particularly good at anything requiring mental toughness, endurance, stamina.
That said, as Henry Cooper was fond of saying “a good biggun will always beat a good littleun” so approach with caution.
Steve Crook,
“I’m inclined to agree with Rich. If the forces are allowed to set the tests without interference and women pass those tests, then why not?”
Don’t forget my final example in which one branch of the military announced to one and all that women were performing at the same levels and passing the same tests. But the women were not.
Since it is obvious the vast majority of females won’t be able to keep up with males in the marines—let alone the special forces; oh my—then quotas of some sort will be implemented. Most likely by redefining “same.”
A relevant post from the inimitable John C Wright:
http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/02/female-veteran-on-females-in-combat/
Dave,
Thanks. A quotation:
Mr. Briggs, how much weight can you lift and how fast can you run? Are your records better than Zhou Lulu’s and Betty Heidler’s?
The Army (circa 1996) had PT standards that varied by both age and sex. I went through the Army’s iterations of physical fitness standards for 30 years. I was never convinced my ability to run a distance under a certain time, do pushups, situps or low crawl had much in the way of relevance to my job as a Field Artilleryman. The real phsical fitness tests are the long, grinding efforts required to do your combat job: long walks with heavy packs for the Infantry types or periods of weight lifting for the cannon cockers. Women tend not to have the physical strength and long term endurance required for those jobs. It was one of the reasons that very phsically fit women failed to make it through a Marine infantry officer course recently. In other MOS’s women have demonstrated the capability for superb performance. As a commander I had neither the time not patience to have to carry folks who couldn’t perform to demanding standards. I’m sure what will happen is that this military will reduce physical standards to the point that a high percentage of women will meet the standards. This is a detriment to the force and will result in getting people killed unnecessarily. Too bad that not having groundpounding combat experience will keep most females from becoming 4-stars. The purpose of the military is not to promote the latest trendy social idea. If it becomes that, heaven help us, because in combat I seriously doubt that the bad guys will have a great deal of sympathy for those who can’t perform to very high standards.
JH,
(1) Vastly more than and much, much faster than you. Also more and faster than most women. (2) No, my records are not better than those ladies’.
Briggs,
What is the purpose of the quotation above? Are they supposed to be legitimate reasons to ban women from serving in combat positions? There gotta be much better reasons.
I bet those four women understand there’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire.
I bet you can find a shorter male solider who simply could not reach something and had to ask another man to get it for him.
JH,
The purpose is to illustrate that even fit women are, on average, not as useful in combat as fit men.
JH,
What is your opinion on the Air Force systematically (let us call it) fibbing about how women performed “the same” as men?
Mr. Briggs,
We are not talking about allowing all/average women or men to serve in combat. Nor about competition between male and female soldiers.
It’s true that on average women are not as fit as men. But it doesn’t mean that all women are not as fit as men.
Are those four women average? Unable to reach high spaces is not useful? How do you know those women who have passed the test cannot drag a 180-pound person in full gear for 100 yards? (I am dropping the stupid potty comment. If a woman is a blonde, it doesn’t imply all women are.)
Useful? In what aspect? You think that those four women couldn’t be more useful than any men in the infantry so they should not be allowed serve in combat?
Perform the same as men in what aspect? Show me the evidence first.
Do you have any evidence that those four women were held to a lower standard than men? If you do, then you might have a valid point.
Congratulations to those four brave women. Let’s talk about what we can do to help them succeed. This is what I would want to know if those women were my daughters.
JH,
“Perform the same as men in what aspect? Show me the evidence first.” I did show you the evidence. It is there above, in whatever colors you have chosen for your browser to render the words. Now, what of that evidence? (I bet you don’t answer, or that you say my eyewitness testimony doesn’t count.) Is it likely the military will fib again when it comes to other women?
And I notice you ignored Bob (above), and actual commander. Just as I notice that people (in this debate) have a tendency to ignore empirical evidence and appeal to metaphysical principles of “fairness.”
Curious, that. Especially when we’re told metaphysics is out, and empiricism is in.
But I’m with you. I too hope that someday your daughters will be able to kill enemy soldiers. Bang! Bang!
With all this reliance on drones, who needs physical fitness? (And with drones being able to *decide* on targets for themselves, who needs soldiers, air(wo)men, sailors, and marines?) The human factor is so overrated, and really, nothing more than an artifact of another era.
Katie,
Long live Skynet!
Once again I see we need the wisdom of Mr. Fred Reed to cut through some of the prancing stupidity I see in a few comments here.
I think Katie is being tongue in cheek, but just in case she isn’t:
You don’t take and hold ground with drones. Or just armor. Or just aircraft.
There will ALWAYS be the requirement for the infantryMAN.
It may be difficult to believe, but I was actually at one time a highly competent sprinter. Check that. A highly competent high school sprinter. As a 17-year old high school junior, in the state semi-finals, I ran a time that would have been (at that time) the women’s 200m world record. I finished fifth in my heat, and failed to advance to the finals.
I’ve been around a lot of very talented female athletes. They work very hard and are able to accomplish amazing things. But physiological differences make it simply impossible for women to compete with men at the highest levels in sports that involve speed, strength, and endurance. So it makes perfect sense to have separate Olympic events for men and women.
With regard to being a police officer, fire fighter, or soldier, it is a slightly different matter. Here we’re not talking about competing at the highest levels, but rather at meeting a minimum standard. In professions such as these, it strikes me as utterly insane to have different standards of speed, endurance and strength for men and women. Would it make any sense to have weight classes for fire fighters? Of course not. Nor does it make any sense to have a “5-10 and under” battallion. Now there can be different standards for different jobs, but the focus should be on the job not the candidate. Like bomb disposal units, for instance.
But lets not kid ourselves: lowering standards means less competence, no matter how “laudable” the social goal might be.
Mr. Briggs,
Sorry, I try not to use anecdotal evidence to make conclusions. The internet is full of such evidence.
Repeat! You hope that someday my daughters will be able to kill enemy soldiers. Bang! Bang!
YOU DO! I DO NOT.
Yes, I am shouting with anger. My cheeks are firing red and my eyes are bulging.
Where did you get the idea that I do? Is my English so bad?
However, if that’s what they want to do and could pass the test, I would support them though I would vehemently advise them not to so so.
A person who was raised by truly sincere Buddhists would never have such hope or wish. You can never imagine how evil such hope/wish is to me.
My heat is filled tears that I can’t continue this discussion anymore.
JH,
So you don’t want your daughters to fight, but you want other daughters to fight for them? Well, that’s a position, I suppose.
And no cheating: I have (and Bob has, and the link to Uncle Fred has) given you direct evidence that the military is willing to fib, that they have fibbed. You say you will not answer this. Now isn’t that curious.
“I will ignore all your evidence! And how dare you say things that make me feel bad and make me cry! You’re a big meany! I’m leaving now! WHAAAAAA!”
To paraphrase Mortal Kombat:
Briggs Wins.
Flawless Victory.
There are several books on this subject. Kingsley Browne has written the latest book I know of.
http://www.amazon.com/Co-ed-Combat-Evidence-Shouldnt-Nations/dp/1595230432
The reason the hammer throw records are close is that the men’s hammer is almost twice as heavy as the woman’s hammer. From Wikipedia, “The men’s hammer weighs 16 pounds (7.257 kg) and measures 3 feet 11 3â„4 inches (121.5 cm) in length and the women’s hammer weighs 8.82 lb (4 kg) and 3 feet 11 inches (119.5 cm) in length.”
The enemy, knowing they are about to face a Marine infantry division that includes 15% females will be very encouraged by that news! Perhaps they will be so kind as to match the Marines and include 15% females in their own fighting force, so it is a fair fight. I doubt it.
I believe that some females are up to the task though. A small fraction.
Considering that the actual method of combat of the US military infantry is to draw fire, locate, and order fire from either airplane, choppers or artillery.
A lot more Soldier were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by IED’s than in actual combat. Combat probably cause less than 5% to 10% of casualties. Having women will have little effect.
You should also ask criminal how much easy it is to escaped woman cops who are more likely to use their gun, instead of their fist.
I can’t help but notice that one side of this debate gives evidence while the other tells “just so stories”. I’ll let the readers decide which side is which.
Is the issue performance, or, something else?
Don’t forget DACOWITS — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DACOWITS — where one (of many) recommendations included removing combat capability from submarines to accommodate the special needs of women (these “special” needs included things like not forcing the young females into close quarters with young males, including “hot bunking”).
Also, close quarter accommodations associated with combat/deployed units is associated with above-average assaults & rape. Here’s one perspective of many (and this is currently a time where the US Defense Department has been shown, publicly, go be exceptionally poor at handling such matters): http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/05/10/the-department-of-defense-sexual-assault-and-the-future/
One reality is that young boys & young girls, put in close quarters, engage in a variety of “relationships” — often not consensual. Military structure, by its broader necessity, enables abuse more than it is capable of curtailing it. Philosophy says things could be very different….but…philosophy doesn’t address reality, as demonstrated by the ongoing facts of real-world behavior.
That aside, the military (in the US) is subordinate to civilian leaders, who are very sensitive to public opinion–from a public that is for the most part, not only ignorant of the realities of military duty but has a distorted view due to media portrayals in entertainment television. We’ve had a small taste of where that leads with the case of Army Private Jessica Lynch who, in a support role that should have been far enough from combat action was by accident & with her unit captured by Iraq in 2003. The attention on this single soldier, and her rescue, led to considerable, and false, media attention, and, inspired the US Army leadership to also lie about what happened (including turning her into some sort of hero) — real-life Pentagon propaganda escapade. There’s no reason to think that such biases won’t recur.
Further, it hasn’t yet happened, but to what extent is the media & public prepared to accept back home young women, former prisoners of war, bearing children sired by their captors (girls refusing to abort a human fetus)? That’s certain to occur, and its certain to have a significant effect on the political leadership, who will apply pressure on the military leader running the war. In other words, tremendous external pressure causing combat leaders to adjust combat strategy, strategic & tactical, accordingly all out of proportion to the effect on the prosecution of the actual war.
Co-ed combat unit, especially front-line units, involves very significant behavioral dynamics between the soldiers, and, significant secondary effects arising from public attention — this latter factor is entirely independent of the soldier’s performance/capability and wholly derived from their gender. History shows it exits to a very significant, and adverse, degree. And we know that history repeats.
Briggs,
Please don’t read my comments with a twisted mind. I understand that people have different opinions. It’s NOT up to me to hope or want what your children would do.
I have always been anti-war. I don’t want anyone to fight a war, but, again, that’s not up to me. It’s mean-spirited to hope someone to go to
a war to KILL (and possibly BE KILLED).
Regardless of what my opinion about war is, I’d like to support our troops.
Did I say I will not answer this? Twisting my words again! I said to show me evidence first. Evidently, my standard of evidence is different from yours.
So the military is willing to fib according to your own personal experience many years ago, but does this answer the question of whether those four women were held to a lower standard? NO.
So the military is willing to fib according to your own personal experience many years ago, does this allow you to conclude that women should not be allowed to serve in combat? NO.
The fibbing military did wrong, not the women involved. I’d buy the conclusion that the fibbing military should be held responsible and be disciplined.
Apparently, we are operating in different logic platforms.
However, please explain the purpose of the above statement. Help me get rid of my opinion that you have a malicious intent.
JH,
Evidence? What did you think when you read Bob’s comments, or the links supplied by other readers, and, most importantly, what is your opinion on the book cited by Ray? I mean, which of the author’s conclusions did you support, which deny? Be specific.
And (if I may ask), is it true that two straight lines…oh, never mind.
So… What I’ve learned from JH so far is that to ‘answer’ any evidence put forth, all I need to do is to say “I don’t accept that evidence” and I instantly WIN!
Why did I bother studying logic and debate?
Answer the evidence provided here: http://fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml
(Which, btw, you didn’t even bother to read)
It sites studies on this very subject, including ones commissioned by the Federal Government itself. You can even check the references.
“Evidently, my standard of evidence is different from yours.”
– Yes, JH, it is. You see, our definition of ‘evidence’ is the same as what is found in the dictionary. Your definition is obviously nothing more than ‘a statement that agrees totally with my preconceived bias’.
You need to quit preening and pretending that you’re “oh, so reasonable”… No, I can smell evasion. You reek of it.
Why do the Olympics segregate the shooting events? It is not like there is an inherent strength or stamina advantage? Heck, the gold medalist woman would have still taken the gold medal had the competition been desegregated.
The equestrian events are desegregated.
For every “Men’s” sport there is now a women’s competition. But, there are sports in which women compete, but men do not. Where is Men’s synchro? Either get with the times, or get rid of Synchro!
Regarding Marines, if 20% of men can pass the Marine’s physical and 1% of women, then I am okay with a corps that is 5% female.
Well as someone who has trained both Men and Women in a combat sport, I’d have to say it’s not just as simple as “Setting a Common standard” and taking all who pass. Men and Women are not physiologically and mentally identical. The techniques they can use and the way they are executed are different. The mental and physical responses to training inputs are not the same. Reaction to adrenaline and stress are not the same. Initial social conditioning, rightly or wrongly is not the same. For an effective summary of the issues see Roy Inman’s “Judo For Women”.
Take all who pass an objective test, fine. Chuck them through a one size fits all training doctrine and the result will be sub-optimal. Part of the resistance here stems from the military’s understanding that it isn’t that good at delivering personalised training programs when it’s also trying to instill cohesion and esprit-de-corps.
Mike a KA,
If you have an old friend who knows your firm belief about war killing, would you not be upset if he says that he hopes your daughters go to a war to kill in a public discussion? If you had said that to me, I honestly would not give a damn.
Note that Briggs’s so-called evidence of Air Force fibbing was put forward before your comment. No statistics, nothing.
I have said what I can conclude from his evidence about the four women who passed the test for the first time. What have you concluded about those four women based on his evidence? Nothing.
I admit that I did not read the link you cited at all. If you were long-time readers such as DAV or Doug M, I might have clicked on it immediately.
Mike a KA,
OK, I just read Fred’s post.
I’ll ignore Catherine Aspy ‘s experience… just like I would totally discount what Ann Coutler or Rachael Meadow would see. I’d also ignore Fred’s cherry picking from an old Military Medicine as if males don’t have any medical problems. What can you conclude based on them about the four women who passed the test for the first time? Nothing.
Now, yes, statistics!
Fred found some old reports that documented the physical difference between men and women. No one denies that men are fitter than women on average and that fewer women can pass the physical tests.
Same conclusion as before: If a woman is qualified, she should be allowed, and is allowed now. The military should hold women to the same physical standards and be held responsible in overseeing all rules are followed.
Again, the ban on women serving in combat has been lifted, why don’t we talk about how we can make sure these women can succeed? Sending women to forward position in Iraq war while women were technically barred from serving in combat (and possibly not well trained) is not acceptable. Our military need to be held accountable for training soldiers.
Have you seen those women in CrossFit Games ESPN?
If I can show you that Asian American are overall better students than white students and black students, does it mean that MIT or Berkley should ban all White and black students?
“If I can show you that Asian American are overall better students than white students and black students, does it mean that MIT or Berkley should ban all White and black students?”. Good point JH!
All,
Line the ladies up. We can have them (and the men, too, of course) swim out to the Chinese nuclear submarines patrolling our coasts. Link
All,
I’m thinking about awarding a new prize for Best Fallacy of the Week. Given to the commenter who posts the most ridiculous, but amusing, non sequitur.
This week the prize goes to our very own JH (we love you JH, we really do): “If I can show you that Asian American are overall better students than white students and black students, does it mean that MIT or Berkley should ban all White and black students?”
I like this one because not only is it a rank fallacy, but it’s raaaaaaaaaaaaacist. And what’s worse than that?
“I’ll ignore Catherine Aspy ‘s experience… just like I would totally discount what Ann Coutler or Rachael Meadow would see.”
– Fallacy. It doesn’t matter who they are. The question is: is it true? If it is, then it doesn’t matter if Coulter, Maddow or Hitler said it.
“I’d also ignore Fred’s cherry picking from an old Military Medicine as if males don’t have any medical problems.”
– He isn’t cherry picking, and your follow up is meaningless.
“why don’t we talk about how we can make sure these women can succeed?”
– And that is EXACTLY why your attitude is dangerous. Your attitude isn’t ‘let’s see if they succeed’, but rather ‘how can we MAKE SURE they succeed?’ The other branches of the armed forces take steps to do that, which were detailed in the article: giving them lighter, special treatment. Which, when not enough women make it in (and they won’t) is exactly what will happen because the power of political correctness will be brought to bear, just like in the Army now.
“Have you seen those women in CrossFit Games ESPN? ”
– I have yet to see physical contact sports combine women and men. Perhaps you will prove your objectivity and ask that the NBA and the WNBA be combined and make the women teams face the men teams… Or perhaps the women’s rugby face off against the men. Oh! Even better, perhaps you will ask the UFC to combine the now separate men and women’s league.
For a Buddhist, or someone who claims to be such by the sound of it, you’re in an awful hurry to get women into combat. Kind of like a Catholic promoting abortion or a Muslim advocating pork. You sir, are full of [it].
Edited Decorum, please.
Briggs,
Francsois gets my point!!!
I asked a question. What is your answer to the question? “It’s racist.”
Before you draw such conclusion, don’t you want to know my answer to the question first if you are not sure what my answer is?
Raising such a question is a racist? Another strange, twisted response from you.
I cannot help but wonder how you are doing.
So, how would you label people who believe that women should ALL be banned from serving in military because they are overall less fit than men?
JH,
You’re right; how stupid of me.
Francsois, you co-share this week’s prize. Congratulations! A certificate suitable for framing is on its way.
Mike in KC,
I am in a hurry to get women into combat? Not at all. Does “arguing for allowing women into combat†means “in a hurry to get them into combat� No.
Yes, it’s logical to conclude that NO HUMAN beings, male or female, should be in the military because war is wrong. If it were up to me, no countries should have armed forced. If I advocate this, don’t you think it’s a bit naïve about the reality? Plus there would be no fun for me.
Exactly the reason why I said the military should make sure everything is done right! IF you want to blame someone, the military is to be blamed, not the women.
There are strong women out there.
So, Briggs, how would you label people who believe that women should ALL be banned from serving in military because they are overall less fit than men?
What is your answer?
Please note the question about Asian Americans was raised according to one of your reasons as to why women should not be allowed into combat.
JH: “If it were up to me, no countries should have armed forced. If I advocate this, don’t you think it’s a bit naïve about the reality?” It’s very difficult to understand what these sentences mean, but I assume that you are just posturing and not engaging in any meaningful debate. However I do have one question. If the USA were to return to conscription, how would this change your position? No change would not be a meaningful answer.
“If I advocate this, don’t you think it’s a bit naïve about the reality?”
– No more naive than the point you’re currently arguing.
Here is what I think:
1. Men make better soldiers than women, on average
2. Some females are good enough to make the grade, say for joining light infantry etc.
3. If some of these women meet the grade, then include them in the unit
4. Investigate whether including these woman impact on the combat performance of the unit they fight in. if it does, reconsider including them. This makes practical sense, after all lives are in the balance
5. The military should not have a softer version of tests for females so they can meet the grade. This is possible.
6. I highly doubt that many women would pass a SF selection such as Navy Seals, SAS etc.
7. If the evidence shows that including females in modern combat units is a bad idea, then don’t do it. Soldiering is serious business, not an opportunity to set right sexism etc.!
Cheers
Francsois
All—you too, JH,
Link
Lol, when you pick on/bully JH the number of comments to your posts rise accordingly, have you noticed Briggs?
Cheers
Francsois
Scotian,
Just as I joined the campus protest against Iraq war; I would join the protest against it if there is a compulsory enrollment for service. Forcing me to join is against my belief.
These women volunteer to be soldiers. VOLUNTEER! Don’t you think this is a big difference? Those four women worked hard and passed the test. They truly want be soldiers. They didn’t join because it is compulsory or a way out of poverty.
Who am I to force my beliefs on them?
BTW, Scotian, where is your argument in addition to making disparaging comments towards people? See, what a classy man you are!!!
Briggs,
So, how would you label people who believe that women should ALL be banned from serving in military because they are overall less fit than men?
What is your answer?
You know what confirmation bias is, right?
JH, My argument about what? I haven’t stated a position. I don’t think that you answered my question, but then again I didn’t think that you would. The refusal to accept the consequence of one’s beliefs and actions is a characteristic of posturing and I stand by my statement.
You talk as if you know these four women personally, do you? Also I can’t help but notice that for a pacifist you get angry very quickly.
All,
New York City Marathon times.
Place Bib Name Time State Country Citizenship
1 1 Geoffrey Mutai 02:08:24 Kenya KEN
2 3 Tsegaye Kebede 02:09:16 Ethiopia ETH
3 11 Lusapho April 02:09:45 South Africa RSA
4 19 Julius Arile 02:10:03 Kenya KEN
5 8 Stanley Biwott 02:10:41 Kenya KEN
6 16 Masato Imai 02:10:45 Japan JPN
7 18 Jackson Kiprop 02:10:56 Uganda UGA
8 9 Peter Cheruiyot Kirui 02:11:23 Kenya KEN
9 7 Wesley Korir 02:11:34 Kenya KEN
10 14 Daniele Meucci 02:12:03 Italy ITA
11 10 Yuki Kawauchi 02:12:29 Japan JPN
12 2 Stephen Kiprotich 02:13:05 Uganda UGA
13 15 Ryan Vail 02:13:23 OR United States USA
14 20 Jeffrey Eggleston 02:16:35 CO United States USA
15 12 Bob Tahri 02:18:16 France FRA
16 267 Khalid En Guady 02:22:03 BS Morocco MAR
17 27 Radoslaw Dudycz 02:22:07 Poland POL
18 1761 Jovadir Acedo 02:22:34 São Paulo Brazil BRA
19 246 Tesfaye Assefa Dube 02:22:38 NY United States ETH
20 25 Christian Thompson 02:22:48 PA United States USA
21 40 Danilo Goffi 02:23:22 Italy ITA
22 30 Michael Cassidy 02:23:46 NY United States USA
23 6 Meb Keflezighi 02:23:47 CA United States USA
24 24 Kevin Pool 02:24:03 CA United States USA
1 103 Priscah Jeptoo 02:25:07 Kenya KEN
The first female was in 25th place. Sorry for formatting. Results here.
All,
“During down time, the Army was holding Friday Night Fights for any troops wanting to release some tension. Enter this female Soldier who thought she could hang with,or whoop, any Infantry Marine on the FOB…” You won’t believe what happens.
video
I mean some of you won’t believe.
I’ll knock down 1:
No, it’s a misunderstanding. The university system is (in general and principle) a highly individualized system. The weakest link in class does not affect the rest of the class. In other words, if one student is unable to pass a course, it has no effect on my ability to pass the same course.
The military/war system, however, is very much a collectivized system (in general and principle). The weakest link of a unit and group very much impacts the rest of that group – often in a fatal way. In other words if another soldier is unable to pass a standard or is flawed in some way, I could end up very much dead.
That is the big difference that is overlooked in the metaphor.
This confirms Briggs’ position.
http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/female-fdny-recruit-fails-running-test-five-times-but-graduates-anyway/