That's not what I am saying. I am saying it stands to reasons that if they need bodies and are therefore accepting less the ideal males based on lack of qualifications that would open the door for women regardless of whether they are qualified for the job or not. Its about getting bodies. See what I am saying? I am wondering how much is the need for bodies and how much is because they want to seem inclusive or whatever term we use here.

 

Okay, I see what you're saying now. I think the point still stands that the most physically fit marines should (usually) be the ones selected for rigorous infantry jobs. The less fit marines (females and unfit males) are better served to other jobs. The issue is that the left-wing military leaders are insistent on the idea that infantry units shouldn't be excluding women.

 

I do think we are seeing eye to eye, though. What sucks is that the PC police will probably drag this guy through the mud for saying something that it appears left-wingers, centrists, and right-ringers agree on.

---

I do think we are seeing eye to eye, though. What sucks is that the PC police will probably drag this guy through the mud for saying something that it appears left-wingers, centrists, and right-ringers agree on.

Yeah, it's not a discrimination thing, it's a "don't get soldiers killed in the name of equality" thing.

---

Okay, I see what you're saying now. I think the point still stands that the most physically fit marines should (usually) be the ones selected for rigorous infantry jobs. The less fit marines (females and unfit males) are better served to other jobs. The issue is that the left-wing military leaders are insistent on the idea that infantry units shouldn't be excluding women.


I do think we are seeing eye to eye, though. What sucks is that the PC police will probably drag this guy through the mud for saying something that it appears left-wingers, centrists, and right-ringers agree on.

We do I think yeah. And your not wrong. There is a bug difference between broadly denying women the ability to serve and putting people in danger for the sake being PC or head count. I am sure it's both.

---

There is a bug difference

 

heh

---

We do I think yeah. And your not wrong. There is a bug difference between broadly denying women the ability to serve and putting people in danger for the sake being PC or head count. I am sure it's both.

You wrote this one from a phone, didn't you?

---

You wrote this one from a phone, didn't you?

Busted

---

Regarding the OP, I certainly do agree with the Sgt. Major's response.  In today's PC military, things are much different, and it's not always for the better regarding what the ultimate job of our military is.  The efforts of some of the top brass are doing nothing more than putting lives in danger.  Without a doubt there are certain jobs in the military that 99% of women can't perform.

 

He also makes an excellent point in that all males are required to register for Selective Service, but females are not.

 

Where the Sgt. Major messed up was posting his thoughts on a public forum.

 

 

I wonder how much of the military's move to this has to do with low recruitment? 

 

I'll let you in on a little secret.  Recruitment isn't really down right now, in fact the numbers in the military are being drawn down.  What has changed are the standards for entering the military.  It used to be that if a person had a few "blemishes" in their history (ie., prior drug use, prior misdemeanor convictions, no high school diploma, etc.), they could get in.  That's not the case today.  The military today is very selective on who they accept.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Time to abolish selective service imo. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Regarding the OP, I certainly do agree with the Sgt. Major's response. In today's PC military, things are much different, and it's not always for the better regarding what the ultimate job of our military is. The efforts of some of the top brass are doing nothing more than putting lives in danger. Without a doubt there are certain jobs in the military that 99% of women can't perform.


He also makes an excellent point in that all males are required to register for Selective Service, but females are not.


Where the Sgt. Major messed up was posting his thoughts on a public forum.




I'll let you in on a little secret. Recruitment isn't really down right now, in fact the numbers in the military are being drawn down. What has changed are the standards for entering the military. It used to be that if a person had a few "blemishes" in their history (ie., prior drug use, prior misdemeanor convictions, no high school diploma, etc.), they could get in. That's not the case today. The military today is very selective on who they accept.

I read something different regarding the standards for enlistment being much lower these days. I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

---

Time to abolish selective service imo. 

It's effectively dead already. After Vietnam, I doubt any politician would be willing to press that button again.

---

Time to abolish selective service imo. 

 

I somewhat agree with that.  After all, I don't think anyone would be arrested or convicted for not registering in today's world.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It's effectively dead already. After Vietnam, I doubt any politician would be willing to press that button again.

 

No it's not.  I mean, I doubt any politician would institute a draft.  But we're still spending $25M a year on it.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.