jtuck004 (12,908 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141210280
12. I am living in a racist county run by misogynists, in which women get paid less, disrespected more, and despite being as capable as men in virtually any arena, are held back because of bigotry, misogyny, racism.
Our published journals are now filled with crap research.The odds that the study is anything even close to a fair analysis is remote, at best. Funny how it underscored exactly what they wanted. They very likely purchased the result they wanted.
You will note that every single attempt to bring women in to the police or military has been met by "evidence" that they couldn't do the job.This is no difference.
The results are exactly what I expect from dishonorable people, and I haven't seen anything that leads me to think this is anything else.
You can think what you want. I won't waste my time.
TwilightGardener (45,254 posts)
11. My hunch, though, is that Sec. Mabus thinks that the Marine study was launched with the express intent of coming up with a "scientific" way to get an exemption from the new women-in-combat requirement. That needs to be hashed out and settled, but it should have been done behind closed doors and not released publicly until decisions were made.
mwrguy (2,049 posts)
3. Fine. Disband the Marine Corps
Give their job to the Army.
bluestateguy (42,024 posts)
13. They are welcome to ASK for whatever they wish
But we have civilian control of the military in this country, and when the decision is made, I expect the Marines to snap a crisp salute, say "sir, yes sir" and dutifully carry out the order without any complaining.
Star Member uppityperson (97,813 posts)
15. If you can do the job, gender shouldn't matter.
Star Member uppityperson (97,813 posts)
15. If you can do the job, gender shouldn't matter.
Star Member uppityperson (97,813 posts)
15. If you can do the job, gender shouldn't matter.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me this guy got it right (whether (s)he intended to or understood what (s)he said are other questions).
The Marines test pitted a mixed-sex unit against an all male unit, and found that the mixed unit performed less well. IOW, the women in that unit could not "do the job".
I'm a life-long civilian, so take my opinion that follows with a grain or block of salt, as appropriate. Modern combat takes fighters up to and beyond human physical and mental endurance. That's reality, love it or hate it. For any nation to throw less than their very best into the maw of that monster is to invite defeat and oppression or enslavement; to do so knowingly is reprehensible.
TwilightGardener (45,254 posts)
11. My hunch, though, is that Sec. Mabus thinks that the Marine study was launched with the express intent of coming up with a "scientific" way to get an exemption from the new women-in-combat requirement.
Hi5, you summed it up perfectly. It's too bad our civilian leadership is more concerned about 'equality' in a place where you want exceptionalism. from what thebstudy said, the the top 2% of females matched up with the 2nd tier of men. What combat benefits does that give us? The honest answer is NONE.
Its also why I believe men who have transitioned to women should not be allowed to compete in women's divisions of sporting events. The transgender will have an unfair advantage.