You mean like female MPs in the Old Guard shorter than 6' allowed to be Tomb Guards? :rolleyes:

Ha, maybe "Ineffective" (hell, lord knows I have been this recently in my life) is not the right word; I am thinking more like "burden or strain". If I tried and failed, than at least I gave it my best shot. But it's more important that you try your best at the "highest" standards, not the watered down version. That's like putting you in a boxing ring with Big Bubba who was paid to throw the fight. :o

Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes, nor should it.

TR

And I apologize for insulting yours.

Discrimination-Affirmative Action- Equality,&PC ???
 

This was invented by the ultra-liberal left to make the inferior "feel Good" about their shortcomings. The asshat Hollyweird mob always knew in their own mind they were better than everyone else, that is why they award each other with an Oscar... The mutual admiration society. This gives them the supposed right to dictate what is right course for everyone else. The officer corps in the military has come around to this mindset for Political Correctness and self-advancement. CONSISTENT LEADERSHIP is MAINTAINING THE STANDARDS...No matter how difficult or who it washes out. tom kelly

That's a song that haunts my nightmares to this day! :eek:

Standards are only part of the issue. The main part is the subjective and tacit nature of an ODA. How one fits on a team or not. In SF the ODA is all that matters. Everyone else is just in support. We used to say- change whatever you want, just don’t change the ODA. Today it seems to be a debate between the 85% who think this is changing the ODA and the 15% who don’t- or, who think that this is inevitable, or inevitable progress, or men just need to change because the “patriarchy” is evil...

Anyone thinking this is about equality, however, hasn’t been reading the guidance.

OK, please splain to me how this is not about SJW's, and equality?

We could go back to the Olympics and discuss why men and women do not compete against each other.

And yeah, once the "standards" were "directed/ordered" to be lowered this, in fact, was "inevitable".

But hey, I'm all for a kinder, gentler Special Forces and hugs and kisses. :munchin

"How the fuck did the demolitions sergeant become pregnant????"

"Sir, it was a long deployment."

I dont think this is about equality as defined in most dictionaries - I think it is about the SJW-bully-pulpit trying to force people into the predetermined parameters of "correct thinking"

women are the weaker sex is just plain "wrongthink" if you are in a conversation with a liberal.
It just aint so - Florence-Griffith-Joyner can run the 100 meter dash in 10.5
Who in the SF Regiment can run the 100 in 10.5 ?
Settled - women CAN run faster

Of course - ANY man that runs a 10.40 and BEATS her will still never compete inside of an Olympic Stadium with that time - considering that the last time a man held the world record with a 10.40 was waaaay back in the late 1920's

So by current standards, a woman that runs a 10.50 in the 100 is world Record holding olympic champion.
While a man that runs the 100 in 10.4 is called a spectator - since a man that CANNOT break the 10 second barrier is not a competitive olympic sprinter

And so it is with almost every test of human strength - some women are stronger than some men - but it seems that even the strongest women are never quite as strong as the strongest men
So it would seem equality is a SUBjective pursuit and not an OBjective pursuit.

Warfare is NOT a subjective pursuit -
BANG - you are dead

Liberal minded equality logic DOES not pass any sane litmus test - never did and never will
I guess snowball and Napoleon were right - some animals really are more equal than others.

LOL...I thought Flo-Jo was under some kind of investigation at one point for performance enhancing drugs? Must of been a "speed enhancer"...HA....so yeah, she could run faster than most men, with help from her little friend....Liberal minds can go F themselves. We are not the same period, so that should be straight forward; but not with Libtards. Hey, why can't they get that thru their heads? I don't want to be like a man; because I am a freaking woman, just pull up my skirt and believe me, there is no fake "hole". So stop dictating unreasonable equality by lowering the standards because some twat wants to play with the "big boys" and yell " I am Woman, Hear Me Roar"....:p

And yes, "some women are stronger than some men"...case in point: the little, geeky chubby guy who sits across from my cubicle in his khaki pants & penny loafers who plays Poki Man. Mr. Chubby blows his nose every 5 minutes, and sneezes every 15 minutes. So yeah, I could take him down in a second, but so could my cat...LOL:D

Sorry.....It's one of those days.......

When is the NFL going to open up to women?

CD

Haa, the NFL is not a "social experiment" like our Armed Services to suite a political agenda...:mad:

TM SGT- sorry, didn't word my post very well. What I meant to say is that the guidance from above hasn't been "treat everyone equally"- it has been "make this work" and "we will be successful". Which, to me, isn't the same as "treat everyone equally." And doesn't match our actions- which is to treat women differently.

So, for instance, women in combat arms schools and units are reported by-name with all kinds of details on why they fail to higher. Schools are being changed to make them "gender neutral"- but that means, by default, we are changing because there's something different here (belying the bumper sticker that "we are all equal"). Assignments are being especially managed for women- sending them to certain units at certain percentages, and certain posts only "to build critical mass". I could go on- but we aren't just treating everyone the same and only allowing equality of opportunity.

In my humble opinion the SEALS and MARSOC have done the best in just allowing equality of opportunity. The Army- and us being a part of the Army- is all about "making this successful". Which means we are aiming for equality of outcome. There are many advocates who think if we "changed the military's macho male culture" we'd have 50% women in combat arms. I think they are aiming for that 50%. They are DEFINITELY aiming at changing the traditional male culture...

This article openly advocates for changing the culture...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/o...-warriors.html

Son, I say Son, You got all it backwards..

Trending: Transgender boy wins Texas girls wrestling championship for the second year in a row


I'm putting a team together for that longjerry football league. ;)

Tryouts start in the spring :lifter