In article , dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA
says...
>
> Dave Symn (DSymnpathy{at}yahoo.comnope) writes:
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:50:43 -0800, someone (i'm not sure who, pardon my
> > confusion) wrote:
>
> It was me, and no problem. 
>
> I posted it in response to a loon crossposting from sci.med who
> was claiming that " women can do it all ", and as he tried to claim,
> regarding my cite of the aforementioned book, " you posted no facts,
> wah, wah ", I posted a fact, and... shut him up.
>
> >>> Number of recruits NOT Capable Of Performing Damage Control Tasks:
> >>>
> >>> Task                  % Of Women,   After     % Of Men,       After
> >>>                    Before Training Training Before
Training Training
> >>>
> >>> Stretcher carry, level    63        38         0             0
> >>> Stretcher carry, up/
> >>>   Down ladder             94        88         0             0
> >>> Fire Hose                 19        16         0             0
> >>> P250 Pump, carry down     99        99         9             4
> >>> P250 Pump, carry up       73        52         0             0
> >>> P250 Pump, start pump     90        75         0             0
> >>> Remove SSTG Pump          99        99         0             0
> >>> Torque engine bolt        78        47         0             0
> >>>
> >>> Source: " Women In The Military; Flirting With
Disaster ", Brian
> >>> Mitchell, 1998, Page 144.
> >
> > woah. If that is true, thats some pretty damning statistics.
>
> Yep, and the book is chock full of such fcats.
>
> > Where's Pargie
> > to counter than women are doing everything men are doing?
>
> Hiding from the truth,a s Feminists have to.
>
> > Or were these women gestating so to be allowed excusal?
>
> See the part in the book about the soaring numbers of women in the Navy
> who, mysteriously, got preggers, and thus, could not deploy to a combat
> zone, when their ships were so scheduled to do so, at the times of
> Desert Shield/Storm...
>
> > were there any categories where women army recruits performed better at
> > physical-oriented tasks, than men? I mean besides fingernail polishing.
>
> LOL ! No.
>
> Oh, my S/O is begging to get in her two cents here:
>
> " Yes, women can do everything that men can do -- BADLY ! "
>
> " Let me explain. I watch the Olympics. And, while there are many
> fine female Olympians, they have NEVER managed to come anywhere near
> the men's records in anything, except being graceful and attractive. "

She must not watch the shooting or archery events, then.   A woman
actually won the gold in skeet shooting---before they separated it
into men's and women's events.  In archery, although they events
are gender separated, the women's scores are often equal to the
men's for similar distances.
>
> Me back, now. Remember that bit about how to best watch women's tennis ?
>
> " 1) Watch the players warm up. 2) Masturbate. 3) Turn off TV. "
>
> > It's pretty obvious that the majority of men are physically stronger and
> > able to withstand more strenuous activity, than the majority of women. I
> > dont see anyone being able to deny that. Well, not anybody reasonable. And
> > it also appears, much of the Army's training, and especially combat duty,
> > is very physical in nature. Given this, is it too much to suggest that
> > feminists KNOW they cannot compete one-on-one with men in this field of
> > endeavour, so they categorically ignore it and attempt to deflect it with
> > pointless re-categorization of "testing" to skew data
towards females? Is
> > this also why they are dead silent about requesting combat duty? Because
> > they know they'll be getting killed for standing up to the issue at hand?
>
> Sure. Again, in the MItchell book, the activities of the political lobbies
> are explained, in their influence in this area.
>
> > How self-serving is this? Equality, but on their terms, and defined as they
> > want it defined? How much of a bizarre control freak issue has all this
> > become?
>
> An extreme one, and one that wastes a lot of scarce military resources, in
> being " PC ", rather than working for total combat effectiveness.
>
> In a time where the Navy, for instance, is being told that they may, for
> the first time in over fifty years, have to go below the 12 carrier
> line, due to budget cruching, wasting even a dollar on this shit is
> inexcusable.
>
OTOH, if you take all the women out of the Navy, you will lose about
15% of the people it takes to put a carrier at sea.  I suppose if you
reset the recruiting goals,  you might make up the deficit in 5 to
10 years---and you would speed up the promotions for the remaining men.
(which would be a very good thing in some stagnant ratings).

The Navy has been looking at reducing the manning levels on carriers--
eliminating women from the crews might be less painful if that were
to occur at the same time.

http://www.sftt.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1704&

Some critical rates and specialties (intel, medical, administrative) who
serve primarily ashore, would be very hard-hit if women were eliminated
from the military.   It might be appropriate to 'civilianize' some of
those jobs, though.


Mark Borgerson



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/31/05 5:44:34 PM ---