|
Excellent read! Unreal policy!
On Tue, 10 May 2016 18:11:25 -0400, Keine Krausescheiße
wrote: On Fri, 06 May 2016 10:08:29 -0400, wrote: I suppose it has to be pointed out that we fought the wars we had before the 80s with drafted men. That was a very non selective process. Granted, they didn't want Harry but usually the only requirement was a reasonably healthy guy. Do you reckon the results would have been the same if sex was not a criteria in the draft or the subsequent specialty assignments? I think only about 30% of the women are really a good fit for the military, any branch, any job and infantry might be more like 3%. If you are talking about special ops, that is really a very small fraction of a percent of all recruits men or women and of them it is an incredibly small fraction of the women. There are still plenty of jobs women can do in the military. I have 2 nieces who were in the navy. One was a corpsman, attached to the Marines for a while and the other was an ET. Both were on carriers. |
Excellent read! Unreal policy!
On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:08:04 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 18:11:25 -0400, Keine Krausescheiße wrote: On Fri, 06 May 2016 10:08:29 -0400, wrote: I suppose it has to be pointed out that we fought the wars we had before the 80s with drafted men. That was a very non selective process. Granted, they didn't want Harry but usually the only requirement was a reasonably healthy guy. Do you reckon the results would have been the same if sex was not a criteria in the draft or the subsequent specialty assignments? I think only about 30% of the women are really a good fit for the military, any branch, any job and infantry might be more like 3%. If you are talking about special ops, that is really a very small fraction of a percent of all recruits men or women and of them it is an incredibly small fraction of the women. There are still plenty of jobs women can do in the military. I have 2 nieces who were in the navy. One was a corpsman, attached to the Marines for a while and the other was an ET. Both were on carriers. Exactly. None of those are combat arms. -- Ban Krausescheiße-spouting narcissists...not guns! |
Excellent read! Unreal policy!
On Wed, 11 May 2016 06:54:32 -0400, Keine Krausescheiße
wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:08:04 -0400, wrote: I think only about 30% of the women are really a good fit for the military, any branch, any job and infantry might be more like 3%. If you are talking about special ops, that is really a very small fraction of a percent of all recruits men or women and of them it is an incredibly small fraction of the women. There are still plenty of jobs women can do in the military. I have 2 nieces who were in the navy. One was a corpsman, attached to the Marines for a while and the other was an ET. Both were on carriers. Exactly. None of those are combat arms. I think there are plenty of dead navy guys who thought serving on a war ship was combat. BTW, just for gee whiz info, per capita the USCG had a higher death rate in WWII than the army or navy, mostly because they drove the Higgins boats. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com