politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
They are always so quick to fixate on "women" in combat roles. But what about them specifically? Some men are smaller, weaker, less able, some men are overweight, low endurance, slow...
So what's the actual physical criteria you are looking for? Are you willing to enforce that fairly and universally? If so, does sex even remain a core factor beyond those metrics?
It's basically "DEI" for guys... You physical shortcomings are mostly ignored so long as you get through training, but for women there's this additional scrutiny and you have to be an absolute badass to get taken seriously
I was enlisted.
I'd say it's about 50/50 as to whether one of the women I served with could kick my ass, regardless of size.
The women who are joining the military aren't "prissy princess I need to be pampered all the time" stereotypes these chucklefucks think they are.
And it really is a fight to prove they can do the bare minimum, even if they're seen excelling 99% of the time. The 1% mistake will be fixated on and used as proof they can't take it. All while ignoring the massive fuck ups from the males.
100% of them could kick one of the politicians asses in a heartbeat. especially this weeks picks.
I have no doubt that the women in the military are in far better shape to fight a war than any of their critics.
Also enlisted here. My supply sergeant was a woman and holy fuck she was he scariest goddamn soldier I've met. If I could pick any single person I met in the military to be next to me in combat it would be that woman.
That's what I've always thought. If they can do the pushups, runs, etc, then who cares about their gender? It doesn't matter if women are statistically less capable in those areas if every individual is going to be evaluated anyway. Their is no good reason to filter recruits based gender, 'cept sexism obviously
I think the main issue is that there is a discrepancy between what a male and female has to do in order to pass. I do agree though, if a woman is able to meet the requirements she should be able to do whatever a man can.
Conservatives are obsessed with gender and gender roles.