Women in Combat v-a-v the new Defense Secretary

[Carborendum]

Trump’s defense secretary pick said women should not be in combat roles and veterans are worried | CNN

This is about the issue of females in frontline combat roles.

I just have to say how biased this reporting is.  A lot of this piece is just not factual.  It is about how people "feel" and "are afraid might happen."

The biggest prevarication is when a contributor said that there have been no lowering of standards to allow women into combat roles.

I did an AI search:

Quote

AI Overview

Yes, according to recent reports, the US military, particularly the Army, has lowered its physical fitness standards, especially for women and older soldiers, with critics arguing that this could compromise combat readiness by setting lower passing standards on the new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) compared to the previous test; these changes were implemented to achieve gender equity but may not accurately reflect the physical demands of combat roles. 

Gender-specific adjustments:

The most significant criticism is that the new standards, while aiming for gender neutrality, may inadvertently lower the bar for women in certain physical events, potentially impacting their ability to perform in combat roles. 

Age-related adjustments:

The Army has also adjusted standards for older soldiers, allowing them to achieve passing scores with slightly less demanding performance levels. 

From additional research, we see that women have always had lower physical standards than men.  So, they didn't lower the standards for women.  They were already lower.  But they weren't required to be in combat roles with those standards.

Additionally, all standards have been lowered across the board.  So, the contributor might have thought she was telling the truth about "lowering" from her point of view.  But that doesn't change the fact that right now, women assigned to combat roles do not need to meet the same level of physicality as men assigned to combat roles.

Then we see that the role the piece initially speaks of is about a "female searcher."  That is, they don't want men searching females. So, women are assigned to do pat-downs on native women.   Is this really what we're talking about in a "combat role"?  I don't care what it is categorized as in the military handbook.  In a practical sense, do you honestly think this is the "combat role" that most Americans envision when we say that "women should not be in combat roles"?  Do you honestly believe that is what Hegseth meant in his comments on the matter?

Why is this even a debate?

The female soldier who is highlighted in the article concludes with: 

Quote

Not all women are capable – just like not all men are capable

What she doesn't realize is that she, herself, is most likely not capable.  In physical tests there is a mind-blowing number of women who simply cannot do physical tasks like the vast majority of men.  They compare in terms of percentage of men stronger = percentage of women weaker.

90% of men are stronger than 90% of women.

I've seen numbers as low as 83% and as high as 98%.  Even if the "true" number was 80% that is a huge disqualifier for the vast majority of women.  And it is just denying reality to believe they can truly be men's physical equal.

What many don't realize is that the simple act of shooting a hand-held gun is an act of physical prowess.  And by the time you've completed puberty, most women are extremely limited on the development of finger strength.  Men are also limited, but not as much.  It's basic biology/physiology.  You can't get past it.

Why is this even a debate?

Edited November 14, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

From The Hill

Quote

Following a three-year review, the Army has scrapped plans to use the same physical fitness test for all soldiers, choosing instead to have some reduced standards to allow women and older soldiers to pass, the service announced Wednesday.  

March 2022

Edited November 14, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

90% of men are stronger than 90% of women.

Just for the record, the woman who stood me on my head in a beginners BJJ class looked an awful lot like this lady: 

https://www.facebook.com/JungleLevelFitness/videos/1786202725453265

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just for the record, the woman who stood me on my head in a beginners BJJ class looked an awful lot like this lady: 

https://www.facebook.com/JungleLevelFitness/videos/1786202725453265

I'm afraid I can't view social media links from work.  Can you post the image directly?  Sometimes those don't come through either.

[NeuroTypical]

It's a video of a woman doing a standard kettlebell exercise where you lay on the floor, hold up the kettlebell with one hand, and then stand up while holding it aloft.   

Except she's not holding a kettlebell, she's holding another woman.

 

(By the way, this is an amazing exercise, and one way to measure your individual fitness level.   I found it a good idea to start just holding my empty hand up in the air, and once I could do a set, then I grabbed a weight.)

Edited November 14, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[JohnsonJones]

I've seen a few complaining about Trumps pick for SecDef, but personally, I have no problem with the choice.  He's served in the military, was deployed in a combat zone, and earned two bronze stars.  That's good enough for me.

I have some problems with some of Trumps other choices for positions (Gaetz as AG?  That's a little foolish), but I feel his choice of Sec Def was a solid one. 

[Carborendum]

20 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just for the record, the woman who stood me on my head in a beginners BJJ class looked an awful lot like this lady: 

https://www.facebook.com/JungleLevelFitness/videos/1786202725453265

OK, I saw it from home. Yes, built like Carrano.  I'm somewhat impressed.  The impressive part was getting up from a lying down position.

She's HUGE.  So, we can certainly understand that she would be able to pass the male physical fitness requirements.  So, no requirement to lower the standards for such a candidate.

Not as a criticism or challenge or to diminish anything about this woman, I just want to offer some technical commentary.

The smaller woman is really tiny.  At most, she's a buck-10.  My daughter is a buck-15 and I can lift her with one arm.  I can't curl that weight.  But this woman isn't curling either.  Just straight arm.  It is only a matter of balancing, not lifting.

The most impressive part of this woman, is getting up from a lying down position.  I can't do that with my daughter.  But I don't work out much.  I'm just an old man with a desk job.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I have some problems with some of Trumps other choices for positions (Gaetz as AG?  That's a little foolish),

The DOJ hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory lately.  But the Right under Trump needs to reconcile itself to the notion that at least sometimes, the reason a person gets investigated/prosecuted is because the authorities have a good-faith, evidentiarily-supportable belief that the person had in fact done something illegal.

I had some hope that Trump would be more effective this time around because he would have no illusions about what is and isn’t attainable without Congressional support. It seems that either I was mistaken, or the Gaetz nomination is intended as a distraction/sacrificial lamb that will make it easier to get the other nominees confirmed.

(Then again, maybe Trump really can keep Collins and Murkowski and Tillis and Curtis in line and get Gaetz through the Senate.  I’m not holding my breath for that, though.)

Edited November 16, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

On 11/15/2024 at 10:20 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The DOJ hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory lately.  But the Right under Trump needs to reconcile itself to the notion that at least sometimes, the reason a person gets investigated/prosecuted is because the authorities have a good-faith, evidentiarily-supportable belief that the person had in fact done something illegal.

My understanding was...

Gaetz was a thorn in AG Merrick Garland for several years.  So, the  investigation was payback.  They accused him of many things, including pedophilia.  And all were based on "anonymous sources" which never panned out during investigation.  And when one investigation was concluded, another began...

On 11/15/2024 at 10:20 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I had some hope that Trump would be more effective this time around because he would have no illusions about what is and isn’t attainable without Congressional support. It seems that either I was mistaken, or the Gaetz nomination is intended as a distraction/sacrificial lamb that will make it easier to get the other nominees confirmed.

We'll see.

On 11/15/2024 at 10:20 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

(Then again, maybe Trump really can keep Collins and Murkowski and Tillis and Curtis in line and get Gaetz through the Senate.  I’m not holding my breath for that, though.)

We'll see.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

My understanding was...

Gaetz was a thorn in AG Merrick Garland for several years.  So, the  investigation was payback.  They accused him of many things, including pedophilia.  And all were based on "anonymous sources" which never panned out during investigation.  And when one investigation was concluded, another began...

As a wise man said—

“We’ll see”.

As I understand it, it’s pretty openly known that he was going to sex parties and doing a lot of Epstein-type stuff, whether or not the women involved were actually minors.

Mitt Romney has his faults, but he does show that it’s possible for a politico to live his life in such a way that if accusations like this cropped up—no one of any consequence would believe them.  And sadly, a common denominator between many of Trump’s nominees (Musk, Kennedy, Gaetz, Hegseth) is that, like Trump himself, they just can’t seem to keep their pants on.  That does tend to—uh—expose them to things like this.

I suppose I’m rambling a bit.  Obviously, being a sexual profligate (or a degenerate, even) doesn’t always make one a trafficker or a rapist.  But I don’t see how Latter-day Saint conservatives/centrists can see all of this and not wonder whether the strength of the Lord is truly with us at this point when we embrace and defend and celebrate such morally bankrupt leadership (cf Mormon 2:26).  I firmly believe that whatever we get out of this administration will be a mere fraction of what we could have had.

Edited November 17, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[mirkwood]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 I firmly believe that whatever we get out of this administration will be a mere fraction of what we could have had.

 

That's pretty much what I think about all of DC these days.

[LDSGator]

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But I don’t see how Latter-day Saint conservatives/centrists can see all of this and not wonder whether the strength of the Lord is truly with us at this point when we embrace and defend and celebrate such morally bankrupt leadership

Politics comes before religion. How else do you explain Massachusetts Catholic democrats mindlessly voting for any democrat even though their party is so wildly pro choice and pro gay marriage? 
 

For what little it’s worth, I think it’s because the results of politics is felt immediately and has such practical, real world consequences. 

[Just_A_Guy]

54 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Politics comes before religion. How else do you explain Massachusetts Catholic democrats mindlessly voting for any democrat even though their party is so wildly pro choice and pro gay marriage? 
 

I explain that by the sad-but-true fact that most Americans, sex comes before either politics or religion.

One hopes, of course, that things will be different amongst one’s own co-religionists.  🙂

[LDSGator]

44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One hopes, of course, that things will be different amongst one’s own co-religionists.

Understandable, but naive. 

[Traveler]

It has been a very long time since I was in the military.  My comments will reflect my assessment and experience in the military.  In our military it was rare that anyone had morals to exceed a range bull.  The most common ailments in the military were std’s. Many think women are physically unfit for combat – my view is that the rigors of combat tend to focus many men on women in such a way that I believe women spending much time on the front lines would likely render most women unable to be married.  I do not know how better to say it.  Historically after a war time battle, women were not treated very well – regardless of which side they supported.

I think women can be in combat – just not in the same squads, patrols or companies as the men in combat.   I think they could be in special units with unique rolls – but it would kind of be like the NFL – a lady perhaps could be a kicker but not a physical match for men in physical combat.   This assumes the men in such special units are at the top 10% or better, of the men in regular combat.

In short, I think women can be in combat rolls as long as the women combat rolls are not the same as the men combat rolls.

I would also say something about who is qualified to be the Secretary of the military.  I believe that such an individual should be a former military individual but not a person involved previously from the industrial side of the military industrial complex.   I think it is okay for a person from the military to work for the industrial side of things after they leave the military – but I do not want anyone that has made money selling bullets to the military taking on a position of influence over the military.  It has been a while since we have not had someone from the industrial side of things that I think some in politicians may think the Secretary of the Military may not be qualified unless they are tied to and have stake in profiting from war from the industrial side of things.  I think the opposite.

As a side note - because I worked for the DOD I should never be considered for the Secretary of the Military.  There is an obvious conflict of interest.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 18, 2024 by Traveler

[Carborendum]

22 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, it’s pretty openly known that he was going to sex parties and doing a lot of Epstein-type stuff, whether or not the women involved were actually minors.

I recall Gaetz responding to such comments:

Quote

Look, I'm not married.  But I'm not a monk.  That doesn't mean I'm sleeping with children.

He is now married.

22 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Mitt Romney has his faults, but he does show that it’s possible for a politico to live his life in such a way that if accusations like this cropped up—no one of any consequence would believe them.  And sadly, a common denominator between many of Trump’s nominees (Musk, Kennedy, Gaetz, Hegseth) is that, like Trump himself, they just can’t seem to keep their pants on.  That does tend to—uh—expose them to things like this.

If the media ran with it, half the country would buy it hook-line-and-sinker.  All they have to do is say "Polygamy" 1000x per day... like "joy", "weird", etc.

The sad part is that not all of that 50% would be on the left.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 11/17/2024 at 9:03 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, it’s pretty openly known that he was going to sex parties and doing a lot of Epstein-type stuff, whether or not the women involved were actually minors.

I've just read some more details about the accusations surrounding him.

First, either they are true and he should be prosecuted and thrown in jail for the maximum sentence allowed by law.  If untrue, then this is obviously a smear campaign/lawfare.  If the former, I'd condemn him in the strongest terms.  If the latter, I want everyone involved in it to be thrown in jail for fraud, extortion, and abuse of power.

But which is it?

The fact that the accuser (Joel Greenberg) has, himself, been indicted (not just accused) on 33 criminal counts which include sex trafficking and stalking (among other things) could go either way.  He's not so dependable as a witness against Gaetz.  But OTOH, takes one to know one.

Businessman, Stephen Alford, attempted to extort Gaetz to "make it all go away."  Gaetz decided to cooperate with the FBI during the investigation, where they found Alford guilty of extortion.

Will we know for certain whether he's guilty?  We can't. 

But for Gaetz to cooperate with a politically adversarial FBI against a blackmailer on this accusation is not the typical behavior of a guilty man.

On 11/17/2024 at 9:03 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

But I don’t see how Latter-day Saint conservatives/centrists can see all of this and not wonder whether the strength of the Lord is truly with us at this point when we embrace and defend and celebrate such morally bankrupt leadership (cf Mormon 2:26).  I firmly believe that whatever we get out of this administration will be a mere fraction of what we could have had.

As far as the sex parties.  I've heard the rumors.  I haven't heard any details.  The real issue is: Tell me what we can do about it.  You mentioned Romney.  I'd bet that maybe a dozen or so members of Congress would qualify.  Who else is there?  There simply aren't enough good men who live chaste lives that are even in the public eye.

The system pretty much prevents people being dedicated family men and effective politicians.  It is a difficult thing to balance.  You have to spend too much time away from family.

We praise and honor our men in uniform.  But it is pretty well known that most of them find any pretty girl at every place they are posted.  Do we say they are no longer worthy of praise?  Do we say that we can't have that kind of man defending our country?

This isn't a challenge.  It is an honest consideration.  So many times, we want the whole package in everyone we see.  Well, that's pretty difficult to find.  And with the hookup culture today, I don't know if that can reasonably be expected to be a criterion to judge anymore -- not for a politician.

The latest stats that I saw was that about 15% of men are virgins on their (first) wedding day.  This number is an estimate because all the stats talk about age categories instead of the whole. 

Of the 538 members of Congress, that amounts to about 80 members of Congress who followed this principle.  Then consider the time away from home (wife) that they have to endure.  How many of them are going to be faithful?  We hope for a lot more.  But what's the reality?

Benjamin Franklin was an indispensable individual during the founding of this country.  He was also known to be a philanderer, as were many Founding Fathers.  If they can't satisfy this standard of "a good man" how much hope do we have for people of today's generation? 

Don't we make excuses for people who are simply "a product of their times?"  And most of the Founders were slave owners.

I'm not saying it's ok.  I think it sucks. 

I'm saying that we don't have the better choice before us. We're spiritually in poverty in this country.  And poor people don't have a choice between pheasant under glass or bacon wrapped fillet mignon.  They have a choice between bologna or hot dogs.  I'll take the hot dogs if they're cooked right.  You can't cook balogna to make it taste good.  All you can do is put enough mustard on it that you don't recognize what you're eating.

That's the spiritual world that we live in.  As a result, the only thing I have any hope for is for me to practice my religion and raise my family without government or social forces telling me that I have to behave otherwise.

Edited November 19, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The real issue is: Tell me what we can do about it.

The senate can refuse to confirm the Gaetz nomination, telling the whole world "We decided not to confirm because the guy is a sleazy scumbag with serious allegations of criminal sexual misconduct hanging over him.  Send us someone else, please."

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

The senate can refuse to confirm the Gaetz nomination, telling the whole world "We decided not to confirm because the guy is a sleazy scumbag with serious allegations of criminal sexual misconduct hanging over him.  Send us someone else, please."

Misfire/misfit.

If you're talking about the sex trafficking, ok. I addressed that.  And if true, I'd be right there with you. 

But when you say "serious allegations", what do you mean?  Do you mean that there is a high level of credibility to the accusations?  Or that the nature of the crime of which he is accused are serious?

I don't really see anything that is public record that indicated a high level of credibility.  As such, we stick with "innocent until proven guilty."

But for reasons I've already articulated, as of now, it seems to be a simple case of lawfare/smear campaign.  If that is the case, does that mean we just drop all support of anyone who has been accused of anything? Well, we better not vote for Trump.  He's a Nazi-Fascist-Pedophile-Rapist-Robber Baron-Communist and he's a closet Mormon because he doesn't drink alcohol.  He even named his son Robber Baron Nazi Communist Trump.

The section where I asked the question that you quoted was about is doing what men of his generation do.  He has admitted to doing as much.  And I'm very disappointed, as am I about Trump's extra-marital dealings.

The "Send us someone else, please" has already been done over the past 60 years and has fallen on deaf ears.  No one is listening.  The body of the population doesn't seem to care about that.  I don't know if they have ever cared about it (Jefferson).  What's the definition of insanity?

Edited November 19, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But when you say "serious allegations", what do you mean? 

From the WSJ: 

Quote

A witness told the House Ethics Committee she saw Matt Gaetz having sex with a 17-year-old girl at a party in 2017, while he was serving in Congress, a lawyer for the woman said Monday. 

The woman and another witness also told the panel that Gaetz, president-elect Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, paid them for sex, said Joel Leppard, the lawyer representing the two women. 

Leppard said that his clients, who haven’t come forward publicly, received the payments via Venmo and PayPal. 

A lot comes down to what the House Ethics probe found:

Quote

The House panel investigated the allegations and in June said it had spoken with more than a dozen witnesses, issued 25 subpoenas, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents. It had expected to release a report on its findings last week, but didn’t do so after Gaetz resigned from Congress to pursue the attorney general nomination. 

Details of the testimony, reported earlier by ABC News, emerged as the panel is now deliberating what to do about its report, and is expected to meet Wednesday to discuss next steps, according to a person familiar with the matter. The committee could still release it, if a majority of its members vote to do so.

It's also sort of a big question on whether dude resigned to "pursue the AG nomination", or if he resigned because of what's in the report.

[Carborendum]

On 11/19/2024 at 4:46 PM, NeuroTypical said:

From the WSJ: 

A lot comes down to what the House Ethics probe found:

It's also sort of a big question on whether dude resigned to "pursue the AG nomination", or if he resigned because of what's in the report.

Yup.  Like I said, we really don't know. As I said before, he did admit to having sex with several women.  He refused to accept the accusation of pedophile.

There's just enough doubt to believe it conclusively either way.  So, people will believe what they will believe.  But as I said, his cooperation with the FBI says something very positive about him.

I'd like to see what happens in the coming months.  Since he's no longer the AG nominee, what will he do?  Can he recind his resignation from Congress?  Don't know.

Will he be appointed to take Rubio's place?  Probably not.

What happens in the next few months to Gaetz will tell a story.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Will he be appointed to take Rubio's place?  Probably not

Florida republicans outside of his district view him as a perverted clown. I sort of doubt it. 

[NeuroTypical]

So @LDSGator, tell us everything you know about Pam Bondi!

 

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

So @LDSGator, tell us everything you know about Pam Bondi!

 

Sure. 
 

Bondi is most notorious for asking Rick Scott to delay an execution which he did that was ultimately carried out but Bondi asked the execution be delayed because Bondi needed to attend a political fundraiser that was scheduled the same day.
 

She got some slack for that, and not just from liberals. 

[LDSGator]

She was also rumored to run for governor and probably would have won, but she didn’t do so for….reasons. She might have more skeletons in the closet than we know. She’s been married and divorced twice.    

Edited November 22, 2024 by LDSGator