Panetta opens combat roles to women

[gcoll]

Im not interested in Videos (lol) Im look to scientific methodolgy as my guide

Then why do you use personal anecdotes constantly?

Youve basically said (in the past) that the market needed to be unfettered, Free, so to speak, but now people should not?

If a woman can meet the physical requirements, I'm fine with her being in combat.

But in every other instance where women have "broken down the barrier" eventually the physical standards get lowered because there are virtually no women who can meet the requirements.

Your argument is that there are rare genetic exceptions that creates women that are as strong and as fast as men. There really aren't. If a woman has as much upper body strength as a man, she is going to be really ****ing slow. Those women who do marathons and can beat you in a race, can't lift ****.

So, if there are some women out there that can meet the male requirements, they are the exception to the rule. The very small minority. Is including them in combat roles worth the inevitable reduction in the physical requirements for combat troops?

[ewing]

And to directly answer your question, they have different standards because their is a BASELINE of commonality which exists, just as there is with how many fingers and toes people should have.

That doesnt stop people from being born with more or less apendages.
And it doesnt stop an embryo from failing to completely develop into a male.

You do know that all embryos begin female Right?
Females produce an antigen that changes the chromosome somewhere around the 6th week.
the Ovums drop and become testies.
Ever see an over developed Clitoris? Theres a reason it lokks like a tiny penis(lol).

This chromosonal change in some cases doesnt produce the result that is THE NORM.
This is what produces,(and there are many ,many of them) women who have a closer resemblance to male , then Female characteristics.
the rest of it...muscle mass,hight,
all that is genetic repition, that is to say Breeding.
But you can obviously effect your own individual levels of competence.

I know plenty of women who could outrun me(lol). And I dont know how long Id have to train to run a marathon(I dont want to find out either) but plenty of women do that several times a year.
Can you run 26 miles?
I sure as sh cant(lol),

That's not why. Different standard exist b/c women can almost never meet the male ones. Btw, i am stronger and faster then any women i know. I understand that doesn't mean there isn't some freak out there that might be stronger then me so don't brother using that as a point.

[stephkyle7]

Then why do you use personal anecdotes constantly?


If a woman can meet the physical requirements, I'm fine with her being in combat.

But in every other instance where women have "broken down the barrier" eventually the physical standards get lowered because there are virtually no women who can meet the requirements.

Your argument is that there are rare genetic exceptions that creates women that are as strong and as fast as men. There really aren't. If a woman has as much upper body strength as a man, she is going to be really ****ing slow. Those women who do marathons and can beat you in a race, can't lift ****.

So, if there are some women out there that can meet the male requirements, they are the exception to the rule. The very small minority. Is including them in combat roles worth the inevitable reduction in the physical requirements for combat troops?

Personal ancedotes support and explain opinions.(giving everyone the oportunity to TRY).
scientific facts are just that.You (once again) dont have a firm understanding of the subject matter and (once again) seem to just want to be contrary as if there is something to win here.

In addition(once again) you ignore any evidence or facts that directly refute your opinions which are unsubstantiated.All human embryos begin as Females.

.Per Louis A. Berman, Professor of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago:
If there are no hormonal changes in the prenatal environment, the embryo remains a female. If, however, the embryo is destined to become a male, its Y-chromosomes trigger the production of testosterone (the male hormone), which masculinizes the brain and genitalia (internal as well as external) of the embryo. Every person begins life with a female brain. Males are left with vestigial nipples, a reminder that life begins for all of us as females, and some of us are fated to become more masculinized than others

this is the nature of life and evolution,and natural selection.
Males have a greater muscle mass because of the presence of elevated levels of testosterone, not some "secret manly" gene.
woman with elevated levels of testosterone are for all intents and purposes "males" with Vaginas.
this is why steriods were developed,but rather then use my words which you will just try and invalidate here is a history:


Anabolic steroids are more accurately called anabolic-androgenic steroids. This name defines their two principle characteristics. Anabolic means to synthesize or build up; thus anabolic steroids increase skeletal muscle mass. Androgenic means involving male sexual characteristics. Anabolic steroids are related to testosterone and affect the body the many of the same ways as testosterone. Testosterone is the main hormone responsible for male sexual characteristics. It stimulates and maintains the male reproductive organs, stimulates development of bones and muscle, promotes skin and hair growth, and can influence emotions and sex drive. In males, the testes produce testosterone with a small amount also secreted by the adrenal glands. Women have only the small amount of testosterone produced by the adrenal glands.
Several hundred different types of anabolic steroids have been synthesized in attempts to maximize their benefits and minimize side effects. As of 2009, not a single anabolic steroid had been manufactured that was free of negative side effects. In many developing countries, anabolic steroids can be purchased without a prescription. However, in the United States, they have been controlled substances since 1991. Possession of an anabolic steroid without a prescription is illegal and can result in a maximum one-year prison sentence and a minimum fine of $1,000 fine for the first offense.
Medical uses

Anabolic steroids were first developed in the 1930s in Europe in an effort to produce a drug to treat conditions where the testes did not secrete enough testosterone. Physicians tried using these drugs for many other purposes in the 1940s and 1950s with limited success. Disadvantages outweighed benefits for most purposes, and during the later decades of the twentieth century, medical use in North America and Europe was restricted to a few conditions. These include:

Bone marrow stimulation: During the second half of the twentieth century anabolic steroids were the mainstay of therapy for hypoplastic anemia not due to nutrient deficiency, especially aplastic anemia. In the twenty-first century anabolic steroids have been replaced by synthetic protein hormones that selectively stimulate growth of blood cell precursors oth fewer side effects.

Growth stimulation: From the 1960s through the 1980s, anabolic steroids were used heavily by pediatric endocrinologists to treat children with growth failure. The availability of synthetic growth hormone (GH) and increasing social stigmatization of anabolic steroids has significantly reduced their use for this purpose.

Stimulation of appetite and preservation of muscle mass: Anabolic steroids are given to treat chronic wasting syndrome in people with diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS.

Induction of male puberty: Androgens sometimes are given to boys distressed about extreme delay of puberty. Testosterone is, as of 2009, nearly the only androgen used for this purpose, but synthetic anabolic steroids often were used prior to the 1980s.

Treatment of breast cancer: Testosterone has been reported to slow the development of some, but not all, breast cancer in some women.

Treatment of hypogonadism: The average adult male naturally produces 2.5-11 milligrams (mg) of testosterone daily. Testosterone is given as a replacement hormone if the testes either do not produce enough hormone or if the testes are damaged or removed (e.g., in testicular cancer).
Abuse of steroids

the idea that there is a large Physiological differentation between men and women is not supported by science.


This is becoming a pattern with you.Just as in our debate regarding economics, you seem to adopt a viewpoint and then rigidly defend it like it is a child of yours.
And just as your Macro economic theory was useless in defining what happens on the micro levelo which we live in,your insistence that woman are just genetically physically weaker then men is also a wild generalization that is not based on facts.

[gcoll]

All human embryos begin as Females.

So what?

Once again I ask; are you suggesting that sexual dimorphism does not exist in human beings?

And just as your Macro economic theory was useless in defining what happens on the micro levelo which we live in,your insistence that woman are just genetically physically weaker then men is also a wild generalization that is not based on facts.

lol. No. Men having more muscle mass, and also having a higher muscle mass to body weight ratio is just a fact.

Now, is every single man stronger and faster than every single woman? No. But it's almost that. That's how extreme the difference is. The average man is much stronger and faster than the average woman. And the athletically gifted man is much stronger and faster than the athletically gifted woman.

You want to keep making the comparison between the athletically gifted woman and the out of shape man. And, even in that comparison......the out of shape man is still probably going to win.

[b1e9a8r5s]

@Stephkyle I have no idea why people respond to you. This will be the first and last time I do so. From the way you present your text to the level of condescension in your words. It's truly remarkable the level of dickatude you are able to put forth. It's quite the accomplishment.

Sorry, just had to say that.

[stephkyle7]

thats complete speculation and not based on any facts.
You keep on rely on a really meritless term in Sexual Dimorphism as if it EXPLAINS anything and it does not.
It is a description of genetic frequency, nothing more.

However tasteless it was for Jimmy the greek to suggest African americans were breed to be better atheletes ,the fact is larger stronger males were studded out to pass ceratin traits on to thenext generation.

Similarly,women key on certain genetic traits to identify suitable males to mate with.One of those ingrained genetic stimulus for women is larger, stronger men with high expressions of testosterone.

This and prevelant levels of testosterone production in the body is waht determines your Muscle mass.
Your Lung capacity is derived as well simply by its proper function and size, again simply determined by Genetic coincidence and training.

You seem like a nice kid,But I become frustrated with your refusal of scientific facts, as if there are two sets of them.That is what the RT media has tried so vigorously to convey, but its not true.There are only one set of scientific facts.

In the other thread people are discussing the earths age,as reflected by a theological or scientific perspective.
many of you in there (like you tend to do) suggest a consensus of amature opinion,as a means to support a perspective.This is a poor way to approach understanding a subject.

I identify as a Christian,but believe the Earth to be 6 billion (or whatever the number is) years old.I dont feel that those two things need to be diametrically opposed becasue i dont allow a religious leader or a book to define my spirituality, it is between me and MY God, and no one else.


In that other thread,the thoughts that are conveyed and the disparity and hostility described between the factions of beliefs are symptomatic of exactly what you do every time you engage me.

You continue to insist your right as if something is at stake.
The only thing at stake(and it is only in your mind) is your ego and Pride. that is the root cause of most of our political and social discourse and it seems to be the driving force in your continuing to try and debate things from a position of Ignorance.

[Pacerlive]

No. It is not.

If what you are saying is true, why do they have different standards for women in the military?

If what you are saying is true, what percentage of women in the military meet the physical requirements that men have to live up to?


You seeing a butch looking woman in the military does not invalidate sexual dimorphism in human beings.

I won't argue that men are created stronger on average but I will say this as a ex-firefighter the concern for women getting me out of burning building were there but I could say that for some men as well. Also women often had added advantages that men did not. The ability to talk to other women and persuade them to seek medical attention was a great advantage. Fitting into tight spaces in a search and rescue etc etc.

I could see that there maybe some advantages maybe even not considered yet with having women on the front line with men. The physical test for a woman in the fire department where I worked for a couple of years was the same for men. Pull the heavy dummy this far with full gear on and wear a 45 pound weighted vest and stair climb for 5 minutes.

A lot of time strength and stamina are opposing factors and certainly you need both and I agree the physical standards should be the same regardless.

[gcoll]

The differences in terms of muscle mass, and muscle development between men and women is pretty well settled.

You said a lot of words, but you didn't refute my point.

[gcoll]

I won't argue that men are created stronger on average but I will say this as a ex-firefighter the concern for women getting me out of burning building were there but I could say that for some men as well. Also women often had added advantages that men did not. The ability to talk to other women and persuade them to seek medical attention was a great advantage. Fitting into tight spaces in a search and rescue etc etc.

I could see that there maybe some advantages maybe even not considered yet with having women on the front line with men. The physical test for a woman in the fire department where I worked for a couple of years was the same for men. Pull the heavy dummy this far with full gear on and wear a 45 pound weighted vest and stair climb for 5 minutes.

A lot of time strength and stamina are opposing factors and certainly you need both and I agree the physical standards should be the same regardless.

Good points. I hadn't considered some of those things.

[stephkyle7]

@Stephkyle I have no idea why people respond to you. This will be the first and last time I do so. From the way you present your text to the level of condescension in your words. It's truly remarkable the level of dickatude you are able to put forth. It's quite the accomplishment.

Sorry, just had to say that.

Dont be sorry, you are entitled to your opinion,
"our critics are our friends,they show us our faults" Ben Franklin.

On a quick note, condescension is a rather empty term and is generally used as a shield to hide insecurity.
How you "feel" about what someone says,(or writes) is a result of how youve CHOSEN to process it.


Ive said before, knowledge is nothing to be impressed by,it simply exisits.The Universe doesnt care about what you do or dont know about its nature and all the knowledge in the world wont stop you from becoming worm food,so this idea you have that I think or feel superior to anyone is a reflection of something inside of you.

I just dont like half baked opinions,talking points that have been fed to people to busy to think for themselves,or Internet scholars that proclaim understanding of a subject from a 30 second gloss over of a sinlge article.

[Pacerlive]

Good points. I hadn't considered some of those things.

The fact is our military with exceptions to the special forces have become fatter and more out of shape over the years.

64 percent of men and 40 percent
of women had body mass indexes (BMIs) above 25 kg/
m2; i.e., they were nominally “overweight.” In addition, 13
percent of the 2008 survey respondents were nominally
“obese” (BMI>30 kg/m2); in 1995, fewer than 5 percent
of active service members were considered “obese.”1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2277893.html

Male or female I would like them to tighten up the standards.

[gcoll]

Yeah. Stephkyle isn't be condescending. He's just pointing out how everyone else is a brainwashed troglodyte that needs his intellectual superiority to enlighten them.

What is condescending about that?

[stephkyle7]

The differences in terms of muscle mass, and muscle development between men and women is pretty well settled.

You said a lot of words, but you didn't refute my point.

sure I did, you just practice selective amnesia whenever you run into a problem defending an Idea youve presented.
Muscle Mass and development is a response to hightened Testosterone levels, nothing else, that is why I included the Anabolic steriod Info,
In the 50s and 60s, they would treat underdeveloped males with steroids to stimulate bone and Muscle growth so they wouldnt be so "undersized". I actually had a friend in H.S. who when at 17 was still about 5'2" and 90 lbs, recieved steriod treatment and blew up like Barry Bonds.

Womans testosterone levels are dramatically lower then mens, which,when combined with genetic repition has fostered a greater disparity in "appearance" of physical dominance.
But as with everything involved in life there is a wide variety as I said earlier, in the genetic expression of our 3 billion pairs of DNA, and some of those conspire through mutation to create a less dissimilar female then you seem to understand exists.The adrenal gland and the testies(as well as the ovaries) produce testoterone.
Production is controlled by the pituitary gland.
an overactive pititary gland can cause an over abundance of testosterone in females which would increase muscle mass ,as well as increase masculine traits.

But Ive been down this road with you before, youll search out some spelling error, or grammatical issue, or contextual failing,or some such silliness just so you have the last word.

Ill save you the trouble.
I realize that Ive been mistaken on this subject,Obviously Males for no reason other then it was Gods will(or the Universes if that appeals to you) are genetically superior on a physical level then Females,
there has been no,genetic repetition or natural selection effecting Male Traits,and Vice versa, the examples in Nature of which there are many, where the Female is larger and stronger then the male is of no value in comparrison because people arent related to animals in any relevant way.Men= strong woman=weak...Thank you for getting me up to speed on this one.

and once again, I have no intelectual superiority to anyone, I just dont spread disinformation based on opinion for the sake of......I really dont know what possess you guys to do that,so I cant say.
If you are going to disscuss a point, then you should make sure youve researched it,if you dont and you get slammed then whos fault is that?

[gcoll]

Muscle Mass and development is a response to hightened Testosterone levels

Womans testosterone levels are dramatically lower then mens

Like I said....your argument does not refute my point.

"Maybe there could be a genetic freak-woman that is stronger than men!" ....I already addressed this point. When they let women into previously male, physically-intensive fields...they tend to lower the standards for women. This happened in the fire department and the military. The reason is because even if there are women who are freaks of nature, they are such a tiny tiny percentage of the population, that it doesn't have any impact on the all-male nature of the job. So, the feminists get mad, and they have to lower the standards for women.

Men= strong woman=weak...Thank you for getting me up to speed on this one.

Physically? Absolutely.

There's a reason why they separate male and female sports.

[stephkyle7]

The pituitary gland determines the production of Testosterone.
there are many different mutations and diseases that effect pituitary gland function, including the over messaging for the production of testosterone in women.

In nature there are dozens of examples of females being more physically dominant then the male, this is a matter of genetic repetion and natural selection.

so you have a balance between nature and nuture, between genes and choices(mating).
The nearly limitless genetic markers combined with billions of mating partners has combined to create a diversity that is far greater then your limited exposure to the Bio diversity of humans suggest you know.

Go pick a fight with some of the German Barmaids I ran into.some are over 6 ft 220 and stack 5 litre steins of beer in each hand as they walk around serving.
I dont know how much they weigh ,but I can tell you carrying three back to the table wasnt fun, and they were walking around with ten.

You are using a macro perspective to make a micro decision, that is an infringement on the personal freedoms that I thought were important to you.
the seperation of Men and women sports isnt a fair example of this issue,we are talking about women who choose to try and do something that they most likely are suited to doing, Otherwise they wouldnt be trying to do it.There are No GI Janes, all petite with long hair and nails ,with lotion soaked soft as a pteal skin, looking to get in a combat unit.
The ones that want in are the ones,like I said more likely then not could beat your a...thats not an attempt to insult you, it is just my experience.
I hate womans sports for the exact reason you are implying, it is a dilluted version of the mens version.that doesnt mean i can beat candace parker at basketball,and it doesnt mean that many,many androgenous woman couldnt hack it as soilders.