From a physiology standpoint, it doesn't seem logical for them to be soldiers. They're not as strong as men and could contribute to more casualties and a waste of more resources that could be used on men. Also, I'm not sexist. Let's discuss this; I have an open mind.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MyNameIsCharlie Have you been in the military or have taken a PT test?[/quote] Yes [quote]The score really has nothing to do with whether or not the soldier in question can carry a ruck or aim a rifle. Can they do a job? That's the only question that matters.[/quote] I agree with that. As I said on the previous page, if anyone, regardless of gender, proves themselves capable, why shouldn't they be given the opportunity? All I've ever said in this thread is that the effort required would be significantly greater for a woman to match up to the physical requirements of their male colleagues should they be allowed entrance to frontline soldiering. [quote]The PT question comes up with numbers minded CO's that promote their people on a number than on performance. PT scores can make or break someone not attached to a combat unit.[/quote] Well not really. A PT score can stand someone in good stead, or should they fail or perform badly, can affect their career negatively, but for the most part that is due to the implication of lethargy or effort. Providing you show progress (and are passing) it is unlikely your PT performances will ever really be worth consideration if you're not in a combat role