What could possibly go wrong?
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Ladies tennis or beach volleyball...not that golf is that far behind...
Top 10 hottest women golfers of all time - YouTube
Hopefully they do same for physicians.
Doctors under 35 in Canada
Female: 3447
Male: 2123
Enrollment in Canadian medical Schools, 2012/13:
Males: 4990
Females: 6385.
Don't hear the feminists going off about these staitsics very often.
Doctors under 35 in Canada
Female: 3447
Male: 2123
Enrollment in Canadian medical Schools, 2012/13:
Males: 4990
Females: 6385.
Don't hear the feminists going off about these staitsics very often.
When I first saw the figures I was stunned, but after thinking about it for a minute I'm realizing perhaps women have a greater propensity for it, seeing they do most of the personal care giving.
They've certainly traditionally made up the bulk of nurses. Those numbers are indicative of post-secondary demographics overall. There is now far more women than men in college. That's why it bothers me when you see a focus on one particular field, pointing out the shortage of women.
I'm certainly not against equality, but I do think that the education system these days treats boys like dysfunctional girls. Due to a proliferation in the diagnosis of learning disabilities, boys are being medicated at a far higher rate than girls.
We've been trying to get equality for women for four decades now, with pretty good success. I think the issue of medicating boys in school needs to be addressed. There's too much of it, I think.
Sorry, I probbaly just derailed this thread.
We raised 3 boys and now we are raising two grand daughters, with some help from their single Dad who is away working in the oil patch for some of the year. Our experience is boys are definitely harder to raise, so if other people are having the same experience that may be a clue as to why boys are medicated. In the old days raising kids was a full time job for two people, with the exception of possibly a few hours off to drink beer on a Saturday night.
In these modern times,It is important for the RCMP to present themselves as "female friendly",because of the recent lawsuits/civilsuits placed upon them by multiple women within the RCMP,important to note is the allegations and the numbers of females coming forward with their stories is growing.As of present the image of being "female friendly"is very important to the RCMP,Department of Justice,etc. If the RCMP follow through on those numbers is besides the point,they have some PR to construct for the female/Canadian public,the history of the relationship of female officers and the administration of the RCMP is broken with alot of repairs needed,the truth doesn't really matter,the thought of the truth is what counts.
I don't understand how you could not? I mean, how would you carry your fire team partner, both of your weapons and load bearing vest if he/she were wounded? You can't exactly call "time out" while Johnny Jihad is trying to cancel your ticket. You need the physical strength to drive the body with the weight of the tools of the trade or your an endangerment to yourself, the mission and the rest of the platoon.
And for clarity, the push up is considered the perfect isometric exercise.
If high standards exist, there is a reason or them and the person can meet them then that should be your "club". But if you have certain standards for one group, another set for another group and even more different standards for that entirely different group then you will sow discontent as the high standard group at the end of the day carries the lower.
Not by doing a pushup.
I'm not sure dropping and pumping out 50 is the ideal response to an enemy ambush.
Nice use of the passive voice. Sounds authoritative, but doesn't really say nothing. In what reading I've done on the subject, opinion's about split on the value of the pushup.
And returning once again to the point that you seem to have missed, standards should be performance-based. Let us go back to your hypo "how would you carry your fire team partner, both of your weapons and load bearing vest if he/she were wounded?" How do we test for that? Maybe a trip over rough ground with your weapon and a 200-lb weight. Sounds just a mite more realistic than concluding that somebody who can pump out 50 can automatically carry her fire team partner, two weapons, and a load bearing vest across rough ground.
Yeah, there's a reason for standards, all right. Problem is that reason is not necessarily performance related, and is often based on ignorance or inaccurate perceptions. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to change standards at all, ever, because "they exist for a reason." So, should we restore the height standard for the RCMP, or the white standard for the U.S. Army? They, too "existed for a reason."
I'd love to hear about one of the situations you were involved in that required you do a push up.
A pushup is simply a way of building upper body strength OR determining body strength.
In that time of your service was strength not needed? I know when I was in the infantry it most certainly was.
Perhaps that is why the pushup is not used in the USMC PFT. Pullups, situps, and a 3 Mile run. The woman Marine's PFT is modified to bar hang, situps, and 3 mile run.
I actually knew that. By the way, these days it's crunches, not situps.
I'd much rather see a PFT based on actual performance requirements. Much like what Grain said, maybe a 2-mile obstacle course in full battle rattle in X amount of time, including lifting and carrying a weight for a quarter-mile or so.
That's true. But dropping and responding to an enemy ambush and popping back up from the ground with all your gear on quickly to advance... then dropping down again... then popping up again to advance. If you can't do that quickly perhaps dropping an pumping out 50 in training would have been beneficial.
That's not a bad idea either.
Agreed. Core strength training, weightlifting, and aerobics would also have been beneficial. But I'm talking about standards, not training.
That's my only point. I'm all for standards. I just want them to be performance-based.
Um.....Yes.....Exactly.
Every year you have to carry your ruck sack, load bearing vest, weapon and quick march for 13 km. At the end of it you have to carry your fire team partner, and everything minus the rucks another 100 meters in a sprint, For me that works out to around 325 lbs of man and kit on bloodied feet.
There are much worse tests and much higher expectations for infanteers (I was attach posted to infantry as a specialist) but if you can't do this absolute minimum test you're done. Out. It's why I'm out as I sustained a knee injury that prevents me from carrying the weight I am expected to.
The push up and the number of proper ones you can bang out proves your physical conditioning (or lack thereof) and reinforces the importance of strength training to be an effective soldier. Your physical condition also plays the biggest factor in whether you will sustain injury or not.
What military and branch exactly did you serve in? Couldn't be the Canadian one as we have minimum standards for our women. But Yes, someone who can easily crank out 50 p/u is more likely to be able to physically perform when required then the one who grunts and sweats out 1 or 2 half hearted ones.
I think I bowl with a woman like that, bigger than I am, tough as nails and says f*ck every third word
