Please read the whole article.
I'm curious what people think about this. I would like to hear from vets with ground combat experience in particular.
Panel to Recommend Allowing Women in Combat
Thank you.
Interesting article.
Still, I feel that women should be allowed to serve in front line combat, provided they meet the requirements. Not to "go there" but many of the negative comments leveled at the idea sound very much like those that were aimed at black men who wished to serve in the army(they can't take it, they're weaker, this is no place for social experimentation, etc.).
Interesting article.
Still, I feel that women should be allowed to serve in front line combat, provided they meet the requirements. Not to "go there" but many of the negative comments leveled at the idea sound very much like those that were aimed at black men who wished to serve in the army(they can't take it, they're weaker, this is no place for social experimentation, etc.).
I haven't served for about twenty years, so take this with that in mind. There is a world of difference between, "I don't like his skin color." and "The vast majority of them can't hang when the $hit hits the fan.". If, say, 1% of the population of females can make it through infantry or ranger school, do we make the policy on 1% or 99%?
Note: I pulled the 1% out of thin air for the sake of argument. I would love to hear from non-US combat troops with relevant experience.
If the current situation is that women simply can't serve these posts, its stupid. If the solution is that any woman should be allowed to serve these posts, its equally stupid.
There should be minimum fitness requirements, be they physical, mental, etc. And anyone who can pass them should be allowed to serve. Does this mean that most women won't have the physical capability to serve these posts, yes it does. Thats an unfortunate side effect of the biological fact that men are generally bigger and stronger. But if a woman was the capability, she should be allowed serve.
I didn't quite get what the current situation is, but from the article its seems the propasal is go from "no girls" to "any girl". Just as any man shouldn't just be allowed, there should be a set of requirements. Its physically gruelling though, so chances are more men will mee them, but its still as fair as it can be while maintaining purpose.
Interesting article.
Still, I feel that women should be allowed to serve in front line combat, provided they meet the requirements. Not to "go there" but many of the negative comments leveled at the idea sound very much like those that were aimed at black men who wished to serve in the army(they can't take it, they're weaker, this is no place for social experimentation, etc.).
I haven't served for about twenty years, so take this with that in mind. There is a world of difference between, "I don't like his skin color." and "The vast majority of them can't hang when the $hit hits the fan.". If, say, 1% of the population of females can make it through infantry or ranger school, do we make the policy on 1% or 99%?
Note: I pulled the 1% out of thin air for the sake of argument. I would love to hear from non-US combat troops with relevant experience.
That's the rub when it comes to racial bias that I feel is lost on a lot of people. Few people say "I just don't like [race] people." This isn't to say that NOONE does, just that not a lot of people do. Far more people say things like "I don't think [race] can do [activity] because they're [negative stereotype]." The thing is that both of these comments are biased, just that one is more obvious than the other- I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think there's much of a difference between the two statements- bias is bias. Argh. Don't think I'm being clear here- will attempt to come back to this thread later.
Interesting article.
Still, I feel that women should be allowed to serve in front line combat, provided they meet the requirements. Not to "go there" but many of the negative comments leveled at the idea sound very much like those that were aimed at black men who wished to serve in the army(they can't take it, they're weaker, this is no place for social experimentation, etc.).
Doubt you'd notice any real effect. As the article points out, the kinds of wars that the west largely gets into have been bushfire wars and the differences are increasingly semantic.
Strength differences are there but there is a broad range of strength differences among your male troops as well. Your troops should be in excellent physical shape but there is no obvious physical strength task that all the troops must be able to do so no particular cut off point stands out. Some troops are body builders and others may be excellent endurance runners etc. A Good lieutenant or sergeant understands the strengths and the weaknesses of their troops and assigns tasks accordingly.
Beyond that I have no doubt you won't really experience anything different. In 1988 First female gunners in the Regular Force graduate from qualification 3 training in the Canadian military. We've had them on the front lines for 22 years, including a 10 year war in Afghanistan, and have encountered no real problems except around the fact that there are always so few of them.
I served six months in Afghanistan as part of Canadas' contribution to the security efforts there. The Canadian forces have allowed women in combat roles for a number of years now.
Women in that role are still very rare, but the two I served with were both stout soldiers that I trusted with my life, and trusted me with theirs. Having said that, there's a reason few women can be found in frontline combat roles: most can't meet the physical demands of the job. The CF fitness requirements for women are considerably lower than for men, and those requirements are, in my opinion, too low. If a person can meet the standard required for frontline combat, then I'm all for it. But differing standards for women produce lower quality troops. The two women I served with were definitely above the norm, easily meeting the mens' fitness requirements (except grip strength, in one case).
Bottom line: as long as standards aren't lowered, women can make outstanding troops. Don't compromise those standards, though, just to get more women in frontline posts.
|
This comes from a non-military layman's point of view:
If a woman can physically and mentally perform in such a way that she meets the same requirements men are held to, then the only reasons I can see to not allow it are social and cultural conditioning reasons.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
This comes from a non-military layman's point of view:
If a woman can physically and mentally perform in such a way that she meets the same requirements men are held to, then the only reasons I can see to not allow it are social and cultural conditioning reasons.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
Even if all the physical requirements are the same, do we really want 19 year old co-eds bunking together in combat? Do we honestly think things will run smoother that way?
This comes from a non-military layman's point of view:
If a woman can physically and mentally perform in such a way that she meets the same requirements men are held to, then the only reasons I can see to not allow it are social and cultural conditioning reasons.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
This is what I was trying to say put far better. PC for its own sake is self-destructive and stupid.
Even if all the physical requirements are the same, do we really want 19 year old co-eds bunking together in combat? Do we honestly think things will run smoother that way?This comes from a non-military layman's point of view:
If a woman can physically and mentally perform in such a way that she meets the same requirements men are held to, then the only reasons I can see to not allow it are social and cultural conditioning reasons.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
To be honest I think most soldiers are professionals. Theres already secret sex between men and women, men and men int he service. Humans are sexual creatures you can't stop that, but I don't imagine this will make it worse. Its not like women will be wearing low-cut uniforms to distract snipers.
|
Even if all the physical requirements are the same, do we really want 19 year old co-eds bunking together in combat? Do we honestly think things will run smoother that way?
Perhaps this might be a somewhat un-PC suggestion, but what if female soldiers were required to have a Depo-prevara (or other long-term, rather than daily dose) shot while serving active combat duty?
On the other hand, there has been some research done into a perscription male contraceptive also. Perhaps it will be ready by the time this change is enacted. In that case, both men and women should be dosed just for good measure.
On the other front, I think that there should be one universal set of physical standards. Anyone who meets them should be allowed to serve. That being said, the standards should not be watered down. They should realistically reflect the physical requirements of combat.
For the record, I've never served in any branch of the military.
This comes from a non-military layman's point of view:
If a woman can physically and mentally perform in such a way that she meets the same requirements men are held to, then the only reasons I can see to not allow it are social and cultural conditioning reasons.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
Nail on the Head.
Same requirements across the board, flat out.
I would have had no problem serving with women during my time (1999-2003) if I thought they could physically do the things that most of the men I was serving with could. What it comes down to is "Can they drag my ass, bleeding and cursing from a gunshot wound, back to where I can get medical attention?" If the answer is yes, I really don't care about their sex, sexual orientation, religion, personal habits, favorite color, or any other piece of inconsequential bullshit about them.
As for bunking together, that's the reason women don't serve on Submarines. It's almost understandable. Combat doesn't zones don't really work that way. You don't have time or inclination to think about what Private Hotstuff might look like under her uniform, and if by some miracle you can get past the fact that your female foxhole partner is just as unwashed and filthy as you are after a week in no-man's land, well, lets hope it's safe enough to indulge yourselves.
I was in the HQ company of a tank unit for a while. A couple of the motorpool girls were good friends of mine, and were just as crass as the rest of us were. Once on a training exercise we were eating in a tent during a dust storm, waiting out the time, and BSing about how long it had been since we'd gotten a decent shower or worn a set of clean clothes. One of the guys said that he'd changed his drawers last night for the first time in about a week, and it felt fantastic. Everyone laughed. Someone asked the Females with us when the last time they changed their drawers was. Without missing a beat one said "Day before yesterday. Sounded like velcro."
Shudder.
We used to call the girls who were out in the dirt with us "Dustbunnies" (yes, i'm aware of the inherent sexism there). It didn't matter how attractive they were in garrison. After three days in the field, not one of them had an ounce of sex appeal. They were just soldiers like us, miserable and dirty, doing a thankless job and counting the days until they could go home.
On the other front, I think that there should be one universal set of physical standards. Anyone who meets them should be allowed to serve. That being said, the standards should not be watered down. They should realistically reflect the physical requirements of combat.
We had a captain that took over the company I was in who was a ranger. He firmly believed in training for actual combat, and not relying on basic PT tests. He said that the only real physical requirement is "can you drag your buddy to safety?"
The average solder in combat harness weighs 230 lbs. He told us that any soldier who could move a 250 lb duffel bag for two miles would not have to join the unit for PT for a week. Every day he'd lug out the duffel and allow anyone that wanted to a chance to try that instead of normal PT.
I have never in my life been more exhausted than the first time I tried it. I was in damn good shape, but I was completely unprepared. Only about a quarter of the guys were able to consistently do it. Only one of the girls could, and it took her a while to get there. (someone once said she was built like a mini-fridge, and the nickname stuck)
I'm of the opinion that the physical requirements for the military should actually be raised, and it's mostly due to that experience.
Call me sexist but don't believe that women can cut it as frontline foot soldiers. I just don't think that they could perform in that battle field roll as well as men do, it is a simple matter of basic human physiology. I do believe that women do have the same ability as men or even a better ability to serve in armored or artillery units though.
|
Even if all the physical requirements are the same, do we really want 19 year old co-eds bunking together in combat? Do we honestly think things will run smoother that way?This comes from a non-military layman's point of view:
If a woman can physically and mentally perform in such a way that she meets the same requirements men are held to, then the only reasons I can see to not allow it are social and cultural conditioning reasons.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
I can see this as an argument against homosexuals in the military as well. If however the soldier in question, strait, gay male female whatever, actually conforms to what a soldier is held to be and do. Then the question is in fact mute.
Will there be problems. Yes, but there are problems with the all boys group we have now. It will be different problems. The fear has always been what happens to female combatant when captured by the enemy. There are some things worse than death.
Call me sexist but don't believe that women can cut it as frontline foot soldiers. I just don't think that they could perform in that battle field roll as well as men do, it is a simple matter of basic human physiology. I do believe that women do have the same ability as men or even a better ability to serve in armored or artillery units though.
There's no such thing as simple matters in human biology. Stuff like that is often a spectrum with two peaks, and there are women who are born with all the aggression etc as a man. Just like physical capabilities, set a standard, far far more men will meet them, but women that also meet them shouldn't be excluded because they have a vagina rather than a penis. A penis is not a requirement for fighting.
|
|
Even if all the physical requirements are the same, do we really want 19 year old co-eds bunking together in combat? Do we honestly think things will run smoother that way?This comes from a non-military layman's point of view:
If a woman can physically and mentally perform in such a way that she meets the same requirements men are held to, then the only reasons I can see to not allow it are social and cultural conditioning reasons.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
emphasis added. There are other issues. The first one that should be addressed, however, is making sure the physical and mental requirements are met. That is easy to implement and much easier to objectively measure than the other issues involved.
Re: captured soldiers - I think all prisoners of war have the same issue. I think the bigger issue is studies I've heard described where men will disregard normal procedure / orders when women are in danger more than they do when other men are in danger.
|
|
Even if all the physical requirements are the same, do we really want 19 year old co-eds bunking together in combat? Do we honestly think things will run smoother that way?This comes from a non-military layman's point of view:
If a woman can physically and mentally perform in such a way that she meets the same requirements men are held to, then the only reasons I can see to not allow it are social and cultural conditioning reasons.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
emphasis added. There are other issues. The first one that should be addressed, however, is making sure the physical and mental requirements are met. That is easy to implement and much easier to objectively measure than the other issues involved.
Re: captured soldiers - I think all prisoners of war have the same issue. I think the bigger issue is studies I've heard described where men will disregard normal procedure / orders when women are in danger more than they do when other men are in danger.
This too is an issue. One brought on by cultural conditioning. One I personally am not yet ready to see removed. Yet would need to be addressed when woman are on the field of combat.
Even if all the physical requirements are the same, do we really want 19 year old co-eds bunking together in combat? Do we honestly think things will run smoother that way?Perhaps this might be a somewhat un-PC suggestion, but what if female soldiers were required to have a Depo-prevara (or other long-term, rather than daily dose) shot while serving active combat duty?
On the other hand, there has been some research done into a perscription male contraceptive also. Perhaps it will be ready by the time this change is enacted. In that case, both men and women should be dosed just for good measure.
On the other front, I think that there should be one universal set of physical standards. Anyone who meets them should be allowed to serve. That being said, the standards should not be watered down. They should realistically reflect the physical requirements of combat.
For the record, I've never served in any branch of the military.
In my (1st gulf war) experience, pregnancy and other physical issues rendered very large portions of support units with females non-deployable. IIRC, pregnancy alone rendered ~ 20% of females non-deployeble. Mandating temporary chemical sterilization raises numerous human rights issues.
I have trouble seeing how we deal with these issues in the current deployment rotation for combat arms.
|
|
Re: captured soldiers - I think all prisoners of war have the same issue.
Yes, but women to a greater degree than men. I don't think it's an issue though if the woman signs up (as she in theory knows the risk and accepts it) as opposed to being drafted.
This too is an issue. One brought on by cultural conditioning. One I personally am not yet ready to see removed. Yet would need to be addressed when woman are on the field of combat.
I think the way that one is addressed is those in command tell their subordinates 'she's not your girlfriend, treat her like everyone else', i.e. follow procedure. That should work unless she actually is his gf. lol.
This comes from a non-military layman's point of view:
If a woman can physically and mentally perform in such a way that she meets the same requirements men are held to, then the only reasons I can see to not allow it are social and cultural conditioning reasons.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
Nail on the Head.
Same requirements across the board, flat out.
I would have had no problem serving with women during my time (1999-2003) if I thought they could physically do the things that most of the men I was serving with could. What it comes down to is "Can they drag my ass, bleeding and cursing from a gunshot wound, back to where I can get medical attention?" If the answer is yes, I really don't care about their sex, sexual orientation, religion, personal habits, favorite color, or any other piece of inconsequential b!#**!#% about them.
As for bunking together, that's the reason women don't serve on Submarines. It's almost understandable. Combat doesn't zones don't really work that way. You don't have time or inclination to think about what Private Hotstuff might look like under her uniform, and if by some miracle you can get past the fact that your female foxhole partner is just as unwashed and filthy as you are after a week in no-man's land, well, lets hope it's safe enough to indulge yourselves.
I was in the HQ company of a tank unit for a while. A couple of the motorpool girls were good friends of mine, and were just as crass as the rest of us were. Once on a training exercise we were eating in a tent during a dust storm, waiting out the time, and BSing about how long it had been since we'd gotten a decent shower or worn a set of clean clothes. One of the guys said that he'd changed his drawers last night for the first time in about a week, and it...
Even if (and that is a HUGE if) women are held to the same PT standards as men that is only the tip of the iceberg.
IIRC, women have started serving on boomers and attack subs. I would be curious to see the performance data (including deployability) for those boats.
Regarding bunking together, I have not heard of a single combat unit that my friends were in (in Iraq or Afghanistan) that had females attached that did not have sexual conduct that violated the UCMJ. This is purely anecdotal and second hand, but these problems almost never get officially documented. I'm not sure where we turn for useful quantitative data for this. It seems that the lack of showers doesn't slow the troops down very much.
On the other front, I think that there should be one universal set of physical standards. Anyone who meets them should be allowed to serve. That being said, the standards should not be watered down. They should realistically reflect the physical requirements of combat.We had a captain that took over the company I was in who was a ranger. He firmly believed in training for actual combat, and not relying on basic PT tests. He said that the only real physical requirement is "can you drag your buddy to safety?"
The average solder in combat harness weighs 230 lbs. He told us that any soldier who could move a 250 lb duffel bag for two miles would not have to join the unit for PT for a week. Every day he'd lug out the duffel and allow anyone that wanted to a chance to try that instead of normal PT.
I have never in my life been more exhausted than the first time I tried it. I was in damn good shape, but I was completely unprepared. Only about a quarter of the guys were able to consistently do it. Only one of the girls could, and it took her a while to get there. (someone once said she was built like a mini-fridge, and the nickname stuck)
I'm of the opinion that the physical requirements for the military should actually be raised, and it's mostly due to that experience.
+1, but there will be court battles if we try to raise physical standards!
Call me sexist but don't believe that women can cut it as frontline foot soldiers. I just don't think that they could perform in that battle field roll as well as men do, it is a simple matter of basic human physiology. I do believe that women do have the same ability as men or even a better ability to serve in armored or artillery units though.There's no such thing as simple matters in human biology. Stuff like that is often a spectrum with two peaks, and there are women who are born with all the aggression etc as a man. Just like physical capabilities, set a standard, far far more men will meet them, but women that also meet them shouldn't be excluded because they have a vagina rather than a penis. A penis is not a requirement for fighting.
Women on average have 40-50% less muscle strength than men and therefore on average can't even lift the loads needed to be a front line grunt. Armor and artillery units may have to lift loads of around 50 lbs but do not have to carry around the same weight of equipment, 125-150lbs, as a front line grunt for extended periods of time.
Individual aggression levels aren’t even considered in my view point only strength of body.
If they can meet the same physical requirements, why not?
As for the sex thing - sleep deprivation takes care of that ("we have to move the tent again? g#d d%&n officers!")And nobody looks good in longjohns.
My (Female) leutenant shouted down colonels when needed, and was one the best officers I've seen.
|
|
Re: captured soldiers - I think all prisoners of war have the same issue.Yes, but women to a greater degree than men. I don't think it's an issue though if the woman signs up (as she in theory knows the risk and accepts it) as opposed to being drafted.
I think the way that one is addressed is those in command tell their subordinates 'she's not your girlfriend, treat her like everyone else', i.e. follow procedure. That should work unless she actually is his gf. lol.
This too is an issue. One brought on by cultural conditioning. One I personally am not yet ready to see removed. Yet would need to be addressed when woman are on the field of combat.
Not what I was referring to. I was thinking more along the lines of a soldier putting himself in more danger with a chivalrous attitude towards women. There are still some men, dangerously few if you ask me. That will instinctively protect a woman. Fellow soldier or not.
|
|
Call me sexist but don't believe that women can cut it as frontline foot soldiers. I just don't think that they could perform in that battle field roll as well as men do, it is a simple matter of basic human physiology. I do believe that women do have the same ability as men or even a better ability to serve in armored or artillery units though.There's no such thing as simple matters in human biology. Stuff like that is often a spectrum with two peaks, and there are women who are born with all the aggression etc as a man. Just like physical capabilities, set a standard, far far more men will meet them, but women that also meet them shouldn't be excluded because they have a vagina rather than a penis. A penis is not a requirement for fighting.Women on average have 40-50% less muscle strength than men and therefore on average can't even lift the loads needed to be a front line grunt. Armor and artillery units may have to lift loads of around 50 lbs but do not have to carry around the same weight of equipment, 125-150lbs, as a front line grunt for extended periods of time.
Individual aggression levels aren’t even considered in my view point only strength of body.
too much aggression leads to as big of an issue as too little.
If the fitness levels are consistent it matters not if in general a woman can lift less than most men. It matters what an individual soldier can or can not do.
Women on average have 40-50% less muscle strength than men and therefore on average can't even lift the loads needed to be a front line grunt. Armor and artillery units may have to lift loads of around 50 lbs but do not have to carry around the same weight of equipment, 125-150lbs, as a front line grunt for extended periods of time.
Individual aggression levels aren’t even considered in my view point only strength of body.
Interesting logic: "Women on average are weaker, therefore none of them can meet a minimum physical requirement." Frankly, that makes no sense. If we keep the physical fitness bar in the same place, why not accept the women who can meet it and reject the ones who can't, rather than a priori declaring that they're not allowed to even test for it?
Re: aggression -- largely irrelevant. A person can shoot just as well coldly as aggressively; indeed, the accuracy is often better. And, FYI, the average female marksmanship scores are significantly higher than the average male scores -- it's only at the extreme upper registers (Matine Wimbledon invitational, etc.) that men dominate.
So if an individual female can make the physical bar and can shoot better than most of her male peers besides, falling back on pure sexism as a reason why she shouldn't be allowed in combat is a lame response.
Interesting article.
Still, I feel that women should be allowed to serve in front line combat, provided they meet the requirements. Not to "go there" but many of the negative comments leveled at the idea sound very much like those that were aimed at black men who wished to serve in the army(they can't take it, they're weaker, this is no place for social experimentation, etc.).
Being in the military, and being traditionally somewhat liberal ( a slightly left-leaning centrist...) I have to say that I'm very much opposed to letting females enter into combat positions. Mixing the sexes in a deployed environment causes problems enough as is, but allowing a 110 pound woman into a combat unit where she might need to carry a 180 pound man out of a fight seems like poor judgement to me (conversely, a 120 pound man is not the best candidate either...).
I think that ultimately you'd have to look at individual merit (maybe there's a tanked out 180 pound athlete female out there who's period's wouldn't interfere with prolonged combat work, I'm no expert) but in general people need to accept the fact that women and men are built differently. Niether is superior, but we're all designed for different things. In a world of point and pull combat, where technology has overridden brawn on the battlefield an arguement could be made that in a gunfight a woman is a superior choice.
Look to the Israeli female attack squads, and the sniper units employed in various other countries special forces for an alternate opinion, but in the long run a man is hardier physically 90% of the time... and not to be insensitive, but women have....physical complications... that don't mesh well with the battlefield setting. (Source - My sister, Marine Corps Military Policewoman).
It's a complicated issue, but I just don't think the majority of women are cut out for combat specialties.
Call me sexist but don't believe that women can cut it as frontline foot soldiers. I just don't think that they could perform in that battle field roll as well as men do, it is a simple matter of basic human physiology. I do believe that women do have the same ability as men or even a better ability to serve in armored or artillery units though.There's no such thing as simple matters in human biology. Stuff like that is often a spectrum with two peaks, and there are women who are born with all the aggression etc as a man. Just like physical capabilities, set a standard, far far more men will meet them, but women that also meet them shouldn't be excluded because they have a vagina rather than a penis. A penis is not a requirement for fighting.Women on average have 40-50% less muscle strength than men and therefore on average can't even lift the loads needed to be a front line grunt. Armor and artillery units may have to lift loads of around 50 lbs but do not have to carry around the same weight of equipment, 125-150lbs, as a front line grunt for extended periods of time.
Individual aggression levels aren’t even considered in my view point only strength of body.
too much aggression leads to as big of an issue as too little.
If the fitness levels are consistent it matters not if in general a woman can lift less than most men. It matters what an individual soldier can or can not do.
valid point on the aggression issue.
Fitness levels, however, are not consistent. Men and women have significantly different physical fitness testing components, not to mention the testing components test you on strength relative to your size.
If we were all tested on carrying a 185 pound, wounded man away from a firefight then that logic would hold true.
Fitness levels, however, are not consistent. Men and women have significantly different physical fitness testing components, not to mention the testing components test you on strength relative to your size. If we were all tested on carrying a 185 pound, wounded man away from a firefight then that logic would hold true.
So if the physical fitness standards were unisex, you'd have no problem admitting qualifying females to combat? Sometimes from your posts that seems the case; other times it seems like you'd shop around for another reason to ban them. I'm genuinely uncertain.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.
This is exactly what the US military does. In the Army, there are different, lower physical standards for female service members than there are for males. Take a look at these charts that show the US Army PT standards. You'll notice that in some events the standards for males and females are drastically different. For instance, in the 17-21 age bracket, females receive maximum score for 42 pushups whereas males need 42 pushups just to pass (males need 71 reps to max score on pushups). AFAIK all branches of service have lower PT standards for females. There is an explicit, institutional double standard.
In asymmetric warfare (the kind we fight now where there are no front lines) female service members, no matter whether they are combat arms or not, are just as much at risk as male combat arms soldiers. It's almost a moot point to allow females to serve in combat arms. Actually, females already serve in some combat arms branches. The Field Artillery has had female officers leading troops in combat for two years now.
|
|
Not what I was referring to. I was thinking more along the lines of a soldier putting himself in more danger with a chivalrous attitude towards women. There are still some men, dangerously few if you ask me. That will instinctively protect a woman. Fellow soldier or not.
That's what conditioning's for. If the Marines can get people to think and act in terms of 'we', not 'I', then conditioning could work for the chivalry thing too. I agree, not all people, but it could help to some extent.
So if the physical fitness standards were unisex, you'd have no problem admitting qualifying females to combat? Or would you then shop around for another reason to ban them?Fitness levels, however, are not consistent. Men and women have significantly different physical fitness testing components, not to mention the testing components test you on strength relative to your size. If we were all tested on carrying a 185 pound, wounded man away from a firefight then that logic would hold true.
Not the current physical fitness standards, no. They would have to be objectively designed (I.E. not the current system of run/push-ups/pull-ups... do any of those measure your ability to fight in the first place? Of course not...)
I would push for a real system of measurement, something akin to firefighting physical tests. Also, combat training should be brutal.
I think if more people had a special forces background they'd be inclined to agree in general.
In addition to the above, we need to pull the kid gloves off our instructors. If you're going into a combat profession, you SHOULD be getting your ass kicked pretty regularly to toughen you up. No one is magically good at boxing, they get in the ring and they FIGHT until they figure it out.
Hey let's bring the discussion into a slightly different venue--combat sports. If sex is really no issue in combat ability, why then do we not have mixed gender leagues for boxing and UFC? Hell, Basketball or football?
I would push for a real system of measurement, something akin to firefighting physical tests. Also, combat training should be brutal. In addition to the above, we need to pull the kid gloves off our instructors. If you're going into a combat profession, you SHOULD be getting your ass kicked pretty regularly to toughen you up. No one is magically good at boxing, they get in the ring and they FIGHT until they figure it out.
No disagreement whatsoever, with any of that. All of this dodges my question, however.
Hey let's bring the discussion into a slightly different venue--combat sports. If sex is really no issue in combat ability, why then do we not have mixed gender leagues for boxing and UFC? Hell, Basketball or football?
Cultural expectations, maybe? Because we're conditioned to see male football players and female cheerleaders?
--
Let me flip it around. Evaluate the following: "Females, on average, score better on marksmanship than their male peers, on average. But the standards are so low that even men can pass. But, realistically, men should not be allowed into combat because they'd be unable to kill the enemy and the females would have to save them all the time." See the problems there? They cut both ways.
If a the standards for a woman to gain a front line combat position are lowered compared to those required of a man, then we're putting people's lives at greater risk for political correctness or social experimentation - and I think that's unethical.This is exactly what the US military does. In the Army, there are different, lower physical standards for female service members than there are for males. Take a look at these charts that show the US Army PT standards. You'll notice that in some events the standards for males and females are drastically different. For instance, in the 17-21 age bracket, females receive maximum score for 42 pushups whereas males need 42 pushups just to pass (males need 71 reps to max score on pushups). AFAIK all branches of service have lower PT standards for females. There is an explicit, institutional double standard.
In asymmetric warfare (the kind we fight now where there are no front lines) female service members, no matter whether they are combat arms or not, are just as much at risk as male combat arms soldiers. It's almost a moot point to allow females to serve in combat arms. Actually, females already serve in some combat arms branches. The Field Artillery has had female officers leading troops in combat for two years now.
Solid, well spoken points. The Air Force has a gender biased physical fitness program as well.
Solid, well spoken points. The Air Force has a gender biased physical fitness program as well.
Yes, we all agree the physical standards are not useful. I don't see anyone claiming they are. What is see is a lot of, "would you change your mind of the standards were corrected?" And the reply is always "the current standards suck!"
I would push for a real system of measurement, something akin to firefighting physical tests. Also, combat training should be brutal. In addition to the above, we need to pull the kid gloves off our instructors. If you're going into a combat profession, you SHOULD be getting your ass kicked pretty regularly to toughen you up. No one is magically good at boxing, they get in the ring and they FIGHT until they figure it out.No disagreement whatsoever, with any of that. All of this dodges my question, however.
Hey let's bring the discussion into a slightly different venue--combat sports. If sex is really no issue in combat ability, why then do we not have mixed gender leagues for boxing and UFC? Hell, Basketball or football?Cultural expectations, maybe? Because we're conditioned to see male football players and female cheerleaders?
--
Let me flip it around. Evaluate the following: "Females, on average, score better on marksmanship than their male peers, on average. But the standards are so low that even men can pass. But, realistically, men should not be allowed into combat because they'd be unable to kill the enemy and the females would have to save them all the time." See the problems there? They cut both ways.
As usual, I agree with this. However, I've been dying to see inter-gender sports for years upon years upon years- especially in things like boxing and *sigh* MMA.
Re: aggression -- largely irrelevant. A person can shoot just as well coldly as aggressively; indeed, the accuracy is often better. And, FYI, the average female marksmanship scores are significantly higher than the average male scores -- it's only at the extreme upper registers (Matine Wimbledon invitational, etc.) that men dominate.
Evidence of this, please? A study of American ROTC cadets (from a number of years ago, mind you) did conclude that after initial firearms training, males scored higher than females.
The women in basic with me were, on average, worse shots than the men.
Back it up, Kirth.
A quick example, I'll find a number of better ones. For every one, you have to post a link demonstrating women's inability to drag 250 lbs, vs. the inability of men to do the same -- lest we have a double standard.
And the main question is STILL being dodged.
Solid, well spoken points. The Air Force has a gender biased physical fitness program as well.Yes, we all agree the physical standards are not useful. I don't see anyone claiming they are. What is see is a lot of, "would you change your mind of the standards were corrected?" And the reply is always "the current standards suck!"
I answered this in my previous post. In the rare case that a female could pass the thresholds set for the job (something akin to a fire fighters test, I say!) and not mind getting slapped around in training, AND be ale to fight toe to toe with a man, then hell yeah send them on through. There wouldn't be many, however.
A quick example, I'll find a number of better ones. For every one, you have to post a link demonstrating women's inability to drag 250 lbs, vs. the inability of men to do the same -- lest we have a double standard.
And the main question is STILL being dodged.
Never said women - certain women - can't drag 250 lbs. Am saying, as per the study done by the American College of Sports Medicine (April 1987 - Volume 19 - Issue 2 - ppg S47), that women cadets were worse shots. No need to create strawmen, Kirth.
If you read my earlier post, you'll note that I did indeed serve with two women in my combat expertise. I'd love to see more women in combat roles, but the current standards have to be maintained, if not improved. Fewer women than men can meet them. Therefore, fewer women in combat. Simple, eh?
edit: perhaps I should improve my spelling, as well
A quick example, I'll find a number of better ones. For every one, you have to post a link demonstrating women's inability to drag 250 lbs, vs. the inability of men to do the same -- lest we have a double standard.
And the main question is STILL being dodged.
I answered you, but I haven't seen you refute much... specifically, show me a female professional top tier fighter that could defeat her male counterpart in the sport.
look at the Olympics.
100 yard dash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres#Top_ten_all-time_athletes.E2.80.94m en
Lifting Weights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting
Iron Man Triatholons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironman_World_Championship
In each and every case, they are divided by gender, and the males are stronger/faster/more triatholon-y.
don't ignore the facts, men are physically superior to females in strength, speed, and endurance IN GENERAL. These numbers are arguably the peaks of human athletics, and I'd wager (supposition only, I can't back this up) that the distance in ability widens as you get closer to the mean average.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Solid, well spoken points. The Air Force has a gender biased physical fitness program as well.Yes, we all agree the physical standards are not useful. I don't see anyone claiming they are. What is see is a lot of, "would you change your mind of the standards were corrected?" And the reply is always "the current standards suck!"
Somebody doesn't agree that the standards suck or else they would be different. The Army is beginning to institute a more combat-focused PT program. It doesn't replace or change the standards of the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test).
FWIW I've served with females in combat and I don't care what wedding tackle they've got if they can do the job. The "sex as an unnecessary complication" cat is out of the bag with the end of DADT so that shouldn't be an obstacle to females serving in combat arms any more than it is to females serving at all. If I had the magic policy wand I'd allow females in combat arms, do away with height/weight standards, make one PT standard for both sexes and all ages, and let the chips fall where they may. If we wound up with more recruits than billets I'd raise the standards to make it more competitive. But if an individual can perform combat tasks I don't care whether they're male, female, black, white, gay, straight, overweight, or a purple-skinned squirrel-worshipping mime that's willing to risk their life to serve their country, I say let 'em serve.
I'd love to see more women in combat roles, but the current standards have to be maintained, if not improved. Fewer women than men can meet them. Therefore, fewer women in combat. Simple, eh?
Very simple, and I agree with it. I'd have had no argument whatsoever if that's what people like Xabulba were saying... but instead, blanket statements "women can't meet the standards, therefore they shouldn't be allowed" were being thrown about for a while.
If you meet the physical requirements and mental requirements, no mater the colour of your skin, gender, religion or sexual preferences the you should be allowed to serve in combat.
You also have to be aware of how the enemy are going to treat you should you be captured and that is a thorny issue. The US is perceived around the world to have both sexually and physically tortured prisoners of war. This can be used as an excuse by the enemy to do the same.
Somebody doesn't agree that the standards suck or else they would be different. The Army is beginning to institute a more combat-focused PT program. It doesn't replace or change the standards of the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test).
I assume the APFT is as much of a joke as it was in 1990 when I went in. One thing the Army is not is "quick to change."
If I had the magic policy wand I'd allow females in combat arms, do away with height/weight standards, make one PT standard for both sexes and all ages, and let the chips fall where they may. If we wound up with more recruits than billets I'd raise the standards to make it more competitive. But if an individual can perform combat tasks I don't care whether they're male, female, black, white, gay, straight, overweight, or a purple-skinned squirrel-worshipping mime that's willing to risk their life to serve their country, I say let 'em serve.
You and I are of exactly like mind, then.