Within the next few months, the US marines will usher women into roles which, for the entire 236-year history of the corps, have been held exclusively by men. The announcement by General James Amos marks yet another milestone in the advancements of women in the military – advancements which, until this past decade, have been largely nonexistent.
That this announcement even qualifies as a milestone is indicative of a larger problem as far as gender equality within the armed forces is concerned. There should be no question that American women are entirely able to serve closer to the frontlines – and even on them. In Canada, Australia, Israel and New Zealand, they are already allowed to serve alongside men. Canadian women, in fact, have undertaken combat duties since 1989. And despite being denied combat roles, women in the US military have even been awarded silver stars – the third-highest combat military decoration – for their performance: 19-year-old Monica Lin Brown, in 2008, became the first such recipient after she saved the lives of fellow soldiers following a roadside bomb attack in Iraq.
The real question is not whether women have the capacity to serve to a greater extent, it is whether the US military, both in its policies and its prejudices, has the capacity for them to do so. Since the American revolution, women have toiled alongside men in America's armed forces. Their jobs, however, remained entirely outside the realm of combat. Women in earlier wars served as nurses, civil service pilots, cooks and mechanics, among other positions. Since 2001, the roles of women in the military have changed. More than 225,000 women have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and women now comprise 15% of America's armed forces. Many of these women served unofficially in combat roles. Women in the navy have, for the first time, served aboard submarines. An estimated 144 women fighting in these two wars have died.
Historically, the limitations imposed on women have been justified by top brass for a single primary reason: a woman's physical and psychological stamina simply could not withstand the rigours of direct combat. But today, even the department of defence has recognised – at least on paper – the archaic nature of this presumption. A recent report from the office of the undersecretary of defence recommended "the elimination of gender-restricted assignment". That report also mandated the development of "gender-neutral physical standards" so that women could be evaluated head-to-head with their male colleagues. In conjunction with that report, Pentagon officials earlier this year announced plans to open an estimated 14,000 additional military jobs to women – many of them of a more dangerous nature than what is allowed now (but top brass stopped short of permitted women to serve in combat, offering as rationale little more than that they continued to study the prospect).
This week's two-pronged marine corps announcement is of a similar nature: women (who comprise a mere 10% of the marines) can now participate in its gruelling infantry officer course, a three-month programme that's the necessary precursor to joining the infantry. But there's a catch: once women complete the programme, they still won't actually be allowed to join the infantry. Another 40 women will be assigned to roles previously held exclusively by men. But again, none of those roles will entail combat service. No doubt, any advancements in the regulations that govern women in the military is cause for celebration. But the sluggishness of the Pentagon's progress is difficult to understand, and also incredibly frustrating especially when, unofficially, women have increasingly found themselves in the very combat roles they're barred from. "Women are being shot at, are being killed, are being attached to these combat arms units," Anu Bhagwati, executive director of the Service Women's Action Network, told the BBC. "The policy has to catch up to reality."
Before it does, however, the military would be wise to make additional changes to accommodate any enhanced role for women in the armed services. For decades important issues that pertain to women in the context of military service – sexual assault, reactions to trauma and compensation, among others – have not been assigned the attention they both require and deserve. An astounding 3,192 women reported a sexual assault in 2011, according to a Pentagon report issued last year. Even worse? That figure is only 13.5% of the total assaults on women that likely occurred. Regardless of combat exposure, recent studies have concluded that deployed women in Iraq and Afghanistan are more than twice as vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder than their male peers. Women are also much less likely to qualify for disability benefits related to physical injury or trauma. Why? Because "officially" they aren't exposed to combat.
No doubt, thousands of enlisted women would tell the US military that they're more than ready to serve their country in the same capacity as men. Whether the military is ready for women, however, remains an open question.
I have no question that Women can and could serve in a combat capacity. I still dont want them too. I admit its a bit old fashioned but I belive that Women should be protected.
Nicorex wrote:I belive that Women should be protected.
Why? What is your rational basis for this? Please explain the underlying justification and how it leads to that conclusion. I would also be appreciative if you could address some of the more common or obvious arguments that might used to try and prove that wrong. Finally if you explain a bit about why you think women are capable/fit for combat and how this forms a consistent view with your reasons behind the quoted statement that'd be just super!
My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.
Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.
They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.
The plans only good till the shooting starts.
I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.
I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"
The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.
Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.
But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?
Nicorex wrote:I belive that Women should be protected.
Why? What is your rational basis for this? Please explain the underlying justification and how it leads to that conclusion. I would also be appreciative if you could address some of the more common or obvious arguments that might used to try and prove that wrong. Finally if you explain a bit about why you think women are capable/fit for combat and how this forms a consistent view with your reasons behind the quoted statement that'd be just super!
Thanks.
Very simple. If women realize they can kick our butts too, then we are doomed. DOOMED I tells ya!
Screw protecting women, my concern will always be simple capability. If a woman can carry the same kit, plus extra ammo for the MG, extra food, At-4 etc like every other dude in the squad. The more power to her.
She also need to be able to provide aid to her squad mates. I wiegh 215lbs. With just my weapon, helmet, body armor, and basic load I'm tipping out 250-260lbs. Drop-ready closer to 300 lbs out the door. If I'm wounded and she can't drag me to safety she is a detriment to our team and a liability to me.
The physical limitation of women is a good and continuing reason to keep many of them out of combat arms. There needs to be a unisex physical standard to qualify for a frontline MOS. Because here are equally useless males. With that hurdle in place I welcome the gentler sex to the dirty, disgusting, dangerous, and wonderful world of killing things.
mattyrm wrote: Chicks shouldn't be on the front line.
My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.
Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.
They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.
The plans only good till the shooting starts.
I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.
I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"
The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.
Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.
But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?
How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?
mattyrm wrote: Chicks shouldn't be on the front line.
My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.
Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.
They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.
The plans only good till the shooting starts.
I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.
I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"
The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.
Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.
But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?
How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?
That would seem fair...
People are rejected every day from the armed forces on account of various reasons.
Physical requirements are another one of these reasons...
Frazzled wrote:
How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?
Yeah that's fine. Basically Id only ban them from Top Tier Infantry and SF, I reckon they would struggle with some other stuff as well mind, but its workable.
Nicorex wrote:I belive that Women should be protected.
Why? What is your rational basis for this? Please explain the underlying justification and how it leads to that conclusion. I would also be appreciative if you could address some of the more common or obvious arguments that might used to try and prove that wrong. Finally if you explain a bit about why you think women are capable/fit for combat and how this forms a consistent view with your reasons behind the quoted statement that'd be just super!
Thanks.
Why?? Because having been born in the South and raised with a certain set of values. I belive that women should be protected and watched over and kept from harm both Pysical and Mental. Like I said its old fashioned.. but its how I think. So no actuall rational basis. Im sure there are some circumstances where you can not and should not prevent a woman getting harmed, but I cant thnk of that many off the top of my head.
Now Matty does make some valid points about the pysical diffrences between men and women. But that is not always true. He may be a very fit and strong man but not every man is and I bet there have been many occasions where a woman has had to save a man and done a fine job of it. I have met woman that could bench press .. well me actually... I would still stand between her and a mugger. Just who I am.
Why are woman capiable and fit to serve in a combat capacity? Because they have and do already.
mattyrm wrote: Chicks shouldn't be on the front line.
My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.
Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.
They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.
The plans only good till the shooting starts.
I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.
I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"
The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.
Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.
But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?
How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?
That would seem fair...
People are rejected every day from the armed forces on account of various reasons.
Physical requirements are another one of these reasons...
Then set physical requirements. You know, actual real observable metrics. "Able to run for Y hours, at X MPH carrying Z KGs of Load". If a woman can meet those requirements, why not let her do the job. Clearly if she can meet the requirements her being a woman isn't relevant to the physical requirements by virtue of her meeting the physical requirements. Similar to how (already) a man who doesn't meet the requirements isn't fit to do the job just because he's a man. Seriously, I'm a dude about the only combat role I'd be suited to is "Human Shield" and even then I'd a heavy one.
Matty, fair point about frontline combat in a high intensity place like Afghanistan, but I remember my Northern Ireland days and my mistrust of all things female for reasons which are obvious. So there is a role for women in some sort of fighting capacity.
Back to the original point about women in the frontline, I may be a dreamer but I hope the day comes when we don't have anybody in the frontline, be they male or female.
I can just imagine Frazz saying 'people like you are the reason why the world is a dangerous place!'
mattyrm wrote: Chicks shouldn't be on the front line.
My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.
Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.
They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.
The plans only good till the shooting starts.
I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.
I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"
The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.
Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.
But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?
How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?
That would seem fair...
People are rejected every day from the armed forces on account of various reasons.
Physical requirements are another one of these reasons...
Then set physical requirements. You know, actual real observable metrics. "Able to run for Y hours, at X MPH carrying Z KGs of Load". If a woman can meet those requirements, why not let her do the job. Clearly if she can meet the requirements her being a woman isn't relevant to the physical requirements by virtue of her meeting the physical requirements. Similar to how (already) a man who doesn't meet the requirements isn't fit to do the job just because he's a man. Seriously, I'm a dude about the only combat role I'd be suited to is "Human Shield" and even then I'd a heavy one.
If the women in question can perform to the same standards as a man with no bias, then I see no issue.
But with this policy, this means maybe less than 5%, if not even less, of the military will be made of women due to the stringent requirements. No reason to have another solider suffer due to a policy that was scaled back due to bias. But this also has to mean the military needs to grow up and stand for the American female solider that is currently serving as the recent string of sexual assault and rape cases are not being handled fairly. But must also apply to women themselves.
Nicorex wrote:
Why?? Because having been born in the South and raised with a certain set of values. I belive that women should be protected and watched over and kept from harm both Pysical and Mental. Like I said its old fashioned.. but its how I think. So no actuall rational basis. Im sure there are some circumstances where you can not and should not prevent a woman getting harmed, but I cant thnk of that many off the top of my head.
Well. I'm certain any woman would be grateful she has your beliefs with no rational basis to shield her from mental harm. Good to see chivalry is alive well.
We're miles ahead in our preparation for full integration of the sexes in the UK.
All of our armoured vehicles have tea urns already built in, sooner or later they will have to be staffed by mature ladies called Beryl dressed in camo tabards. As soon as the budget can stretch to rich tea bisuits and french fancies I can see the Ladies going over the top with the men.
I honestly dont have a problem with this. If someone REALLY wants to serve there country and do a dangerous job, then they should be able to do it. I just dont understand why it took us that long to finally integrate women. xP
Nicorex wrote:
Why?? Because having been born in the South and raised with a certain set of values. I belive that women should be protected and watched over and kept from harm both Pysical and Mental. Like I said its old fashioned.. but its how I think. So no actuall rational basis. Im sure there are some circumstances where you can not and should not prevent a woman getting harmed, but I cant thnk of that many off the top of my head.
Well. I'm certain any woman would be grateful she has your beliefs with no rational basis to shield her from mental harm. Good to see chivalry is alive well.
What I want to know is why you seem to need a rational basis for it? Do you belive in God? Whats your rational basis for that? See how that comes off.
notprop wrote:We're miles ahead in our preparation for full integration of the sexes in the UK.
All of our armoured vehicles have tea urns already built in, sooner or later they will have to be staffed by mature ladies called Beryl dressed in camo tabards. As soon as the budget can stretch to rich tea bisuits and french fancies I can see the Ladies going over the top with the men.
Wat?
wouldn't your AFV's have to be like 4 times bigger then to fit the tea trolly?
Nicorex wrote:
What I want to know is why you seem to need a rational basis for it? Do you belive in God? Whats your rational basis for that? See how that comes off.
Which god are we talking here? Zeus, Dhunia, Quetzalcoatl, Pelor, Anubis, Althena? Please clarify a bit.
There should be accepted physical requirements for combat units. I am not one to speak to the specifics of what they should be, but anyone who meets them shouldn't be denied the ability to serve in front line combat simply because of their sex.
If there are other practical/cultural reasons thats a different issue to be addressed. At the end of the day physical requirements are no more a burden on women than men in my mind. If you meet them you meet them.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.
I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?
Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.
I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?
There are general physical fitness requirements. There are separate standards for women and men. The womens scale is a joke of epic proportions. There is no physical capabilities test for job qualification.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.
I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?
There are general physical fitness requirements. There are separate standards for women and men. The womens scale is a joke of epic proportions. There is no physical capabilities test for job qualification.
AustonT has the right of it. The PT test for woman is not even close to what is required for men. For instance, I remember the Minimum score on the Run for an 18-21 year old Male, would grant a Female, maximum points on their run. They also have to do less pushups, that males do. I think if they want to start combat integration, then they should bump the females PT test up to the male standards, and there would probably have to be a minimum Height/weigh requirement.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.
I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?
There are general physical fitness requirements. There are separate standards for women and men. The womens scale is a joke of epic proportions. There is no physical capabilities test for job qualification.
AustonT has the right of it. The PT test for woman is not even close to what is required for men. For instance, I remember the Minimum score on the Run for an 18-21 year old Male, would grant a Female, maximum points on their run. They also have to do less pushups, that males do. I think if they want to start combat integration, then they should bump the females PT test up to the male standards, and there would probably have to be a minimum Height/weigh requirement.
For the Army at least, the minimum standard for a male in the 17-21 bracket is 42 push ups in 2 minutes, 53 sit ups in 2 minutes, and a 15:54 two mile run time.
For females it's 19 push ups, 53 sit ups, and an 18:54 run time. Their max score for pushups and the run is 42 and 1536 respectively, or just about the minimum expected of males, you'll note.
Plus their standards drop off more sharply with age than males.
Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.
I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?
There are general physical fitness requirements. There are separate standards for women and men. The womens scale is a joke of epic proportions. There is no physical capabilities test for job qualification.
AustonT has the right of it. The PT test for woman is not even close to what is required for men. For instance, I remember the Minimum score on the Run for an 18-21 year old Male, would grant a Female, maximum points on their run. They also have to do less pushups, that males do. I think if they want to start combat integration, then they should bump the females PT test up to the male standards, and there would probably have to be a minimum Height/weigh requirement.
There is a difference between male and female requirements, but the article here was supporting a gender-neutral requirement if we are looking at putting them in combat roles.
Personally I have no issue with this. If a gender-neutral standard means that less women will be able to pass than men then that's just physiology. The fact is that currently there a women that are more than capable of taking part in combat duties, and the restriction against them is not for physical reasons.
AustonT has the right of it. The PT test for woman is not even close to what is required for men. For instance, I remember the Minimum score on the Run for an 18-21 year old Male, would grant a Female, maximum points on their run. They also have to do less pushups, that males do. I think if they want to start combat integration, then they should bump the females PT test up to the male standards, and there would probably have to be a minimum Height/weigh requirement.
Height/Weight aren't particularly relevant. About the only circumstances where height or weight are really an advantage are times you're fighting with things like swords, knives or fists. Once you've got anything that adds as much reach as spear, let alone a firearm it really isn't nearly as big a deal.
Honestly the masculine traits that people focus on as making supposedly clear and vastly superior to women in combat on some sort of fundamental level are body Mass and raw Strength. These are hardly game changers in ancient battles, let alone modern ones. The really important things: Endurance, Pain & Stress Tolerance, Cooperation, and good decision making are hardly strongly divided by sex.
AustonT has the right of it. The PT test for woman is not even close to what is required for men. For instance, I remember the Minimum score on the Run for an 18-21 year old Male, would grant a Female, maximum points on their run. They also have to do less pushups, that males do. I think if they want to start combat integration, then they should bump the females PT test up to the male standards, and there would probably have to be a minimum Height/weigh requirement.
Height/Weight aren't particularly relevant. About the only circumstances where height or weight are really an advantage are times you're fighting with things like swords, knives or fists. Once you've got anything that adds as much reach as spear, let alone a firearm it really isn't nearly as big a deal.
Honestly the masculine traits that people focus on as making supposedly clear and vastly superior to women in combat on some sort of fundamental level are body Mass and raw Strength. These are hardly game changers in ancient battles, let alone modern ones. The really important things: Endurance, Pain & Stress Tolerance, Cooperation, and good decision making are hardly strongly divided by sex.
Yeah, going to disagree with you at least partially here. You're right about height/weight being fairly unimportant, but strength is key. When your transport craps out on you and you have to lug 70 lbs of gear a few miles, physical strength is pretty important. I mean hell, I was an antenna jockey, and it mattered there, let alone in combat. And I would also say that endurance, at least in the physical sense, is also very strongly divided by sex, because physical strength is a key component of that.
Height and weight unfortunately are relevant. A larger person can handle the recoil of a weapon far more capably than a shorter one. Likewise, being overweight isn't really a good thing in the military and neither is being underweight. Someone under four feet tall, is probably not going to be able to meet a lot of physical requirements simply because they don't have enough body mass.
Eh, women can get fairly strong and fast if they train for it, but very few actually do. I'm sure female olympic lifters (not even world class ones, just ones who have done it a few years), could easily make the adjustment.
The differences between female and male physical capabilities are really only significant with top tier athletes. The average woman with training could easily surpass the average male without training.
It would just be harder for women to meet the minimum requirements.
LordofHats wrote:Height and weight unfortunately are relevant. A larger person can handle the recoil of a weapon far more capably than a shorter one. Likewise, being overweight isn't really a good thing in the military and neither is being underweight. Someone under four feet tall, is probably not going to be able to meet a lot of physical requirements simply because they don't have enough body mass.
Allow me to clarify: "Height and Weight, for fit individuals of at least the height of an average woman (5'5") will not see a meaningful advantage from upper body strength on the order of the difference between her and a fit male".
That is to say a woman who is average height 5'5", who is fighting shape (not "Fit" as in skinny/female celeberity ideal) maybe sitting at 145-150lbs. Is not going to have a harder time handling a 70-80lb pack, or have meaningfully less control over a firearm than a 5'10" 170-180lb dude. The biggest advantage he's going to have is that he is going to move somewhat faster, because of longer legs. However the difference isn't greatly pronounced.
Really you set lax standards for women, you're just going to get women who meet those lax standards. A great deal of it is probably cultural. Take any random dude and he's more likely to be doing activities that put him in fighting shape, by the time he's of age to join the military he's far more likely to have already pushed those areas. Women are largely encouraged to exercise to stay trim/attractive so even those who view themselves are highly athletic are likely to be behind the curve relative to their potential.
Chongara wrote:
Honestly the masculine traits that people focus on as making supposedly clear and vastly superior to women in combat on some sort of fundamental level are body Mass and raw Strength. These are hardly game changers in ancient battles, let alone modern ones. The really important things: Endurance, Pain & Stress Tolerance, Cooperation, and good decision making are hardly strongly divided by sex.
Raw strength does come into it, you have to lug around an awful lot of gear.
Chongara wrote:
Honestly the masculine traits that people focus on as making supposedly clear and vastly superior to women in combat on some sort of fundamental level are body Mass and raw Strength. These are hardly game changers in ancient battles, let alone modern ones. The really important things: Endurance, Pain & Stress Tolerance, Cooperation, and good decision making are hardly strongly divided by sex.
Raw strength does come into it, you have to lug around an awful lot of gear.
Oh damn.
There's 120 lb women that can lift 200lbs overhead, do you really think that they couldn't handle 100lbs of gear?
Chongara wrote:
Honestly the masculine traits that people focus on as making supposedly clear and vastly superior to women in combat on some sort of fundamental level are body Mass and raw Strength. These are hardly game changers in ancient battles, let alone modern ones. The really important things: Endurance, Pain & Stress Tolerance, Cooperation, and good decision making are hardly strongly divided by sex.
Raw strength does come into it, you have to lug around an awful lot of gear.
Oh damn.
There's 120 lb women that can lift 200lbs overhead, do you really think that they couldn't handle 100lbs of gear?
It's also worth nothing that barring edge cases, soldiers don't carry their gear over their heads and they certainly don't do so for long distances. That'd spell disaster, even for he-man. People carry heavy loads on their backs, no matter if you're in the military or out hiking. This means that having meaty biceps is far less important than just having good cardio condition that can keep you going with prolonged exercise.
Chongara wrote:
Honestly the masculine traits that people focus on as making supposedly clear and vastly superior to women in combat on some sort of fundamental level are body Mass and raw Strength. These are hardly game changers in ancient battles, let alone modern ones. The really important things: Endurance, Pain & Stress Tolerance, Cooperation, and good decision making are hardly strongly divided by sex.
Raw strength does come into it, you have to lug around an awful lot of gear.
Oh damn.
There's 120 lb women that can lift 200lbs overhead, do you really think that they couldn't handle 100lbs of gear?
It's also worth nothing that barring edge cases, soldiers don't carry their gear over their heads and they certainly don't do so for long distances. That'd spell disaster, even for he-man. People carry heavy loads on their backs, no matter if you're in the military or out hiking. This means that having meaty biceps is far less important than just having good cardio condition that can keep you going with prolonged exercise.
Yeah...I don't know where you're getting the idea that any soldier would ever carry gear overhead...it's just a strength example.
Hazardous Harry wrote:
Amaya wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm not saying they couldn't. I'm just saying that strength is, and should be, a factor taken into account when recruiting.
Eh, just for certain MOSs.
Just for certain Marks of Slaanesh?
Military Occupation Specialty. Infantry, Intelligence, Supply, etc.
Amaya wrote:Yeah...I don't know where you're getting the idea that any soldier would ever carry gear overhead...it's just a strength example.
It's a bad one though.
When it comes to endurance, having bigger muscles is actually a BAD thing, as they use up energy more than leaner, more efficient muscles. Bodybuilders aren't endurance athletes by any means.
Amaya wrote:Yeah...I don't know where you're getting the idea that any soldier would ever carry gear overhead...it's just a strength example.
It's a bad one though.
When it comes to endurance, having bigger muscles is actually a BAD thing, as they use up energy more than leaner, more efficient muscles. Bodybuilders aren't endurance athletes by any means.
Please show me where anyone mentioned bodybuilders....
Those in favor of this should keep these two things in mind.
A: If a women does get captured, there is a a better chance that she will be either raped/mutilated because she is a women.
B: What do you do if a women gets pregnant in a place like Afghanistan or on the front lines? You would most likely have to send here back, thus leaving a unit short 1 more person.
Amaya wrote:Please show me where anyone mentioned bodybuilders....
People who believe that the marginal difference in upper body strength of a trained male soldier and trained female soldier makes a difference as far as tests of endurance go.
Makarov wrote:What do you do if a women gets pregnant in a place like Afghanistan or on the front lines?
Start an investigation, because either she was sexually assaulted or she had an illicit encounter that is against the rules and regulations of the military, and either way someone broke the rules and must suffer the consequences.
Makarov wrote:Those in favor of this should keep these two things in mind.
A: If a women does get captured, there is a a better chance that she will be either raped/mutilated because she is a women.
B: What do you do if a women gets pregnant in a place like Afghanistan or on the front lines? You would most likely have to send here back, thus leaving a unit short 1 more person.
Male Push-ups: 35 Sit ups: 47 2 mile run under: 16:36
Female Push-ups: 13 Sit ups: 47 2 mile run under: 19:42
A. Depends on the theater of operations. I doubt any western country would do this, but it is possibly true for Africa and the Middle East.
B. Assuming of course that the woman lacks self discipline and would engage in sex. What about males who lack self discipline and pull other crap?
The fitness test is a terrible example and argument for multiple reasons.
1) All of the minimum standards for every branch in the American military are laughably easy. The only 'difficult' thing to max out of any of the basic PFTs is the USMC run.
2) Yes, it is a fact that men have significantly greater upper body strength and are typically faster.
3) Does the typical male do some upper body strength training? Yes. Does the typical female do upper body training? No (and doing 30 reps of something with a 5lb weight doesn't count and is completely pointless). Since the average male enlistee has naturally greater upper body strength and actually does some weight training they will of course be on average stronger. The average female enlistee would probably have no hope of passing the male PFT.
4) Any female interested in Combat Arms, specifically Infantry, would obviously be atypical and possibly willing to do the necessary training. Yes, it will be harder for a woman, but not impossible. An exceptionally committed woman could pass and serve in most Infantry billets. Whether or not they would be capable of serving in all but a few SF units is a whole other debate.
5) The infantry has very high physical standards, but they are not as difficult as many make them out to be. Top tier male athletes easily exceed all requirements. Top tier female athletes could certainly perform the necessary tasks.
I think the best course of action would be to allow a handful of exceptional females into the various infantry courses, assess how they perform in the schools, and then assess how they perform in the battlefield before allowing any female to apply for a Combat Arms MOS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Amaya wrote:Please show me where anyone mentioned bodybuilders....
People who believe that the marginal difference in upper body strength of a trained male soldier and trained female soldier makes a difference as far as tests of endurance go.
Let em go to the front lines. Hell make a whole division with all women.
Maybe when more women start coming home in body bags people will start putting pressure on their elected officials to end all these wars, and make invading Iran seem even more unpleasant.
sirlynchmob wrote:Let em go to the front lines. Hell make a whole division with all women.
Maybe when more women start coming home in body bags people will start putting pressure on their elected officials to end all these wars, and make invading Iran seem even more unpleasant.
There are already women coming home in body bags. To a rational person, the gender of a casualty of war is irrelevant. That is completely beside the point however as the debate is whether or not women are physically capable of serving in the infantry (yes) and mentally capable of dealing with it (I honestly don't know, but I'm sure some can).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Amaya wrote:What does bodybuilding have to do with strength?
What does upper body strength have to do with carrying a backpack all day?
Ignorant and evasive.
Who said lifting anything overhead involves upperbody strength? Are you unaware of Olympic lifts? (fyi, they're primarily about posterior and leg strength)
sirlynchmob wrote:Let em go to the front lines. Hell make a whole division with all women.
Maybe when more women start coming home in body bags people will start putting pressure on their elected officials to end all these wars, and make invading Iran seem even more unpleasant.
There are already women coming home in body bags. To a rational person, the gender of a casualty of war is irrelevant. That is completely beside the point however as the debate is whether or not women are physically capable of serving in the infantry (yes) and mentally capable of dealing with it (I honestly don't know, but I'm sure some can).
well its hard to say if they're mentally capable of handling it, they've never really served in that role so I doubt there's any good studies on it. But accord to Frank Herbert, women make better soldiers and cope better
sirlynchmob wrote:Let em go to the front lines. Hell make a whole division with all women.
Maybe when more women start coming home in body bags people will start putting pressure on their elected officials to end all these wars, and make invading Iran seem even more unpleasant.
There are already women coming home in body bags. To a rational person, the gender of a casualty of war is irrelevant. That is completely beside the point however as the debate is whether or not women are physically capable of serving in the infantry (yes) and mentally capable of dealing with it (I honestly don't know, but I'm sure some can).
well its hard to say if they're mentally capable of handling it, they've never really served in that role so I doubt there's any good studies on it. But accord to Frank Herbert, women make better soldiers and cope better
And I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. :/
Many women have been involved in combat, a few have even been awarded Silver Stars for their bravery under fire.
Amaya wrote:Who said lifting anything overhead involves upperbody strength?
Why woulf you lift your backpack over your head for extended periods of time to begin with?
It's a stupid, pointless example.
As usual, your ignorance is overwhelming amazing.
To perform a 200lb snatch, you need to be able to overhead squat at least that much. Which in turn would typically yield a 300+ lb back squat, significantly stronger than the average male.
Amaya wrote:To perform a 200lb snatch, you need to be able to overhead squat at least that much. Which in turn would typically yield a 300+ lb back squat, significantly stronger than the average male.
Amaya wrote:To perform a 200lb snatch, you need to be able to overhead squat at least that much. Which in turn would typically yield a 300+ lb back squat, significantly stronger than the average male.
Yes, I do. I also know (and feel a bit of shame for knowing) what a snatch is in relation to weightlifting (the term fireman's carry is preferred).
But it's still not really relevant. Hell, the method is actually abandoned by firemen; instead, dragging them holding the shoulders is preferred, as it allows them to move without risk of aggravating spine injuries, unlike the fireman's carry which risks injury or aggravating an injury to the one being lifted, and uses the more powerful leg muscles as opposed to arm muscles.
Yes, I do. I also know (and feel a bit of shame for knowing) what a snatch is in relation to weightlifting (the term fireman's carry is preferred).
But it's still not really relevant. Hell, the method is actually abandoned by firemen; instead, dragging them holding the shoulders is preferred, as it allows them to move without risk of aggravating spine injuries, unlike the fireman's carry which risks injury or aggravating an injury to the one being lifted, and uses the more powerful leg muscles as opposed to arm muscles.
Tell me exactly how having the leg and core strength to squat over 300 lbs (2-4 times the amount you'll have in a backpack) irrelevant?
The term fireman's carry is preferred? I don't think you know what a snatch is...
Amaya wrote:Yeah...I don't know where you're getting the idea that any soldier would ever carry gear overhead...it's just a strength example.
It's a bad one though.
When it comes to endurance, having bigger muscles is actually a BAD thing, as they use up energy more than leaner, more efficient muscles. Bodybuilders aren't endurance athletes by any means.
Please show me where anyone mentioned bodybuilders....
Ok.
Amaya wrote:Eh, women can get fairly strong and fast if they train for it, but very few actually do. I'm sure female olympic lifters (not even world class ones, just ones who have done it a few years), could easily make the adjustment.
.
Unless you'd like to build the argument tha Olympic litters aren't commonly referred to as body builders.
If they want to and are willing to enter the Military, and especially the frontline, then they should be able to. You don't see people stopping men from waving around their patriotism to defend their country.
And yes, women are usually weaker than men. Well then they just have to train harder don't they? Don't see how that's such an issue.
Only thing I'd see is there would have to be separate divisions, since I honestly wouldn't trust the men around them as far as I would throw my own Baneblade... And as i don't have one, it wouldn't be far at all.
Otherwise, it should be encouraged, as women in the military are already on the "frontlines" in those convoys that are attacked by militants, or bases that are attacked. Not like it's trench warfare going on.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Matty, fair point about frontline combat in a high intensity place like Afghanistan, but I remember my Northern Ireland days and my mistrust of all things female for reasons which are obvious. So there is a role for women in some sort of fighting capacity.
Back to the original point about women in the frontline, I may be a dreamer but I hope the day comes when we don't have anybody in the frontline, be they male or female.
I can just imagine Frazz saying 'people like you are the reason why the world is a dangerous place!'
or aalternatively, I salute your dream of having robot troops deal with our enemies video game style.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Matty, fair point about frontline combat in a high intensity place like Afghanistan, but I remember my Northern Ireland days and my mistrust of all things female for reasons which are obvious. So there is a role for women in some sort of fighting capacity.
Back to the original point about women in the frontline, I may be a dreamer but I hope the day comes when we don't have anybody in the frontline, be they male or female.
I can just imagine Frazz saying 'people like you are the reason why the world is a dangerous place!'
or aalternatively, I salute your dream of having robot troops deal with our enemies video game style.
Killer robots, where have I heard thiws before?
oh damn you, there's some flashbacks I could have done without
Nicorex wrote:I have no question that Women can and could serve in a combat capacity. I still dont want them too. I admit its a bit old fashioned but I belive that Women should be protected.
I imagine attitudes like this may also be an issue in the military. If men think like this and put themselves in danger to protect a woman or keep her away from danger in a way they wouldn't do with a male squad mate that could be a problem.
Nicorex wrote:I have no question that Women can and could serve in a combat capacity. I still dont want them too. I admit its a bit old fashioned but I belive that Women should be protected.
I imagine attitudes like this may also be an issue in the military. If men think like this and put themselves in danger to protect a woman or keep her away from danger in a way they wouldn't do with a male squad mate that could be a problem.
but men do the same thing to protect other men. some people throw them selves onto the hand grande, others jump away from it. if you're that brave sort who'd sacrifice himself, you'd do it for anyone man or women.
I think there should be one unified, grueling test to become an infantryman regardless of what sex you are, and I think if you pass it you're good to go, regardless of your gender. Even the people that sort of are against this (like Matty) also stipulate that if they saw a woman who could do this they'd be OK with it.
I think such a test would naturally weed out more women than men, but I'd find such a result acceptable regardless because it's a realistic measure of your ability to do that specific job.
There are also some roles in the military that probably should be more biased towards women than men. Submariners should be a nearly exclusively female position.
Ouze wrote:I think there should be one unified, grueling test to become an infantryman regardless of what sex you are, and I think if you pass it you're good to go, regardless of your gender. Even the people that sort of are against this (like Matty) also stipulate that if they saw a woman who could do this they'd be OK with it.
I think such a test would naturally weed out more women than men, but I'd find such a result acceptable regardless because it's a realistic measure of your ability to do that specific job.
There are also some roles in the military that probably should be more biased towards women than men. Submariners should be a nearly exclusively female position.
Namor has no place in a discussion about modern militaries.
There's been some claims by people studying the Israeli Defence Force that the male soldiers are prone to go "protect-mode" if they see a female squadmate go down. Dunno if it's true or not, haven't been able to find any sources, so take it with a truckload of salt.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:There's been some claims by people studying the Israeli Defence Force that the male soldiers are prone to go "protect-mode" if they see a female squadmate go down. Dunno if it's true or not, haven't been able to find any sources, so take it with a truckload of salt.
If protect mode means unstoppable death machine, I'm all for it.
Women shouldn't be banned from any job but the fact of the matter is that the majority of women imply don't have the physical capability to be a front line soldier. If they can keep up with their male counter parts then that's fine but in my experience only a very small minority of women would be able to.
I know this because I am in the army, I serve with a lot of women due to my trade and I have only worked with maybe 3-4 women who are robust enough to carry the loads required by modern infantry.
TL;DR women should be allowed at the front line but only if they don't become a liability.
Bwahahaha. Female Infantry
Perception:
Reality:
And that's completely leaving aside the general inability of female soldiers to keep up, carry thier wieght, and not become a liability to everyone around them.
Chongara wrote:Then set physical requirements. You know, actual real observable metrics. "Able to run for Y hours, at X MPH carrying Z KGs of Load". If a woman can meet those requirements, why not let her do the job. Clearly if she can meet the requirements her being a woman isn't relevant to the physical requirements by virtue of her meeting the physical requirements. Similar to how (already) a man who doesn't meet the requirements isn't fit to do the job just because he's a man. Seriously, I'm a dude about the only combat role I'd be suited to is "Human Shield" and even then I'd a heavy one.
As plenty of folks have mentioned, there are quantifiable standards. Currently in the US Army, there are standards that vary by sex and age for the APFT.
An argument a lot of you are making is 'If a woman can meet the male standards she should be allowed to .... '
That sounds good. Let me try to explain why it may not be as good as it sounds though.
First, historically it just doesn't work that way. When the army attemps a 1 standard rule they end up failing a much larger proportion of females than males. Congress has issues with that. As a result pressure is applied to either lower standards or have a dual standard. Airborne school is a great example. The point of requiring a student to be able to do X amount of pullups is because he/she is going to have to pull their weight on the risers to control their chute. Females couldn't do the pullups so standards changed.
But you say THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT!!!! Hooah. I'll buy off on that for now.
Second, There probably are females that can do a 5 mile 40 minute run, cary 80-120 pound ruck for days, and all the other associated physical hardships of something like Ranger School (and yes, if a female wants to be successful in Infantry Branch SHE MUST be able to get through Ranger School or she will be very limited in what leadership positions she is allowed to take). So she makes it through. Unfortunately for her (and for you the tax payer) she must pretty much maintain her condition the whole 20+ years she is in. Here is where physical differences between the sexes really come in. The types of activities done for prolonged periods of time needed to be a successful infantryman wear HARD on the body, and studies have shown that female bodies (knees hips pelvis especially) don't stand up to it as well as male bodies. This means the female body breaks down sooner, and often more severely. So for a female to have a succussful infantry career she has a lot higher chance of being disabled or more severely disabled when she retires than her male counterpart. The most likely scenario is after 10-15 years her body is shot which limits the career progression. She suffers, you the tax payer pick up the tab.
And now a myth that pops up a lot on these topics. Not allowing females into certain branches limits their career potential. That is BS. Infantry officers and NCOs compete against other infantry officers and NCO for assignments and promotions. Signal officers and NCOs compete against other Signal Officers and NCO for assignments promotions. Yes, not being combat arms limits some assignments, but your male non-combat arms counterpart is ALSO denied those assignments.
There's lots of males who are forced out of the Infantry due to injuries sustained in combat or from the training.
A friend of the family retired as Sergeant 1st Class and spent I believe 17 years in the Infantry. Back injuries for sustained jumps forced him to spend his last three years in the Army in military intelligence.
Amaya wrote:There's lots of males who are forced out of the Infantry due to injuries sustained in combat or from the training.
A friend of the family retired as Sergeant 1st Class and spent I believe 17 years in the Infantry. Back injuries for sustained jumps forced him to spend his last three years in the Army in military intelligence.
Exactly. And the female body in general doesn't hold up to that abuse as well as the male body. So in your example it is likely a female would have had to take a medical chapter, or would not have made it through 17 years.
And combat injuries (being shot/blown up) are NOT what I am talking about.
CptJake wrote:The types of activities done for prolonged periods of time needed to be a successful infantryman wear HARD on the body, and studies have shown that female bodies (knees hips pelvis especially) don't stand up to it as well as male bodies.
Actually, a lot of the studies have shown that this is due to improper training methods, improperly fitting uniform and armor, and similar things.
Hell, for a while female soldiers basically had to wear male uniforms and armor and we still haven't gotten it down right yet; similarly, Israel has found that because of cultural norms wanting women to be less active than men, it needs to have an extended boot camp for women so that the extra time can be spent making up for the cultural effect.
Frazzled wrote:So are you for similar standards Melissia or two different standards? What if only 1 in 100 potential infantrywomen meet the standard?
That depends entirely on the system used. Because our culture emphasizes "soft" women, a longer boot camp which emphasizes helping build up muscles needed (actual relevant muscles, not the bodybuilder junk described earlier in this thread) for the job would be a good idea. Does that mean "different standards" to you? We also need to produce better fitting uniforms for female soldiers, and better fitting armor-- does that mean "different standards" for you? We also need competent medical personnel who know how to deal with the female body as well as the male body, does that speak of "different standards" to you?
Yes it does actually. But we'll go with that. if they can't make the "exit standards" is that an issue?
You'll note the posts I've made on this thread have been "women should be able to do anything they can do, and if the actual full time shooting infantry is out, just about everything else is available." Besides its more fun to fire a 120mm going 40 than a 5.56 sitting in a foxhole.
CptJake wrote:The types of activities done for prolonged periods of time needed to be a successful infantryman wear HARD on the body, and studies have shown that female bodies (knees hips pelvis especially) don't stand up to it as well as male bodies.
Actually, a lot of the studies have shown that this is due to improper training methods, improperly fitting uniform and armor, and similar things.
Hell, for a while female soldiers basically had to wear male uniforms and armor and we still haven't gotten it down right yet; similarly, Israel has found that because of cultural norms wanting women to be less active than men, it needs to have an extended boot camp for women so that the extra time can be spent making up for the cultural effect.
You can say that,but it really isn't accurate. The issue has existed way prior to every troop being issued body armor and having to wear that body armor for extended periods of time. It has to do with how the frame and muscles on that frame differ by sex, and the weights and types of motions, durations and distances of movement, and so on involved in a career as an infantryman. Over time, the female body just does not stand up to it the way a male body does. And it is very punishing on the male body, not every male is capable of it.
Again, there is a big difference between getting a person into condition to make it through a school or single training event and a career spent in an infantry MOS.
Frazzled wrote:Yes it does actually. But we'll go with that. if they can't make the "exit standards" is that an issue?
You'll note the posts I've made on this thread have been "women should be able to do anything they can do, and if the actual full time shooting infantry is out, just about everything else is available." Besides its more fun to fire a 120mm going 40 than a 5.56 sitting in a foxhole.
Maybe, but you should keep in mind that there are cultural reasons for the majority of fitness-level differences between men and women, and boot camp needs to overcome those. And the various branches of the military have their own problems with sexual harassment and assault.
Any soldier who sexually harasses or assaults another soldier is a piece of trash who deserves a dishonorable discharge and time in jail, and yet so many get away with it and then the army punishes the victims instead.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the military needs a ton of reform. Focusing on the exit tests is stupid, because there's far more important problems to fix first. Tweaking the exit tests so it actually tests for relevant standards is just one of the many things taht needs to be done. And frankly, if the various military branches' inefficiencies and problems are brought to the fore because of allowing women in, then that is really only going to be a good thing.
On the flip side big Jake (is that a Harley? I can't tell form the pic), what does it matter if they burn out. I don't think most groundpounders hang after their term is up, no?
I've no quarrel with woman serving in the forces so long as they meet the physical and mental requirements. What concerns me is that less suitable applicants might be let in for the sake of window dressing - obviously that puts lives at greater risk. Is Western society mature enough to pick only the best of the best, regardless of what gender/ethnic ratio results from such a policy?
Frazzled wrote:On the flip side big Jake (is that a Harley? I can't tell form the pic), what does it matter if they burn out. I don't think most groundpounders hang after their term is up, no?
It matters becaue you the tax payer invest a crap ton in their training and professional development. If you make that investment you want the return. If you get less of a return it is a dumb investment.
It matters because if they can't last as long, it ends up HURTING their careers, which seems to have the exact opposite effect of what the point seems to be.
It matters because if they fail or are prone to disabilities in much higher proportions then men there WILL be pressure to lower standards (see my above post for examples).
I suspect some real looking into the Israeli infantry would actually show I am not off base. A lot of the studies Melissa refers to have been debunked or misrepresented by folks looking to push an agenda.
Having said that, if you (the American People you) can hold then to The Same High Standard, go for it.
You have to remember, I have an active duty BN CDR wife. When I was a company commander I had a female 1SG and a couple female platoon sergeants in one of my companies. I have no doubts what so ever females can be and are fantastic troopers (look up the story of SGT Hester to see the movie Hollywood should be making). I just do not see standards NOT being lowered and have plenty of historical examples to back up thoughts. I also know it is FACT that the female pelvis is built differently and that has an effect on long term health when the life of an infantryman is looked at.
Maybe, but you should keep in mind that there are cultural reasons for the majority of fitness-level differences between men and women, and boot camp needs to overcome those. And the various branches of the military have their own problems with sexual harassment and assault.
No, it doesn't. Training is to train the best soldiers possible to kill things and make other countries and people do what we want them to do.
Any soldier who sexually harasses or assaults another soldier is a piece of trash who deserves a dishonorable discharge and time in jail, and yet so many get away with it and then the army punishes the victims instead.
Agreed but thats completely not the topic of discussion here.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the military needs a ton of reform.
Why? While everything needs continued advancement and tailoring for future threats, why does it need a ton of reform? They seem to have stomped a whole lot of people and done everything asked of them.
Focusing on the exit tests is stupid, because there's far more important problems to fix first.
No. They need to be able to do the job. If they can't do the job they aren't qualified. As previously noted potential troopers get washed out all the time.
Tweaking the exit tests so it actually tests for relevant standards is just one of the many things taht needs to be done.
Define relevant standards? I'd bet their idea of relevant standards is a hellova a lot more accurate than your or frankly my view of relevant standards. They might even be easier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:
Frazzled wrote:On the flip side big Jake (is that a Harley? I can't tell form the pic), what does it matter if they burn out. I don't think most groundpounders hang after their term is up, no?
It matters becaue you the tax payer invest a crap ton in their training and professional development. If you make that investment you want the return. If you get less of a return it is a dumb investment.
It matters because if they can't last as long, it ends up HURTING their careers, which seems to have the exact opposite effect of what the point seems to be.
It matters because if they fail or are prone to disabilities in much higher proportions then men there WILL be pressure to lower standards (see my above post for examples).
I hear ya, but I'm a Libertarian. If they want the risk of faster burnout but can do the job then I'm ok with that. If they can do the job. Else, as noted there are plenty of very kiilly and nonkilly options in all branches of the military.
I suspect some real looking into the Israeli infantry would actually show I am not off base. A lot of the studies Melissa refers to have been debunked or misrepresented by folks looking to push an agenda.
Yep
Having said that, if you (the American People you) can hold then to The Same High Standard, go for it.
There are an unfortunate amount (IE >0) of scumbags in the military, none of them deserve the honor of serving.
My reply is not related to your statement. You're now trying to layer i some sort of discussion on criminal activity vs. standards for combat infantry. If you want to discuss that put it in another thread, else you're just trolling.
Listen, Im telling you guys after having first hand knowledge, the reason I said that they shouldnt be able to join top tier combat units is not because SOME women couldnt, its because its utterly impracticle.
I didnt want to go into huge detail because I couldn't be arsed typing it, and I didn't want to look like another boring military dick head spinning gak dits, but anyway.
I agree entirely with this in principal.
Ouze wrote:I think there should be one unified, grueling test to become an infantryman regardless of what sex you are, and I think if you pass it you're good to go, regardless of your gender
But it just aint practical. Women have an easier set of benchmarks than men as standard, not because some women couldn't do the mens stuff, but because practically (a decent percentage of the people that attempt it) its impossible. There is a large training bleed in any elite force (percentage of people that pass the course) and if the training bleed becomes enormous, you waste a huge amount of money training people that wont make the cut. This is why elite formations always have "acquaints" where you go and get rigorously tested before you can apply to join. The RM have a week long PRMC (Potential Royal Marines course) and the SAS/SBS have a week long "SF Briefing course" both have numerous pass or fail tests and if you don't cut the mustard, your not even allowed to try. I completed both and they were both extremely difficult, but obviously this has to happen for obvious financial reasons.
The RM have a long arduous training programme that has numerous pass or fail criteria. Every few weeks there is a test, and its not a case of "Oh you did pretty good" its pass or fail, and if you fail you get booted into a troop behind yours. You get sent back to complete a full fortnights training again, and if you fail a test three times, you get booted into civvie street. It has to be this way for the training to be both tough, and safe.
One of these criteria tests is the tarzan assault course, its basically an assault course that's 50 foot in the air. Its one of the four commando tests (all must be done over 5 days) which is Endurance Course Saturday (7 mile assault course with under water tunnels and gak) 9 mile speed march Monday, Tarzan assault course Tuesday, 30 mile run Wednesday carrying 68lbs and troop weapons.
Before you can start this phase of training, you have to march down to the bottom field, get thrashed for an hour, and then, standing at the foot of a 30 foot free hanging rope, carrying 22lbs of ammo and a rifle sling on your back, climb all the way to the top, touch the clasp that is attaching the rope to the bar, and call our your name and number, if you manage it, pass and crack onto the next phase.
Now, way back when I was down there at commando training centre, they had a trial and 6 women went down to complete an acquaint, and literally they were some of the fittest chicks in the military. They all did really well until that 30 foot rope climb, but I think only one managed it, and that was after remedial training.
They just didn't physically have th guns for it.
The somewhat long winded point I am trying to make is, there isnt any point in saying "as long as they pass the exact same stuff they can join" because obviously, I and nobody else would argue that case! If a chick has matched me physically at every single point in boot, then she has earned her green beret. Of course nobody would complain about it. But the simple fact is, men are just faster and stronger than women. You cant fight your biological make up.
As it stands, I think something like 26 out of every 100 men that apply for the RM make the cut and receive their green lid, and the Navy are always looking at this figure because they are desperate to reduce the training bleed.
This being the case, how many women from 100 would make the grade? 1? 2?
Is it really financially viable?
Rather than argue about stuff that most people in 2012 don't really argue about anyway (women should of course have equality) why not say that the issue should simply be put to bed for good old fashioned financial reasons?
There should not be lowered standards for women wanting to serve in combat roles. Any soldier, regardless of gender, should have to meet the same standards for physical fitness and mental stability. If any soldier, regardless of gender, cannot meet these standards, then they should not be allowed to serve in combat roles. Simple as that.
mattyrm wrote: This being the case, how many women from 100 would make the grade? 1? 2?
It depends on the nature of the training beforehand. As I said before, there's cultural reasons why women are less physically capable than men which actually matter far more than the biological ones in the end-- women are desired to be softer and less active than men to begin with. Society essentially pushes a man to become an athlete while it pushes a woman to become a model instead.
This is why I stated (And why the Israeli research suggests) that a longer boot camp for women is what's necessary, one that takes in to consideration the flaws in our culture and makes up for them. The average woman going through regular boot camp actually has a vast deal more improvement in physical fitness (sometimes several times more in terms of percentage points) than the average man, specifically because of these cultural issues. Add a few more months of the training and tweak the training for efficiency, and the differences between the genders becomes far less.
mattyrm wrote: This being the case, how many women from 100 would make the grade? 1? 2?
It depends on the nature of the training beforehand. As I said before, there's cultural reasons why women are less physically capable than men which actually matter far more than the biological ones in the end-- women are desired to be softer and less active than men to begin with. Society essentially pushes a man to become an athlete while it pushes a woman to become a model instead.
This is why I stated (And why the Israeli research suggests) that a longer boot camp for women is what's necessary, one that takes in to consideration the flaws in our culture and makes up for them. The average woman going through regular boot camp actually has a vast deal more improvement in physical fitness (sometimes several times more in terms of percentage points) than the average man, specifically because of these cultural issues. Add a few more months of the training and tweak the training for efficiency, and the differences between the genders becomes far less.
A longer boot camp won't help for something like that. As matty noted I'm not into blowing half a million dollars on PCBS when there's no way they can make it, and would be a liability. Make the tests or not. Be equal or not. Crying you want it both ways is just crying.
Frazzled wrote:A longer boot camp won't help for something like that.
An opinion pulled entirely out of your ass.
Read Matt's example. The females that attempted the course HAD ALREADY made it through basic and were in better than typical condition for females. A longer bootcamp would NOT have mattered in this case.
Frazzled wrote:A longer boot camp won't help for something like that.
An opinion pulled entirely out of your ass.
Read Matt's example. The females that attempted the course HAD ALREADY made it through basic and were in better than typical condition for females. A longer bootcamp would NOT have mattered in this case.
Again, out of your ass.
Yes, the women had a far greater level of improvement in physical fitness than men did, I certainly agree on that and the studies I read agree with it as well. That does not mean that they had reached the point of diminishing marginal returns in physical fitness.
Frazzled wrote:A longer boot camp won't help for something like that.
An opinion pulled entirely out of your ass.
You're going to go from meh to uber marine with a few extra week's boot? Should have done the few extra weeks boot before boot.
I don't know about Matty's bad ass royal marines but I know before entering as your standard generic grunt, you have to meet certain running and other physical requirements (or at least used to for the Corps). You had to run 5 miles in 40 minutes or else you were out. You didn't learn to run in boot camp. You learned to run BEFORE boot camp.
Frazzled wrote:You learned to run BEFORE boot camp.
Which means that this is a cultural limitation that needs to be overcome.
Overcome it on your own time. The military is not some feel good PC brigade. You either want equality or you don't If you want to be equal, you have to be prepared and meet the same standards. its that simple.
I'm supportive of women in the military. I have no problem with them doing, like men, anything that they are mentally and physically capable of. But if they can't, them. They get washed out like every other loser.
Again, who cares if they can't be spetznatz. They can still command artillery, call in an artillery strike, drive a truck, be a doctor, or sit in a missile silo.
Frazzled wrote:A longer boot camp won't help for something like that.
An opinion pulled entirely out of your ass.
Read Matt's example. The females that attempted the course HAD ALREADY made it through basic and were in better than typical condition for females. A longer bootcamp would NOT have mattered in this case.
Again, out of your ass.
Yes, the women had a far greater level of improvement in physical fitness than men did, I certainly agree on that and the studies I read agree with it as well. That does not mean that they had reached the point of diminishing marginal returns in physical fitness.
Being rude and insulting doesn't help.
You really don't want to get the point that there IS a difference in the physical structure between the sexes. Matty's example does show this. I would bet a year's pay the females selected to participate in Matty's example were selected because they were in top condition. A similar test was done with Ranger school a long time ago with similar results.
And again, it makes NO differnce to what I have been saying. Just because they get into the type of shape required to make it through a specific school does NOT negate the fact that long term a female in the infantry MOSs will incur more physical disabilities than her male counterpart due to the differences in physical structure at the skeletal and musculature level. Said in simple terms, she will experience more injuries with longer term effects than her male counterpart, will experience more risk of injury in the same activities than her male counterpart, and will have a higher failure rate as a result than her male counterpart.
What Matt and Frazzled have addressed is the fiscal connotations which go with allowing that. In short, does it make sense/is it worth it.
mattyrm wrote: This being the case, how many women from 100 would make the grade? 1? 2?
It depends on the nature of the training beforehand. As I said before, there's cultural reasons why women are less physically capable than men which actually matter far more than the biological ones in the end-- women are desired to be softer and less active than men to begin with. Society essentially pushes a man to become an athlete while it pushes a woman to become a model instead.
This is why I stated (And why the Israeli research suggests) that a longer boot camp for women is what's necessary, one that takes in to consideration the flaws in our culture and makes up for them. The average woman going through regular boot camp actually has a vast deal more improvement in physical fitness (sometimes several times more in terms of percentage points) than the average man, specifically because of these cultural issues. Add a few more months of the training and tweak the training for efficiency, and the differences between the genders becomes far less.
All of this is true Mel, but the point I am making is that sure some women can be as fit as men, but they just have to work so much harder at it. Getting a guy strong enough to climb the 30 foot rope is way easier than getting a woman able to do it, so if there is an abundance of men willing to try, why worry about it?
I dont think there is any need to get defensive or anything, I just think that its a fact that women arent as fit and strong, so its harder for them. The world record for the womens marathon is ten minutes slower than the mens, its pretty conclusive that women arent as strong, so why waste extra time and effort and money for such a small percentage?
You know what I mean? Like how GW don't make a plastic mould for Cato Sicarius like they do for AOBR marines, so sadly, the model just isn't as good?
A truly minuscule amount of women even WANT to go into the proper full scale SF killy part of the armed forces, and an even smaller amount would pass the SF training, so, why worry about it? The extra cost and extra time, it just doesn't really make any logistical sense.
Seriously, I think a woman who wants to go SF needs her head read anyway. At least we only have to worry about getting tortured and killed, they would probably keep a woman for recreational purposes, and it doesn't bare thinking about. :S
A Marine's a Marine, regardless of gender. If they're good enough to be Marines, they should be able to be able to make the decision to put their life on the line as grunts.
I've heard various facts about women not being able to ruck as much as men can, and not being able to swim as well, and a bunch of other things. It's up to them to prove that they're just as competent as their male counterparts. If they don't, then they'll stay infantry, but I doubt too many commands would be eager to send them out. It should be interesting.
Frazzled wrote:So are you for similar standards Melissia or two different standards? What if only 1 in 100 potential infantrywomen meet the standard?
That depends entirely on the system used. Because our culture emphasizes "soft" women, a longer boot camp which emphasizes helping build up muscles needed (actual relevant muscles, not the bodybuilder junk described earlier in this thread) for the job would be a good idea. Does that mean "different standards" to you? We also need to produce better fitting uniforms for female soldiers, and better fitting armor-- does that mean "different standards" for you? We also need competent medical personnel who know how to deal with the female body as well as the male body, does that speak of "different standards" to you?
Could you possibly be more ignorant?
CptJake wrote:
Melissia wrote:
CptJake wrote:The types of activities done for prolonged periods of time needed to be a successful infantryman wear HARD on the body, and studies have shown that female bodies (knees hips pelvis especially) don't stand up to it as well as male bodies.
Actually, a lot of the studies have shown that this is due to improper training methods, improperly fitting uniform and armor, and similar things.
Hell, for a while female soldiers basically had to wear male uniforms and armor and we still haven't gotten it down right yet; similarly, Israel has found that because of cultural norms wanting women to be less active than men, it needs to have an extended boot camp for women so that the extra time can be spent making up for the cultural effect.
You can say that,but it really isn't accurate. The issue has existed way prior to every troop being issued body armor and having to wear that body armor for extended periods of time. It has to do with how the frame and muscles on that frame differ by sex, and the weights and types of motions, durations and distances of movement, and so on involved in a career as an infantryman. Over time, the female body just does not stand up to it the way a male body does. And it is very punishing on the male body, not every male is capable of it.
Again, there is a big difference between getting a person into condition to make it through a school or single training event and a career spent in an infantry MOS.
I would argue the vast majority of males are physically capable of it. I think the bigger problem is that our culture is full of mentally weak males who can't tolerate physical strain.
rubiksnoob wrote:There should not be lowered standards for women wanting to serve in combat roles. Any soldier, regardless of gender, should have to meet the same standards for physical fitness and mental stability. If any soldier, regardless of gender, cannot meet these standards, then they should not be allowed to serve in combat roles. Simple as that.
Ninja'd by Matty. He said it better.
Of course there should not be lowered standards, but if women actually trained for strength and endurance (which hardly any of them do even considering 'athletes'), they could pass the courses.
CptJake wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:A longer boot camp won't help for something like that.
An opinion pulled entirely out of your ass.
Read Matt's example. The females that attempted the course HAD ALREADY made it through basic and were in better than typical condition for females. A longer bootcamp would NOT have mattered in this case.
The only physical benefit I got out of boot camp was being able to run the 3 miler about 2 minutes faster, which is actually a pretty good gain for a 13 week period. I actually lost a significant amount of strength at boot camp. US Military PT is horribly outdated and useless.
purplefood wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You learned to run BEFORE boot camp.
Which means that this is a cultural limitation that needs to be overcome.
There's no one stopping them from doing so...
Really, there's no one stopping women from becoming strong? How about the fact there is obscenely high percentage of men that are disgusted if a woman has any muscle on her? Or that women are encouraged to do low weight, 20+ rep exercises that do nothing? They are constantly told you can 'tone' muscle and do spot fat removal, both of which are not remotely true.
The average American male is afraid of a physically strong woman. It probably has something to do with the fact the average male is out of shape and pathetically weak.
mattyrm wrote:
Melissia wrote:
mattyrm wrote: This being the case, how many women from 100 would make the grade? 1? 2?
It depends on the nature of the training beforehand. As I said before, there's cultural reasons why women are less physically capable than men which actually matter far more than the biological ones in the end-- women are desired to be softer and less active than men to begin with. Society essentially pushes a man to become an athlete while it pushes a woman to become a model instead.
This is why I stated (And why the Israeli research suggests) that a longer boot camp for women is what's necessary, one that takes in to consideration the flaws in our culture and makes up for them. The average woman going through regular boot camp actually has a vast deal more improvement in physical fitness (sometimes several times more in terms of percentage points) than the average man, specifically because of these cultural issues. Add a few more months of the training and tweak the training for efficiency, and the differences between the genders becomes far less.
All of this is true Mel, but the point I am making is that sure some women can be as fit as men, but they just have to work so much harder at it. Getting a guy strong enough to climb the 30 foot rope is way easier than getting a woman able to do it, so if there is an abundance of men willing to try, why worry about it?
I dont think there is any need to get defensive or anything, I just think that its a fact that women arent as fit and strong, so its harder for them. The world record for the womens marathon is ten minutes slower than the mens, its pretty conclusive that women arent as strong, so why waste extra time and effort and money for such a small percentage?
You know what I mean? Like how GW don't make a plastic mould for Cato Sicarius like they do for AOBR marines, so sadly, the model just isn't as good?
A truly minuscule amount of women even WANT to go into the proper full scale SF killy part of the armed forces, and an even smaller amount would pass the SF training, so, why worry about it? The extra cost and extra time, it just doesn't really make any logistical sense.
Seriously, I think a woman who wants to go SF needs her head read anyway. At least we only have to worry about getting tortured and killed, they would probably keep a woman for recreational purposes, and it doesn't bare thinking about. :S
1) What happened to women in just the basic Infantry? Why are we even discussing Special Forces? Most of those courses destroy half or more of the veteran males that attempt them...
2) Could you have said that in a more misogynistic way? Anyone who joins any SF to be 'killy' has no business in the military to begin with. Hiding behind the "if they get captured they'll get raped" argument needs to end. Any woman in a war zone is at risk for this, they are probably keenly aware of this fact, and desire to serve their country regardless of the risk.
To be successful in the US Army infantry, especially as an officer but even as an NCO, a female MUST make it through Ranger School. Just like her male counterparts must. Does not mean he/she ever serves a day in the 75th. But to get selected for company command in a light unit or BN command in any infantry unit without a Ranger tab is very, VERY rare. It is a huge discriminator, and for good reason.
Melissia wrote:An opinion pulled entirely out of your ass.
Comments like this don't help when you're debating an issue like this.
I appreciate it might well be an issue that you feel strongly about but being aggressive and rude to the members that you're conversing with is not going to convince them of your argument or really make them feel that conversing with you is worth the time and effort they're making.
Stop, take a breath, count to 10 etc etc.
So we can lose the digs please folks, yes ..? Thanks.
You're on the OT board of a wargaming website, it's not the end of the world if someone disagrees or has a different view. It really won't matter with regarsd to, you know.. out there in the real world.
Anyone who joins any SF to be 'killy' has no business in the military to begin with.
Yeah! We should hire people who work for Oxfam to be SF.
You just flew off the wrongometer. Are/were you SF? I don't believe for a second that you are after such a statement, do you have any good friends who are? I don't wish to sound like Im flexing my virtual ballbag, but it needs to be said because your flat out wrong.
I joined up to be killy, loads of my mates did too. My good mate Chuck was Delta, he joined to be killy too, and my mate Andy is in the SEALs, he wanted to be killy. Your sentence is like something from a corny Hollywood movie.. "Nobodys wants to be a killer, were trained to be the best.. but nobody wants that"
Two questions.
1. What outfit where you in that only recruited people who didn't actually want to hurt anyone? The army catering corps?
2. Do you honestly think that somewhat immature young men (most guys under the age of 25 are) test themselves to the very limits of their physical and mental endurance for no reason other than "personal pride"?
As I said, your flat out wrong. Sure its not the ONLY reason, but its A reason. You apply for SF operations because you WANT to be at the tip of the spear, it might be childish, but its a very big motivator to a young man. Im 32 now and I can see where your coming from, but to say that "nobody who wants to kill people" should be in special operations is flat out wrong, and laugh out loud funny, because go talk to a load of blokes in Delta and Im sure they will happily say things like "I joined up after 9/11 cos I wanted to kill rag heads"
Sure its stupid, but its true. Your giving too much credit to fallible human soldiers after watching all them sentimental movies maybe?
Anyone who joins any SF to be 'killy' has no business in the military to begin with.
Yeah! We should hire people who work for Oxfam to be SF.
You just flew off the wrongometer. Are/were you SF? I don't believe for a second that you are after such a statement, do you have any good friends who are? I don't wish to sound like Im flexing my virtual ballbag, but it needs to be said because your flat out wrong.
I joined up to be killy, loads of my mates did too. My good mate Chuck was Delta, he joined to be killy too, and my mate Andy is in the SEALs, he wanted to be killy. Your sentence is like something from a corny Hollywood movie.. "Nobodys wants to be a killer, were trained to be the best.. but nobody wants that"
Two questions.
1. What outfit where you in that only recruited people who didn't actually want to hurt anyone? The army catering corps?
2. Do you honestly think that somewhat immature young men (most guys under the age of 25 are) test themselves to the very limits of their physical and mental endurance for no reason other than "personal pride"?
As I said, your flat out wrong. Sure its not the ONLY reason, but its A reason. You apply for SF operations because you WANT to be at the tip of the spear, it might be childish, but its a very big motivator to a young man. Im 32 now and I can see where your coming from, but to say that "nobody who wants to kill people" should be in special operations is flat out wrong, and laugh out loud funny, because go talk to a load of blokes in Delta and Im sure they will happily say things like "I joined up after 9/11 cos I wanted to kill rag heads"
Sure its stupid, but its true. Your giving too much credit to fallible human soldiers after watching all them sentimental movies maybe?
Everything I've read about Special Forces, especially about snipers, makes it very clear that you want people who are there to do their job, not there for the sake of killing.
Killing is part of the job, killing should never be desirable, or enjoyable. It is simply something that must be done in order to protect your fellow soldiers and accomplish the mission.
Glorifying it is simply obscene.
``Hell, anybody would be crazy to like to go out and kill folks. . . . I never did enjoy killing anybody. It's my job. If I don't get those bastards, then they're going to kill a lot of these kids. That's the way I look at it.''
-Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock
Are there nutters in SF that enjoy killing? Certainly. Should they be there? It depends entirely on how much self control they have. Personally, I'll take the opinions of legends and honorable men who have served in the special forces community and have proof of doing so over someone claiming that everyone joins SF to be 'killy' on an internet board.
I'd have to scan a Company T-Shirt but ours was the Grim Reapers...as an Air Recon Co. The military revels in death and the ability to bring it to the enemy.
1. What outfit where you in that only recruited people who didn't actually want to hurt anyone? The army catering corps?
Clearly not them. They practice culinary WMDs on a daily basis no?
Funny that, lads in the British military say "The toughest course in the British forces is the chefs course, nobody has passed it since 1968"
AustonT wrote:
mattyrm wrote:1. What outfit where you in that only recruited people who didn't actually want to hurt anyone? The army catering corps?
IIRC: USMC boot camp no go. Now officially inducted in the Mickey Mouse School of Combat.
Figures... the wash outs always have the most vocal opinions. As I said, Im not trying to sound like a tough guy, I dont think I am, and there are many rougher men than me out there, but its wrong to presume that everyone joins the military for such noble reasons. Loads of people joined up post 9/11 because they really wanted to shoot some fether that they thought would entirely deserve it.
Sure it might be a bit childish, or perhaps its an infantile attempt to rail against a feeling of impotent rage, perhaps its barbaric or even uncivilised? Im sure a psychology major could tell you more than me, I dont know much about psychology, but I do know soldiers, and plenty join for pretty base reasons.
We cant all be like Captain America, this is the real world god damn it!
mattyrm wrote:1. What outfit where you in that only recruited people who didn't actually want to hurt anyone? The army catering corps?
IIRC: USMC boot camp no go. Now officially inducted in the Mickey Mouse School of Combat.
lmao, boot camp was really quite easy. Lots of annoying bs, but not physically or mentally difficult. I graduated from MCRD San Diego and did MCT at Camp Pendleton. I got medically discharged at my MOS school in Fort Leonard Wood.
To sum up the article, some women (less than 5%) are capable of serving in an 0311 slot, but due to sexual tension, hygiene issues (I had forgotten that this is more prevalent for women), and the Marines refusal to evaluate on case by case basis due to it being cost prohibitive prevent women from serving in infantry slots.
There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.
To sum up the article, some women (less than 5%) are capable of serving in an 0311 slot, but due to sexual tension, hygiene issues (I had forgotten that this is more prevalent for women), and the Marines refusal to evaluate on case by case basis due to it being cost prohibitive prevent women from serving in infantry slots.
There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.
To sum up the article, some women (less than 5%) are capable of serving in an 0311 slot, but due to sexual tension, hygiene issues (I had forgotten that this is more prevalent for women), and the Marines refusal to evaluate on case by case basis due to it being cost prohibitive prevent women from serving in infantry slots.
There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.
I don't think anyone is saying that actually.
Several people in this thread have said that and if you look at arguments against woman in the infantry, the claim that they aren't physically capable almost always shows up by page 1.
To sum up the article, some women (less than 5%) are capable of serving in an 0311 slot, but due to sexual tension, hygiene issues (I had forgotten that this is more prevalent for women), and the Marines refusal to evaluate on case by case basis due to it being cost prohibitive prevent women from serving in infantry slots.
There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.
I don't think anyone is saying that actually.
Several people in this thread have said that and if you look at arguments against woman in the infantry, the claim that they aren't physically capable almost always shows up by page 1.
So far the arguments have been:
*If they make the grade go for it.
*They won't make the cut in British Royal marines.
*Women wear out more quickly.
Amaya wrote:
There are good arguments from both sides, but simply saying no woman is physically capable of serving as a riflemen is simply false and a horrendously poor argument.
Well who said that? I certainly didn't.
I said that its far harder for a woman than a man, and of course it is, so, well, its just a bit pointless isn't it?
Anyone who joins any SF to be 'killy' has no business in the military to begin with.
Yeah! We should hire people who work for Oxfam to be SF.
You just flew off the wrongometer. Are/were you SF? I don't believe for a second that you are after such a statement, do you have any good friends who are? I don't wish to sound like Im flexing my virtual ballbag, but it needs to be said because your flat out wrong.
I joined up to be killy, loads of my mates did too. My good mate Chuck was Delta, he joined to be killy too, and my mate Andy is in the SEALs, he wanted to be killy. Your sentence is like something from a corny Hollywood movie.. "Nobodys wants to be a killer, were trained to be the best.. but nobody wants that"
Two questions.
1. What outfit where you in that only recruited people who didn't actually want to hurt anyone? The army catering corps?
2. Do you honestly think that somewhat immature young men (most guys under the age of 25 are) test themselves to the very limits of their physical and mental endurance for no reason other than "personal pride"?
As I said, your flat out wrong. Sure its not the ONLY reason, but its A reason. You apply for SF operations because you WANT to be at the tip of the spear, it might be childish, but its a very big motivator to a young man. Im 32 now and I can see where your coming from, but to say that "nobody who wants to kill people" should be in special operations is flat out wrong, and laugh out loud funny, because go talk to a load of blokes in Delta and Im sure they will happily say things like "I joined up after 9/11 cos I wanted to kill rag heads"
Sure its stupid, but its true. Your giving too much credit to fallible human soldiers after watching all them sentimental movies maybe?
God Matty, you are seriously one of the coolest people I've ever had the pleasure to communicate with digitally.
Melissia wrote:[snip]Society essentially pushes a man to become an athlete while it pushes a woman to become a model instead.
All of this is true Mel, but the point I am making is that sure some women can be as fit as men, but they just have to work so much harder at it.
We're not disagreeing on this part, Mattyrm. I just disagree that it is relevant. See below:
mattyrm wrote:The world record for the womens marathon is ten minutes slower than the mens
That's not something I see as being at all relevant. Soldiers aren't pushed to the upper limit of human marathon running capability-- most male soldiers couldn't even get close to the record for womens' marathons, never mind the mens'. If you use that as a basis, you'd have to kick out most of the male population too.
What's relevant is that the requirements actually fit the job, and that the training is the best it can be to make sure that the aspirants have the best chance to meet the requirements-- if they're able. As far as financial arguments go, the extra expenses incurred by what I suggest is pretty much irrelevant compared to, say, utterly meaningless and failed projects like the F-35 program, which cost billions of dollars while failing to produce any decent results. It's well worth it to ensure that we get the best of the best not just physically but also mentally as well.
mattyrm wrote:Seriously, I think a woman who wants to go SF needs her head read anyway. At least we only have to worry about getting tortured and killed, they would probably keep a woman for recreational purposes, and it doesn't bare thinking about. :S
ANY person who wants to get in to the SF needs their head examined to begin with. Otherwise you'll end up with whackjobs that have special forces training, and nobody wants that.
"If you kill for money, You're a mercenary
If you kill for pleasure, You're a Sadist
If you kill for both, You're a RANGER"
Sadism isn't the worst thing for a special forces dude to have... I'm sure a little bit of it keeps you sane. There's no room for pity and the contemplation of death in those elite forces.
I don't think it's healthy to join the SEALS/Delta/whatever for the sole reason of killing, but if a little sadism rubs off on an otherwise smart and capable person, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
Samus_aran115 wrote:"If you kill for money, You're a mercenary
If you kill for pleasure, You're a Sadist
If you kill for both, You're a RANGER"
Sadism isn't the worst thing for a special forces dude to have... I'm sure a little bit of it keeps you sane. There's no room for pity and the contemplation of death in those elite forces.
I don't think it's healthy to join the SEALS/Delta/whatever for the sole reason of killing, but if a little sadism rubs off on an otherwise smart and capable person, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
I've read that a 315 bench press is heavier than what 90% of the male population will ever achieve. The women's record at 181 is nearly 50lbs heavier than that.
Men's 181lb class squat record 710lbs.
Women's 181lb class squat record 505lbs.
Top tier male runners (marathoners and 100m sprinters) are roughly 10-15% faster than women.
Top tier male powerlifters are roughly 40-45% stronger than women.
Men's record total in Olympic Lifting for 77kg class is 378kgs. (831.6lbs roughly)
Women's record total in Olympic Lifting for for 75kg class is 296kgs. (585.2lbs roughly)
Following the pounds comparison, the male record is roughly 38% heavier.
In terms of speed the upper limit for men is roughly 10% faster.
In terms of strength the upper limit for men is roughly 40% stronger.
The strength and speed of top tier male athletes is far beyond what is necessary for the basic infantry and even special forces.
Women can certainly achieve the strength needed to perform in these roles, but it would be a significantly smaller percentage of women who could potentially perform at the required physical levels.
Edit: The discrepancy in strength and speed is due to female runners typically being lighter than their male counterparts which requires them to exert less force to move at a given speed.
For example a 7" 280lb center must exert much more force to jump 36" high than a 6" 180lb guard.
Melissia wrote:[snip]Society essentially pushes a man to become an athlete while it pushes a woman to become a model instead.
All of this is true Mel, but the point I am making is that sure some women can be as fit as men, but they just have to work so much harder at it.
We're not disagreeing on this part, Mattyrm. I just disagree that it is relevant. See below:
mattyrm wrote:The world record for the womens marathon is ten minutes slower than the mens
That's not something I see as being at all relevant. Soldiers aren't pushed to the upper limit of human marathon running capability-- most male soldiers couldn't even get close to the record for womens' marathons, never mind the mens'. If you use that as a basis, you'd have to kick out most of the male population too.
What's relevant is that the requirements actually fit the job, and that the training is the best it can be to make sure that the aspirants have the best chance to meet the requirements-- if they're able. As far as financial arguments go, the extra expenses incurred by what I suggest is pretty much irrelevant compared to, say, utterly meaningless and failed projects like the F-35 program, which cost billions of dollars while failing to produce any decent results. It's well worth it to ensure that we get the best of the best not just physically but also mentally as well.
mattyrm wrote:Seriously, I think a woman who wants to go SF needs her head read anyway. At least we only have to worry about getting tortured and killed, they would probably keep a woman for recreational purposes, and it doesn't bare thinking about. :S
ANY person who wants to get in to the SF needs their head examined to begin with. Otherwise you'll end up with whackjobs that have special forces training, and nobody wants that.
Too true, as I said, a marathon is not the same thing obviously, just an example that men are faster and stronger than women by the accident of their gender when in the womb.
Im not saying women cant be awesome soldiers, Im just saying they have to work far harder to get to the level that a man does, which is why the standards are different. Female SF operators in the UK cant join the SAS/SBS, but they have a role, they can join the SRR (Special reconnaissance regiment) and they do a very high standard of training, but its still significantly lower than the mens. I forget now because It was a few years back when I was at Poole but I recall that the required timings for the women were significantly slower.
Then point im making is that I think the UK is at the right point. Smarter people than us make the big decisions, maybe it sits easier with me following orders being a soldier, but thats what I was always told and I believe it.
If a decent proportion of women could pass it, why would they not make the SRR physicals for women as tough as the SRR ones for men? They train together, the women just get more time for the criteria marches over the hills.
I reckon its because its that much harder for women, and they don't want to risk losing a woman who is an exceptional and talented and intelligent operative simply because she cant carry a 105lb backpack quite as fast and quite as far as someone who is 205lbs of lean mean manly muscle.
Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying women cant be as fit, im saying its really hard for them to be as fit, and the current system works, women can do anything up to and including SRR training, but the actual killing gets done by the guys, I think it works.
If you really need me to pick a side, then yes, I would say that if a woman completes absolutely every test the same as the man then yes, she should be able to serve in the male only regiment, but I honestly believe it would be detrimental to not only a great many women's health (injuries are very common, so more so for women if they completed the exact same criteria) but also the military as a whole, an organisation that could use an exceptionally talented female soldier in a far better role than the one we already have loads of guys for anyway!
Think about it.. SRR is always crying out for women. Exceptionally fit and robust women with an interest in joining are very rare in the military, they are needed for covert operations that could be better handled by a female.
But hard as nails, really fit guys who are willing to shoot people?
Weve got plenty of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Women can certainly achieve the strength needed to perform in these roles, but it would be a significantly smaller percentage of women who could potentially perform at the required physical levels.
That's basically all I am saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I do. I want the craziest psycho sumbitches on the planet, aka Matty...
No but that illustrates my point, I mean, I really am totally normal, but I genuinely wanted to kill people, that rage and hate is what spurred me through all of my training!
It went away as I got older, but it was definately there.
So my point was, as Samus said, I dont think its as horrible and base as Amaya seems to think it is. A young American who treats his mom nicely and treats his girlfriend like a lady and likes animals and all that gak can still have a desire to kill people. I dont think its as black and white as he seems to think it is.
A desire to kill certain group that you have made your mind up totally deserve it (say members of Al Queda cos your best mate died in 9/11) isn't as bad as it might sound. I mean, I grant you its base, and not a noble thing, but its not really THAT bad is it? I mean, its logical, its not like being a serial killer or a guy who tortures animals for some bizarre sick pleasure?
This isn't actually correct, short people will suffer a lot more back injuries due to prolonged load carrying, they will also have to carry far more proportionally; strength is also vital simply due to the weight that is carried by modern infantry and in my experience men have more endurance than women. The fact remains that the majority of women simply don't have the physical abilities required for frontline infantry, they just don't.
The British army currently has separate male and female fitness standards although I have heard that these are supposed to be scrapped in favour of a unisex standard. To be honest though I doubt that this would actually work in practice given that so few women currently achieve the male standard.
I'm talking about a desire to kill in general opposed to a desire for vengeance or to defend/serve one's country.
There is a difference imo, between killing terrorists and desiring to kill "rag heads".
Edit: I certainly joined up with a desire to kill terrorists and I don't consider that to be a good thing especially now that I question the merits of even invading Iraq.
Hypothetically speaking, if someone kills a loved one then wanting revenge is both normal and acceptable. Same is true if someone attacks your country.
If someone is rude to you, getting pissed is normal, acting on it really isn't depending on the situation.
Killing someone over cultural, religious, or political differences is outright evil.
It us useful and can be channeled. EVERY good combat arms soldier who has not yet done so WANTS to fight and engage the enemy. They WANT to prove themselves to themselves and to the team. They do not have to be 'pissed' to want this, they have to be normal combat arms troopers. They WANT to know the answer to the question: Can I Pull The Trigger On Another Human? It is the ultimate test in their chosen life.
Good leaders ENCOURAGE this NATURAL behavior, and teach the troopers to control the feeling, understand the when and when not to, evaluate every situation, follow their leaders example and so on.
Why do you think we kept bayonet training as long as we did?
Why do you think pugil stick pits and MMA style training are used?
Why do you think targets are shaped like (surprise!) people?
Because combat arms WANTS and NEEDS young men to kill bad guys.
To consider it 'outright evil' to kill unless directly threatened is outright asinine. Of course we as a nation kill for political reasons. Do you pay taxes? If so, you must be evil for supporting that killing.
Wait, are you seriously claiming that killing someone for religious, political, or cultural reasons is justified even when they haven't done anything to you?
Amaya wrote:Wait, are you seriously claiming that killing someone for religious, political, or cultural reasons is justified even when they haven't done anything to you?
Thats the whole definition of the US military. Make the other guy do what you want him to do.
Also matty, I think we're talking about different things. I only mentioned special forces once (in that all SF potentials should be heavily screened for psychological concerns), and otherwise I've been talking about infantry.
Amaya wrote:To say that's evil would be something of an understatement.
Yes, the US has bullied nations, but to sit here and advocate it is reprehensible.
You seriously claim to have taken the oath to enter service but have the above opinion?
Wow. Did you plan on only participating in actions you approved of?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Also matty, I think we're talking about different things. I only mentioned special forces once (in that all SF potentials should be heavily screened for psychological concerns), and otherwise I've been talking about infantry.
The infantry issue has been addressed. You just don't like what was presented.
Additionally it seems pretty hypocritical on your part to advocate for female infantrymen but then want to deny them the opportunity to assess into elite units. If you DON'T want to deny them that opportunity, Matty's SOF examples are still within in the realm of discussion.
CptJake wrote:The infantry issue has been addressed.
Certainly it is what I was addressing. Nor did I say we should deny women access to special forces units-- I didn't talk about them at all except for saying all candidates need psychological screening.
CptJake wrote:The infantry issue has been addressed.
Certainly it is what I was addressing. Nor did I say we should deny women access to special forces units-- I didn't talk about them at all except for saying all candidates need psychological screening.
So then all Matt's points are valid. Why complain he is making them?
He made his points in response to my statements about infantry, therefor I discussed them with him. Then it seemed he drifted to special forces units for... some reason.
Melissia wrote:He made his points in response to my statements about infantry, therefor I discussed them with him. Then it seemed he drifted to special forces units for... some reason.
Anyone that actually enjoys killing, not just claims to enjoy it, but actually truly does, is fethed in the head.
'Fethed in the head' might go a long way in describing the kinds of things Special Forces (of any country) get up to.
Normal people don't do this kind of crazy gak, but I don't think matty has ever said he was normal. In fact I think he has dropped the disclaimer that he isn't normal a couple of times in the past.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:
Melissia wrote:He made his points in response to my statements about infantry, therefor I discussed them with him. Then it seemed he drifted to special forces units for... some reason.
Well, it's a given you have to be a little nutters to volunteer to serve in the Special Forces (or even regular infantry for that matter).
I'm sure there are some who do some of the courses, not necessarily SF schools, just for the challenge. Just me, but I'd love to do something like Ranger school just to see if I could complete it, but as far as serving in the Rangers? Hell no.
Just as an aside about the idea that longer boot camp would make women more physically fit overall - you do know that these PT standards are for the tests all soldiers have to take on a regular basis, not just to get out of boot right?
And as a purely anecdotal story to go with that, in my unit we had maybe one female who seriously tried hard, like an hour a day after work at the gym on the treadmills, ate right, and generally was one of the most fit females in the battalion. She was also about 2 inches taller than me. I ate like gak, drank 4-5 nights a week, never did a lick of working out outside of designated PT, and would routinely beat her best 2 mile times by two odd minutes or more. And on long distance runs there was an even greater disparity. This was a chick who had been healthy and athletic her whole life - I have never been a healthy person, or done much of anything athletically.
Marathon length, not all on roads, a HUGE increase in elevation on the course, some of the course in deep sand, and certain categories of entrants wear military gear.
A lot bigger time difference than record marathons, but it is a much harder race. 26.2 miles of pain. I think this is a better example than a regular marathon.
That is the team I led back in 2000. Actually a 5 man team, but the 5th guy is behind the guy on the right. I am second from the right.
Melissia wrote:He made his points in response to my statements about infantry, therefor I discussed them with him. Then it seemed he drifted to special forces units for... some reason.
Yeah it was cos I said in my first post that I think women should be allowed into everything in the military other than the op tier infantry/special forces units because I believed it could jeopardise operational effectiveness.
Anyway, the threads moved on a bit since I logged off..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:
Melissia wrote:He made his points in response to my statements about infantry, therefor I discussed them with him. Then it seemed he drifted to special forces units for... some reason.
It's called moving the goalposts.
No it isnt. They have stayed firmly in place, and what reason do I have to move them? Its a discussion with no solid answer, so there cant possibly be a wrong one, so why the feth would I move them?
Melissia is entitled to her opinion, and I don't differ from it that greatly, and ive been uniform on my opinion throughout the thread (suitable for all but the spear tip units) so did you even read it all or are you just trying to attack your betters for no good reason?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Wait, are you seriously claiming that killing someone for religious, political, or cultural reasons is justified even when they haven't done anything to you?
Yeah this was why I addressed you initially Amaya, because as I said, as a mature veteran I can understand where you are coming from, but I think you are opening a can of worms and drawing a huge line in the sand in what is an extremely complicated issue.
Is ignorance evil? Evil is a very stong word. It has no grey area does it?
If a young man joins the army because he feels wounded by the little that he knows about AQ, and he thinks that their Religion is an integral part of their ideological reasoning for killing American civilians (and you could probably make an at least half decent argument that it is, I mean, do you think any of the suicide bombers on 9/11 were not devout?) then is he an EVIL person for wanting to go and kill some of said Muslims that he percieves rightly or wrongly to be his enemies?
I was foolish and immature when I tried out for the RM at 19. The number one reason (ive told this story before Im sure) was becasue of the Luxor Tourist Massacre. I read about it after it happened and it turned my stomach, I was only a kid at the time, but I read the testimony from the sole survivor (older woman who hid under bodies) about all the raping and the torture, and I imagined seeing my wife get raped and my kid get bludgeoned to death in front of me, and I thought how awful it would feel to have to watch it all and be so utterly powerless, the despair you would feel.
And a strange feeling came over me, I wanted to kill Muslims. I really really did. That rage and fury is what got me through my training, I held onto that anger and I was deseprate for a war.
And when 9/11 happaned, I had been in for two and a half years, and I was saddened, but not suprised, and most of all I was excited, because I knew I would get the chance to blast the gak out of the people I (somewhat immaturely/ignorantly decided) were responsible.
Fast forward 12 years, I feel I was somewhat ignorant, but who isnt when they are young? And I was full of fire, and the arrogance of youth, and all sorts of other things. I most certainly joined for plenty of other reasons, travel, money, a good CV, but most definitely the number one reason was a very base reason (desire to kill other human beings) so tell me, seeing as your the one who drew a line in the sand here.
Bromsy wrote:Just as an aside about the idea that longer boot camp would make women more physically fit overall - you do know that these PT standards are for the tests all soldiers have to take on a regular basis, not just to get out of boot right?
Thus the pre-boot camp suggestion that Israel's researchers gave. The longer boot camp doesn't necessarily have to be at the end of boot camp you know.
The idea was that because of cultural reasons, women are less physically fit than we should be, thus a few months of extra boot camp to get female aspirants physically fit before the normal boot camp begins would decrease the number of injuries in boot camp and increase the number of qualified female applicants.
mattyrm wrote:And a strange feeling came over me, I wanted to kill Muslims. I really really did. That rage and fury is what got me through my training, I held onto that anger and I was deseprate for a war. [...] Am I an evil person?
Those Muslims who performed those terrorist acts felt the same feeling you did, except instead they wanted to kill some Americans, or some British, or some French, and so on and so forth. You both acted upon your desire to kill in a way taht would allow you to be more likely to kill more of the hated group, albeit in obviously somewhat different ways. Are those terrorists evil?
It's more complex than that, of course. But hate and ignorance are NOT good things, and should be avoided and counteracted wherever possible.
Melissia wrote: You both acted upon your desire to kill in a way taht would allow you to be more likely to kill more of the hated group, albeit in obviously somewhat different ways. Are those terrorists evil?
It's more complex than that, of course. But hate and ignorance are NOT good things, and should be avoided and counteracted wherever possible.
Well I can answer that, of course they aren't are they? Its why I take umbrage with Amayas use of the word Evil to describe a large portion of the US military.
Thing is, now I'm older and wiser I can sit and philosophise, you have that luxury as a civilian. Soldiers cant see things in shades of grey. If a guy is coming towards you and he is wired up, you cant think "Did he see hiw father killed by a US drone? Did he have a bad childhood? Was he lied to by a trusted teacher?" you just slot him and do your job. But that's the exact reason I take issue with the word "Evil" getting tossed around willy nilly.
Of course when you come right down to it, a suicide bomber isn't evil is he? I think someone who revels in slaughter and torture possibly is (but more than likely is mentally unhinged as opposed to evil)but If I was taken to a Madrassa at the age of 5, and spoon fed nonsense for 12 hours a day, to the point where I WANT to blow myself up, then of course its an easy answer. Those fethers probably believe that Americans eat babies, so they cant be evil by definition. You might as well ask if a Lion is evil for eating a Wildebeest.
But is an allied soldier evil for wanting to beat his enemy? The guy he perceives to be the bad guy? Of course not.
We wouldn't have won many wars if we trained our soldiers to philosophise first, shoot later.
In fact, quite frankly they ARE terrorists, nothing more than terrorist scumbags.
Yeah of course those people are proper scum, I mean, by Muslims I did think "The ones over there that do mad gak" more than "The bloke who drives a taxi near my house"
As I said, I disagree entirely with the idea of hating an entire ethnic group, but I do have some prejudice to this day. The point I was trying to make was simply that people are complicated, and I don't think harbouring a desire to kill a certain group means that you are necessarily evil or have severe mental problems. Anders Brevik is, but a kid in the SEALs isnt, and they are both happy to shoot people.
In fact, if you want your elite military formations to perform well, a desire to kill is pretty healthy, as it keeps you from getting filled full of holes at the earliest opportunity.
I certainly think it's quite an evil thing to think, because it leads to situations like the crime I linked to the above.
The same hatred you described is what was in the minds of the terrorists who drove planes in to the world trade center. The same hatred you described leads Muslim militants in Africa to round up groups of non-Muslim women and gang-rape them. The same hatred you described leads to incidents like the My Lai massacre. And, pardon me for breaking that old internet law, but the same hatred you described is the reason why Nazis committed genocide.
If you blatantly hate and desire to kill any ethnic, religious, or political group for the actions of an extreme minority of their populace than you are either ignorant, immature, or evil.
There are probably dozens of cultural, political, and religious ideologies that I loathe, but there is not one that I think deserves to have every one of its members brutally killed because of who they are or what they believe.
The thing that amazes and disgusts me more than anything is how people somehow consider themselves superior to those of other cultures and religions. The reality is we are not that different. If you're born in Europe or the Americas you're probably going to be raised in a Christian or nonpracticing home. If you're born in Saudi Arabia, you're probably going to be raised in an Islamic home. How does that make one better than the other? It's completely irrelevant and yet you are advocating the murder of people for where they were born. If you can't see that there is something wrong with that, then I am sorry for you.
Amaya wrote:If you blatantly hate and desire to kill any ethnic, religious, or political group for the actions of an extreme minority of their populace than you are either ignorant, immature, or evil.
Oh yeah, well, we agree then. I'm cool with it now Its a bit less ambiguous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Nazis committed genocide.
Oh gak you mentioned the Nazis, its all gonna go Pete Tong now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:There's a difference between wanting to beat the enemy, and hating an entire ethnic group.
Amaya wrote:If you blatantly hate and desire to kill any ethnic, religious, or political group for the actions of an extreme minority of their populace than you are either ignorant, immature, or evil.
Oh yeah, well, we agree then. I'm cool with it now Its a bit less ambiguous.
So if Argentina seizes the Falklands you have a problem killing them?
-minority political group.
Amaya wrote:If you blatantly hate and desire to kill any ethnic, religious, or political group for the actions of an extreme minority of their populace than you are either ignorant, immature, or evil.
Oh yeah, well, we agree then. I'm cool with it now Its a bit less ambiguous.
So if Argentina seizes the Falklands you have a problem killing them?
-minority political group.
No of course not, because Its a much less ambiguous statement isn't it? I mean, I don't blatantly hate and desire to kill Argies, why would I?
But if they invade the Falklands I will happily set my GPMG up on the beach and hose their teenage conscripts down as they get off the landers.
No hate, just a desire to kill them until they bugger off home and I go for tea and stickies with the Queen. Huzzah!
Amaya wrote:If you blatantly hate and desire to kill any ethnic, religious, or political group for the actions of an extreme minority of their populace than you are either ignorant, immature, or evil.
Oh yeah, well, we agree then. I'm cool with it now Its a bit less ambiguous.
So if Argentina seizes the Falklands you have a problem killing them?
-minority political group.
If it came down to it, and they actually did, it would no longer be a minority group, as I'm fairly sure you would need more than just a minority political party to invade
EDIT: Ninja'd by Matty, who said the same thing far more eloquently than I did
The idea was that because of cultural reasons, women are less physically fit than we should be, thus a few months of extra boot camp to get female aspirants physically fit before the normal boot camp begins would decrease the number of injuries in boot camp and increase the number of qualified female applicants.
Why shouldn't the women just train on their own before boot camp? No one is stopping them from training beforehand so that they do as well at boot camp as possible.
The idea was that because of cultural reasons, women are less physically fit than we should be, thus a few months of extra boot camp to get female aspirants physically fit before the normal boot camp begins would decrease the number of injuries in boot camp and increase the number of qualified female applicants.
Why shouldn't the women just train on their own before boot camp? No one is stopping them from training beforehand so that they do as well at boot camp as possible.
That would require idividual initiative and merit. We can't have that.
The idea was that because of cultural reasons, women are less physically fit than we should be, thus a few months of extra boot camp to get female aspirants physically fit before the normal boot camp begins would decrease the number of injuries in boot camp and increase the number of qualified female applicants.
Why shouldn't the women just train on their own before boot camp? No one is stopping them from training beforehand so that they do as well at boot camp as possible.
Thats a good point, its what everyone else does isn't it?
I remember before I joined up, the big ass corporal in the careers office gave me a sheet of paper with exercises and run distances and times and such on and said "If you cant do all of that before you get there, you have no fething chance mate"
Amaya wrote:If you blatantly hate and desire to kill any ethnic, religious, or political group for the actions of an extreme minority of their populace than you are either ignorant, immature, or evil.
Oh yeah, well, we agree then. I'm cool with it now Its a bit less ambiguous.
So if Argentina seizes the Falklands you have a problem killing them?
-minority political group.
No of course not, because Its a much less ambiguous statement isn't it? I mean, I don't blatantly hate and desire to kill Argies, why would I?
But if they invade the Falklands I will happily set my GPMG up on the beach and hose their teenage conscripts down as they get off the landers.
No hate, just a desire to kill them until they bugger off home and I go for tea and stickies with the Queen. Huzzah!
So I only just tick one box right?
This is probably a bad question, and I already regret asking it, but, whats a stickie?
rubiksnoob wrote:Why shouldn't the women just train on their own before boot camp? No one is stopping them from training beforehand so that they do as well at boot camp as possible.
You're right, let's get rid of boot camp entirely and just expect all potential soldiers to train on their own before joining the military.
The idea was that because of cultural reasons, women are less physically fit than we should be, thus a few months of extra boot camp to get female aspirants physically fit before the normal boot camp begins would decrease the number of injuries in boot camp and increase the number of qualified female applicants.
Why shouldn't the women just train on their own before boot camp? No one is stopping them from training beforehand so that they do as well at boot camp as possible.
Thats a good point, its what everyone else does isn't it?
I remember before I joined up, the big ass corporal in the careers office gave me a sheet of paper with exercises and run distances and times and such on and said "If you cant do all of that before you get there, you have no fething chance mate"
Our recruiters pass the same type of info to the kids, and even offer PT sessions to help them before they ship off, but it is up to the individual to get in shape.
Once in, all schools have requirements, and the 'hard' ones have train-ups an individual can do before they arrive (and standards that they MUST meet upon arrival). For example, I know if I want to attend Air Assault School I MUST be able to pass the obstacle course and APFT on Zero Day. I also know there are several ruck marches for time during the course. Male or female, it is up to the trooper to get in shape for the school.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:Why shouldn't the women just train on their own before boot camp? No one is stopping them from training beforehand so that they do as well at boot camp as possible.
You're right, let's get rid of boot camp entirely and just expect all potential soldiers to train on their own before joining the military.
That is frankly asinine. The point we are making is there is a level of fitness expected from the recruit the day they get there. For example, you MUST meet height weight standards BEFORE you get to basic. You MUST be at a minimal level of fitness if you hope to make it through. You do a lot more in basic than conditioning.
rubiksnoob wrote:Why shouldn't the women just train on their own before boot camp? No one is stopping them from training beforehand so that they do as well at boot camp as possible.
You're right, let's get rid of boot camp entirely and just expect all soldiers to train on their own before joining the military.
Urhm, no, let's not.
I'm sure most, if not all aspiring soldiers do some sort of physical training before going to boot camp, and if female soldiers know that they are in less than adequate shape to begin with, for cultural reasons or otherwise, the onus is on them to improve their fitness beforehand so that they can graduate from the same bootcamp with the same level of fitness as all their other fellow recruits.
The onus should be on society to change its nonsensical culture (because frankly it's unhealthy to begin with), but you don't see that happening any time soon either. We can't even stop people from getting fatter.
You MUST be at a minimal level of fitness if you hope to make it through.
I know. And this proposed program assists women, who are disadvantaged through the more asinine aspects of our culture to be less physically fit, in doing this.
Melissia wrote:The onus should be on society to change its nonsensical culture (because frankly it's unhealthy to begin with), but you don't see that happening any time soon either.
You MUST be at a minimal level of fitness if you hope to make it through.
I know. And this proposed program assists women, who are disadvantaged through the more asinine aspects of our culture to be less physically fit, in doing this.
So, is your position that once given acces to the expected standards for entry into basic training, females are incapable of taking initiative to meet those standards on their own, though males are?
I don't think Melissia understands what boot camp is for.
"Boot camp is the machine where we took kids and made them learn to immediately follow orders, and some other useless crap. Yelling was great but it didn't really set right until we threw one of them down stairs in a locker, then everyone listened. " -Frazzled Sr.
I would say most candidates-- regardless of gender-- aren't capable of taking initiative (or more accurately, they are, but they frequently don't do it). But regardless, the point is that the relatively small expenditure is well worth having access to a wider pool of recruitment, and is certainly better than setting lower standards for women.
Melissia wrote:The onus should be on society to change its nonsensical culture (because frankly it's unhealthy to begin with), but you don't see that happening any time soon either. We can't even stop people from getting fatter.
You MUST be at a minimal level of fitness if you hope to make it through.
I know. And this proposed program assists women, who are disadvantaged through the more asinine aspects of our culture to be less physically fit, in doing this.
Well, I would think that kinds of women who want to fight on the front lines are already defying the pressures of evil male society, and as such would not be troubled by rejecting cultural norms and working out a bit more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:I would say most candidates-- regardless of gender-- aren't capable of taking initiative (or more accurately, they are, but they don't do it).
Then where on earth have we been getting new soldiers from for the past few decades???? Clearly SOME of them are taking the initiative, seeing as they wouldn't make it through boot camp if they didn't.
Melissia wrote:I would say most candidates-- regardless of gender-- aren't capable of taking initiative (or more accurately, they are, but they frequently don't do it). But regardless, the point is that the relatively small expenditure is well worth having access to a wider pool of recruitment, and is certainly better than setting lower standards for women.
Don't need a wider pool actually. We're going to be downsizing in the near term.
Having a wider pool doesn't mean you accept more people, especially considering I was suggesting not having lower standards.
And downsizing is probably a bad idea, why not cut crappy and almost wholly wasteful things like the F-35 program instead? Probably political reasons I suppose.
CptJake wrote:
Once in, all schools have requirements, and the 'hard' ones have train-ups an individual can do before they arrive (and standards that they MUST meet upon arrival). For example, I know if I want to attend Air Assault School I MUST be able to pass the obstacle course and APFT on Zero Day.
Cool story, the RM have their own train station, its between Exeter and Exmouth and its called "Lympstone Commando" back in the day, they used to meet you at the station and then when you got off the platform go "grab your bags and follow me!" and run the two miles to the billet, if you didnt keep up they would wait for you at the galley and go "walk back to the station and feth off home, you can come back in 6 months if your ready"
You MUST be at a minimal level of fitness if you hope to make it through.
I know. And this proposed program assists women, who are disadvantaged through the more asinine aspects of our culture to be less physically fit, in doing this.
And so if these women understand what is expected of them beforehand, what is stopping them from making sure they meet this minimum level of fitness, just as their male counterparts do? If they are truly interested in joining the military, they shouldn't be using "culture" as an excuse for why they aren't fit. I can understand why they might not be fit when they go to the recruiting office to sign up, but there is no excuse for them not being fit after being told they need to meet x,y,z benchmarks before shipping off to boot camp.
rubiksnoob wrote:
Then where on earth have we been getting new soldiers from for the past few decades???? Clearly SOME of them are taking the initiative, seeing as they wouldn't make it through boot camp if they didn't.
Yeah I joined up with 68 lads, I think only 17 of us made the cut, but not a single one was out of shape on day 1 week 1. I think the terror of what awaits you spurs the vast majority of people to great efforts before they arrive.
Thats commando training though, I dare say Mel is correct if you take something like the Catering Corps or the AGC (Clerks)
Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Melissia wrote:Having a wider pool doesn't mean you accept more people, especially considering I was suggesting not having lower standards.
And downsizing is probably a bad idea, why not cut crappy and almost wholly wasteful things like the F-35 program instead? Probably political reasons I suppose.
Melissia wrote:Having a wider pool doesn't mean you accept more people, especially considering I was suggesting not having lower standards.
Standards are ALREADY LOWER for females at basic training. If you have a unisex standard at basic training you will more than decimate female participation in the armed forces.
As for the 'small' cost to have a special program for females, why should the tax payer suffer ANY additional burden for any one to get into the military? Serving is not a right nor a responsibility. If an individual want to join up, they are currently given the standards they have to meet. They can currently choose to participate in recruiter hosted training sessions or not. They can choose to meet the standards or not.
As for downsizing, again, if the country does not need as many soldiers on active duty, why should the tax payers suffer the extra burden? That doesn't mean non-manpower issues and systems should not also be lloked at for cuts/savings.
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Possibly, we were always somewhat scornful of regular army infantry. I doubt its the majority though surely? Even regular infantry the lads must know that you are going to have to... I dunno.. run about a bit. You dont want to look a total tit on your first day do you?!
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Now you are showing ignorance. Look up numbers of non-highschool grads allowed into the military.
CptJake wrote:Standards are ALREADY LOWER for females at basic training.
I know they are. Read what I said again.
My argument, in case you haven't been reading, was that instead of having lower standards for women to make up for the cultural disadvantage that women have, we should have a longer boot camp (a pre-bootcamp if you prefer) for women.
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Possibly, we were always somewhat scornful of regular army infantry. I doubt its the majority though surely? Even regular infantry the lads must know that you are going to have to... I dunno.. run about a bit. You dont want to look a total tit on your first day do you?!
The Armed forces are probably the worst place to have a bad first day...
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Possibly, we were always somewhat scornful of regular army infantry. I doubt its the majority though surely? Even regular infantry the lads must know that you are going to have to... I dunno.. run about a bit. You dont want to look a total tit on your first day do you?!
My oldest son went through infantry OSUT about 2 years ago. Once he decided on infantry he knew exactly what was going to be expected of him and was given a 'do this work out' program several months before his ship date, and was expected to be in shape when he showed up.
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Possibly, we were always somewhat scornful of regular army infantry. I doubt its the majority though surely? Even regular infantry the lads must know that you are going to have to... I dunno.. run about a bit. You dont want to look a total tit on your first day do you?!
The Armed forces are probably the worst place to have a bad first day...
Ah, reminds me of the fat little school nazi that tried to join the marines from my high school class. I wonder how long he lasted? Maybe he even reformed.
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Now you are showing ignorance. Look up numbers of non-highschool grads allowed into the military.
I thought at this point Army and Marines required a HS degree. I'm probably wrong.
But again, women are held to lower standards. Given the amount of complaints in this thread that they shouldn't be held to such standards, I tried to come up with a solution. *shrug*
Melissia wrote:But again, women are held to lower standards. Given the amount of complaints in this thread that they shouldn't be held to such standards, I tried to come up with a solution. *shrug*
Melissia wrote:But again, women are held to lower standards. Given the amount of complaints in this thread that they shouldn't be held to such standards, I tried to come up with a solution. *shrug*
Actually, I have not seen a lot of complaints, instead you've been given reasons the standards are different (females ARE different from males) and reasons why for some branches (combat arms) the standards are higher than current female standards. You've also been shown that it is HARDER for females to meet male standards and that the long term effect on the female body is more detrimental than her male counterpart. You've then been shown that for fiscal reasons, it may not make sense to 'widen the pool' for comabt arms, the pool is already full and in the process of downsizing.
Studies have found that Females are more likely to suffer from Mental Illnesses than Males. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46056751/ns/health-mental_health/t/study-women-more-risk-mental-illness-men/ Females are more likely to suffer Trauma and Depression. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200307/more-women-suffer-depression That would be dangerous of field, it would also cost more to hire more Psychiatrists. In my Country, the Physical requirement is lower for females to join the army than males. Also, the Army Scandals in my Country shows that Males and Females might act inappropriately so they would have to Squad them into Male and Female Squads. The other problem is that many Older Males would not take Commands or even resign if they have to take orders from Females, that would take a large proporation out of the armed Services.
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Now you are showing ignorance. Look up numbers of non-highschool grads allowed into the military.
I thought at this point Army and Marines required a HS degree. I'm probably wrong.
Bingo. And where once waivers were given for things like minor health issues or misdemeanor convictions, ALL waivers are about impossible right now because with downsizing and a poor economy the military can afford to be picky about who gets in. (another reason for a recruit to take initiative to show up for the training and PT sessions)
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Now you are showing ignorance. Look up numbers of non-highschool grads allowed into the military.
I thought at this point Army and Marines required a HS degree. I'm probably wrong.
Bingo. And where once waivers were given for things like minor health issues or misdemeanor convictions, ALL waivers are about impossible right now because with downsizing and a poor economy the military can afford to be picky about who gets in. (another reason for a recruit to take initiative to show up for the training and PT sessions)
America needs to lower it's defence bill. Then it might be able to pay back it's debt. Not like any World War is likely to happen soon.
CptJake wrote:Actually, I have not seen a lot of complaints
You haven't actually bothered to read the thread then.
Frazzled wrote:Its because your "solution" is crap.
On the contrary, it would work quite well.
Again horse gak. If it would work well they could do it before hand. If they can't thats their ing fault. Welcome to Life (TM) It sucks but in the end you're gonna die.
Meanwhile men are more likely to develop substance abuse problems and antisocial problems, both JUST as dangerous-- antisocial problems especially, given the individual tends to be aggressively uncooperative and less likely to participate in teamwork which can spell doom to more than just the individual. Men are three times as likely to be diagnosed with antisocial disorer as women, while women aren't near that much more likely to be diagnosed with depression as men despite the gender bias in diagnosis.
Similarly, women aren't necessarily more likely to suffer as much as they're more likely to ADMIT it. Learned behavior and cultural biases play a strong part in this, as does the fact that women are a minority (and thus have less control over the socioeconomic determinants of mental health), and the same reports (as well as other reports) also indicate a gender bias in doctors-- doctors are more likely to diagnose depression in women even when the men and women have identical scores on standardized measurements of depression, or identical symptoms.
Men also are simply less likely to report it (men may feel it's "weak and unmanly to admit to feelings of despair", according to one report), and more likely commit suicide over their problems than women, which is definitely more dangerous than admitting one has a problem and seeking help.
Shall I go on? If you want to try to claim women are mentally unstable, I can provide proof that humanity as a whole is mentally unstable. I think we can at least all agree on that
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Now you are showing ignorance. Look up numbers of non-highschool grads allowed into the military.
I thought at this point Army and Marines required a HS degree. I'm probably wrong.
Bingo. And where once waivers were given for things like minor health issues or misdemeanor convictions, ALL waivers are about impossible right now because with downsizing and a poor economy the military can afford to be picky about who gets in. (another reason for a recruit to take initiative to show up for the training and PT sessions)
Not quite, army and Marines will accept a GED, the navy wants an actually HS diploma. not sure about the air force. as far as I know anything can still be waived, but it has been a while since I've talked to any recruiters.
After your in, and have a skill, you can apply for the SF programs, but in order to get in you have to pass a grueling physical test. if women can pass that test, let them do it.
Meanwhile men are more likely to develop substance abuse problems and antisocial problems, both JUST as dangerous-- antisocial problems especially, given the individual tends to be aggressively uncooperative and less likely to participate in teamwork which can spell doom to more than just the individual. Men are three times as likely to be diagnosed with antisocial disorer as women, while women are only
Similarly, women aren't necessarily more likely to suffer as much as they're more likely to ADMIT it. Learned behavior and cultural biases play a strong part in this, as does the fact that women are a minority (and thus have less control over the socioeconomic determinants of mental health), and the same reports (as well as other reports) also indicate a gender bias in doctors-- doctors are more likely to diagnose depression in women even when the men and women have identical scores on standardized measurements of depression, or identical symptoms.
Shall I go on? If you want to try to claim women are mentally unstable, I can provide proof that humanity as a whole is mentally unstable. I think we can at least all agree on that
Humanity is unstable but the disorders females are more likely to be undetected than males, Borderline Personality Disorder or Multiple Personality Disorder(Both have a higher percentage of female sufferers). Anti-social Behaviour is usually found in the Psychiatric test and ruled out from the army. Personally, I think Males and Females do different things in Depression, females are more likely to self harm or binge eat in depression than more dramatic things. A majority of Males have a different strategies than Females, from my personal experiences, it is more noticable that members of the Female Community are depressed, males generally can hide it a lot better in my experiences.
Meanwhile men are more likely to develop substance abuse problems and antisocial problems, both JUST as dangerous-- antisocial problems especially, given the individual tends to be aggressively uncooperative and less likely to participate in teamwork which can spell doom to more than just the individual. Men are three times as likely to be diagnosed with antisocial disorer as women, while women are only
Similarly, women aren't necessarily more likely to suffer as much as they're more likely to ADMIT it. Learned behavior and cultural biases play a strong part in this, as does the fact that women are a minority (and thus have less control over the socioeconomic determinants of mental health), and the same reports (as well as other reports) also indicate a gender bias in doctors-- doctors are more likely to diagnose depression in women even when the men and women have identical scores on standardized measurements of depression, or identical symptoms.
Shall I go on? If you want to try to claim women are mentally unstable, I can provide proof that humanity as a whole is mentally unstable. I think we can at least all agree on that
Humanity is unstable but the disorders females are more likely to be undetected than males, Borderline Personality Disorder or Multiple Personality Disorder(Both have a higher percentage of female sufferers). Anti-social Behaviour is usually found is the Psychiatric test and ruled out from the army. Personally, I think Males and Females do different things in Depression, females are more likely to self harm or binge eat in depression than more dramatic things. A majority of Males have a different strategies than Females, from my personal experiences, it is more noticable that members of the Female Community are depressed, males generally can hide it a lot better in my experiences.
Frazzled wrote:I don't think Melissia understands what boot camp is for.
"Boot camp is the machine where we took kids and made them learn to immediately follow orders, and some other useless crap. Yelling was great but it didn't really set right until we threw one of them down stairs in a locker, then everyone listened. "
-Frazzled Sr.
Boot Camp exists to teach new recruits how to be basic soldiers, Marines, sailors, or airmen. I don't know about the other branches, but the USMC standards when I went through in 2008 seemed rather lax both in terms of physical requirements and skills. I think its more of an assessment of can these recruits be an asset and one day be a capable Marine.
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
CptJake wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Melissia wrote:Or even basic infantry given the average recruit for the basic infantry (a lot of high school dropouts or just-barely-passed grads, for example). I rather expect those who are seriously wanting to get in to special forces to be gung-ho about it.
Now you are showing ignorance. Look up numbers of non-highschool grads allowed into the military.
I thought at this point Army and Marines required a HS degree. I'm probably wrong.
Bingo. And where once waivers were given for things like minor health issues or misdemeanor convictions, ALL waivers are about impossible right now because with downsizing and a poor economy the military can afford to be picky about who gets in. (another reason for a recruit to take initiative to show up for the training and PT sessions)
Even during the surge waivers for not having a HS degree were extremely limited. Not getting a HS degree in this day is a sign of low intelligence or laziness. None of the branches want either.
Concerning, SOI, I have a friend who finished USMC SOI not too long despite being basically a 'twig'. He's like 6'2" 170 (max) with very little upper body strength (I don't even know if he can bench his weight tbh) and despite having decent jumping ability I doubt he has notable lower body strength. I think it's more of a question of having the willpower and endurance to make it through, but of course raw strength helps if you already have to other two.
Meanwhile men are more likely to develop substance abuse problems and antisocial problems, both JUST as dangerous-- antisocial problems especially, given the individual tends to be aggressively uncooperative and less likely to participate in teamwork which can spell doom to more than just the individual. Men are three times as likely to be diagnosed with antisocial disorer as women, while women are only
Similarly, women aren't necessarily more likely to suffer as much as they're more likely to ADMIT it. Learned behavior and cultural biases play a strong part in this, as does the fact that women are a minority (and thus have less control over the socioeconomic determinants of mental health), and the same reports (as well as other reports) also indicate a gender bias in doctors-- doctors are more likely to diagnose depression in women even when the men and women have identical scores on standardized measurements of depression, or identical symptoms.
Shall I go on? If you want to try to claim women are mentally unstable, I can provide proof that humanity as a whole is mentally unstable. I think we can at least all agree on that
Humanity is unstable but the disorders females are more likely to be undetected than males, Borderline Personality Disorder or Multiple Personality Disorder(Both have a higher percentage of female sufferers). Anti-social Behaviour is usually found is the Psychiatric test and ruled out from the army. Personally, I think Males and Females do different things in Depression, females are more likely to self harm or binge eat in depression than more dramatic things. A majority of Males have a different strategies than Females, from my personal experiences, it is more noticable that members of the Female Community are depressed, males generally can hide it a lot better in my experiences.
You really like your capital letters, don't you?
When you can't make an argument, correct their Grammar.
Meanwhile men are more likely to develop substance abuse problems and antisocial problems, both JUST as dangerous-- antisocial problems especially, given the individual tends to be aggressively uncooperative and less likely to participate in teamwork which can spell doom to more than just the individual. Men are three times as likely to be diagnosed with antisocial disorer as women, while women are only
Similarly, women aren't necessarily more likely to suffer as much as they're more likely to ADMIT it. Learned behavior and cultural biases play a strong part in this, as does the fact that women are a minority (and thus have less control over the socioeconomic determinants of mental health), and the same reports (as well as other reports) also indicate a gender bias in doctors-- doctors are more likely to diagnose depression in women even when the men and women have identical scores on standardized measurements of depression, or identical symptoms.
Shall I go on? If you want to try to claim women are mentally unstable, I can provide proof that humanity as a whole is mentally unstable. I think we can at least all agree on that
Humanity is unstable but the disorders females are more likely to be undetected than males, Borderline Personality Disorder or Multiple Personality Disorder(Both have a higher percentage of female sufferers). Anti-social Behaviour is usually found is the Psychiatric test and ruled out from the army. Personally, I think Males and Females do different things in Depression, females are more likely to self harm or binge eat in depression than more dramatic things. A majority of Males have a different strategies than Females, from my personal experiences, it is more noticable that members of the Female Community are depressed, males generally can hide it a lot better in my experiences.
You really like your capital letters, don't you?
When you can't make an argument, correct their Grammar.
I don't think he is trying to argue with you...
But, he does have a point concerning your love for capital letters...
Meanwhile men are more likely to develop substance abuse problems and antisocial problems, both JUST as dangerous-- antisocial problems especially, given the individual tends to be aggressively uncooperative and less likely to participate in teamwork which can spell doom to more than just the individual. Men are three times as likely to be diagnosed with antisocial disorer as women, while women are only
Similarly, women aren't necessarily more likely to suffer as much as they're more likely to ADMIT it. Learned behavior and cultural biases play a strong part in this, as does the fact that women are a minority (and thus have less control over the socioeconomic determinants of mental health), and the same reports (as well as other reports) also indicate a gender bias in doctors-- doctors are more likely to diagnose depression in women even when the men and women have identical scores on standardized measurements of depression, or identical symptoms.
Shall I go on? If you want to try to claim women are mentally unstable, I can provide proof that humanity as a whole is mentally unstable. I think we can at least all agree on that
Humanity is unstable but the disorders females are more likely to be undetected than males, Borderline Personality Disorder or Multiple Personality Disorder(Both have a higher percentage of female sufferers). Anti-social Behaviour is usually found is the Psychiatric test and ruled out from the army. Personally, I think Males and Females do different things in Depression, females are more likely to self harm or binge eat in depression than more dramatic things. A majority of Males have a different strategies than Females, from my personal experiences, it is more noticable that members of the Female Community are depressed, males generally can hide it a lot better in my experiences.
You really like your capital letters, don't you?
When you can't make an argument, correct their Grammar.
I don't think he is trying to argue with you...
But, he does have a point concerning your love for capital letters...
True. I use them to highlight key words in an argument. It's a fetish of mine.
Meanwhile men are more likely to develop substance abuse problems and antisocial problems, both JUST as dangerous-- antisocial problems especially, given the individual tends to be aggressively uncooperative and less likely to participate in teamwork which can spell doom to more than just the individual. Men are three times as likely to be diagnosed with antisocial disorer as women, while women are only
Similarly, women aren't necessarily more likely to suffer as much as they're more likely to ADMIT it. Learned behavior and cultural biases play a strong part in this, as does the fact that women are a minority (and thus have less control over the socioeconomic determinants of mental health), and the same reports (as well as other reports) also indicate a gender bias in doctors-- doctors are more likely to diagnose depression in women even when the men and women have identical scores on standardized measurements of depression, or identical symptoms.
Shall I go on? If you want to try to claim women are mentally unstable, I can provide proof that humanity as a whole is mentally unstable. I think we can at least all agree on that
Humanity is unstable but the disorders females are more likely to be undetected than males, Borderline Personality Disorder or Multiple Personality Disorder(Both have a higher percentage of female sufferers). Anti-social Behaviour is usually found is the Psychiatric test and ruled out from the army. Personally, I think Males and Females do different things in Depression, females are more likely to self harm or binge eat in depression than more dramatic things. A majority of Males have a different strategies than Females, from my personal experiences, it is more noticable that members of the Female Community are depressed, males generally can hide it a lot better in my experiences.
You really like your capital letters, don't you?
When you can't make an argument, correct their Grammar.
I don't think he is trying to argue with you...
But, he does have a point concerning your love for capital letters...
True. I use them to highlight key words in an argument. It's a fetish of mine.
i DoN't Know whaT You'RE TALkinG aboUt. iT LoOkS Fine tO Me.
Meanwhile men are more likely to develop substance abuse problems and antisocial problems, both JUST as dangerous-- antisocial problems especially, given the individual tends to be aggressively uncooperative and less likely to participate in teamwork which can spell doom to more than just the individual. Men are three times as likely to be diagnosed with antisocial disorer as women, while women are only
Similarly, women aren't necessarily more likely to suffer as much as they're more likely to ADMIT it. Learned behavior and cultural biases play a strong part in this, as does the fact that women are a minority (and thus have less control over the socioeconomic determinants of mental health), and the same reports (as well as other reports) also indicate a gender bias in doctors-- doctors are more likely to diagnose depression in women even when the men and women have identical scores on standardized measurements of depression, or identical symptoms.
Shall I go on? If you want to try to claim women are mentally unstable, I can provide proof that humanity as a whole is mentally unstable. I think we can at least all agree on that
Humanity is unstable but the disorders females are more likely to be undetected than males, Borderline Personality Disorder or Multiple Personality Disorder(Both have a higher percentage of female sufferers). Anti-social Behaviour is usually found is the Psychiatric test and ruled out from the army. Personally, I think Males and Females do different things in Depression, females are more likely to self harm or binge eat in depression than more dramatic things. A majority of Males have a different strategies than Females, from my personal experiences, it is more noticable that members of the Female Community are depressed, males generally can hide it a lot better in my experiences.
You really like your capital letters, don't you?
When you can't make an argument, correct their Grammar.
I don't think he is trying to argue with you...
But, he does have a point concerning your love for capital letters...
True. I use them to highlight key words in an argument. It's a fetish of mine.
i DoN't Know whaT You'RE TALkinG aboUt. iT LoOkS Fine tO Me.
I think it'd be better if we moved back to the topic at hand and not the ins and outs of another posters idiosyncrasies with regards to posting. Thanks.
rockerbikie wrote:umanity is unstable but the disorders females are more likely to be undetected than males
You didn't actually read any of those articles, did you?
Or... any... psychological literature at all?
Mental conditions in men are less likely to be detected than in women because women are more likely to seek help. In fact, even keeping that in mind, the supposed mental conditions in women are themselves actually over-reported due to an inherent bias in psychology, as shown by the fact that given two patients, one of which is male and one female, with the same exact scores on tests for depression and the same exact symptoms, the psychologist is more likely to say the woman is depressed than the man.
A concept that was discussed in at least two of the articles I posted.
Where gender differences were observed in the research examined, they were described as being about males, and less often than as being about females. Males are seen as the standard for the typical human subject. The research was published in the Review of General Psychology, by University of Surrey (UK) psychologists Peter Hegarty and Carmen Buechel. The authors systematically surveyed forty years of gender difference research in four journals published by the American Psychological Association. [...] The conclusion? Men may be the prototype for modern psychology’s picture of the typical person, but mothers remain the most typical kind of parent. [...] Hegarty and Buechel also found that psychologists vastly preferred the phrase ‘more than’ over ‘less than’ when explaining gender differences. Put this together with the male-norm effect and you could reach the absurd conclusion that women and girls have more psychology than men and boys do. [...] "[...] Our conclusion is not that psychologists should not study group differences, but that we serve the public better when we think deeply about the ways that we implicitly frame questions about whose behavior is the default standard norm and whose is made the subject of psychological scrutiny.”
Isn't the inherent sexism of our society just grand? Males aren't real parents according to psychology, men don't are bumbling simpletons with no complexity, and psychologists are gay (Well, we already knew that).
Amaya wrote:A more accurate statline would be men are S4/T4 and women are S3/T3. Same BS, WS, W, LD, I, and attacks.
I just wasn't sure if comparing SoB directly to SM would make sense, because SM are super human. And IG are decidedly worse in stats than SoB so I picked a number that wasn't 4.
"
