Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/04/27 01:34:28
Subject: Re:Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/27 01:34:56
2012/04/27 01:40:13
Subject: Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/04/27 01:58:30
2012/04/27 02:08:59
Subject: Re:Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/27 02:09:24
sebster wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Its a known fact that Aussies are genetically disposed towards crime, we intentionally set them up that way.
But only awesome crimes like bushranging and, if I understand the song correctly, sheep stealing and suicide.
2012/04/27 02:14:30
Subject: Re:Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
2012/04/27 02:28:36
Subject: Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/27 02:40:51
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/04/27 03:00:43
Subject: Re:Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/04/27 03:15:58
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/04/27 03:18:40
Subject: Re:Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
What does bodybuilding have to do with strength?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/04/27 03:20:00
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.
2012/04/27 03:21:52
Subject: Re:Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
Amaya wrote:What does bodybuilding have to do with strength?
What does upper body strength have to do with carrying a backpack all day?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/04/27 03:23:01
Subject: Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/27 03:24:56
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
2012/04/27 03:28:19
Subject: Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/04/27 03:30:17
Subject: Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/27 03:31:39
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.
None of which is relevant to a soldier's duties.
So again, a stupid and pointless example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/27 03:33:40
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/04/27 03:34:20
Subject: Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/04/27 03:48:28
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/04/27 03:53:34
Subject: Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
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.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/04/27 04:30:01
Subject: Re:Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?
