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.

Frazzled wrote:No, it doesn't.

Yes, the military DOES have a problem there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_in_the_United_States_military

There are an unfortunate amount (IE >0) of scumbags in the military, none of them deserve the honor of serving.

Here is something the Australians put together:

http://www.ada.asn.au/Comments/Women&Combat.htm

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No, it doesn't.

Yes, the military DOES have a problem there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_in_the_United_States_military

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.


Ninja'd by Matty. He said it better.

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.

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.

A longer boot camp won't help for something like that. As matty noted I'm not into blowing half a million dollars on PC BS 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.

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.

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.

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

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...

Melissia wrote:

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.

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.

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

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Yet, few site upgrades to go yet.

Amaya wrote:

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?

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?

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.

That was from my first armor unit.

I suspect you could make the argument that folks who take pride in being in the Dealer BN, are not there for just the hugs and good feelings.

mattyrm wrote:

Amaya wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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!

And real men get super pissed!

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.

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.

No thanks !

No reason to be purposefully insulting.