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.
2015/12/08 16:07:52
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
MrDwhitey wrote: I would say that people from either sex who could actually do that job would be fine.
If she couldn't do it, she should not have been hired/should be fired.
Pretty much this. Have the exact requirements for everyone. You can't fulfill them? You're fired. It's /that/ simple.
You guys don't seem to get that this simply isn't how it works once somebody like Carter gets it in his head that there will be X number of women in Y job by Z date.
2015/12/08 16:33:12
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: But was it right for her to accept a job that she couldn't fully accomplish and had to burden other works with her share of the work?
No, probably not. But there are also men who couldn't do that job. The problem is you're taking one woman from your anecdote, and then trying to make a general statement about all women based on that. That kind of inductive reasoning has been criticized since the time of Aristotle for being illogical.
You might be right that there are plenty of women who can't do the job, but there are also men who can't, and there might be a few women who can do the job. My argument would be that people should be judged based on whether they can do the job, not whether they are male or female. Doesn't that seem sensible?
Here is the rub the guy who couldn't do the job would have never went for the job knowing he would have never got it. She applied based equality and special accommodations. I would never say all women nor did I imply all. I specifically gave you a physical description that re-laid the impossibility to hike through mountains with 50%+ of her body weight for 4 days. 135 lbs. woman with the right physique sure its doable, 90-100 lbs. woman, no way not for a 10-14 hour hike/work day.
Then there was the no share of office work, we were "guys" and knew how to sharpen saws, axes and fix stuff. How could we know how to write a report better than a woman. I would have loved one day to sit in AC and write the report.
By the way this was a paid scientific internship, the guys had every right to gain the office experience, we even tried to talk to the supervisor, that's when we got the special accommodations BS.
its a related subject, mostly applicable to the thread.
Should women be deployed under "special accommodations" how is that right and fair to male counterparts?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/08 16:37:15
22 yrs in the hobby
:Eldar: 10K+ pts, 2500 pts
1850 pts
Vampire Counts 4000+
2015/12/08 16:36:21
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Seaward wrote: You guys don't seem to get that this simply isn't how it works once somebody like Carter gets it in his head that there will be X number of women in Y job by Z date.
Well then, perhaps the problem is target based performance reviews. It's a lazy system that almost always degenerates into corner-cutting, and falsely inflating the figures.
2015/12/08 18:06:58
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
My issue is setting a target for the number of X in Y jobs by Z date.
You should be looking at the underlying reasons X isn't applying for Y and addressing them to increase the number applying, not setting an arbitrary goal.
Also, if there are requirements for said job that are actually well researched and sensible, keep to them.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
2015/12/08 18:40:25
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Read an article this morning that the marines might be forced to lower their standards for Infantry Officer School to allow female officers to pass. So far they have only had 4 out of 29 make it through the first day and none the full course. Infantry combat doesn't change. We actually carried less gear when we were storming the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima than we do now. Its incredibly physical, unlike in the AF where non-pilot officers are mostly desk jockeys that rarely see their troops, in the actual combat arms they are required to function as well or better than the men they are fighting with.
An line infantry officer needs to be very strong to set the example, there's a good number of men who do not pass the course. I know when I was in, all direct leadership officers needed to be in the top 95% of their units. One of mine was hit severely in his OER for only getting a score that placed him just below that mark. If you look at the PT scoring system, you can see how hard this is going to be to accomplish. In the youngest category, but it stays roughly the same for every age bracket, a bottom level male barely passing the test with 60s in each category, with the exact same numbers would be almost max(within a couple points) on the female scale. Running, upper body strength, and core strength are very important, not sure how they are going to reconcile this major flaw in the system. The scoring system is posted a few pages back.
OK, now I just thought of another issue, we have been thinking in terms of women in line squads,"Our SAW gunner is gone due to being pregnant, Tom, you get her weapon". "But Sgt I am already carrying Julie's 240." What about women in leadership positions? You cant have a female infantry or tanker platoon leader unable to go to the field for 11 months because she is pregnant and again, now she is tying up that slot so no one else can take it and those are valuable slots. Now granted, we are grown adults and we know where babies come from, and generally on deployment there is a no sex rule in effect(that everyone and their mother breaks, the USS Enterprise wasn't nicknamed the "Love Boat" for nothing.) but accidents happen, especially when bored in a forward operating base.
It will be interesting to see where all this leads. Will we as a military be willing to accept lower standards and lower efficiency for the sake of being PC.
If you dont short hand your list, Im not reading it.
Example: Assault Intercessors- x5 -Thunder hammer and plasma pistol on sgt.
or Assault Terminators 3xTH/SS, 2xLCs
For the love of God, GW, get rid of reroll mechanics. ALL OF THEM!
2015/12/08 18:51:10
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
OK, now I just thought of another issue, we have been thinking in terms of women in line squads,"Our SAW gunner is gone due to being pregnant, Tom, you get her weapon". "But Sgt I am already carrying Julie's 240." What about women in leadership positions? You cant have a female infantry or tanker platoon leader unable to go to the field for 11 months because she is pregnant and again, now she is tying up that slot so no one else can take it and those are valuable slots.
I suspect any female in that position, like any male PL who gets injured bad enough, loses the PL slot (I've seen it with males). Depending on how the OER gets written and wether or not she is able to get another PL slot when she recovers it will likely have much less than a good effect on her career. Right or wrong, it may well look like a choice was made to get pregnant rather than be a platoon leader.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/12/08 18:56:48
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
OK, now I just thought of another issue, we have been thinking in terms of women in line squads,"Our SAW gunner is gone due to being pregnant, Tom, you get her weapon". "But Sgt I am already carrying Julie's 240." What about women in leadership positions? You cant have a female infantry or tanker platoon leader unable to go to the field for 11 months because she is pregnant and again, now she is tying up that slot so no one else can take it and those are valuable slots.
I suspect any female in that position, like any male PL who gets injured bad enough, loses the PL slot (I've seen it with males). Depending on how the OER gets written and wether or not she is able to get another PL slot when she recovers it will likely have much less than a good effect on her career. Right or wrong, it may well look like a choice was made to get pregnant rather than be a platoon leader.
And then we're dealing with "gender discrimination"...
Full Frontal Nerdity
2015/12/08 19:00:00
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Compel wrote: A lot of this reads like. "Some people will be jerks when doing something, so ban all people from everything."
No. It reads as "We don't need this for our military to continue to be successful. Since it is being forced on us though, here are the issues that we are going to face, for no need at all."
Full Frontal Nerdity
2015/12/08 20:09:25
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Col. Dash wrote: Read an article this morning that the marines might be forced to lower their standards for Infantry Officer School to allow female officers to pass. So far they have only had 4 out of 29 make it through the first day and none the full course. Infantry combat doesn't change. We actually carried less gear when we were storming the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima than we do now. Its incredibly physical, unlike in the AF where non-pilot officers are mostly desk jockeys that rarely see their troops, in the actual combat arms they are required to function as well or better than the men they are fighting with.
An line infantry officer needs to be very strong to set the example, there's a good number of men who do not pass the course. I know when I was in, all direct leadership officers needed to be in the top 95% of their units. One of mine was hit severely in his OER for only getting a score that placed him just below that mark. If you look at the PT scoring system, you can see how hard this is going to be to accomplish. In the youngest category, but it stays roughly the same for every age bracket, a bottom level male barely passing the test with 60s in each category, with the exact same numbers would be almost max(within a couple points) on the female scale. Running, upper body strength, and core strength are very important, not sure how they are going to reconcile this major flaw in the system. The scoring system is posted a few pages back.
OK, now I just thought of another issue, we have been thinking in terms of women in line squads,"Our SAW gunner is gone due to being pregnant, Tom, you get her weapon". "But Sgt I am already carrying Julie's 240." What about women in leadership positions? You cant have a female infantry or tanker platoon leader unable to go to the field for 11 months because she is pregnant and again, now she is tying up that slot so no one else can take it and those are valuable slots. Now granted, we are grown adults and we know where babies come from, and generally on deployment there is a no sex rule in effect(that everyone and their mother breaks, the USS Enterprise wasn't nicknamed the "Love Boat" for nothing.) but accidents happen, especially when bored in a forward operating base.
It will be interesting to see where all this leads. Will we as a military be willing to accept lower standards and lower efficiency for the sake of being PC.
c
Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
2015/12/08 20:11:05
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
What about in Sweden where female firefighters get another 30 seconds to chop down a door?
Did you know that we also eat our babies and have to sing patriotic hymns to the great Fatherbörk, aren't allowed to eat anything other than Börk on Wednesdays and that börk börk börk börk?
Equal rights for firemen constitutes a public hazard
Ingrid Carlqvist
Feb. 22, 2013
Female firefighters in Lund need eleven minutes to force a security door – no one will be left alive
If your apartment catches fire, firemen need to get in there fast to save you. A common apartment door can be forced open in 10 to 20 seconds; a security-enforced door takes 45 to 60 seconds.
Now information has leaked that female firefighters take more than 10 minutes to break through a secured door.
“If this is true, it is deeply serious. After that amount of time, there will be no life left to save on the other side,” says Henrik Persson, fire chief in Höganäs.
After the article in Dispatch International on January 26th [not in English!] on how the diversity agitation within the Emergency Services South endangers public safety, the editors have received several hints about how bad things are in Swedish fire brigades. The situation seems to be worst in the city of Lund, whose fire brigade has been highlighted as “exemplary” due to an almost perfectly equal gender balance.
Some time ago the firefighters were practicing forcing open security doors while wearing full protective clothing. When two female firefighters were put to the task, it reportedly took them eleven minutes.
“That is quite remarkable. We will have to look at this, says Peter Bergh,” a spokesman for the National Union of Firefighters.
Peter Bergh says that the union, which represents around 9,000 of the 15,000 Swedish firefighters, has been watching with increasing concern how the emergency services in recent years have focused more and more on diversity, and accordingly less on professional skills.
“In 2011, in cooperation with Centrum för Rättvisa (’Center for Justice’), we brought a case to court concerning a Swedish firefighter who, in spite of two years of education, was refused employment at Södertörns Brandförsvar. While at the same time a number of women with poorer or irrelevant skills were hired as firefighters,” recalls Peter Bergh.
“As the case was settled out of court and Södertörns Brandförsvar was forced to pay Skr 100,000 (€11,600) in compensation (a large figure by Swedish standards), we thought that the emergency services would reconsider the matters,” says Peter Bergh.
But that does not seem to be the case. When Räddningstjänsten Sydoes hired ten new workers in Malmö, the ones with the best skills and longest experience were turned down. Five positions went to women with very superficial professional skills.
And at the “exemplary brigade” in Lund, exercises show that some female firefighters are not able to enter a burning apartment with a secured front door. Henrik Persson, who for many years worked in Malmö as both a firefighter and a group leader, and now employed as fire chief in Höganäs, is gravely concerned.
“The conditions when saving lives in buildings keep getting tougher. It is more common now that that we encounter security doors of various classifications when we need to enter an apartment,” says Henrik Persson.
“Forcing oneself through a security door requires strenuous muscle-effort and teamwork, under intense time pressure. And although I do not know of the specific exercise in Lund, where women took eleven minute to force the security door open, I am aware that competence is falling in several areas, simply because the demands for physical strength have been lowered.”
Can people survive eleven minutes in a burning apartment?
“No, after eleven minutes there is, in theory, no life left to save on the other side of the door,” replies Henrik Persson.
Henrik Persson as well as Peter Bergh confirm that such results have been hushed up and pushed aside. No one will acknowledge that over the last decade, the competence of firemen has deteriorated severely.
“As a logical consequence, this is a risk for the general public. In order to fix these problems, we must have the courage to talk about them; the demands must be in line with what the job requires,” says Henrik Persson.
The change started at the end of the 1990′s. Previously most of those who went on to become firefighters had been carpenters, electricians or plumbers, people with solid physical ability. The personnel consisted of people capable of practical work under heavy physical and psychological strain.
“This is actually what the operative side of the trade is about. A hundred percent,” says Henrik Persson.
“Then suddenly we got the idea that it was vitally important that the force consisted not only of big, strong Swedish men, and they worked eagerly to recruit women, and not least men of immigrant background.”
In order to motivate this, a problem was constructed, Henrik Persson believes. It was claimed that the jargon among firefighters was offensive and condescending, a macho culture, and that had to be countered, no matter the cost. This later spread like wildfire through all of Sweden.
“But that was not my impression. Yes, there were some who openly and loudly argued that women do not make good firefighters, and certainly the jargon could be rude, but it has always been cordial. As frequently is the case in workplaces handling matters of life and death, says Henrik Persson.
According to Persson, firefighters are actually the most broadminded and tolerant profession towards various beliefs, sexual orientation and other issues that could be perceived as dissenting or in the minority. Taking care of people is a part of the job.
“And has one ever heard of the jargon being such a problem in other single-gender professions, such as garbage truck drivers, nannies or nurses? A problem so worrisome that it justified a lowering of professional standards?”
But this is exactly what is happening within the emergency services. The normal tests for physical skills were scrapped, enabling a much wider range of people to become firefighters.
“But the fact remains that even the best woman cannot physically match the best man, this is simply the truth. What makes it so emotionally loaded to acknowledge this? That does not mean that the physical tests are to be the single determining factor. I have worked with female colleagues myself, and know that there are both competent and skillful women in the force,” says Henrik Persson.
In Höganäs, the fire brigade is in the midst of an organizational reform, while at the same time several have retired due to age.
“We have a series of operative special tasks here, such as advance rescues with ropes, a large lifeboat requiring good boatmanship, tracked vehicles and traditional firefighting tasks. We are a small force which places large demands on individual skills. Furthermore, we must make sure that some have the potential to become leaders in the future. We cannot recruit staff based on gender or ethnicity – if we did so, we would not be able to deliver the required operative capabilities.
“First and foremost, we need to hire the best candidate – regardless of gender or origin of the given person, that is my firm conviction.”
Henrik Persson is dead scared of getting into a situation like those that occurred during his time in Malmö. When he had to call the supreme fire chief to report that on that day, they did not have the required competence.
“That was due to the lack of required education and capability among the personnel. That has happened several times in recent years, much more frequently than people in general dare to believe. At times, when the alarm went, we would have to go to the scene, merely to await reinforcement in order to handle some types of operations, for example stopping a simple water leak.”
The spokesman for the National Union of Firefighters, Peter Bergh, takes the news very seriously that it took firefighters in Lund more than 10 minutes to force open a security door, and intends to take action on it.
“If there ever is a time in life where people expect value for their tax money, it is when their lives are at risk. In that situation, they must have the best possible help,” says Peter Bergh.
“Pluralism is great, and there can be good reasons for the force to reflect society at large, not least when we have to respond to inhabitants in areas like Rosengård, where the fire brigades are not liked. But one fact remains – one cannot talk away a fire.”
The link you gave doesn't link to an article that matches the translation.
EDIT: I'd also highly question the use of Dispatch International as sole source. Considering they're consistently ranting against the evil "mainstream media" and propping themselves up as a "real newspaper" (as opposed to "mainstream media") the tinfoil indicator is starting to overload.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/08 20:55:39
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2015/12/08 22:14:20
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Relapse wrote: Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
It would be, wouldn't it? Which is why we'll never get one. This isn't the first rodeo with this kind of nonsense.
My personal favorite is the Marines and pull ups. They've been saying for years now that female Marines have to hit the minimum male pull up standard. They've delayed that requirement to "next year" every year since because if they didn't, they'd have to separate over half of all female Marines. I anticipate it being quietly dropped sometime in the next two years.
2115/12/09 00:59:11
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Relapse wrote: Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
It would be, wouldn't it? Which is why we'll never get one. This isn't the first rodeo with this kind of nonsense.
My personal favorite is the Marines and pull ups. They've been saying for years now that female Marines have to hit the minimum male pull up standard. They've delayed that requirement to "next year" every year since because if they didn't, they'd have to separate over half of all female Marines. I anticipate it being quietly dropped sometime in the next two years.
I think the pull-up will quickly become a requirement if they are forced to put women in combat units where they'll have to hump a gak load of gear for twenty to thirty miles up hills and down.
2015/12/09 02:03:50
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Relapse wrote: Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
It would be, wouldn't it? Which is why we'll never get one. This isn't the first rodeo with this kind of nonsense.
My personal favorite is the Marines and pull ups. They've been saying for years now that female Marines have to hit the minimum male pull up standard. They've delayed that requirement to "next year" every year since because if they didn't, they'd have to separate over half of all female Marines. I anticipate it being quietly dropped sometime in the next two years.
I think the pull-up will quickly become a requirement if they are forced to put women in combat units where they'll have to hump a gak load of gear for twenty to thirty miles up hills and down.
A more likely scenario is pull-ups become mandatory for certain MOS.
Just as the Army is VERY unlikely to not score by sex on the APFT. Doing so, if you kept the male standard as the minimum, would see close to 90% of females get chaptered out. If the USMC decides to make the three pull-ups the minimum (it is 3, right?) as mentioned they lose too many. Congress/DACOWITS would gak themselves. So, in effect the services are probably going to come up with 'initial entry' standards which will mirror standards for non-combat arms, and combat arms standards. There may well be variation (tankers will have different standards than cav scouts and infantry for example).
When I went through Airborne School in the fall of '91 females did not have to do pull-ups but males did. Anyone know if that is still the case? The reason for pull ups to ensure you had the upper body strength to pull your weight on the risers to dump air/steer your chute. It never made sense to have different standards, it was like the Army said 'females are less valuable, we don't care if they can safely control their chute' just so they could get them through the school.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/12/09 02:08:33
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
The entire physical fitness program is screwed for that reason Capt. PT standards should be based on MOS/AFSC, not just a standard for the whole service.
I refuse to believe that because I am a male, my time sitting at my desk requires me to do more push-ups then a female who sits at the desk next to me.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2015/12/09 02:24:24
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Hordini wrote: being in the military entails more sacrifice in order to provide something that is necessary for a free society...
I think this is the part I object to, and what is at the heart of soldier worship. The idea that soldiers are fighting for my freedom, so I should be grateful. I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and more often than not I think military intervention makes situations worse. The latest example being "bomb Syria", which even Bashar al-Assad said is generating more rebels.
Also my "freedom" is highly overrated. Freedom to be owned by global corporations? Freedom to pay tax "or else"? If someone wants to fight for my freedom, go and fight the corrupt "political donations" system, which is just a moniker for bribery. Go and fight to not have the quality of our food, our health, and our environment dictated by someone's bottom line. Then I'll thank you for your service.
Shipping overseas to drive around in the dessert and achieve very little, so that shares in Halliburton and arms manufacturing can enjoy a few extra points, does nothing for my freedom. And, may actually have stirred up a wasps nest of global terrorism, which has led to my freedoms being eroded. Now the world is more dangerous than ever, and new "counter terrorism" laws mean that just about anyone can be arrested, held indefinitely without charge, and possibly tortured... Fan-fething-tastic!
So while I appreciate that soldiers do get shot at, and might even mistakenly believe they're doing it for a good cause. I don't personally owe you anything.
If you don't value your freedom, it's your loss, quite frankly. The bottom line is, soldiers will step into harms way to defend you, and deploy to hazardous areas so you don't have to. If you don't feel that that is worthy of a modicum of your respect, then good for you I suppose.
Did you know that we also eat our babies and have to sing patriotic hymns to the great Fatherbörk, aren't allowed to eat anything other than Börk on Wednesdays and that börk börk börk börk?
On a more serious note, "citation needed".
Way off topic but can you tell me more of this Börk?
For on topic, the thing about one standard being set and equal opportunity not equal outcome needs to be repeated several times if necessary. Which is basically the answer to this in military terms, but as I'm sure people in large bureaucratic organisations know, upper management are not the brightest people (probably all those management courses they go on ).
Brb learning to play.
2015/12/09 02:29:11
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Compel wrote: While I'm generally more on the 'friend to the armed forces' side of the fence, I will say that there's often something I tend to find... creepy... about the way, particularly America, but I've seen some situations elsewhere, about the reverence that soldiers are treated. It can feel quite unsettling.
Sometimes it gets a little overboard in the US, I agree. But I prefer that to the way soldiers are treated in many European countries: with suspicion at best, to little better than criminals at worst.
And the fact that I'm suggesting that soldiering is an honorable profession in general, or that soldiers who behave honorably are worthy of respect is pretty far from reverence. I think it's pretty reasonably, quite honestly. Nobody would claim that someone was guilty of "teacher worship" for claiming that teaching is an honorable profession and that good teachers are worthy of respect.
djones520 wrote: The entire physical fitness program is screwed for that reason Capt. PT standards should be based on MOS/AFSC, not just a standard for the whole service.
I refuse to believe that because I am a male, my time sitting at my desk requires me to do more push-ups then a female who sits at the desk next to me.
The problem is there SHOULD be a minimum standard for the whole service. It should not be different by sex.
At least in the Army and the USMC, every trooper, regardless of MOS is supposed to be able to perform certain Infantry tasks. So, regardless of MOS, there should be a standard.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/12/09 02:48:31
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Relapse wrote: Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
It would be, wouldn't it? Which is why we'll never get one. This isn't the first rodeo with this kind of nonsense.
My personal favorite is the Marines and pull ups. They've been saying for years now that female Marines have to hit the minimum male pull up standard. They've delayed that requirement to "next year" every year since because if they didn't, they'd have to separate over half of all female Marines. I anticipate it being quietly dropped sometime in the next two years.
I think the pull-up will quickly become a requirement if they are forced to put women in combat units where they'll have to hump a gak load of gear for twenty to thirty miles up hills and down.
A more likely scenario is pull-ups become mandatory for certain MOS.
Just as the Army is VERY unlikely to not score by sex on the APFT. Doing so, if you kept the male standard as the minimum, would see close to 90% of females get chaptered out. If the USMC decides to make the three pull-ups the minimum (it is 3, right?) as mentioned they lose too many. Congress/DACOWITS would gak themselves. So, in effect the services are probably going to come up with 'initial entry' standards which will mirror standards for non-combat arms, and combat arms standards. There may well be variation (tankers will have different standards than cav scouts and infantry for example).
When I went through Airborne School in the fall of '91 females did not have to do pull-ups but males did. Anyone know if that is still the case? The reason for pull ups to ensure you had the upper body strength to pull your weight on the risers to dump air/steer your chute. It never made sense to have different standards, it was like the Army said 'females are less valuable, we don't care if they can safely control their chute' just so they could get them through the school.
In the Marines, though, the concept is every man is a rifleman. I'm surprised to read about two sets of standards for Airborne. It puts a huge hole in the narrative that on average, women can be as physically tough as men in a combat role.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/09 02:51:29
2015/12/09 02:51:07
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Great concept. Not every Marine has to pass the Infantry course though, so in practice what it means is every Marine needs to be able to perform some basic infantry tasks, just as every soldier does, and just as I mentioned a couple of posts ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just checked, the standards for Airborne school no longer include pull-ups for anyone. Instead there is a 20 second Flex Arm Hang every student must be able to perform.
Each student also has to pass the APFT for the lowest age bracket (17-21 year olds) but that is still graded according to sex.
CptJake wrote: Great concept. Not every Marine has to pass the Infantry course though, so in practice what it means is every Marine needs to be able to perform some basic infantry tasks, just as every soldier does, and just as I mentioned a couple of posts ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just checked, the standards for Airborne school no longer include pull-ups for anyone. Instead there is a 20 second Flex Arm Hang every student must be able to perform.
Each student also has to pass the APFT for the lowest age bracket (17-21 year olds) but that is still graded according to sex.
CptJake wrote: Great concept. Not every Marine has to pass the Infantry course though, so in practice what it means is every Marine needs to be able to perform some basic infantry tasks, just as every soldier does, and just as I mentioned a couple of posts ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just checked, the standards for Airborne school no longer include pull-ups for anyone. Instead there is a 20 second Flex Arm Hang every student must be able to perform.
Each student also has to pass the APFT for the lowest age bracket (17-21 year olds) but that is still graded according to sex.
So I do get to say 'Back in MY day it was harder!'
It makes me wonder if they lowered the standard so women wouldn't stand out as weaker, making their requirements a joke.
I don't know. I bet some smart guy realized that the pull up was being used as an indicator of capability to pull and hold a slip. If the flex arm hang does the same thing, I guess it is okay... It does look like the student has to start from a dead hang and pull up. Of course the link also says you can re-test it and even be given a waiver if you can't make it. I have no idea how often waivers are granted/not granted but I hope they are pretty damned rare.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/12/09 08:52:29
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Hordini wrote: The bottom line is, soldiers will step into harms way to defend you, and deploy to hazardous areas so you don't have to. If you don't feel that that is worthy of a modicum of your respect, then good for you I suppose.
I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and I certainly didn't ask them to lose. And why on Earth would I ever have to deploy in hazardous areas? Do you think if soldiers didn't exist, I'd be in Afghanistan chasing goats around? No, I'd be here minding my own business like normal.
2015/12/09 13:03:20
Subject: Re:Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
In the Marines, though, the concept is every man is a rifleman. I'm surprised to read about two sets of standards for Airborne. It puts a huge hole in the narrative that on average, women can be as physically tough as men in a combat role.
Not sure how it is now, but when I was in military out of all the women there only about 2-3 in every 10 would have qualified for combat duty. Earlier I stated I meet a few really tough women in the military and they could easily out do 80% of the men, again they were few. I welcome them to defend the nation as ground combat troops IF they can meet the same standards as the male recruits. It's often not talked about but a small portion male recruits washout of basic training, they are not able to complete the physical training and receive medical discharge. Women in my time had different and lower standards but still had a washout rate. I'm betting if they had to meet the same standards more would washout.
22 yrs in the hobby
:Eldar: 10K+ pts, 2500 pts
1850 pts
Vampire Counts 4000+
2015/12/09 13:09:57
Subject: Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
2500 pts
1850 pts
).
