- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,611
- Reaction score
- 31,235
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I don't have a problem with women having careers. I have a problem with women having careers in fields where their specific anatomical differences make them unsuitable to perform their job duties and present a real danger to their comrades. And, secondarily, I have a problem with young women in careers that have such a high chance of death or disability. It is good for a society to bleed off its excess males in this fashion; it is very, very bad to do this with females.
In my 21 years in the military I have never heard of one person be they man or woman who wanted to serve in combat.
What do you imagine these "specific anatomical differences" to be, which make women unsuitable as soldiers?
It is obvious that that most of the people responding do not have daughters or wives of military age or they might give this a second thought.
We're not talking about drafting women into combat roles, Navy.
The better comparison is the "average" military woman compared to the "average" military man.
I think that you underestimate women...
I don't think you understood my point.
My personal experience is having two parents who are retired military, close friends who are still active duty, and 10+ years serving the military as a civilian. I don't claim to be a military expert; my role has been educating them in applied math. However, I think you'll agree that all the tests need to be passed and it doesn't matter whether the hump was the first, sixth, or where in the order it was.
When I said "pair them in combat", I meant do a head-to-head comparison of the combat skills of the best female candidates versus the best male candidates in no specific order. Restricting to the top 100 of each gender, how many women do you think come out ahead of the male they're matched up against?
I agree determination is a significant factor, but it's very possible to fail regardless of how much determination one has.
Doing the same as what you did is matching what you did.
Any of these 'close friends' Grunts? I kinda thought you had no personal experience on what it takes to be a grunt. or for that matter what makes a 'good' grunt. no concept of the ENDURANCE side of the issue.
you use a rather bogus theory of what 'the best' is and how grunts are selected. your comparison is theoretical only, will never happen in the real world. Will 100 of the 'best' ever fight together? Have you done hand to hand combat training? I can assure you the biggest and strongest NEVER won in our Bear Pit. most vicious, quickest, and yes luckiest won.
I am the one saying the trainee must MEET THE STANDARD to turn blue. YOU are the one talking about 'the best' and 100 against 100.
You also don't seem to have a concept of how grunts fight...it isn't a modern version of Gladiator. No paired combat. TACTICS, and TEAMWORK. Better the soldier who fights as part of the team than one who thinks he is Rambutt or some such.
If you agree determination is significant and it is very possible to fail no matter how determined then you have to agree brute strength can just as easily fail, especially if it isn't coupled with OUTstanding training and the skill/talent/intelligence to fight smart.
The saying isn't biggest SOB in the valley....its MEANEST...
the catholic church in particular...
The number 100 was chosen randomly to demonstrate the point that the number of grunts needed is a small portion of the military. Theoretically, to optimize the quality of our military, you should first determine the number of grunts needed. You then look at the statistics of their skills and overall capabilities in order to determine what standards should be set at so that the number who succeed is close to the number you need, erroring just slightly on the side of caution. Strength, endurance, determination, tactics, and teamwork are all important. Knowing the precise finite list of areas being judged is not necessary. Strategy selecting candidates for any type of position can be studied with the scoring factors represented as random variables. In this particular case, I apply expertise in topics such as lattices and orderings to help the military.
What do you imagine these "specific anatomical differences" to be, which make women unsuitable as soldiers?
Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?
the whole premise is incorrect. you are trying to use theoretical to justify a position that historically fails the real world test.
You want to wonk the last place on earth where cold stats carry the day. if math could win battles, then the Japanese should have won Midway, the Germans the battle of the Bulge, the 1/7th at LZ x-ray.
What wonks can't do is measure the amount of fight in the dog.... all pie charts aside.
I want to say a former Sec of Defense McNamara thought very much like you did. You recall how well that worked?
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. From "The Standards Will Not Change" to "The Standards Are Irrelevant" in less than a single thread!
And they call us crazy when we said that's how it would go.
Anywho, to answer your question, lots.
Let me break it down for you...
Let's say two soldiers one male and one female are up for a a promotion. They are both equal in all aspects with the final deciding factor of who gets the promotion down to the pt test. Lets set the score at 270 because they are looking to do well, not just meet the minimum standard.
This is what a 17-21 year old male has to do to get a score of 270:
Push ups:64 (in 2 minutes), Sit ups: 72 (in 2 minutes), 2 mile run: 13:42 minutes
17-21 year old female:
Push ups: 36 (in 2 minutes), Sit ups: 72 (in 2 minutes), 2 mile run: 16:24 minutes
As you can see a 17-21 year old male must do 28 more push ups in 2 minutes, and run the two mile run almost 3 minutes faster. I consider this to be a fairly significant difference.
Here's what I mean by group think, why would the pt test be a consideration?
Oh I'm sure how many push ups you could do would make a great difference to your fighting abilities..confronted by the Taliban..
Upper body strength and endurance matter. We had plenty of crew served weapons, and anti-tank missiles, that could be mounted on the ground or on trucks (and was moved back and forth, according to mobility needs). We moved around a lot. There was always lots of ammo to go here or there. Hell, just digging the fox holes (and truck holes) required tremendous strength.
Upper body strength and endurance matter. We had plenty of crew served weapons, and anti-tank missiles, that could be mounted on the ground or on trucks (and was moved back and forth, according to mobility needs). We moved around a lot. There was always lots of ammo to go here or there. Hell, just digging the fox holes (and truck holes) required tremendous strength.
I agree with that..but I think it is just another sexist commentary...to keep women in their place...orchestrated by men..
Yup. Lots of grunt work is strenuous and requires considerable upper-body strength and endurance. I'm not ashamed to admit that at 47 I couldn't keep up with a bunch of 11Bravo soldiers in their 20s, they'd run me into the ground no doubt... and I'm not even going to talk about Rangers or Marine Recon. I might have qual'd Ranger in my 20s given the chance, but not any more.
Certain combat units require far-above-average physical ability, and not everyone can qual. If some women can, more power to 'em IMO... but the standards need to be kept exactly as they are and not lowered for any reason. They are what they are for very good reasons: it takes a lot of physicality to do some of these jobs.
But the real test would be doing the job.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?