If these advanced training programs don't accurately reflect what is needed to be successful in actual combat scenarios, then they should be redesigned or revamped to do so.
But at the moment, that is the standard that the US military has set, and as such any person, regardless of gender, who is able to meet that standard and is willing, should be allowed into those roles.
I don't disagree.
I disagree.
The standard, as it currently exist, is designed to accept a certain pool of people in to a training program and successfully graduate n% of those new recruits in to the force as Soldiers capable of taking on more advance training.
If you propose broadening the pool of people accepted in to training then you need to change the acceptance and training standards concurrently in order that you can reasonably expect to still arrive at the same outcome following training.
The bottom line is that the product coming out at the end of the training pipeline has to be capable of doing the job.
The combat effectiveness of the force isn't something that can be compromised in the name of fairness.
If we're going to allow women in to the Combat Arms, and particularly if we're going to allow them in to Infantry and Special Operations fields, then the standards need to be changed before the first woman sets foot on to one of our training Bases.
Even if none are able to successfully complete these programs they should at least be allowed to attempt them, and if an exceptional woman happens to pass and meet those high standards, there is no logical reason to keep her from these positions.
Despite what you may have been told by the Super Friends and reruns of Murphy Brown...men and women are not the same. Women make for poor warriors as a rule. If they were equal to men as warriors, let's make a few all women brigades and see how they do against ISIS.
It depends on the sport. The only sport where women couldn't compete with men in all positions is football because that's primarily a strength sport. There's no reason that women couldn't compete with men in baseball and basketball and any other sport that's not exclusively about strength.
And even in the strength world I competed with plenty of women powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters who would shame 95% of the men out there in terms of strength. So even the strength issue can be addressed with appropriate training.
Interesting reading thanks. Have the Marines lowered standards to get women to pass or did the women in the study pass the same physical tests that the men did? I noted the physiological differences and wonder how important they are in reality. Staying with what I know - strength training - the study notes the women were on average 15% less powerful (given the size disparity that sounds about right btw). I wonder how much that 15% actually matters. 15% matters alot among competitive athletes but I'm not sure how much difference it makes doing tasks that may not necessarily require maximum output. Actually now that I think about it I wonder how important power generation is. Power is work over time which means maximal power generation is achieved in brief bursts - doing a clean and jerk for example. It doesn't much bearing on the ability to carry something for an extended period of time.
Why would women not shoot as straight as men? That's puzzling. Recoil? .223 or whatever the military calls it doesn't kick all that much.
I'm not on board with what you're saying.
It costs somewhere between $60,000 and $100,000 to recruit one civilian off the street, fully test and process that individual, transport the recruit to the appropriate training base, and then fully train that recruit to a basic level (Basic Combat Training + Advanced Individual Training).
If we admit 100 women to Infantry OSUT and, as you suggest is a possibility, "none are able to successfully complete these programs", that's a waste of somewhere between $6 million and $10 million.
Those aren't huge numbers in relation to the entire U.S. budget, or even the entire defense share of the federal budget, or even the Army's share of the defense budget.
But they are huge numbers as you continue to drill down to the cost center of government that these expenses are actually being charged to.
If the Infantry School runs 80 OSUT cycles per year and each cycle trains roughly 100 recruits then we're talking about a cost of 1.25% of the Infantry School's budget just being pissed away with nothing to show for it.
There are also military units that are waiting on new Soldiers fresh out of the training command in order to keep their rosters manned to a combat effective level.
If 100 women try out for the Infantry, and 100 women fail to meet the standard then Infantry branch personnel managers who are responsible for manning unit rosters have to leave 100 positions unmanned.
If the service is called to go to war they need to go to war with 100 fewer Soldiers than they need.
Admitting women in to the Combat Arms isn't just an academic social experiment.
It has real word costs and implications both for the taxpayer and for the Services.
This is so insanely wrong I don't know where to begin. Women do not compete with male athletes at the same level. Period. You honestly think a WNBA star could defend Lebron James? You must be smoking some pretty good dope.
We are talking about the military, where something simple going wrong can cost people their lives. We should be looking for the best at all times. 15% less is a lot when your life is on the line. Someone that requires others to pull 15% of their weight is a liability. And no one wants a liability in their squad when their life is on the line.
Still..... I would think that some sort of qualifying eval could be done so that people who don't really stand a chance of passing don't take up space and waste resources. It seems a small hurdle to overcome, and a poor reason to just exclude women.
95% of men in the NBA can't either. What is your point?
It depends on the sport. The only sport where women couldn't compete with men in all positions is football because that's primarily a strength sport. There's no reason that women couldn't compete with men in baseball and basketball and any other sport that's not exclusively about strength.
And even in the strength world I competed with plenty of women powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters who would shame 95% of the men out there in terms of strength. So even the strength issue can be addressed with appropriate training.
rifle shooting, trap shooting, and 100 mile races are three sports where women can compete with men. Equestrian Dressage, show jumping as well. Serena williams cannot start on a top ten D-1 college tennis team. when I was in college, I was =as a freshman, on the JV squash team. The Number one woman was the collegiate #1 and ranked top five in North America, She couldn't get a game off of me because I hit the ball twice as hard, I was far far faster, and much quicker. Chris Evert, once the #1 female tennis player in the world and one of the greatest female players in history, noted that her little brother-who was a very good HS player and was a Division one varsity player but not even close to All-American (or let alone on the world tour) absolutely destroyed her when they played.
My nephew did two combat tours as a captain in the rangers in Iraq and then 18 months with the Special forces in Afghanistan. He noted that no woman could have gotten through Q school under the same standards he was subjected to. I have yet to meet a SF soldier, a SEAL or a similar operative who disagrees with him
Now are there combat roles for women? sure, in a defensive perimeter, women can make very good snipers. jobs that don't require humping 90 pounds of gear through free fire zones. Maybe Triple A operators as well.
Should women be allowed to serve in front-line military combat roles?
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?