I'm sure the usual suspects here will be frothing at the mouth.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/17/19008258-women-in-combat-could-special-ops-be-the-next-stop?lite
Nothing a bit of rape won't cure.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2013, 01:28:27 AM
I'm sure the usual suspects here will be frothing at the mouth.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/17/19008258-women-in-combat-could-special-ops-be-the-next-stop?lite
I could give two flips about this.
I was going to make a joke about how now Siege could get in, but there's actually plenty of women who can run miles faster than 10 minutes.
As long as they don't make "fire fighter style exemptions" (carrying less weight and such) and they meeting the requirements I see no problems.
Quote from: HVC on June 18, 2013, 06:58:48 AM
As long as they don't make "fire fighter style exemptions" (carrying less weight and such) and they meeting the requirements I see no problems.
Of course they will. But what difference does it make?
Terrible idea but you might as well do it at this point. Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
The Aussies know how to handle sexism in the armed forces:
http://www.upworthy.com/boom-watch-an-angry-army-general-deliver-a-scathing-dressing-down-to-sexist-soldiers?c=ufb1 (http://www.upworthy.com/boom-watch-an-angry-army-general-deliver-a-scathing-dressing-down-to-sexist-soldiers?c=ufb1)
A selection of countries that do have women in their special forces:
South Korea's 707th Special Mission Battalion has a small number of female Special Forces operatives who are used in counter-terror operations. Always a pioneer of women in the military, Israel has opened the majority of combat positions to women, including Special Forces, since the late 1990s.
In 2011, Australia's defence minister announced that the last 7% of positions that had been closed to women, including Special Forces, would be opened up to them. In Denmark, all posts are already open to women, but physical requirements have so far prevented them from joining the country's Special Operations Forces.
Women have an essential role in the Afghan Army's Special Forces, conducting searches of households where women are put at ease by being questioned by other Afghan women.
Quote from: Brazen on June 18, 2013, 08:10:17 AM
The Aussies know how to handle sexism in the armed forces:
http://www.upworthy.com/boom-watch-an-angry-army-general-deliver-a-scathing-dressing-down-to-sexist-soldiers?c=ufb1 (http://www.upworthy.com/boom-watch-an-angry-army-general-deliver-a-scathing-dressing-down-to-sexist-soldiers?c=ufb1)
They do? Really? They could have fooled me.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
So true but eventually the hysterical homophobes will fade away and we won't have to lose valuable gay servicemen.
Oh wait, were you talking about something else?
HA!
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Terrible idea but you might as well do it at this point. Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
In this modern world, what does combat effectiveness matter? Just avoid combat. And national security? How does having women fighting affect national security one iota?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 09:51:50 AM
So true but eventually the hysterical homophobes will fade away and we won't have to lose valuable gay servicemen.
Are gays especially valuable to you?
Quote from: Brazen on June 18, 2013, 08:10:17 AM
A selection of countries that do have women in their special forces:
South Korea's 707th Special Mission Battalion has a small number of female Special Forces operatives who are used in counter-terror operations. Always a pioneer of women in the military, Israel has opened the majority of combat positions to women, including Special Forces, since the late 1990s.
In 2011, Australia's defence minister announced that the last 7% of positions that had been closed to women, including Special Forces, would be opened up to them. In Denmark, all posts are already open to women, but physical requirements have so far prevented them from joining the country's Special Operations Forces.
Women have an essential role in the Afghan Army's Special Forces, conducting searches of households where women are put at ease by being questioned by other Afghan women.
This doesn't seem to be a list of countries that have women in their special forces, except for the Afghan Sewing Circle Assault Guards.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
Not sure why combat effectiveness would suffer if minimum standards are created to maintain such effectiveness. Not sure what national security has to do with the issue. Cant think of the last last female that pulled a Snowden.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
Not sure why combat effectiveness would suffer if minimum standards are created to maintain such effectiveness. Not sure what national security has to do with the issue. Cant think of the last last female that pulled a Snowden.
I think he's working under the assumption that the standards that they set would have to be lowered for women to get in, which isn't entirely unreasonable.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
Not sure why combat effectiveness would suffer if minimum standards are created to maintain such effectiveness. Not sure what national security has to do with the issue. Cant think of the last last female that pulled a Snowden.
I think he's working under the assumption that the standards that they set would have to be lowered for women to get in, which isn't entirely unreasonable.
Not sure why that assumption would be made.
The difficulty with the early cases where standards were set for the entry of women (which mainly took place in the context of firefighters) was that the standard had nothing to do with an analysis of what the minimum physical requirement might be to get the job done properly but rather an analysis was made of what the average male firefighter could achieve.
Courts in Canada and iirc the US rejected this kind of measurement as meaningless as a test of minimum standards and sent employers back to create meaningful measures of what a minimum standards should be to achieve whatever objective the employer had.
It may be that no female could meet a minimum standard for an elite fighting force. But I am not sure why giving them the opportunity to meet the stardard would jeapardize the effectiveness of the force since the standard would be set at the level needed to maintain that effectiveness.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 09:51:50 AM
So true but eventually the hysterical homophobes will fade away and we won't have to lose valuable gay servicemen.
Are gays especially valuable to you?
To my country.
Special forces need whores too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
Not sure why that assumption would be made.
Because there's precedent. US Army Airborne School used to be very tough, but now it's a joke.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 12:23:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
Not sure why that assumption would be made.
Because there's precedent. US Army Airborne School used to be very tough, but now it's a joke.
Try reading the rest of my post
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:23:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 12:23:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
Not sure why that assumption would be made.
Because there's precedent. US Army Airborne School used to be very tough, but now it's a joke.
Try reading the rest of my post
Okay.
Done!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 12:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 09:51:50 AM
So true but eventually the hysterical homophobes will fade away and we won't have to lose valuable gay servicemen.
Are gays especially valuable to you?
To my country.
The your country has made a critical error, setting gays above people.
Navy Seals show secret stuff to videogame developers. I'm sure a woman can do that just fine.
More women in the Army will increase my promotion potential and happiness. :)
I'm happy for the military and naval forces to maintain or adopt whatever culture/traditions they feel are most effective in maintaining their esprit do corps and enables them to fight at their most efficient. :bowler:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 12:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 09:51:50 AM
So true but eventually the hysterical homophobes will fade away and we won't have to lose valuable gay servicemen.
Are gays especially valuable to you?
To my country.
Not so much the gay servicemen as the principle.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 18, 2013, 06:12:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 12:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 09:51:50 AM
So true but eventually the hysterical homophobes will fade away and we won't have to lose valuable gay servicemen.
Are gays especially valuable to you?
To my country.
Not so much the gay servicemen as the principle.
The principle that you can die for a country that won't recognize your relationships? Great principle.
Nah, I guess the real principle is "give an inch and they'll take a mile" :P
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2013, 06:16:28 PM
The principle that you can die for a country that won't recognize your relationships? Great principle.
Maybe they should adopt more socially constructive relationships. The drug addict can die for the country that doesn't approve of his hobbies too.
As long as they don't lower the physical requirements it shouldn't be much of an issue. It will honestly exclude 99% of women if they don't lower the requirements. And if they can make it through then they deserve to be there.
Unfortunately they probably will lower physical requirements. Though, no women have made it through the Marine Infantry Officer course yet.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Terrible idea but you might as well do it at this point. Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
Good point, but eventually the racist will grow to accept black soldiers as equal and this won't be an issue.
Quote from: Berkut on June 19, 2013, 12:24:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Terrible idea but you might as well do it at this point. Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
Good point, but eventually the racist will grow to accept black soldiers as equal and this won't be an issue.
:yawn:
Quote from: Alcibiades on June 19, 2013, 11:00:41 AM
As long as they don't lower the physical requirements it shouldn't be much of an issue. It will honestly exclude 99% of women if they don't lower the requirements. And if they can make it through then they deserve to be there.
Unfortunately they probably will lower physical requirements. Though, no women have made it through the Marine Infantry Officer course yet.
I hope they do not, and I would even go a step further.
To make it into the SEALS, it isn't enough to meet some monimum standard, no matter how high that minimum is set.
You also have to be able to beat out a bunch of other people who want that same spot - so while everyone might meet the minimum objective standard, the actual practical "minimum" is likely much, much higher.
Because the goal isn't to make sure everyone meets some minimum standard to do the job, the goal is to make the force as effective as absolutely possible.
Physical fitness is something that is not a binary condition on combat effectiveness, especially in SF.
If you are comparing two soldiers who are identical, but one is in better physical condition than the other, then the one in better condition will be a better soldier overall, even if both meet some minimum standard.
So I don't really buy into the basic idea of CC's "define a minimum, and if they can meet it, they should be allowed in". I think that is fine to create the opportunity to compete for the spots, but at that point their physical capability should still be held up against others as a relevant variable to decide if they earn a spot on some SF team. And if you do that, I very much doubt that any woman will be making Seal Team 6 anytime...ever.
Well we will have to see. But even from what I see in the regular army the amount of attention and opportunities shoved on to female officers is extremely disproportionate and undeserved in an effort to draw attention to them since they are a minority, regardless of performance.
So I really will be shocked if some women aren't pushed through that don't belong to draw publicity and show how 'diverse' the military is.
Diversity ueber alles.
Now that we are harnessing the power of diversity, we no longer need nuclear weapons.
Quote from: Alcibiades on June 19, 2013, 03:34:15 PM
Well we will have to see. But even from what I see in the regular army the amount of attention and opportunities shoved on to female officers is extremely disproportionate and undeserved in an effort to draw attention to them since they are a minority, regardless of performance.
So I really will be shocked if some women aren't pushed through that don't belong to draw publicity and show how 'diverse' the military is.
I am not sure lowering the standards like that actually helps women in the military much. But I guess it sure beats the more recent publicity the military has been getting around women's issues.
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2013, 04:46:02 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on June 19, 2013, 03:34:15 PM
Well we will have to see. But even from what I see in the regular army the amount of attention and opportunities shoved on to female officers is extremely disproportionate and undeserved in an effort to draw attention to them since they are a minority, regardless of performance.
So I really will be shocked if some women aren't pushed through that don't belong to draw publicity and show how 'diverse' the military is.
I am not sure lowering the standards like that actually helps women in the military much. But I guess it sure beats the more recent publicity the military has been getting around women's issues.
What standards are we talking about lowering? PT?
Are standards being lowered, or are we talking about a hypothetical?
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 05:13:57 PM
Are standards being lowered, or are we talking about a hypothetical?
There's no hypothetical about it. It's inevitable and guaranteed.
Let's take the push-up/sit-up/chin-up requirement for Ranger School.
Min to pass for entrance is
49 push-ups. (Perfectly executed that is.)
59 sit-ups
2 mile run in 15:12 minutes
6 chin-ups
5 mile run in forty minutes.
Push-up/Sit-up/2 Mile Run is 70% in the male 17-21 age bracket on the standard army apft. You could be a 35 yo old male and still have to attain this. So, to keep this at the 70% in the 17-21 age bracket:
This applied to the female bracket on the 17-21 female apft would be:
49 push-ups is above a 100%.
59 sit-ups is 70% same as the males.
70% on the 17-21 female push-up bracket is 25 push-ups
The 2 mile run.
15:12 is 70% for the 17-21 male age bracket. That is again over 100% for the female bracket. 18:06 is the 70% for the female 17-21 age bracket.
Chin-ups min. of six perfectly executed. No apft standard for this. So, girls suck it up.
5 mile run in 40 min. No apft standard for this. Suck it up ladies.
So using the above a Female would have to do:
25 push-ups. 59 sit-ups
2 mile run in 18:06 minutes6 chin-ups
5 mile run in forty minutes.
The bolded can be considered lowered standards.
Almost forgot
16-mile Road March with 65lb pack in 5 hours 20 minutes. No APFT standard, so suck it up ladies.
An American woman ran a 5K in under 15 minutes. That is almost 3 miles. So I don't think 2 miles in 15 minutes would be impossible to say the least.
The 8K record (almost 5 miles) is under 25 minutes so again the 40 should be achievable by a highly fit young woman.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2013, 05:57:29 PM
An American woman ran a 5K in under 15 minutes. That is almost 3 miles. So I don't think 2 miles in 15 minutes would be impossible to say the least.
The 8K record (almost 5 miles) is under 25 minutes so again the 40 should be achievable by a highly fit young woman.
Missed the point entirely MM.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 05:58:44 PM
Missed the point entirely MM.
Ok. What is the point?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2013, 06:04:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 05:58:44 PM
Missed the point entirely MM.
Ok. What is the point?
You cant hold the males to the 70% standard in their 17-21 age bracket, when your holding the females at 100% for the push-up's and run in their 17-21 age bracket. You are holding the females to a higher standard.
It will not fly. No way. No how.
It's called Equal Opportunity.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 05:43:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 05:13:57 PM
Are standards being lowered, or are we talking about a hypothetical?
There's no hypothetical about it. It's inevitable and guaranteed.
Let's take the push-up/sit-up/chin-up requirement for Ranger School.
Min to pass for entrance is
49 push-ups. (Perfectly executed that is.)
59 sit-ups
2 mile run in 15:12 minutes
6 chin-ups
5 mile run in forty minutes.
Push-up/Sit-up/2 Mile Run is 70% in the male 17-21 age bracket on the standard army apft. You could be a 35 yo old male and still have to attain this. So, to keep this at the 70% in the 17-21 age bracket:
This applied to the female bracket on the 17-21 female apft would be:
49 push-ups is above a 100%.
59 sit-ups is 70% same as the males.
70% on the 17-21 female push-up bracket is 25 push-ups
The 2 mile run.
15:12 is 70% for the 17-21 male age bracket. That is again over 100% for the female bracket. 18:06 is the 70% for the female 17-21 age bracket.
Chin-ups min. of six perfectly executed. No apft standard for this. So, girls suck it up.
5 mile run in 40 min. No apft standard for this. Suck it up ladies.
So using the above a Female would have to do:
25 push-ups.
59 sit-ups
2 mile run in 18:06 minutes
6 chin-ups
5 mile run in forty minutes.
The bolded can be considered lowered standards.
You are making exactly the same mistake referred to in my earlier posts.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:12:49 PMYou cant hold the males to the 70% standard in their 17-21 age bracket, when your holding the females at 100% for the push-up's and run in their 17-21 age bracket. You are holding the females to a higher standard.
It will not fly. No way. No how.
It's called Equal Opportunity.
What's the 70% standard?
Are you saying that for some current physical requirements, women only have to achieve 70% of what men have to to qualify?
And because of that, you expect that similarly when applying to special forces school women some of the women's requirements will be 70% of the similar requirements for men?
QuoteYou are making exactly the same mistake referred to in my earlier posts.
Nope. You are asking a male to attain 49 push-ups which is 70%, and if he doesnt make it he's bounced from the course.
You're asking a female to attain above 100% and if she doesnt make it, she's bounced.
The females must pass at a higher standard than the males, if they keep the standards the same, that is.
Again, it wont fly.
EO
I'm not sure you can make organizations whose ultimate objective primarily involves killing large numbers of people, be accurate models of their own society.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 06:16:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:12:49 PMYou cant hold the males to the 70% standard in their 17-21 age bracket, when your holding the females at 100% for the push-up's and run in their 17-21 age bracket. You are holding the females to a higher standard.
It will not fly. No way. No how.
It's called Equal Opportunity.
What's the 70% standard?
Are you saying that for some current physical requirements, women only have to achieve 70% of what men have to to qualify?
And because of that, you expect that similarly when applying to special forces school women some of the women's requirements will be 70% of the similar requirements for men?
You are speaking from ignorance. Not meant as an insult.
The PT test for ranger school for the Push-ups, sit-ups, and 2mile run are based on the
70% Male 17-21 age bracket.
i.e
Ranger school PT test Push-ups only for this example.
A male doing 49 push-ups has attained the min requirement for that event. Which is 70% in the male 17-21 age bracket on the APFT scale.
A female doing 49 push-ups has attained the min requirement for that event. Which is roughly 105% in the female 17-21 age bracket on the APFT scale.
If a female cant make the min. 49 push-ups, you are holding her to a higher standard than the males. A male only has to attain 70%. EOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEO
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howtopasstheapft.com%2Fapftpushup.jpg&hash=a5d2679a50252c6d16a7849339b3c03e385cf9d7)
Quote from: mongers on June 19, 2013, 06:29:54 PM
I'm not sure you can make organizations whose ultimate objective primarily involves killing large numbers of people, be accurate models of their own society.
What are you talking about?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:12:49 PM
You cant hold the males to the 70% standard in their 17-21 age bracket, when your holding the females at 100% for the push-up's and run in their 17-21 age bracket. You are holding the females to a higher standard.
OK, got it.
However as a practical matter, a woman who can do the 6 chinups and the 16 mile march with 65 lbs is probably going to able to do quite a few more than 25 pushups.
Similarly a woman who can average 8 minute miles for 5 miles will be able to do 7.5 minute miles for 2 miles.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2013, 06:33:55 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:12:49 PM
You cant hold the males to the 70% standard in their 17-21 age bracket, when your holding the females at 100% for the push-up's and run in their 17-21 age bracket. You are holding the females to a higher standard.
OK, got it.
However as a practical matter, a woman who can do the 6 chinups and the 16 mile march with 65 lbs is probably going to able to do quite a few more than 25 pushups.
Similarly a woman who can average 8 minute miles for 5 miles will be able to do 7.5 minute miles for 2 miles.
Surely, it is probable. You cannot hold a female to a higher standard than the males. The issue comes when she gets bounced from the school.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:32:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 19, 2013, 06:29:54 PM
I'm not sure you can make organizations whose ultimate objective primarily involves killing large numbers of people, be accurate models of their own society.
What are you talking about?
I want military units to retain whatever esprit de corps that's necessary for them to function at their most efficient in fighting and winning wars.
If it's necessary for them to hold onto what a progressive society might regard as archaic or outdated values, then I'm happy with that, as they're in part the ultimate guarantors of the civil society's continued existence.
One doesn't have to mirror the other in order to protect it.
The standards will be lowered. It is inevitable. Anyone who says it wont, does not know the Army.
Quote from: mongers on June 19, 2013, 06:41:20 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:32:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 19, 2013, 06:29:54 PM
I'm not sure you can make organizations whose ultimate objective primarily involves killing large numbers of people, be accurate models of their own society.
What are you talking about?
I want military units to retain whatever esprit de corps that's necessary for them to function at their most efficient in fighting and winning wars.
If it's necessary for them to hold onto what a progressive society might regard as archaic or outdated values, then I'm happy with that, as they're in part the ultimate guarantors of the civil society's continued existence.
One doesn't not have to mirror the other in order to protect it.
Ah.
My thoughts on this is, I have no dog in this fight. If the Military wants to make the change then so be it. I could give a flying fuck.
QuoteIt may be that no female could meet a minimum standard for an elite fighting force. But I am not sure why giving them the opportunity to meet the stardard would jeapardize the effectiveness of the force since the standard would be set at the level needed to maintain that effectiveness.
It wouldnt.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:31:34 PM
You are speaking from ignorance. Not meant as an insult.
Oh, absolutely. I don't understand some of the terms you're throwing around, so no offense taken at all.
Thanks for taking the time to explain :cheers:
11B4V or others that are knowledgeable, I'd appreciate some clarification on an impression I got as I don't really know.
A few years ago I decided to build an exercise routine around marine standards (on the basis that marines are in shape but aren't required to be super athletes). I surfed some military boards for fitness ideas and came up with the following impressions:
-The basic standards are really there to make sure people are taking reasonable care to stay in shape. That is why it doesn't matter that men and women have different standards: leadership wants the mechanics, nurses, and IT specialists of the military to be in shape, but they don't want to be chasing anyone off because they aren't track stars.
-The basic standards are not enough in armor and infantry. You won't be allowed to continue if you are barely skating by.
-The SF requirements are worthless. The point being I looked into the Navy Seals and Ranger minimum requirements, and I thought I could get there without too much trouble. I was doubting the media reports that the SF guys are supermen, but then I looked into what they are actually doing. From what I read, the chance of me actually getting through the training would be zero.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:19:44 PM
Nope.
Yep - go back and re-read the bit about how early minimum standard tests were based upon percentages of what the average male in that grouping could do. That is exactly the kind of measure that has been rejected. Minimum standards must be based on something more meaningful then average percentage scores.
You are speaking from ignorance. Not meant as an insult.
The issue that he's bringing up is that females are already held to a lower standard than males because the standards for women are lower than those for men, and that it would violate some kind of wacky rule to expect the women to perform to the male standard.
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2013, 08:47:21 PM
The issue that he's bringing up is that females are already held to a lower standard than males because the standards for women are lower than those for men, and that it would violate some kind of wacky rule to expect the women to perform to the male standard.
His notion of the "male standard" is the problematic piece since it is based on some kind of 70% rule.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 19, 2013, 07:56:03 PM
11B4V or others that are knowledgeable, I'd appreciate some clarification on an impression I got as I don't really know.
A few years ago I decided to build an exercise routine around marine standards (on the basis that marines are in shape but aren't required to be super athletes). I surfed some military boards for fitness ideas and came up with the following impressions:
-The basic standards are really there to make sure people are taking reasonable care to stay in shape. That is why it doesn't matter that men and women have different standards: leadership wants the mechanics, nurses, and IT specialists of the military to be in shape, but they don't want to be chasing anyone off because they aren't track stars.
-The basic standards are not enough in armor and infantry. You won't be allowed to continue if you are barely skating by.
-The SF requirements are worthless. The point being I looked into the Navy Seals and Ranger minimum requirements, and I thought I could get there without too much trouble. I was doubting the media reports that the SF guys are supermen, but then I looked into what they are actually doing. From what I read, the chance of me actually getting through the training would be zero.
Well unless they have changed it, the Army PT test requires a min. of 60 pts in each event (3) for a pass for 180 pts total.
If you are if even a leg infantry unit and you are below 250 or so you'll get fucked with. The units I was in 270 min.
The DAT's, Cannon Cockers, Ditch Diggers, Rotor heads for example, are fat lazy POS. They are with the rest of the Army. A 190-200 is an achievement. :lol: Fucking sods.
Now to your last line. I'll see if I can give you some insight and examples.
Take the min 49 Push-ups (PU), 6 chin-ups (CU) for the school PT test. The other events in the Ranger School test are a no-brainer so to speak. Take this from a former RI, if you go there thinking you only need to do minimum PU's and CU's and that's all you are training yourself to attain, you'll be doing the dufflebag drag.
The below should still be current. Instructions for the PU portion of the PT test.
Quote"THE PUSH-UP EVENT MEASURES THE ENDURANCE OF THE CHEST, SHOULDER, AND TRICEPS MUSCLES. ON THE COMMAND, 'GET SET', ASSUME THE FRONT-LEANING REST POSITION BY PLACING YOUR HANDS WHERE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE FOR YOU. YOUR FEET MAY BE TOGETHER OR UP TO 12 INCHES APART (MEASURED BETWEEN THE FEET). WHEN VIEWED FROM THE SIDE, YOUR BODY SHOULD FORM A GENERALLY STRAIGHT LINE FROM YOUR SHOULDERS TO YOUR ANKLES. ON THE COMMAND 'GO', BEGIN THE PUSH-UP BY BENDING YOUR ELBOWS AND LOWERING YOUR ENTIRE BODY AS A SINGLE UNIT UNTIL YOUR UPPER ARMS ARE AT LEAST PARALLEL TO THE GROUND. THEN, RETURN TO THE STARTING POSITION BY RAISING YOUR ENTIRE BODY UNTIL YOUR ARMS ARE FULLY EXTENDED. YOUR BODY MUST REMAIN RIGID IN A GENERALLY STRAIGHT LINE AND MOVE AS A UNIT WHILE PERFORMING EACH REPETITION. AT THE END OF EACH REPETITION, THE SCORER WILL STATE THE NUMBER OF REPETITIONS YOU HAVE COMPLETED CORRECTLY. IF YOU FAIL TO KEEP YOUR BODY GENERALLY STRAIGHT, TO LOWER YOUR WHOLE BODY UNTIL YOUR UPPER ARMS ARE AT LEAST PARALLEL TO THE GROUND, OR TO EXTEND YOUR ARMS COMPLETELY, THAT REPETITION WILL NOT COUNT, AND THE SCORER WILL REPEAT THE NUMBER OF THE LAST CORRECTLY PERFORMED REPETITION."
"IF YOU FAIL TO PERFORM THE FIRST 10 PUSH-UPS CORRECTLY, THE SCORER WILL TELL YOU TO GO TO YOUR KNEES AND WILL EXPLAIN YOUR DEFICIENCIES. YOU WILL THEN BE SENT TO THE END OF THE LINE TO BE RETESTED. AFTER THE FIRST 10 PUSH-UPS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED AND COUNTED, NO RESTARTS ARE ALLOWED. THE TEST WILL CONTINUE, AND ANY INCORRECTLY PERFORMED PUSH-UPS WILL NOT BE COUNTED. AN ALTERED, FRONT-LEANING REST POSITION IS THE ONLY AUTHORIZED REST POSITION. THAT IS, YOU MAY SAG IN THE MIDDLE OR FLEX YOUR BACK. WHEN FLEXING YOUR BACK, YOU MAY BEND YOUR KNEES, BUT NOT TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING MOST OF YOUR BODY WEIGHT WITH YOUR LEGS. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR PERFORMANCE WILL BE TERMINATED. YOU MUST RETURN TO, AND PAUSE IN, THE CORRECT STARTING POSITION BEFORE CONTINUING. IF YOU REST ON THE GROUND OR RAISE EITHER HAND OR FOOT FROM THE GROUND, YOUR PERFORMANCE WILL BE TERMINATED. YOU MAY REPOSITION YOUR HANDS AND/OR FEET DURING THE EVENT AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND AT ALL TIMES. CORRECT PERFORMANCE IS IMPORTANT. YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES IN WHICH TO DO AS MANY PUSH-UPS AS YOU CAN. WATCH THIS DEMONSTRATION."
Sounds pretty simple, huh? No so fast.
How we did it at Camp Rogers.
Do them to fast; I tell you to slow down and none will get counted until you slow down. That is only said once you get past the first ten (see above).
The speed they should be done at, is a cadence roughly when you say to yourself, "I go down and break the plane and i come up and lock my arms". Yes you will break the plane.
The infamous " one, two, three, four, five,...etc till ten (see above). Then it turns into eleven, eleven, eleven, twelve, twleve, thirteen, fourteen, fourteen...etc, till you reach muscle failure prior to 49 because your all fucked up anyway (a favorite technique this one is). Then it's to the back of the line.
and that is on day 1.
When I was at Camp Rogers as an RI, it was a 12 mile road march in 3 hours. A retestable event at that time to be sure. :lol: How did we retest...I'll tell ya.
On a 1/4 circular track. Talk about a mind fuck, eh. How many times was that? :lol:
I will tell y'all a story about the PL position I had day 8 in the mountain phase or the Santa Rosa fiasco in the Florida phase one of these days. When I went it was four phases at 76 days total length counting 0 week. I'm not sure what it is now, I know they took out the desert phase.
WELCOME TO "TEH SUCK" LADIES.
IT'S ONLY JUST BEGUN.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 08:45:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:19:44 PM
Nope.
Yep - go back and re-read the bit about how early minimum standard tests were based upon percentages of what the average male in that grouping could do. That is exactly the kind of measure that has been rejected. Minimum standards must be based on something more meaningful then average percentage scores.
You are speaking from ignorance. Not meant as an insult.
I am talking how it is now and how it WILL change, because it cant be percentage based and be fair. Go fuck yourself, ass. Learn to comprehend.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 09:51:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
So true but eventually the hysterical homophobes will fade away and we won't have to lose valuable gay servicemen.
Oh wait, were you talking about something else?
"Valuable gay servicemen"? :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 12:23:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
Not sure why that assumption would be made.
Because there's precedent. US Army Airborne School used to be very tough, but now it's a joke.
The same for air assault.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 08:52:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2013, 08:47:21 PM
The issue that he's bringing up is that females are already held to a lower standard than males because the standards for women are lower than those for men, and that it would violate some kind of wacky rule to expect the women to perform to the male standard.
His notion of the "male standard" is the problematic piece since it is based on some kind of 70% rule.
You currently have male and female PT standards in the Army. This is further broke down into an age groups for each. The (some kind :rolleyes:) of 70% rule is the current Ranger School PT test only applied to males and only using the 17-21 age bracket regardless of the age of the student at the time of the test. Right, wrong, or indifferent that standard will change.
Again read what has been posted.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:19:44 PM
QuoteYou are making exactly the same mistake referred to in my earlier posts.
Nope. You are asking a male to attain 49 push-ups which is 70%, and if he doesnt make it he's bounced from the course.
You're asking a female to attain above 100% and if she doesnt make it, she's bounced.
The females must pass at a higher standard than the males, if they keep the standards the same, that is.
Again, it wont fly.
EO
I think you are wrong in this.
Ranger school is already discriminating on age, making older people run as fast as a 18 yo.
I can easily see females forced to perform to the male 18 standard.
After all, is a volunteer school.
By the way, there is not 2 mile run in Ranger school anymore, just the 5 miles after push ups and sit ups, with the 6 perfect pull ups after the run.
Oh, and the pull ups are actually chin-ups, with palms facing you.
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2013, 09:09:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 12:23:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
Not sure why that assumption would be made.
Because there's precedent. US Army Airborne School used to be very tough, but now it's a joke.
The same for air assault.
They were still teaching the CH-47 rope ladder when I went in '85.
How has it changed?
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2013, 09:22:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 06:19:44 PM
QuoteYou are making exactly the same mistake referred to in my earlier posts.
Nope. You are asking a male to attain 49 push-ups which is 70%, and if he doesnt make it he's bounced from the course.
You're asking a female to attain above 100% and if she doesnt make it, she's bounced.
The females must pass at a higher standard than the males, if they keep the standards the same, that is.
Again, it wont fly.
EO
By the way, there is not 2 mile run in Ranger school anymore, just the 5 miles after push ups and sit ups, with the 6 perfect pull ups after the run.
Oh, and the pull ups are actually chin-ups, with palms facing you.
They took the 2 miler out, eh.
QuoteI think you are wrong in this.
Ranger school is already discriminating on age, making older people run as fast as a 18 yo.
Nope, check the standards. 17-21 age bracket regardless. I posted the PU chart on page 4. 49 push-ups is 70% in the 17-21 bracket. Same for the sit-ups 70% in the 17-21 age bracket. Age dont have shit to do with it.
Besides it was a males only club since it's inception. Guess what? Here come "Teh Girls". They will change the standards and if they dont do it to begin with, they'll do it after the first EO complaint.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 19, 2013, 07:56:03 PM
11B4V or others that are knowledgeable, I'd appreciate some clarification on an impression I got as I don't really know.
A few years ago I decided to build an exercise routine around marine standards (on the basis that marines are in shape but aren't required to be super athletes). I surfed some military boards for fitness ideas and came up with the following impressions:
-The basic standards are really there to make sure people are taking reasonable care to stay in shape. That is why it doesn't matter that men and women have different standards: leadership wants the mechanics, nurses, and IT specialists of the military to be in shape, but they don't want to be chasing anyone off because they aren't track stars.
-The basic standards are not enough in armor and infantry. You won't be allowed to continue if you are barely skating by.
-The SF requirements are worthless. The point being I looked into the Navy Seals and Ranger minimum requirements, and I thought I could get there without too much trouble. I was doubting the media reports that the SF guys are supermen, but then I looked into what they are actually doing. From what I read, the chance of me actually getting through the training would be zero.
Infantry units require a minimun of 270 score in your APFT.
That means you need 90% in each event, push-ups, sit-ups and 2mile run, or you can max out 2 events and get 70% in the one you suck at.
In my last APFT I scored 282 with 71 push-ups, 76 sit-ups, and 16:10 on the 2mile run.
For the 42-46 yo group:
Push-ups 66 = 100%
Sit-ups 72 = 100%
2mileR 14:06 = 100%, therefore my 16:10 was only 82%
Old guy is slow.
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2013, 09:37:04 PM
Infantry units require a minimun of 270 score in your APFT.
That means you need 90% in each event, push-ups, sit-ups and 2mile run, or you can max out 2 events and get 70% in the one you suck at.
In my last APFT I scored 282 with 71 push-ups, 76 sit-ups, and 16:10 on the 2mile run.
For the 42-46 yo group:
Push-ups 66 = 100%
Sit-ups 72 = 100%
2mileR 14:06 = 100%, therefore my 16:10 was only 82%
I always hated the 2 miler. I liked distance and trail running much more.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 09:51:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Combat effectiveness and national security take a back seat to things like people's self-esteem.
So true but eventually the hysterical homophobes will fade away and we won't have to lose valuable gay servicemen.
Oh wait, were you talking about something else?
Eh, close enough.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1001041_10151680283223606_1560571852_n.png)
I get all sweaty thinking about doing one push up.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 20, 2013, 05:56:08 AM
I get all sweaty thinking about doing one push up.
There's no shame in that. Just think of yourself as handi-capable.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 09:12:14 PM
Again read what has been posted.
I have read it :) Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores. Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 20, 2013, 05:56:08 AM
I get all sweaty thinking about doing one push up.
These are the non sexual kind
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2013, 11:29:48 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 09:12:14 PM
Again read what has been posted.
I have read it :) Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores. Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.
That was not his argument.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2013, 11:31:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2013, 11:29:48 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 09:12:14 PM
Again read what has been posted.
I have read it :) Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores. Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.
That was not his argument.
I will break it down for you. He has argued that the military must necessarily provide a lower standard for females because holding them to the same minimum standards as males would be unequal. He comes to this conclusion in part from an observation that certain of the male standards would be over 100% of what a female can do.
The fatal flaw in his argument is that the special forces could, if valid, make a case that the male standard is the minimum standard which both males and females must now meet.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
I will break it down for you. He has argued that the military must necessarily provide a lower standard for females because holding them to the same minimum standards as males would be unequal. He comes to this conclusion in part from an observation that certain of the male standards would be over 100% of what a female can do.
The fatal flaw in his argument is that the special forces could, if valid, make a case that the male standard is the minimum standard which both males and females must now meet.
He was saying this was what has been done in the past and based on that this is what he suspects will happen in the future. Now he could be wrong, as you say, but he never said no woman could ever meet the standards which is what you said he said here:
QuoteI have read it Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores. Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.
Which is the part that was not his argument...so far as I could see.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2013, 11:29:48 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 19, 2013, 09:12:14 PM
Again read what has been posted.
I have read it :) Your argument is that no female could possibly meet the standard based on assumptions based on average test scores. Rather odd given the fact there are always outliers who could meet the male standard.
No again.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2013, 11:36:32 AM
I will break it down for you. He has argued that the military must necessarily provide a lower standard for females because holding them to the same minimum standards as males would be unequal. He comes to this conclusion in part from an observation that certain of the male standards would be over 100% of what a female can do.
That is what I thought he was saying as well, but now I understand it is not so.
I think he is saying that the Ranger Physical exam is based on earning a certain number of "points" in defined physical tasks. Under the existing Army Physical regs, for some of those tasks "70 points" corresponds to a different raw number (time., # of reps) for men and women. So for those tasks, the standard is already lower for women under the existing regulations. Right now, that doesn't matter for Ranger qualification because women aren't eligible but if that rule is changed it would be become relevant.
Ok,
Glad you could put his argument better.
Here is a question for you Minsky. Under American law how can there be two separate minimum standards - one for women and one for men? Under Canadian law a considered decision would have to be made as to the minimum standard for a given activity and that standard would be applied to both men and women equally.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2013, 06:45:31 PM
Ok,
Glad you could put his argument better.
Here is a question for you Minsky. Under American law how can there be two separate minimum standards - one for women and one for men? Under Canadian law a considered decision would have to be made as to the minimum standard for a given activity and that standard would be applied to both men and women equally.
Glad you can understand it.
How? Males and Females are not the same in physical ability/or physilogy. No amount of PC BS will change that. Generally males have more upper body strength, hence why the low standards for the females on the push-ups. Sit-up standards are the same. Run is also lower for the females. Dont believe me look it up.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 06:57:43 PMQuote from: crazy canuck
Here is a question for you Minsky. Under American law how can there be two separate minimum standards - one for women and one for men? Under Canadian law a considered decision would have to be made as to the minimum standard for a given activity and that standard would be applied to both men and women equally.
Glad you can understand it.
How?
By making the standards job-dependent, not gender-dependent. In other words, the requirements to do the job are the only way to judge the standards.
That seems to make the most sense, though it requires a radical shift in attitude in the military, which doesn't come easily.
@ Meri:
Would you be fine with the military setting standards that would result in very few (if any) women being able to make the cut?
QuoteHere is a question for you Minsky. Under American law how can there be two separate minimum standards - one for women and one for men? Under Canadian law a considered decision would have to be made as to the minimum standard for a given activity and that standard would be applied to both men and women equally.
so does the FBI and ATF
https://www.fbijobs.gov/11131.asp
http://www.atf.gov/careers/special-agents/physical-task-test.html#footnote-1
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 07:01:44 PM
That seems to make the most sense, though it requires a radical shift in attitude in the military, which doesn't come easily.
It would require a radical shift in attitudes about gender equality on the part of the American people.
They want women in special operations by 2016 to boost Hillary Clinton's chances.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 20, 2013, 06:45:31 PM
Here is a question for you Minsky. Under American law how can there be two separate minimum standards - one for women and one for men? Under Canadian law a considered decision would have to be made as to the minimum standard for a given activity and that standard would be applied to both men and women equally.
Take 11B's answer below yours and combine it with Alfred's observation earlier about the purposes of basic Army fitness standards, relating to those specialties where women can now participate. Presumably the reason the armed forces has fitness requirements for medics or transport pilots or logistics officers is not because the ability to perform powerful physical feats is key job function. Rather the DOD just wants to make sure that everyone in the forces is reasonably physically fit. Equal treatment on that plane requires taking into account the physiological differences 11B talks about. The number of pushups a reasonably physically fit woman can perform is arguably an indicator of less than adequate physical fitness is a man.
But where that arguably breaks down is if there are certain jobs - let's say being an Army Ranger - where a base level of mimium absolute physical performance is a strict necessity and/or there is a clear correleation between being able to do chinups or speedy 5 miles runs and job performance. I am not in a position to assess whether that is true and what jobs it would apply to.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 20, 2013, 07:20:15 PM
They want women in special operations by 2016 to boost Hillary Clinton's chances.
The Sea Hag needs to go away. :P
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 07:01:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 06:57:43 PMQuote from: crazy canuck
Here is a question for you Minsky. Under American law how can there be two separate minimum standards - one for women and one for men? Under Canadian law a considered decision would have to be made as to the minimum standard for a given activity and that standard would be applied to both men and women equally.
Glad you can understand it.
How?
By making the standards job-dependent, not gender-dependent. In other words, the requirements to do the job are the only way to judge the standards.
That seems to make the most sense, though it requires a radical shift in attitude in the military, which doesn't come easily.
Yi and MM hit it on the head IMO. See were I post differing standards for male/female in the ATF/FBI, so it's not just the military.
I'm curious about the standards....
The Ranger School standards were posted earlier. But this website says:
QuoteTo be competitive in any of these physical tests, the future Ranger students must not strive for the minimum standards above, but must maximize their personal physical effort and strive for the following:
- Pushups - 80-100
- Situps - 80-100
- Chin ups - 15-20
- 2 mile run - under 13:00
http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-special-operations/army-ranger-school-prep
The difference between the standards and what I just posted is obviously huge. I want to cry thinking about trying to achieve those.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 08:07:24 PM
I'm curious about the standards....
The Ranger School standards were posted earlier. But this website says:
QuoteTo be competitive in any of these physical tests, the future Ranger students must not strive for the minimum standards above, but must maximize their personal physical effort and strive for the following:
- Pushups - 80-100
- Situps - 80-100
- Chin ups - 15-20
- 2 mile run - under 13:00
http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-special-operations/army-ranger-school-prep
The difference between the standards and what I just posted is obviously huge. I want to cry thinking about trying to achieve those.
It's telling you not to prepare for just the minimum, because that wont cut it. It is very true. It is also one of the best weight loss courses concieved :P. I went in the summer and you know what the SE US is like. I started at around 215 lbs and after 76 days weighed 173 lbs. I was cut like a mother fucker, but was weak as hell. A 35 lbs ruck was smoking my ass in last phase. :P
This is why. An example I posted earlier.
QuoteHow we did it at Camp Rogers.
Do them to fast; I tell you to slow down and none will get counted until you slow down. That is only said once you get past the first ten (see above).
The speed they should be done at, is a cadence roughly when you say to yourself, "I go down and break the plane and i come up and lock my arms". Yes you will break the plane.
The infamous " one, two, three, four, five,...etc till ten (see above). Then it turns into eleven, eleven, eleven, twelve, twleve, thirteen, fourteen, fourteen...etc, till you reach muscle failure prior to 49 because your all fucked up anyway (a favorite technique this one is). Then it's to the back of the line.
and that is on day 1.
When I was at Camp Rogers as an RI, it was a 12 mile road march in 3 hours. A retestable event at that time to be sure. How did we retest...I'll tell ya.
On a 1/4 circular track. Talk about a mind fuck, eh. How many times was that?
Thanks for clarifying that.
Those standards posted as minimums: not impressive for our guys that are supposed to be the best of the best.
Those standards I posted are badass. I know you explained that they mess with you on the minimum standards, but seeing recommended standards is relatable. You made it through? I'm saluting you from my computer desk, that is intense.
In the advice on the website they recommend going in a bit heavy because you won't be able to keep weight on.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 09:11:12 PM
Thanks for clarifying that.
Those standards posted as minimums: not impressive for our guys that are supposed to be the best of the best.
Those standards I posted are badass. I know you explained that they mess with you on the minimum standards, but seeing recommended standards is relatable. You made it through? I'm saluting you from my computer desk, that is intense.
In the advice on the website they recommend going in a bit heavy because you won't be able to keep weight on.
True fact. :lol:
The PT test I took at my unit prior to leaving for the school, I did mid 70's in push-ups, high 80's in situps, and in the high 12's for the run IIRC. At the time I was staioned in Wildflecken a rather "Hilly" region in germany, so i wasnt worried about the endurance so much. Loved doing long runs around the Wildflecken area. Served well in the Mountain phase of the school.
The current Ranger minimums are designed to wash people out, not designed to eliminate all but those physically fit to be Rangers. You could have the same "top 30% of the Army" or whatever washout minimum for women, and that wouldn't be changing any standards.
The problem will come when the Army has to stop and actually think about what the minimum standards are, not to prove you are badass enough to be considered, but for actually performing the job. From what friends have told me about their Ranger deployments, it sounds as though upper body strength was an incredibly important attribute. badass or not, it will be a rare woman with that kind of upper-body strength.
Quote from: Kleves on June 20, 2013, 07:04:36 PM
@ Meri:
Would you be fine with the military setting standards that would result in very few (if any) women being able to make the cut?
If the job requires certain physical standards, then it requires certain physical standards. Whether you're male or female should be irrelevant.
But for that to work, the standards
have to be based on the job requirements. To date that seems to be the limitation in the US.
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
Quote from: Kleves on June 20, 2013, 07:04:36 PM
@ Meri:
Would you be fine with the military setting standards that would result in very few (if any) women being able to make the cut?
If the job requires certain physical standards, then it requires certain physical standards. Whether you're male or female should be irrelevant.
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements. To date that seems to be the limitation in the US.
It's not irrelevent.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 10:48:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
If the job requires certain physical standards, then it requires certain physical standards. Whether you're male or female should be irrelevant.
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements. To date that seems to be the limitation in the US.
It's not irrelevent.
I know, and that has to change.
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:49:59 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 10:48:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
If the job requires certain physical standards, then it requires certain physical standards. Whether you're male or female should be irrelevant.
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements. To date that seems to be the limitation in the US.
It's not irrelevent.
I know, and that has to change.
Why?
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.
What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?
Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.
Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.
Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?
Does A get the job?
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 11:01:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.
What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?
Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.
Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.
Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?
Does A get the job?
It does sort of beg the question of whether or not physical strength is the best and only means of measuring who would be the best green beret.
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2013, 12:30:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 11:01:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.
What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?
Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.
Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.
Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?
Does A get the job?
It does sort of beg the question of whether or not physical strength is the best and only means of measuring who would be the best green beret.
Only if you very carefully do not read my post.
Candidate A should be picked. Whether male orfemale would be irrelevant.
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2013, 12:49:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2013, 12:30:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 11:01:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.
What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?
Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.
Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.
Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?
Does A get the job?
It does sort of beg the question of whether or not physical strength is the best and only means of measuring who would be the best green beret.
Only if you very carefully do not read my post.
I very, very carefully read your post, and still ask the same question.
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2013, 01:33:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2013, 12:49:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2013, 12:30:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 11:01:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.
What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?
Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.
Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.
Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?
Does A get the job?
It does sort of beg the question of whether or not physical strength is the best and only means of measuring who would be the best green beret.
Only if you very carefully do not read my post.
I very, very carefully read your post, and still ask the same question.
Obviously the answer to your question is no, but the question doesn't take us forward does it?
Berkut says,
QuoteLets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.
Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.
I read that as everything thing else is equal between soldier a and b except the physical aspect.
So, soldier A is selected.
So what if Soldier A can do 10 more pushups, but Soldier B scores 5 points higher on an IQ test? What if Soldier C beats them both but has high cholesterol? These are pressing questions indeed. :hmm:
What's soldier D's credit score?
625
Vector, Victor?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2013, 02:04:53 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 02:01:52 AM
625
Not a good candidate for a clearance. :lol:
Why do you think I left him out of consideration? :sleep:
Dames are going to ruin this country.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2013, 01:47:39 AM
Berkut says,
QuoteLets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.
Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.
I read that as everything thing else is equal between soldier a and b except the physical aspect.
So, soldier A is selected.
But this begs the question of...oh never mind.
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2013, 11:01:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements.
What about when the issue is not about meeting standard, but about choosing the best person to do a job, even if they both meet the basic standards?
Lets say soldier A and soldier B both want to be a Green Beret, and after going through training and such, they are exactly equal in ability in all things. But there is only one spot.
Soldier A is stronger and faster than soldier B. Soldier B is plenty strong and fast mind you, but not as strong and fast as A. In fact, in some other years, if there were two spots open, both would be perfectly capable of being selected. But the job of Green Beret (or Navy Seal or whatever) is in fact very influenced by physical condition, so all things being equal, it is the case that soldier A will likely be a superior soldier for this job than soldier B.
Is it ok if we pick A over B, even if A is a man and B is a woman, and B is incredibly fit for a woman, say top 1% of all women in the military?
Does A get the job?
The best person for the job should get the job, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. If the job is based solely on physical ability (though I can't imagine that is the case for Navy Seals anymore than it is for Quarterbacks), then the person who is most physically able to do the job should get the job.
Generally speaking, there's more to it than just physical ability, though. It is one criteria of many. Mental accuity, emotional strength, etc., are usually an important aspect of doing the job, too. The problem comes in when the assumption is that a man will be smarter and more emotionally capable than a woman simply because of gender stereotypes.
The problem, from my perspective, is that society has a very difficult time divorcing gender from the equation. If Soldier A is physically superior to Soldier B, but isn't nearly as intelligent as Soldier A is, should Soldier A still get the job over Soldier B? I don't think so, and yet, if Soldier A is a man and Soldier B is a woman, the instinct is to give the job to Soldier A because physically, he's more powerful, even though he would likely cause serious harm due to stupid mistakes that Soldier B wouldn't have made.
This is not, imo, a man vs woman thing. This is about giving the best person the job with zero regard for gender. I just don't see that happening in my lifetime, however, and people like 11B4V is why. They cannot divorce gender from the equation.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 10:54:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:49:59 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 10:48:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
If the job requires certain physical standards, then it requires certain physical standards. Whether you're male or female should be irrelevant.
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements. To date that seems to be the limitation in the US.
It's not irrelevent.
I know, and that has to change.
Why?
Because a person's gender has no bearing on their ability to do the job? :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2013, 12:49:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2013, 12:30:16 AM
It does sort of beg the question of whether or not physical strength is the best and only means of measuring who would be the best green beret.
Only if you very carefully do not read my post.
The thing is, while these scenarios are great for discussion, they are rarely found in real life. Finding two candidates who are equal in all aspects of a job's qualifications except one is exceptionally rare. The nuances are where the differences lie, especially when discussing special forces.
In your scenario, where everything is exactly even except strength, then Soldier A should be given the job. Given that is an unlikely scenario, however, I'm not sure of the point of this exercise.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:45:33 AM
Because a person's gender has no bearing on their ability to do the job? :unsure:
Women lack warrior instincts. They can fake it sometimes & while that's cute & all, it doesn't win wars.
:lol:
Quote from: Maximus on June 21, 2013, 09:16:52 AM
:lol:
One laughs, but that doesn't mean one disagrees. :ph34r:
Quote from: derspiess on June 21, 2013, 09:14:56 AM
Women lack warrior instincts. They can fake it sometimes & while that's cute & all, it doesn't win wars.
I don't know. Apache women were pretty good and shooting down our cavalrymen.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2013, 07:30:19 PM
But where that arguably breaks down is if there are certain jobs - let's say being an Army Ranger - where a base level of mimium absolute physical performance is a strict necessity and/or there is a clear correleation between being able to do chinups or speedy 5 miles runs and job performance. I am not in a position to assess whether that is true and what jobs it would apply to.
Yeah, that is really the point. If the other minimums are arbitrary in the sense that they are not necessary for performing the job then they are not minimum standards in the legal sense. If the Rangers do have a bona fide minium standard which everyone must meet in order to maintain combat effectiveness (which is likely) then that could be used for both women and men who wish to become rangers without the kind of double standards some here are concerned about.
As for how one establishes a bona fide minimum standard that translates into an objective physical test that is of course the trick. Since our SCC decision which set the law regarding the creation of bona fide minimum standards a considerable amount of work has been done to develop such standards. I assume the US military will have the resources to be able to produce such a standard if it is required.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 09:29:45 AM
Quote from: Maximus on June 21, 2013, 09:16:52 AM
:lol:
One laughs, but that doesn't mean one disagrees. :ph34r:
I think he's laughing because of the two of us, I'm most definitely the one with the killer instincts. :sleep:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 09:29:45 AM
Quote from: Maximus on June 21, 2013, 09:16:52 AM
:lol:
One laughs, but that doesn't mean one disagrees. :ph34r:
One laughs at the monumental volume of bullshit/trollbait.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:44:21 AM
The best person for the job should get the job, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. If the job is based solely on physical ability (though I can't imagine that is the case for Navy Seals anymore than it is for Quarterbacks), then the person who is most physically able to do the job should get the job.
Don't see a lot of female quarterbacks though, do you?
Quote from: Kleves on June 21, 2013, 09:47:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:44:21 AM
The best person for the job should get the job, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. If the job is based solely on physical ability (though I can't imagine that is the case for Navy Seals anymore than it is for Quarterbacks), then the person who is most physically able to do the job should get the job.
Don't see a lot of female quarterbacks though, do you?
Not at the NFL level, but amongst younger children, when most girls are ahead of most boys in terms of physical development, girls clean up. Years ago when I was coaching baseball I bored you all with stories of how my teams were going undefeated in part because few other coaches wanted girls on their teams. I took as many as I could get because they were on average far more coordinated and stronger than the boys. :P
So since you coached baseball you're an authority on using girls as QB in youth football teams?
Anyway, in my day the girls who were let in to play baseball (rather than the more gender-appropriate sport of softball) were always the worst players. Had to respect them because they had the guts to go out there every day in spite of the odds, but they were just awful.
Quote from: Kleves on June 21, 2013, 09:47:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:44:21 AM
The best person for the job should get the job, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. If the job is based solely on physical ability (though I can't imagine that is the case for Navy Seals anymore than it is for Quarterbacks), then the person who is most physically able to do the job should get the job.
Don't see a lot of female quarterbacks though, do you?
Given that girls are forbidden from playing at the high school and college level in a lot of places, that's not so surprising, either.
I think you misunderstand my point, though how, since I've been pretty clear, is beyond me. I do not believe that women should be given jobs simply because they are women. I believe that the criteria for the job should be set so that the best person for the job can be given it. If physical prowess is the best criteria for the position, then you're not likely to find many women in that job. But to block them simply because they are women is, in my opinion, unacceptable.
What's happened up until now - and still continues to be a prevalent belief among many men as can be seen here - is that women should not, by the very fact that they do not have a dick, be given the opportunity to TRY for the jobs. If a woman is talented enough, strong enough, and capable enough to be a quarterback, she should be given the opportunity to tryout for the team. However, that's not the case, and that's where the breakdown occurs.
A decent quarterback* at collegiate/pro level is pretty much required to have a freakishly strong arm. Sure the mental stuff is important too, but without the arm they're not gonna have much success.
*Not counting the wildcat on every play guys you occasionally see in college
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 10:59:23 AM
A decent quarterback* at collegiate/pro level is pretty much required to have a freakishly strong arm. Sure the mental stuff is important too, but without the arm they're not gonna have much success.
*Not counting the wildcat on every play guys you occasionally see in college
:mellow:
I know. I'm not understanding your point. I was merely saying that to be a quarterback it takes more than just a strong arm. The strong arm is important, but the ability to read plays, learn plays, lead the team, and pull things together when they're starting to unravel are also important aspects of the role.
But yes, one still has to get the ball down the field, which is the number one criteria. What are you arguing?
I'm saying the arm is important enough that a woman's chance of becoming an NFL quarterback is in the same ballpark as a woman's chance of winning a gold in men's shot put. Is your position that you doubt any woman could qualify for the Special Forces(even when you factor in the non-physical bits)? It didn't sound like it, which is why I found the comparison to quarterbacking odd.
Here's a good article.
http://sofrep.com/8339/female-cst-special-forces-enabler-speaks/
I only supplied the link, as it also has pics in it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
I'm saying the arm is important enough that a woman's chance of becoming an NFL quarterback is in the same ballpark as a woman's chance of winning a gold in men's shot put. Is your position that you doubt any woman could qualify for the Special Forces(even when you factor in the non-physical bits)? It didn't sound like it, which is why I found the comparison to quarterbacking odd.
My point was that there is rarely only the physical component to a job, even an NFL quarterback.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2013, 11:15:03 AM
Here's a good article.
http://sofrep.com/8339/female-cst-special-forces-enabler-speaks/
I only supplied the link, as it also has pics in it.
I think she's dead on. Brilliant article.
That female kicker showed us what a waste of time it is to even talk about women in football.
Quote from: derspiess on June 21, 2013, 11:45:35 AM
That female kicker showed us what a waste of time it is to even talk about women in football.
:lol:
And Joey Harrington showed us what a waste of time it is to even talk about men as quarterbacks. :P
Quote from: derspiess on June 21, 2013, 11:45:35 AM
That female kicker showed us what a waste of time it is to even talk about women in football.
I thought it showed us what a waste of time it is to even talk about the Colorado Buffaloes in football.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2013, 11:53:47 AM
I thought it showed us what a waste of time it is to even talk about the Colorado Buffaloes in football.
Well, sure. NCAA, but not SEC...
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:18:15 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
I'm saying the arm is important enough that a woman's chance of becoming an NFL quarterback is in the same ballpark as a woman's chance of winning a gold in men's shot put. Is your position that you doubt any woman could qualify for the Special Forces(even when you factor in the non-physical bits)? It didn't sound like it, which is why I found the comparison to quarterbacking odd.
My point was that there is rarely only the physical component to a job, even an NFL quarterback.
My point is that physical ability is rarely the only component of a job, but is often a primary component of a job such that the odds of any physically relatively disadvantaged set of humans trying to get one of those jobs when competing for a finite number of spots against a set of humans who are as a whole far above the mean in physical capability is incredibly unlikely.
In other words, no matter how smart, incredible a leader, and great at reading defense some woman is, there is no chance she is ever going to be able to out-compete the men who are competing for a spot on an NFL roster.
I suspect the same is almost as true for something like a Navy Seal, where even amazingly fit men often cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to make it through. Probably not quite as extreme, but pretty close.
Enough so, in any case, that if some women do make it through, I suspect it will only be because they were helped, either overtly through a stated change in the selection standards, or covertly.
Other SF jobs may be different - Green Beret's, for example, may have very different physical needs and selection requirements than Navy Seals.
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2013, 12:38:23 PM
My point is that physical ability is rarely the only component of a job, but is often a primary component of a job such that the odds of any physically relatively disadvantaged set of humans trying to get one of those jobs when competing for a finite number of spots against a set of humans who are as a whole far above the mean in physical capability is incredibly unlikely.
In other words, no matter how smart, incredible a leader, and great at reading defense some woman is, there is no chance she is ever going to be able to out-compete the men who are competing for a spot on an NFL roster.
:mellow:
I agree.
QuoteI suspect the same is almost as true for something like a Navy Seal, where even amazingly fit men often cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to make it through. Probably not quite as extreme, but pretty close.
Enough so, in any case, that if some women do make it through, I suspect it will only be because they were helped, either overtly through a stated change in the selection standards, or covertly.
Other SF jobs may be different - Green Beret's, for example, may have very different physical needs and selection requirements than Navy Seals.
I'm not sure what you expect me to say here. I hope that you are incorrect, and that if a woman makes the squad, that she earned it. I don't think anyone should be "helped" into any position, but especially one where lives are endangered.
That being said, I would hope that the stated requirements for the job are, indeed, requirements for the job, and not meant as a weeding mechanism simply to keep women from getting it.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:33:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2013, 11:15:03 AM
Here's a good article.
http://sofrep.com/8339/female-cst-special-forces-enabler-speaks/
I only supplied the link, as it also has pics in it.
I think she's dead on. Brilliant article.
Yep.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2013, 11:15:03 AM
Here's a good article.
http://sofrep.com/8339/female-cst-special-forces-enabler-speaks/
I only supplied the link, as it also has pics in it.
Interesting article.
One question for you - what's a Special Forces Enabler?
It sounds like she's not Special Forces, but worked with them directly...?
Quote from: derspiess on June 21, 2013, 10:29:56 AM
So since you coached baseball you're an authority on using girls as QB in youth football teams?
Yes that was exaclty my point
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2013, 12:38:23 PM
My point is that physical ability is rarely the only component of a job, but is often a primary component of a job such that the odds of any physically relatively disadvantaged set of humans trying to get one of those jobs when competing for a finite number of spots against a set of humans who are as a whole far above the mean in physical capability is incredibly unlikely.
In other words, no matter how smart, incredible a leader, and great at reading defense some woman is, there is no chance she is ever going to be able to out-compete the men who are competing for a spot on an NFL roster.
I suspect the same is almost as true for something like a Navy Seal, where even amazingly fit men often cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to make it through. Probably not quite as extreme, but pretty close.
Enough so, in any case, that if some women do make it through, I suspect it will only be because they were helped, either overtly through a stated change in the selection standards, or covertly.
Other SF jobs may be different - Green Beret's, for example, may have very different physical needs and selection requirements than Navy Seals.
It is worth asking why it is so tough.
I read a story of a Seal recounting a story from training where they had to tie a series of knots at the bottom of a pool. It was a very challenging task because of how long you had to stay underwater. One guy stayed under water so long that as he was tying the last knot he drowned and had to be revived. When he regained consciousness, he asked if he had finished the last knot. The instructor told him he was an idiot: he couldn't care less about the knots, the point was to see how far he could push himself, and he passed.
If you wanted to run the same test with women, an equivalent test would just have less knots to tie.
That is a good point - but it would be hard to separate the insanely tough physical challenges designed to find out who is insanely tough from those designed to weed out those who are not incredibly fit.
Women need to be birthing the next generation of soldiers. And fixing me a sammwich.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 21, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
If you wanted to run the same test with women, an equivalent test would just have less knots to tie.
I don't see why for this particular test. Lung capacity/oxygen need doesn't vary between men and women AFAIK.
They would win the nag test.
I TOLDYOU TO PUT THE TRASH OUT. WHY WON'T YOUPUT THE TRASH OUT. THE TRASH SMELLS. PUT IT OUT. OH MY GOD YOUJUST WON'T LISTEN.
You're trying really hard Ed, and you do get credit for that, but I don't think you're going to have any luck with that trolling.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 21, 2013, 02:33:21 PM
They would win the nag test.
I TOLDYOU TO PUT THE TRASH OUT. WHY WON'T YOUPUT THE TRASH OUT. THE TRASH SMELLS. PUT IT OUT. OH MY GOD YOUJUST WON'T LISTEN.
hehe :XD: :shifty:
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 02:34:51 PM
You're trying really hard Ed, and you do get credit for that, but I don't think you're going to have any luck with that trolling.
I know. It's in my contract.
I was just about to respond angrily.
I cant wait to get the first hand reports from Siege, when they start leting them in line infantry units.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 08:45:33 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 10:54:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:49:59 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2013, 10:48:51 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 20, 2013, 10:30:25 PM
If the job requires certain physical standards, then it requires certain physical standards. Whether you're male or female should be irrelevant.
But for that to work, the standards have to be based on the job requirements. To date that seems to be the limitation in the US.
It's not irrelevent.
I know, and that has to change.
Why?
Because a person's gender has no bearing on their ability to do the job? :unsure:
But that really isn't true. Biology is biology, and eventually women tend to get knocked up, at which point they are utterly useless.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
I do not believe that women should be given jobs simply because they are women. I believe that the criteria for the job should be set so that the best person for the job can be given it. If physical prowess is the best criteria for the position, then you're not likely to find many women in that job. But to block them simply because they are women is, in my opinion, unacceptable.
I don't think anyone really disagrees. I think the concern is that, in five years no woman has become a Navy Seal, some (not necessarily you) will see that as evidence of discrimination, and that, eventually, this will lead to lower standards and less effective special forces teams, all out of a desire to be politically correct.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2013, 02:40:17 PM
I cant wait to get the first hand reports from Siege, when they start leting them in line infantry units.
It'll be funny :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft3CF25z.gif&hash=26a9fe46f2db919e42bdffceea31dd502209519d)
:lol:
BTW, if you ever need to simulate a girl throwing, I figured out the trick: do it with your off hand.
Hehe, oppsies, hehehe. :lol:
I like how the guy slams her down. :D
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:18:15 AM
My point was that there is rarely only the physical component to a job, even an NFL quarterback.
Nice strawman. Who is arguing that there is "only a physical component" to
any job?
Would that be.... no one?
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 21, 2013, 04:02:04 PM
I like how the guy slams her down. :D
:cool:
Well he save her life and even ended up shield her with his body if it had gone really bad.
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 21, 2013, 03:31:02 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft3CF25z.gif&hash=26a9fe46f2db919e42bdffceea31dd502209519d)
Throws like a girl too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKMGpm6uOP0
:lol:
:perv:
http://coopypastee.blogspot.com/2010/12/female-soldiers-from-various-countries.html
Israeli and Romanian :perv: :perv:
Ponytails :w00t:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_ddvef-Y6Vpc%2FTQiUq1TvblI%2FAAAAAAAAAhE%2FjQc4OJbWpiE%2Fs1600%2Fceko.jpg&hash=dcd430a8b9a4f0a718091e84ffa37968c317305b)
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2013, 04:08:24 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 11:18:15 AM
My point was that there is rarely only the physical component to a job, even an NFL quarterback.
Nice strawman. Who is arguing that there is "only a physical component" to any job?
Would that be.... no one?
Proof that grumbler can actually argue with himself.
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 20, 2013, 09:11:12 PM
Thanks for clarifying that.
Those standards posted as minimums: not impressive for our guys that are supposed to be the best of the best.
Those standards I posted are badass. I know you explained that they mess with you on the minimum standards, but seeing recommended standards is relatable. You made it through? I'm saluting you from my computer desk, that is intense.
In the advice on the website they recommend going in a bit heavy because you won't be able to keep weight on.
You also have to realize they aren't taking these PT tests after a night of 9 hours of sleep and a full stomach. Generally they're smoked before the PT test and are tired going into it on top of already being tired and hungry.
Er, SF standards tend to exclude, like, 99% of men. Unless the US military lowers SF standards down to your average chick's spinning class, the Universe will die of heat death as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics before a chick passes the introduction to Hell Week.
Sorry feminists, men and women are not the same, horrible social experiments notwithstanding.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 10:28:38 PM
Er, SF standards tend to exclude, like, 99% of men. Unless the US military lowers SF standards down to your average chick's spinning class, the Universe will die of heat death as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics before a chick passes the introduction to Hell Week.
Sorry feminists, men and women are not the same, horrible social experiments notwithstanding.
Infantryperson.
Gruntina.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:47:35 PM
Proof that grumbler can actually argue with himself.
We didn't need proof of that. But this is proof that I can, indeed, argue. Unlike you, I don't have to make up positions for my opponents in order to win; I just argue against what they actually say.
But that requires reading, analytic, and writing skills. I'd grant you one of three; you generally can write. You spend a lot of time apologizing for "saying it poorly," but we all know that's just a weasel for "I want to pretend I didn't mean what I said, 'cause that was really stupid, now that I think about it."
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2013, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2013, 09:47:35 PM
Proof that grumbler can actually argue with himself.
We didn't need proof of that. But this is proof that I can, indeed, argue. Unlike you, I don't have to make up positions for my opponents in order to win; I just argue against what they actually say.
But that requires reading, analytic, and writing skills. I'd grant you one of three; you generally can write. You spend a lot of time apologizing for "saying it poorly," but we all know that's just a weasel for "I want to pretend I didn't mean what I said, 'cause that was really stupid, now that I think about it."
Just curious, grumbler. What exactly do you think I'm arguing for in this thread?
Are you arguing for anything in particular?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 22, 2013, 10:03:52 AM
Are you arguing for anything in particular?
Only that the standards be job-specific rather than gender-specific, and that anyone be allowed to try to meet those standards.
That doesn't sound very controversial.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 22, 2013, 10:18:23 AM
That doesn't sound very controversial.
Clearly it is though. A post about how women would be allowed to try out for SF ran quickly to how we will be weakening SF units and lowering standards for the publicity to get women in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
Gruntina.
Rangerette. :blink: Wait a minute cant use that one. Aleady taken.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 10:28:38 PM
Er, SF standards tend to exclude, like, 99% of men.
I take it you did not bother to read the thread?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2013, 06:55:41 PM
:perv:
http://coopypastee.blogspot.com/2010/12/female-soldiers-from-various-countries.html
Israeli and Romanian :perv: :perv:
Are you kidding? French girl behind the wheel is obviously the hottest.
The Iranians were showing shocking amounts of skin.
Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2013, 11:44:20 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2013, 10:28:38 PM
Er, SF standards tend to exclude, like, 99% of men.
I take it you did not bother to read the thread?
It's Legbiter. You know he didn't, anymore than grumbler did.
I'm sorry, but there's no freaking way this woman is actually real military. Look at those nails. She wouldn't even be able to type of a requisition, much less do anything else. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_ddvef-Y6Vpc%2FTQiIKCT1puI%2FAAAAAAAAAe4%2Fb-ImNd2blnM%2Fs1600%2F46-.jpg&hash=fad1496010044a02a6432926ac6164e17fa47f3b)
There are jobs she could do. Like looking pretty for photojournalists.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I was arguing that female soldiers with nice jub-jubs should be assigned to my unit.
Quote from: PDH on June 24, 2013, 07:47:02 AM
I don't know about the rest of you, but I was arguing that female soldiers with nice jub-jubs should be assigned to my unit.
I wasn't.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 07:49:01 AM
Quote from: PDH on June 24, 2013, 07:47:02 AM
I don't know about the rest of you, but I was arguing that female soldiers with nice jub-jubs should be assigned to my unit.
I wasn't.
Hater
Quote from: PDH on June 24, 2013, 07:47:02 AM
I don't know about the rest of you, but I was arguing that female soldiers with nice jub-jubs should be assigned to my unit.
Who was it that had that happen in Sri Lanka? :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on June 24, 2013, 07:39:31 AM
I'm sorry, but there's no freaking way this woman is actually real military. Look at those nails. She wouldn't even be able to type of a requisition, much less do anything else. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_ddvef-Y6Vpc%2FTQiIKCT1puI%2FAAAAAAAAAe4%2Fb-ImNd2blnM%2Fs1600%2F46-.jpg&hash=fad1496010044a02a6432926ac6164e17fa47f3b)
So you know Russian Military regulations? :rolleyes:
Maybe the Russians started drafting and organizing the camp followers? With nails like that, there's only two things she's good for: Prostitution or pornography.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2013, 11:15:03 AM
Here's a good article.
http://sofrep.com/8339/female-cst-special-forces-enabler-speaks/ (http://sofrep.com/8339/female-cst-special-forces-enabler-speaks/)
I only supplied the link, as it also has pics in it.
From the link: "Additionally, as a CST, my partner and I conducted female engagements."
This is what she was doing 90% of the time, not "additionally". Female engagement team or FET. Yes, she was with the boys.
Check this part:
"During missions, I was part of the security element and when engaged, fought side-by-side with the team."
This might sound very high speed to you guys here in Languish, but in reality, the security element is the one farther out from the target.
Every task force is divided in 3 elements:
1- Assault element, which includes the Breach element. These are the guys to assault and secure the OBJ.
2- Support by Fire element, these are the guys that set up the inner cordon, locking down with direct fires enemy chock points and avenues of enemy exfill.
3- Security element. These are the guys locking out the outside, covering enemy avenues of approach, in case the enemy decides to reinforce an ongoing engagement.
This is not square, and its geometry and dispossition of forces changes depending of the mission and the local terrain, etc. (This is called METTTC = Mission, Enemy, Terrain and weather, Troops and support available, Time available, Civil considerations)
Bottom line, who comprises these elements rotates in a unit, and the fact that she was always with the sec-el tells me all I need to know.
Choke full of information.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 21, 2013, 02:28:23 PM
Women need to be birthing the next generation of soldiers. And fixing me a sammwich.
No more truth have ever come out of your wise mouth.
Quote from: Siege on June 24, 2013, 03:13:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 21, 2013, 02:28:23 PM
Women need to be birthing the next generation of soldiers. And fixing me a sammwich.
No more truth have ever come out of your wise mouth.
If you had a women in your unit she could proof read your reports.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2013, 02:40:17 PM
I cant wait to get the first hand reports from Siege, when they start leting them in line infantry units.
I'm with the Rakkkasans, 3th BDE of the 101 Airborne Division.
We will not suffer female infantry.
Though the supply and support wenchs are kind of cool and do their jobs properly.
Hey, stop posting female pictures. My wife looking over my shouder.
Quote from: Siege on June 24, 2013, 03:26:56 PM
Hey, stop posting female pictures. My wife looking over my shouder.
This may be one of the bigger mistakes of your life. :P
Quote from: Siege on June 24, 2013, 02:09:12 PM
3- Security element. These are the guys locking out the outside, covering enemy avenues of approach, in case the enemy decides to reinforce an ongoing engagement.
What if there is an ambush, or the enemy reinforces from an unexpected direction in force.
Those people could be in a nasty situation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2013, 06:55:25 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 24, 2013, 02:09:12 PM
3- Security element. These are the guys locking out the outside, covering enemy avenues of approach, in case the enemy decides to reinforce an ongoing engagement.
What if there is an ambush, or the enemy reinforces from an unexpected direction in force.
Those people could be in a nasty situation.
Pulling an IED would put them at an immediate disadvantage.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2013, 06:55:25 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 24, 2013, 02:09:12 PM
3- Security element. These are the guys locking out the outside, covering enemy avenues of approach, in case the enemy decides to reinforce an ongoing engagement.
What if there is an ambush, or the enemy reinforces from an unexpected direction in force.
Those people could be in a nasty situation.
Yeah, the security element gets to shoot from time to time, but is rare.
That's why infantrymen always want to be with the assault element.
That's where shit goes down.
By the way, she mentions both mounted and dismounted missions.
For what I've seen, SF always go dismounted.
They fly and do an air insertion, then walk to the OBJ.
They never right in vehicles because of the IEDs.
The enemy uses IEDs as an early warning system. When they go off they know we are in the area moving to contact.
That's why SF always fly, so they have and maintain the element of surprise.
Three women just passed the Marine Infantry Training course. Given the wash out rate seems like they've kept up their standards.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/11/women_are_passing_the_marine_infantry_training_course_get_over_it.html
QuoteIn September, 114 women graduated from the Marine boot camp at Parris Island, S.C. At every stage, their numbers dwindled. Forty-two passed the physical requirements for training. Nineteen volunteered to do it. Fifteen followed through. Seven made it through the first month. Four completed the course. Three graduated.
Booooooooooooooooooooo
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2013, 03:27:48 AM
Three women just passed the Marine Infantry Training course. Given the wash out rate seems like they've kept up their standards.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/11/women_are_passing_the_marine_infantry_training_course_get_over_it.html
QuoteIn September, 114 women graduated from the Marine boot camp at Parris Island, S.C. At every stage, their numbers dwindled. Forty-two passed the physical requirements for training. Nineteen volunteered to do it. Fifteen followed through. Seven made it through the first month. Four completed the course. Three graduated.
Awesome attrition rate they got there. Something they should be proud of. Now those three will realize that the real work has just begun. My bet is none will last their entire enlistment as a grunt.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2013, 03:27:48 AM
Three women just passed the Marine Infantry Training course. Given the wash out rate seems like they've kept up their standards.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/11/women_are_passing_the_marine_infantry_training_course_get_over_it.html
QuoteIn September, 114 women graduated from the Marine boot camp at Parris Island, S.C. At every stage, their numbers dwindled. Forty-two passed the physical requirements for training. Nineteen volunteered to do it. Fifteen followed through. Seven made it through the first month. Four completed the course. Three graduated.
QuoteThe next, more strenuous challenge is the Marine Infantry Officer Course. So far, 10 women have attempted it. Only one passed the hardest part, the Combat Endurance Test, and a stress fracture later forced her out.
What is required for graduation other than completing the course? I.e. how did the numbers go 4-->3?
I bet one got pregnant.
Wouldn't that mean 4->5?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 22, 2013, 02:17:43 PM
What is required for graduation other than completing the course? I.e. how did the numbers go 4-->3?
Maybe they couldn't find the matriculation papers, which were in a locked filling cabinet in a disused toilet, at the end of darken corridor reached by long flight of unlit stairs* ?
* Yes it's an incorrect quote, but can't be arse to google it into shape, all for the sake of a rather weak internet 'joke'. :rolleyes:
Beware of katmai.
mongers, did you used to take a lot of psychedelic drugs? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2013, 02:51:37 PM
mongers, did you used to take a lot of psychedelic drugs? :hmm:
Never needed to. :whistle:
Quote from: derspiess on November 22, 2013, 02:26:22 PM
I bet one got pregnant.
Wouldn't your period stop under the stress and constant physical exhaustion?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 23, 2013, 01:30:16 AM
Wouldn't your period stop under the stress and constant physical exhaustion?
That's what Todd Akin thought.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 23, 2013, 01:30:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 22, 2013, 02:26:22 PM
I bet one got pregnant.
Wouldn't your period stop under the stress and constant physical exhaustion?
Not mine, no.
Tough guy.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 22, 2013, 11:50:30 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2013, 03:27:48 AM
Three women just passed the Marine Infantry Training course. Given the wash out rate seems like they've kept up their standards.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/11/women_are_passing_the_marine_infantry_training_course_get_over_it.html
QuoteIn September, 114 women graduated from the Marine boot camp at Parris Island, S.C. At every stage, their numbers dwindled. Forty-two passed the physical requirements for training. Nineteen volunteered to do it. Fifteen followed through. Seven made it through the first month. Four completed the course. Three graduated.
Awesome attrition rate they got there. Something they should be proud of. Now those three will realize that the real work has just begun. My bet is none will last their entire enlistment as a grunt.
They're still not allowed in infantry units, so they're going on to a different mos training program amusingly enough.
Quote
U.S. Marines WEAKEN fitness requirement for women, won't make them do three pull-upsJust three out of 15 female recruits managed to graduate from the Marine Corps' infantry training program in November
55 per cent of women – including active Marines – can't do three pull-ups, while just 1 per cent of men fail the exam
The new standard was ordered by the service's commandants in late 2012
Now the Marines say they're scrapping the requirement for now, allowing women to pass their physical fitness tests without the new challenge
Existing standards allow female Marines and recruits to pass muster by hanging for 70 seconds from a pull-up bar with bent elbows
May women in the Corps insist they're meeting the new minimum requirement
Female Marines will be eligible for full war-zone combat duty in 2016
By David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor
PUBLISHED: 18:09 EST, 27 December 2013 | UPDATED: 13:20 EST, 28 December 2013
The U.S. Marine Corps has quietly walked back a 2012 directive from the service's highest-ranking officer that would have rejected female recruits and officer candidates who can't perform three chin-ups as part of their physical fitness training.
The reason – 55 per cent of the women attempting the test are failing. Just one per cent of men can't complete the exercise.
'Women aren't able to make the minimum standard of three pull-ups,' Marine spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan told reporters on Friday.
The startling admission, and the military's course-correction, came after just three out of 15 females successfully graduated from the Marine Corps' enlisted infantry training course in November.
The new rule, set to go into effect on January 1, would have changed the previous requirement – in place for more than a decade – that requires female Marines to execute a 'flexed arm hang', holding on to a pull-up bar with their elbows bent for 70 seconds.
2013 was to be a 'phase one' transitional year, according to a November 2012 directive from Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos, with females having a choice of which test to attempt.
'Phase two will commence on 1 January 2014,' Amos had ordered. 'Pull-ups will replace the FAH [flexed arm hang] portion of the PFT [physical fitness test] ... To pass the pull-up portion of this event, females will be required to execute at least three (3) pull-ups.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530172/Women-U-S-Marines-SPARED-new-physical-fitness-requirement-wont-three-pull-ups-pass-muster.html
I am the 1%.
Shit, those were pretty hard 100 pounds ago.
A pull up is a almost uniquely discriminatory physical test for women. It would be hard to come up with too many other simple exercises more well designed to select against women, since it is almost totally a exercise of pure upper body strength as a ratio of mass, which women will almost never be able to do.
So the question is how important is relative upper body strength to an infantryman?
Answer: I suspect the answer is that it is pretty god damn important. Probably not as important as physical endurance, but a close second.
Quote from: Berkut on December 29, 2013, 09:46:31 PM
A pull up is a almost uniquely discriminatory physical test for women. It would be hard to come up with too many other simple exercises more well designed to select against women, since it is almost totally a exercise of pure upper body strength as a ratio of mass, which women will almost never be able to do.
So the question is how important is relative upper body strength to an infantryperson?
FYP.
3 pullups is too much?
I'm sure they'll make excellent camp followers.
Women. :rolleyes:
got pull-ups?
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT20ofJbd6HJ2TiNJ0KBY1zOsRNKGFjt91op3cOQsDxO0PINo_vCQ)
Quote from: Legbiter on December 30, 2013, 09:56:12 PM
3 pullups is too much?
I'm sure they'll make excellent camp followers.
Can I still think of the marines as bad ass knowing they can only do 3 pull ups?