Support NeoGAF

[spandexmonkey]

So I guess it's just my ignorance when it comes to US military policies. It's just shocking to hear that there would still be jobs locked away based on gender in 2015. What's the reasoning?

Tradition mostly.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Tradition mostly.

That and women aren't physically equal to men in most cases and combat is very physical.

You're taking what I am saying to mean I think it should be easier, that's not the case. My opinion is that if you are going to integrate women into combat units, you have to train as an integrated unit and not as a male unit. The job is what matters here and yes, both men and women need to be able to do that job. Saying that in order for women to join in combat roles they must be "male" will not foster cohesiveness.

I'm addressing you on your point about physical standards and it should ABSOLUTELY be the same as male standards. Not "tailored to their abilities."

Combat absolutely requires a base standard that everyone must be able to achieve. Even more so and more strict it should become as you move up the "combat ladder" (Rangers, recon, sniper, etc)

 

[kirblar]

The question isn't so much "Should we give them the opportunity?" as it is "Is there even a chance they'll be able to succeed, given the opportunity, justifying the time/expense necessary to add them to the ranks?"

 

[Darkangel]

I don't know. I'm Canadian, for one. I also don't know much about military roles, maybe they are the same here too.

Edit: Yeah it seems it's different

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=women-in-the-canadian-armed-forces/hie8w7rm



So I guess it's just my ignorance when it comes to US military policies. It's just shocking to hear that there would still be jobs locked away based on gender in 2015. What's the reasoning?

Men are physically stronger than women so either they need to lower standards and compromise the unit, or keep things the same and make it harder for the average woman to join. Some people also think that a mixed gender unit would suffer from logistic issues, and men would sometimes make stupid "hormone based" decisions. I suppose that last issue could be solved by having all-female units...

 

[FyreWulff]

Men are physically stronger than women so either they need to lower standards and compromise the unit

not all men are the same strength level . if you can meet the requirements, you meet the requirements.

Some people also think that a mixed gender unit would suffer from logistic issues and men making stupid "hormone based" decisions. I suppose that last issue could be solved by having all-female units...

This logic only works if you ignore the fact that homosexuality exists.

 

[Hermii]

To quote Chris Rock (I think): if they want to fight let them fight. Cause I sure ain't fighting.

Women, men, transgender, black, white, gay, straight I don't care.

 

[bananafactory]

Men are physically stronger than women so either they need to lower standards and compromise the unit, or keep things the same and make it harder for the average woman to join. Some people also think that a mixed gender unit would suffer from logistic issues, and men would sometimes make stupid "hormone based" decisions. I suppose that last issue could be solved by having all-female units...

I don't see why they can't simply have some sort of strength/physical test to meet, rather than outright making the position ineligible for women.

 

[Darkangel]

not all men are the same strength level . if you can meet the requirements, you meet the requirements.



This logic only works if you ignore the fact that homosexuality exists.

That's exactly what I said. Everyone needs to meet the same baseline in order for the troops to operate efficiently. Some people think that's unfair because the average woman would need to work harder to join than the average man.

As for homosexuals in the military, the same "hormone" problem could theoretically exist. Up until recently they had the whole don't ask don't tell thing so I'm not sure if there's much research on the subject. Logistically homosexuals aren't any different than straight men, women on the other hand could need significantly different equipment sizes. Sure there are small men too, but they're a fairly small minority overall.

I support women in the military so long as they pass the requirements, these are just the talking points.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

That's exactly what I said. Everyone needs to meet the same baseline in order for the troops to operate efficiently. Some people think that's unfair because the average woman would need to work harder to join than the average man.

As for homosexuals in the military, the same "hormone" problem could theoretically exist. Up until recently they had the whole don't ask don't tell thing so I'm not sure if there's much research on the subject. Logistically homosexuals aren't any different than straight men, women on the other hand could need significantly different equipment sizes. Sure there are small men too, but they're a fairly small minority overall.

I support women in the military so long as they pass the requirements, these are just the talking points.

You can't make "different equipment." It needs to be as interchangeable as possible. Honestly in a combat unit aside from the body armor, uniform and ruck frame, there's nothing else you would make smaller and that would be "to size" by default. A woman isn't gonna get a smaller 240b with full combat load to hump. Nor will a female ammo bearer. The physical standard is there for a reason. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

As for the Chris rock quote, if only combat were as simple as just "fighting." There's much more to it than shooting people. Training, moving, physical training, evacing wounded, etc. if it were as easy as just shooting at people, anyone could do it.

Hell, just standing in place with full body armor and kit loaded with ammo/water, even for just a rifleman is taxing as hell.

 

[Xe4]

.

 

[iamblades]

You can't make "different equipment." It needs to be as interchangeable as possible. Honestly in a combat unit aside from the body armor, uniform and ruck frame, there's nothing else you would make smaller and that would be "to size" by default. A woman isn't gonna get a smaller 240b with full combat load to hump. Nor will a female ammo bearer. The physical standard is there for a reason. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

As for the Chris rock quote, if only combat were as simple as just "fighting." There's much more to it than shooting people. Training, moving, physical training, evacing wounded, etc. if it were as easy as just shooting at people, anyone could do it.

Hell, just standing in place with full body armor and kit loaded with ammo/water, even for just a rifleman is taxing as hell.

We are getting to the point where the majority of the actual fighting is going to be done by very highly trained special forces because even the majority of men in the infantry can't physically keep up with the demands of modern combat. The percentage of women that would meet the men's standards in those areas is so ridiculously small that it's almost a moot point.

Shit just the body armor these guys wear is like 30 lbs.

As far as combat roles like tank crews or guarding check points, sure, I get that. When it comes to the tip of the spear though, there are hardly any men who can manage that job, I doubt if there would be any women at all.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

We are getting to the point where the majority of the actual fighting is going to be done by very highly trained special forces because even the majority of men in the infantry can't physically keep up with the demands of modern combat. The percentage of women that would meet the men's standards in those areas is so ridiculously small that it's almost a moot point.

Shit just the body armor these guys wear is like 30 lbs.

As far as combat roles like tank crews or guarding check points, sure, I get that. When it comes to the tip of the spear though, there are hardly any men who can manage that job, I doubt if there would be any women at all.

I was "one of those guys" hell I lead "those guys" and it was common for a kit to weigh anywhere from 70lbs and then some depending on weapon system, God forbid you were a 240b gunner or ammo bearer. And that's if you're not humping other shit as well. (Full ruck, javelin round, AT4, med bag, javelin clu, etc)
And wars will always require a conventional ground force. In fact, they are still and will continue to be "the tip of the spear." Most battles won't be fought by SF, that's not what they exist for. They are more akin to a scalpel, conventional forces are a sledge hammer.

 

[aliengmr]

That and women aren't physically equal to men in most cases and combat is very physical.




I'm addressing you on your point about physical standards and it should ABSOLUTELY be the same as male standards. Not "tailored to their abilities."

Combat absolutely requires a base standard that everyone must be able to achieve. Even more so and more strict it should become as you move up the "combat ladder" (Rangers, recon, sniper, etc)

Again, my point isn't that they shouldn't meet a physical requirement its that the training culture is entirely focused on men only. Physically women only differ in areas of upper body strength and a significant difference in body weight. Endurance-wise they are more than capable.

My point is that unit cohesiveness will suffer if the cultures, ideals, and practices aren't addressed in training. Tossing women into an entirely male dominated area, physically able or not, is going to be a problem. Its basically treating them like a burden rather than part of the unit.

Integrated combat units are more than just physical qualifications. As it is, 03 culture is highly cliquish and would require more than just re-purposing facilities and what-not to have women feeling they are welcome even if they meet the physical requirements.

We all like to think its as easy as meet the requirements and you're accepted, its not, even in POG country women have a hell of a time.

A good Idea would be to have an integrated special ops division, with its own separate training course, designed specifically for men and women working as a unit. NCO's only and all physical requirements have to be met.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Can't say I agree with this. It seems unnatural.

But that seems to be the way the wind is blowing these days. After all, we have female singers, even female motorists.

Hilarious troll post.... r-right?

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Again, my point isn't that they shouldn't meet a physical requirement its that the training culture is entirely focused on men only. Physically women only differ in areas of upper body strength and a significant difference in body weight. Endurance-wise they are more than capable.

My point is that unit cohesiveness will suffer if the cultures, ideals, and practices aren't addressed in training. Tossing women into an entirely male dominated area, physically able or not, is going to be a problem. Its basically treating them like a burden rather than part of the unit.

Integrated combat units are more than just physical qualifications. As it is, 03 culture is highly cliquish and would require more than just re-purposing facilities and what-not to have women feeling they are welcome even if they meet the physical requirements.

We all like to think its as easy as meet the requirements and you're accepted, its not, even in POG country women have a hell of a time.

A good Idea would be to have an integrated special ops division, with its own separate training course, designed specifically for men and women working as a unit. NCO's only and all physical requirements have to be met.

Again, I'm specifically addressing this part of your post. And you're wrong. The physical standard needs to be applied the same across the board.

Female infantry? Same standard as male infantry. Female Ranger? Same standards as male Rangers. Female green beret? Same standard as male green beret. No exceptions anything less is irresponsible. This is combat we are talking about, not promotion potential.

THAT hurdle needs to be overcome before we worry about unit cohesion. And I was a infantry team leader/sergeant. I'm well aware of the social nature of it.

As far as physical abilities, women need to have a set of standards that is suited to their abilities as it relates to the duties, not just the arbitrary standards of men. Its both unfair and unrealistic to hold women to the Male standard and instead needs a more nuanced approach..

 

[iamblades]

I was "one of those guys" hell I lead "those guys" and it was common for a kit to weigh anywhere from 70lbs and then some depending on weapon system, God forbid you were a 240b gunner or ammo bearer. And that's if you're not humping other shit as well. (Full ruck, javelin round, AT4, med bag, javelin clu, etc)
And wars will always require a conventional ground force. In fact, they are still and will continue to be "the tip of the spear." Most battles won't be fought by SF, that's not what they exist for. They are more akin to a scalpel, conventional forces are a sledge hammer.

I'm not saying that SF is going to fight massive land invasions, I'm saying those kind of battles aren't really they kind that are likely these days.

And yeah, MGs and mortars and anti-tank weapons add on the lbs quick if you are stuck carrying them.

 

[Mix Master]

Could a woman in a combat role lift a fellow male injured marine to safety?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Could a woman in a combat role lift a fellow male injured marine to safety?

Depends on the woman, much like it depends on the man. I couldn't lift an injured marine and carry him to safety

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Could a woman in a combat role lift a fellow male injured marine to safety?

Depends on several variables. But yes, it's within the realm of possibility.

 

[MutFox]

Could a woman in a combat role lift a fellow male injured marine to safety?

Yes, if it's a woman that passes the same bar that's the standard.
That's why there's a standard for combat and it should not be lowered.

These are people's lives.
If people don't care about the people in combat,
and want to send whoever to fill a quota, those lives are on them.

Combat is people murdering each other, there is no mercy.

 

[DBT85]

Could a woman in a combat role lift a fellow male injured marine to safety?

If the test to get into that unit is that they have to be able to life a marine (a new standard unit of measure) and a woman passes that test, is that not all that matters?

Rather than, "well you did it, but you're still a girl".

 

[Gallbaro]

Keep Standards,

Then wait for exoskeletons.

 

[WarMacheen]

Cool, I personally don't have a problem with this as long as the standards are the same across the board.

 

[Ri'Orius]

Yes, if it's a woman that passes the same bar that's the standard.
That's why there's a standard for combat and it should not be lowered.

While I certainly agree that the standards should be the same, it's entirely possible that some of them right now were written based not on what the job requires, but on what the person writing the standards thought a physically fit man should be able to do.

The standards should be uniform, but also based entirely on what's necessary to do the job.

 

[NJDEN]

Testimonies from male troops say that introducing women into combat would change the dynamic of the fight. According to more than just a couple male soldiers & veterans: "if a female soldier get's wounded on the battlefield then the impulse to help them is far more overwhelming than if it were another man. This could potentially endanger more lives in certain scenarios"

For me personally, as long as men & women can pass certain physical standards then I don't care. Military standards are implemented for a reason and shouldn't be changed for anything including gender, race and IQ. If the majority of female soldiers can not lift the weight requirement that doesn't mean we should cut the standards based on gender, it DOES mean that all those women are NOT qualified for combat... In a scenario where she needs to haul a wounded comrade X distance to safety and can not since she was given different physical requirements is unacceptable. I don't really care who is in combat as long as they have met the qualifications which should be universal for all combat troops. It's good to see most everyone here agrees with this logic, but if their was any bewilderment as to why it needs to be universal then there you go..

 

[Nekofrog]

I disagree with the idea that "women need to be able to perform equally in physical tests as men".

There are plenty of fatty boom batty men in the military who would fail fitness tests and still deploy for combat.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

I was thinking hero of next Eastwood documentary. The true AMERICAN hero, in theaters 4 of july.

Clint Eastwood Presents, Here Comes the BOOM! In theaters July 4th.

Hurry up and allow this so one of them can give birth on the battlefield and the legend of Big Boss can become reality.

Wouldn't the baby be taken away from her by some faceless organization? Also that baby wouldn't be The Boss, it would be some crazy guy who likes to play with revolvers.

 

[kirblar]

I disagree with the idea that "women need to be able to perform equally in physical tests as men".

There are plenty of fatty boom batty men in the military who would fail fitness tests and still deploy for combat.

Women are allowed into the positions the "fatty boom booms" are. Those aren't the issue.

These are the hardcore frontline infantry positions that have strict requirements that many of the males can't meet.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

I disagree with the idea that "women need to be able to perform equally in physical tests as men".

There are plenty of fatty boom batty men in the military who would fail fitness tests and still deploy for combat.

The Navy and Marines are totally different when it came to deployment when I was in.

If you don't pass the PRT, you don't deploy, and you're also put on notice. It says in the UCMJ that every service member must be within standards at all times. I knew an E7 and two officers who got kicked out for being unfit for duty.

When the military needs to downsize, the fatty's are the first to go.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Women are allowed into the positions the "fatty boom booms" are. Those aren't the issue.

These are the hardcore frontline infantry positions that have strict requirements that many of the males can't meet.

The physical requirements for these programs aren't that difficult you hit the gym. The worst is the pull ups.

The training (not in the gym) is what weeds every one out.

 

[Nekofrog]

The Navy and Marines are totally different when it came to deployment when I was in.

If you don't pass the PRT, you don't deploy, and you're also put on notice. It says in the UCMJ that every service member must be within standards at all times. I knew an E7 and two officers who got kicked out for being unfit for duty.

When the military needs to downsize, the fatty's are the first to go.

2002-2009 saw pretty much anyone with two arms and two legs shipped out. If they were willing to do it then, they'll be willing to do it in the future if it's needed.

The only reason it's strict now is because of budgetary force shaping.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

2002-2009 saw pretty much anyone with two arms and two legs shipped out. If they were willing to do it then, they'll be willing to do it in the future if it's needed.

The only reason it's strict now is because of budgetary force shaping.

I guess we have different perspectives during that time period. You had to be in shape to even hump the body armor alone. Sapi plates are not light.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I disagree with the idea that "women need to be able to perform equally in physical tests as men".

There are plenty of fatty boom batty men in the military who would fail fitness tests and still deploy for combat.

even 11Bs?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I disagree with the idea that "women need to be able to perform equally in physical tests as men".

There are plenty of fatty boom batty men in the military who would fail fitness tests and still deploy for combat.

Standards are there for a reason, I would be impressed to see a female carry around a 240B combat load or a mortar tube/base plate.

 

[Charcoal]

I've seen this movie..

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

I disagree with the idea that "women need to be able to perform equally in physical tests as men".

There are plenty of fatty boom batty men in the military who would fail fitness tests and still deploy for combat.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you've never served, let alone been in combat. I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with your disagreement.

"Deploy for combat." Is different for everyone. Even non combat MOS technically go to combat even if they never see it. (Combat zone). And if you're fat in an infantry unit, you're gonna get dealt with quick(remedial PT and rationing) or moved to a "shit bag" post where your "out of shapeness" won't effect combat readiness (HQ, driver, supply,etc).

Also, your point is another reason women should have to meet the same standard as men. If a woman can't meet the same standard as a overweight male, she's not exactly helping combat readiness.