As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

US Military to Allow Women in Combat Roles

knitdanknitdan In ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered User regular
Just what it says on the tin.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced Thursday that the various branches of the service would move toward allowing women to serve in combat roles. They had previously been officially restricted to non-combat roles.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/03/women-in-combat-defense-secretary-ash-carter/76719938/

I think the Marines are going to be the real sticking point here. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, former Marine Commandant Joseph Dunsford, was not at the announcement and all signs point to his strong disagreement with the decision.

So, what do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Wait and see?

“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
«13456715

Posts

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    A specific question on this narrow argument, raised in [chat] by @Trace:
    Trace wrote: »
    weight requirement bullshit should be based on relative weight and or ignored completely if you're light enough because that can be some bullshit regardless of gender

    what's the literature on the point?

    my impression is that high load carrying requirements will tend to severely skew eligibility in favour of men

    aRkpc.gif
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Allowing women into the combat roles isn't just a good idea, it's ridiculous it took this long. That said, I'm going to echo the sentiment shared by basically everyone I know who's in the military though that the physical standards exist for a reason and can't be relaxed, especially for rangers

    they toss out a huge majority of men who can't cut it, and have for a long time, and the two ladies that made it into the rangers kicked the physical standards in the taint showing they don't need to be relaxed

    override367 on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    The question wrt physical standards is do they actually exist for a reason? Which ones are just set to require a general level of fitness and which are set because that level is required to complete a certain task?

    Cause only the second have a compelling argument for a lack of relative standards, so long as the task being simulated is appropriate to whatever you get by passing the test (ie - if passing the test gets you X job that requires doing Y task, then testing your physical fitness for completing task Y is obviously relevant).

    The first type though is just generally using "Do X chin ups" or "Run Y distance with Z weight" as a proxy to access your position on a scale of 80s Val Kilmer to present day Val Kilmer. At which point relative standards can make sense.

    shryke on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2015
    Agreed. Standards should be agnostic to gender, but should also actually make sense in relation to combat.

    spacekungfuman on
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Regardless of your gender I don't think you should be expected to carry huge burdens if you're not physically built for it. Trying to do so could get you killed just as easily as, for example, the buddy you're trying to save.

    Not every soldier should be expected to excel in every circumstance. Especially if, despite how physically fit they are, they're not physically built for it. Which is to say, don't send the petite female out to haul back that six nine pushing 250 dude. It's not going to work army or not.

    Trace on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Trace wrote: »
    Regardless of your gender I don't think you should be expected to carry huge burdens if you're not physically built for it. Trying to do so could get you killed just as easily as, for example, the buddy you're trying to save.

    Not every soldier should be expected to excel in every circumstance. Especially if, despite how physically fit they are, they're not physically built for it. Which is to say, don't send the petite female out to haul back that six nine pushing 250 dude. It's not going to work army or not.

    That's why the requirements are different for different things

    Rangers and Seals are expected to do a wide variety of physically demanding tasks and if you aren't physically built for it then you can do one of the literally hundreds of other jobs in the armed forces. It can literally be a matter of life and death

    I could give you a dozen anecdotes from friends and family who have seen combat about the ridiculously grueling physical labor they've needed to endure in the field, sometimes in temperatures well above 100 degrees, for hours

    So I agree with your last part: Don't send the petite female out to haul back that six nine pushing 250 dude, deny her a combat MOS because she's not cut out for it and put someone in who is capable of it, because that six nine 250 dude deserves to live and he shouldn't be told that his battle buddy is going to be worthless if he gets in trouble in the name of fairness. It's not a gender thing, skinny or weak guys fail these requirements too and have to take a different position in the army

    override367 on
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Regardless of your gender I don't think you should be expected to carry huge burdens if you're not physically built for it. Trying to do so could get you killed just as easily as, for example, the buddy you're trying to save.

    Not every soldier should be expected to excel in every circumstance. Especially if, despite how physically fit they are, they're not physically built for it. Which is to say, don't send the petite female out to haul back that six nine pushing 250 dude. It's not going to work army or not.

    Look, we sorted weight by ability to a small extent, but everyone needs to carry their own gear. I've been on missions where, after carefully taking everything we didn't need out, we still ended up around 100 lbs of gear apiece. Yes, that is as shitty as it sounds, but so is not being able to prevent the enemy from detonating remote controlled bombs, so we carried batteries for our jammers, or running out of ammo and getting your head sawed off with a dull machete, so we carried enough ammo, or not eating or drinking water, so we carried those, etc. There wasn't a single thing in my bag that couldn't result in a serious injury or death from not having it.

    Also, that 250 lb guy has as much right to not bleed to death as anyone else (also, 6'3" can easily be 250 lbs if they like their protein powder. A 6'9" guy is going to be heavier).

    I'll add more later, but my conclusion from chat: If I had my way, all combat roles would be male only by policy, but commanders could authorize an exception to that policy. That achieves both the goals of keeping standards high and recognizing differences in physical abilities between median men and median women while allowing women who are willing and able to rise to the challenge to do so.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Right well it's sort of hard for me to argue something I have no honest experience in so it's whatever. Agree to disagree ectect.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    I'm all about every person being eligible for the things they are qualified for and want to do. My impression is that the physical requirements for combat positions are no joke and shouldn't be ignored, though. If those requirements need looked at from a "this is pointless inter-branch dickwaving" standpoint then they should be adjusted, but I wouldn't know.

    Basically, if they can hack it and want the job, let them in.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Regardless of your gender I don't think you should be expected to carry huge burdens if you're not physically built for it. Trying to do so could get you killed just as easily as, for example, the buddy you're trying to save.

    Not every soldier should be expected to excel in every circumstance. Especially if, despite how physically fit they are, they're not physically built for it. Which is to say, don't send the petite female out to haul back that six nine pushing 250 dude. It's not going to work army or not.

    Look, we sorted weight by ability to a small extent, but everyone needs to carry their own gear. I've been on missions where, after carefully taking everything we didn't need out, we still ended up around 100 lbs of gear apiece. Yes, that is as shitty as it sounds, but so is not being able to prevent the enemy from detonating remote controlled bombs, so we carried batteries for our jammers, or running out of ammo and getting your head sawed off with a dull machete, so we carried enough ammo, or not eating or drinking water, so we carried those, etc. There wasn't a single thing in my bag that couldn't result in a serious injury or death from not having it.

    Also, that 250 lb guy has as much right to not bleed to death as anyone else (also, 6'3" can easily be 250 lbs if they like their protein powder. A 6'9" guy is going to be heavier).

    I'll add more later, but my conclusion from chat: If I had my way, all combat roles would be male only by policy, but commanders could authorize an exception to that policy. That achieves both the goals of keeping standards high and recognizing differences in physical abilities between median men and median women while allowing women who are willing and able to rise to the challenge to do so.

    Wouldn't rigorous but gender-agnostic standards achieve the same goal more directly? I totally appreciate the need for people to have non-relative capabilities -- but if they have them, I don't get why they should need to petition a commander for special treatment?

    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular

    I'll add more later, but my conclusion from chat: If I had my way, all combat roles would be male only by policy, but commanders could authorize an exception to that policy. That achieves both the goals of keeping standards high and recognizing differences in physical abilities between median men and median women while allowing women who are willing and able to rise to the challenge to do so.

    I was with you until this paragraph.

    I think allowing women on exception is an easy way to just not allow any more than token numbers of women, if that. I think that setting appropriate standards and saying that anyone who can meet them, female or male, is a fair way of setting appropriate entry requirements. If an applicant needs to be able to cross a distance of X kilometres carrying a pack of Y kiligrams of weight in Z time across broken terrain and then put A rounds into a target at B distance at the end of it, and they can do that, it shouldn't matter if they're male or female.

    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    I also can't think of any way to impede acceptance of women in combat more effectively than telling the male members of their units "you guys are going to have to carry some of her gear for her around the desert you're being deployed to, see she's short so she only has to carry 60 pounds of shit, so the other 20 to 40 pounds will have to be made up by one of you."

    You can go look on youtube right now videos of actual combat in Afghanistan, of soldiers being taken out by sniper fire and the closest guy having to drag them out of the line of fire. "Send someone else to do it" isn't an option because everyone in combat needs to be able to do it (for rangers this is even more extreme because rangers do a lot of crazy shit like rappelling out of helicopters with a hundred pounds of shit)

    PT requirements for non combat roles are already proportional, women don't need to do as many pushups or run as far, because it's more about a general sense of being in good shape (since a truck driver or office worker or mechanic isn't going to be sent into combat deliberately)

    override367 on
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    I also can't think of any way to impede acceptance of women in combat more effectively than telling the male members of their units "you guys are going to have to carry some of her gear for her around the desert you're being deployed to, see she's short so she only has to carry 60 pounds of shit, so the other 20 to 40 pounds will have to be made up by one of you."

    It's kind of patronizing to say "alright women, we're going to be sending you into life and death situations where we expect you to kill other human beings for us, and we expect you to die for your fellow soldiers and them to die for you, but you guys get an automatic +5 on all your scores back here in training because of your gender, presumably in the field the enemy will take it easier on you to compensate"

    well we already didn't recognize it when they had to kill people in support roles. so y'know "Good job saving your buddies but we can't recognize it sorry"


    glad that's changing

    Trace on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Trace wrote: »
    I also can't think of any way to impede acceptance of women in combat more effectively than telling the male members of their units "you guys are going to have to carry some of her gear for her around the desert you're being deployed to, see she's short so she only has to carry 60 pounds of shit, so the other 20 to 40 pounds will have to be made up by one of you."

    It's kind of patronizing to say "alright women, we're going to be sending you into life and death situations where we expect you to kill other human beings for us, and we expect you to die for your fellow soldiers and them to die for you, but you guys get an automatic +5 on all your scores back here in training because of your gender, presumably in the field the enemy will take it easier on you to compensate"

    well we already didn't recognize it when they had to kill people in support roles. so y'know "Good job saving your buddies but we can't recognize it sorry"


    glad that's changing

    That doesn't really have anything to do with this thread and I don't think anyone here disagrees that a soldier who isn't in a combat role who ends up under fire deserves recognition for combat

    the reason those soldiers don't need the same physical requirements is because if they end up in that situation, it's because something went wrong. Infantry, special forces, etc are deliberately sent into places with bad guys with guns with the express purpose of killing them to death

    override367 on
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    I also can't think of any way to impede acceptance of women in combat more effectively than telling the male members of their units "you guys are going to have to carry some of her gear for her around the desert you're being deployed to, see she's short so she only has to carry 60 pounds of shit, so the other 20 to 40 pounds will have to be made up by one of you."

    It's kind of patronizing to say "alright women, we're going to be sending you into life and death situations where we expect you to kill other human beings for us, and we expect you to die for your fellow soldiers and them to die for you, but you guys get an automatic +5 on all your scores back here in training because of your gender, presumably in the field the enemy will take it easier on you to compensate"

    well we already didn't recognize it when they had to kill people in support roles. so y'know "Good job saving your buddies but we can't recognize it sorry"


    glad that's changing

    That doesn't really have anything to do with this thread and I don't think anyone here disagrees that a soldier who isn't in a combat role who ends up under fire deserves recognition for combat

    well you were talking about patronizing action towards women. I can't think of anything more patronizing than how we were handling the "women in combat" question before yesterday.

  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Food for thought: consider the case of Audie Murphy. He was 5 foot 5 and 112 pounds when he enlisted in the US army, and he didn't get a whole lot bigger. There are a lot of American women right now who are bigger, stronger and faster than he likely ever was. Especially considering he was suffering from malaria during most of the time he was fighting.

    Here is a list of medals that he received:
    Congressional Medal of Honor
    Distinguished Service Cross
    Two Silver Stars
    Legion of Merit
    Two Bronze Stars
    Three Purple Hearts
    U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal
    Good Conduct Medal
    Two Presidential Unit Citations
    American Campaign Medal
    European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star,
    Four Bronze Service Stars and one Bronze Arrowhead
    World War II Victory Medal
    Army of Occupation Medal
    Armed Forces Reserve Medal
    Combat Infantry Badge
    Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar
    Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar
    French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre
    French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier
    French Croix de Guerre With Silver Star
    French Croix de Guerre with Palm
    Medal of Liberated France
    Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm

    I freely admit, I'm a civilian, and haven't spent much time at all around soldiers. But it seems to me that for the most part, the things that have made someone an excellent combat soldier in the last hundred years or so have been less about how much they could lift or carry or how fast they could sprint, and more about discipline and mental toughness, ability to function as a member or leader of a team, composure and ability to think and plan while under fire, and their shooting skills.

    If that's the case, then barring women from combat roles is stupid. If Audie can do it, I'm pretty sure Audrey can too.

    Shadowhope on
    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    You're fighting biology, and so you have to fight it on its own terms: evolution. Either design roles with finer gradients of physical fitness or accept that there will be a gender disparity.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    I also can't think of any way to impede acceptance of women in combat more effectively than telling the male members of their units "you guys are going to have to carry some of her gear for her around the desert you're being deployed to, see she's short so she only has to carry 60 pounds of shit, so the other 20 to 40 pounds will have to be made up by one of you."

    It's kind of patronizing to say "alright women, we're going to be sending you into life and death situations where we expect you to kill other human beings for us, and we expect you to die for your fellow soldiers and them to die for you, but you guys get an automatic +5 on all your scores back here in training because of your gender, presumably in the field the enemy will take it easier on you to compensate"

    well we already didn't recognize it when they had to kill people in support roles. so y'know "Good job saving your buddies but we can't recognize it sorry"


    glad that's changing

    That doesn't really have anything to do with this thread and I don't think anyone here disagrees that a soldier who isn't in a combat role who ends up under fire deserves recognition for combat

    well you were talking about patronizing action towards women. I can't think of anything more patronizing than how we were handling the "women in combat" question before yesterday.

    That's not just a women in combat issue, my brother's best friend engaged in combat, exchanged fire, and was wounded and was denied the combat infantry badge because he was an electronics maintenance technician or some shit, he was deployed with infantry despite not being infantry so imo he should have gotten it

    the difference is it was impossible for women to get that badge, and now it is possible, which is a good change that should have happened ages ago! The armed forces need to be better about recognizing heroism out of sources other than grunts or SF (although, as far as I'm aware, that hasn't changed and only infantry and SF can still get it, the difference is that women can now be infantry and SF)

    That doesn't have any relevance on what I was talking about though

    override367 on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Food for thought: consider the case of Audie Murphy. He was 5 foot 5 and 112 pounds when he enlisted in the US army, and he didn't get a whole lot bigger. There are a lot of American women right now who are bigger, stronger and faster than he likely ever was. Especially considering he was suffering from malaria during most of the time he was fighting.

    Here is a list of medals that he received:
    Congressional Medal of Honor
    Distinguished Service Cross
    Two Silver Stars
    Legion of Merit
    Two Bronze Stars
    Three Purple Hearts
    U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal
    Good Conduct Medal
    Two Presidential Unit Citations
    American Campaign Medal
    European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star,
    Four Bronze Service Stars and one Bronze Arrowhead
    World War II Victory Medal
    Army of Occupation Medal
    Armed Forces Reserve Medal
    Combat Infantry Badge
    Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar
    Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar
    French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre
    French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier
    French Croix de Guerre With Silver Star
    French Croix de Guerre with Palm
    Medal of Liberated France
    Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm

    I freely admit, I'm a civilian, and haven't spent much time at all around soldiers. But it seems to me that for the most part, the things that have made someone an excellent combat soldier in the last hundred years or so have been less about how much they could lift or carry or how fast they could sprint, and more about discipline and mental toughness, ability to function as a member or leader of a team, composure and ability to think and plan while under fire, and their shooting skills.

    If that's the case, then barring women from combat roles is stupid. If Audie can do it, I'm pretty sure Audrey can too.

    Audie Murphey would have been able to pass the physical requirements for a modern US combat role without them being lowered, he hauled a 90 pound kit across half the world

    so I'm not sure what you're getting at

    One of the two new female rangers is roughly the same size as Audie Murphey

    N8laBhK.png

    override367 on
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    This is a good step forward especially with how it can effect some culture in the DoD.

    I need to find it but I remember reading one of the issues with weight isn't because the female body can't but a lot of it is distribution of weight and many of current packs distribute it wrong for gender differences.

    u7stthr17eud.png
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Food for thought: consider the case of Audie Murphy. He was 5 foot 5 and 112 pounds when he enlisted in the US army, and he didn't get a whole lot bigger. There are a lot of American women right now who are bigger, stronger and faster than he likely ever was. Especially considering he was suffering from malaria during most of the time he was fighting.

    Here is a list of medals that he received:
    Congressional Medal of Honor
    Distinguished Service Cross
    Two Silver Stars
    Legion of Merit
    Two Bronze Stars
    Three Purple Hearts
    U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal
    Good Conduct Medal
    Two Presidential Unit Citations
    American Campaign Medal
    European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star,
    Four Bronze Service Stars and one Bronze Arrowhead
    World War II Victory Medal
    Army of Occupation Medal
    Armed Forces Reserve Medal
    Combat Infantry Badge
    Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar
    Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar
    French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre
    French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier
    French Croix de Guerre With Silver Star
    French Croix de Guerre with Palm
    Medal of Liberated France
    Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm

    I freely admit, I'm a civilian, and haven't spent much time at all around soldiers. But it seems to me that for the most part, the things that have made someone an excellent combat soldier in the last hundred years or so have been less about how much they could lift or carry or how fast they could sprint, and more about discipline and mental toughness, ability to function as a member or leader of a team, composure and ability to think and plan while under fire, and their shooting skills.

    If that's the case, then barring women from combat roles is stupid. If Audie can do it, I'm pretty sure Audrey can too.

    Audie Murphey would have been able to pass the physical requirements for a modern US combat role without them being lowered, he hauled a 90 pound kit across half the world

    so I'm not sure what you're getting at

    One of the two new female rangers is roughly the same size as Audie Murphey

    N8laBhK.png

    What I'm getting it is that you don't need to be a 6'4 mountain of man muscle to be an effective soldier, and I provided an example illustrates that idea.

    You just need to be able to do the job.

    There are a lot of women who are going to be able to do the job, and there's no reason to keep them out due to their gender.

    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Food for thought: consider the case of Audie Murphy. He was 5 foot 5 and 112 pounds when he enlisted in the US army, and he didn't get a whole lot bigger. There are a lot of American women right now who are bigger, stronger and faster than he likely ever was. Especially considering he was suffering from malaria during most of the time he was fighting.

    Here is a list of medals that he received:
    Congressional Medal of Honor
    Distinguished Service Cross
    Two Silver Stars
    Legion of Merit
    Two Bronze Stars
    Three Purple Hearts
    U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal
    Good Conduct Medal
    Two Presidential Unit Citations
    American Campaign Medal
    European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star,
    Four Bronze Service Stars and one Bronze Arrowhead
    World War II Victory Medal
    Army of Occupation Medal
    Armed Forces Reserve Medal
    Combat Infantry Badge
    Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar
    Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar
    French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre
    French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier
    French Croix de Guerre With Silver Star
    French Croix de Guerre with Palm
    Medal of Liberated France
    Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm

    I freely admit, I'm a civilian, and haven't spent much time at all around soldiers. But it seems to me that for the most part, the things that have made someone an excellent combat soldier in the last hundred years or so have been less about how much they could lift or carry or how fast they could sprint, and more about discipline and mental toughness, ability to function as a member or leader of a team, composure and ability to think and plan while under fire, and their shooting skills.

    If that's the case, then barring women from combat roles is stupid. If Audie can do it, I'm pretty sure Audrey can too.

    Audie Murphey would have been able to pass the physical requirements for a modern US combat role without them being lowered, he hauled a 90 pound kit across half the world

    so I'm not sure what you're getting at

    One of the two new female rangers is roughly the same size as Audie Murphey

    N8laBhK.png

    What I'm getting it is that you don't need to be a 6'4 mountain of man muscle to be an effective soldier, and I provided an example illustrates that idea.

    You just need to be able to do the job.

    There are a lot of women who are going to be able to do the job, and there's no reason to keep them out due to their gender.

    But I don't want to keep them out because of their gender. I don't want the combat standards being relaxed for the sake of decreasing the disparity (again, non combat roles already have lower requirements for women)

    as I said, the guy in the example you gave could easily handle the requirements for 21st century infantry, as can many women

    I sure as shit can't

    override367 on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Set the physical requirement standard. If a person can meet that standard they can do the job. That's about as complicated as it needs to be.

  • DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    They are not relaxing the combat standards.

    They didn't for the three women who finished Ranger school, they're not for other combat rolls. They're just now allowing women who meet the combat standards to serve equally.

    While I am thrilled for this change, I'm also a little saddened. I had the choice to join the military years ago, but didn't because all the roles I was interested were forbidden to me. Now, I'm too old. So I'm sad for the opportunity I missed.

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    surely the nature of 'the job' has changed from WW2 - the US does not seem to be in a position where WW2 or even Vietnam levels of death rates are acceptable

    aRkpc.gif
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    surely the nature of 'the job' has changed from WW2 - the US does not seem to be in a position where WW2 or even Vietnam levels of death rates are acceptable

    A lot of this is due to technology, better field trauma care, and better ability to lift out wounded.

    So you have a dramatic drop in the number of dead but an increase of those disabled. But we are saving a large percentage of soldiers who 30 or 40 years ago would of died on the battlefield.

    u7stthr17eud.png
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Food for thought: consider the case of Audie Murphy. He was 5 foot 5 and 112 pounds when he enlisted in the US army, and he didn't get a whole lot bigger. There are a lot of American women right now who are bigger, stronger and faster than he likely ever was. Especially considering he was suffering from malaria during most of the time he was fighting.

    Here is a list of medals that he received:
    Congressional Medal of Honor
    Distinguished Service Cross
    Two Silver Stars
    Legion of Merit
    Two Bronze Stars
    Three Purple Hearts
    U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal
    Good Conduct Medal
    Two Presidential Unit Citations
    American Campaign Medal
    European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star,
    Four Bronze Service Stars and one Bronze Arrowhead
    World War II Victory Medal
    Army of Occupation Medal
    Armed Forces Reserve Medal
    Combat Infantry Badge
    Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar
    Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar
    French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre
    French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier
    French Croix de Guerre With Silver Star
    French Croix de Guerre with Palm
    Medal of Liberated France
    Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm

    I freely admit, I'm a civilian, and haven't spent much time at all around soldiers. But it seems to me that for the most part, the things that have made someone an excellent combat soldier in the last hundred years or so have been less about how much they could lift or carry or how fast they could sprint, and more about discipline and mental toughness, ability to function as a member or leader of a team, composure and ability to think and plan while under fire, and their shooting skills.

    If that's the case, then barring women from combat roles is stupid. If Audie can do it, I'm pretty sure Audrey can too.

    Audie Murphey would have been able to pass the physical requirements for a modern US combat role without them being lowered, he hauled a 90 pound kit across half the world

    so I'm not sure what you're getting at

    One of the two new female rangers is roughly the same size as Audie Murphey

    N8laBhK.png

    What I'm getting it is that you don't need to be a 6'4 mountain of man muscle to be an effective soldier, and I provided an example illustrates that idea.

    You just need to be able to do the job.

    There are a lot of women who are going to be able to do the job, and there's no reason to keep them out due to their gender.

    But I don't want to keep them out because of their gender. I don't want the combat standards being relaxed for the sake of decreasing the disparity (again, non combat roles already have lower requirements for women)

    as I said, the guy in the example you gave could easily handle the requirements for 21st century infantry, as can many women

    I sure as shit can't

    I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me? You seem to be arguing passionately for the point that I'm trying to make.

    I'm not arguing that combat standards should be relaxed. The only potential changes that I'd want with standards is to bring them in line with real world scenarios, as I suggest in my post here. And then anyone who can meet the standards necessary for real world scenarios of the group that they want to join should have the opportunity to join the organization.

    I cited Murphy because if he could have done what he did with the size he was, so too can a huge number of women. And there are a lot of women stronger and faster than he ever was, and they deserve their chance.

    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    ronya wrote: »
    surely the nature of 'the job' has changed from WW2 - the US does not seem to be in a position where WW2 or even Vietnam levels of death rates are acceptable

    I'm rather of the opinion that carrying 100lbs of weight is going to be something that dissapears very very soon and not because of relaxing requirements either. Things keep getting smaller.

    Nevermind those cool exoskeleton things they're prototyping. Technology is going to make alot of things obsolete.

    Trace on
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    If you can do the job you can do the job.

    ~gavel~

    Next topic.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    surely the nature of 'the job' has changed from WW2 - the US does not seem to be in a position where WW2 or even Vietnam levels of death rates are acceptable

    I'm rather of the opinion that carrying 100lbs of weight is going to be something that dissapears very very soon and not because of relaxing requirements either. Things keep getting smaller.

    Nevermind those cool exoskeleton things they're prototyping. Technology is going to make alot of things obsolete.

    Boston Dynamics had their cool packmule robots that are looking pretty good

  • DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    The amount of weight soldiers have to carry will never go down, because every time a new commander looks at what their troops are carrying, they decide that this little half pound item is missing and adds it to the pack. It's only half a pound, no big deal.

    So after 20 commanders come and go, and there's another 10 pounds in the pack, the soldiers carrying it get to bitch futilely to each other, which makes them happy because a soldier isn't happy if they aren't complaining.

    Decomposey on
    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    I don't understand the reason for reflexive insistence that they'd better not make it easier on them.

    A.) Why would they? Are they? Did they immediately tell you oh by the way all women in combat roles are just shooed in there no worries?

    B.) If they did alter anything, why would that not be the end of a process that determined the effectiveness of female soldiers in combat is best measured by those new standards?

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    I don't understand the reason for reflexive insistence that they'd better not make it easier on them.

    A.) Why would they? Are they? Did they immediately tell you oh by the way all women in combat roles are just shooed in there no worries?

    B.) If they did alter anything, why would that not be the end of a process that determined the effectiveness of female soldiers in combat is best measured by those new standards?

    Because toxic masculinity doesn't want to let girls into the clubhouse, but can't just come out and say that without looking like dickholes. So they have to try and coach their arguments into something that they think sounds more reasonable.

    To explain a bit more, the underlying idea that combat roles are the best of the best, coupled with the unconscious assumption that women are lesser, means that they automatically assume that women can not fulfill the duties of the elite. As it has been proclaimed that women will be allowed into the elite, they assume that the only way this is possible is by lowering the standards of the elite. As in their minds the lesser females can not actually be as good as the men, it simply isn't possible, so therefor they can only be allowed in on artificial standards, not their actual merits. Which they oppose, because it in their minds tarnishes the elite standards which toxic masculinity says is what should be aspired to, thereby making everything they think they should be as weak as the women they unconsciously or even consciously despise.

    Decomposey on
    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    I also can't think of any way to impede acceptance of women in combat more effectively than telling the male members of their units "you guys are going to have to carry some of her gear for her around the desert you're being deployed to, see she's short so she only has to carry 60 pounds of shit, so the other 20 to 40 pounds will have to be made up by one of you."

    It's kind of patronizing to say "alright women, we're going to be sending you into life and death situations where we expect you to kill other human beings for us, and we expect you to die for your fellow soldiers and them to die for you, but you guys get an automatic +5 on all your scores back here in training because of your gender, presumably in the field the enemy will take it easier on you to compensate"

    well we already didn't recognize it when they had to kill people in support roles. so y'know "Good job saving your buddies but we can't recognize it sorry"


    glad that's changing

    That doesn't really have anything to do with this thread and I don't think anyone here disagrees that a soldier who isn't in a combat role who ends up under fire deserves recognition for combat

    well you were talking about patronizing action towards women. I can't think of anything more patronizing than how we were handling the "women in combat" question before yesterday.

    That's not just a women in combat issue, my brother's best friend engaged in combat, exchanged fire, and was wounded and was denied the combat infantry badge because he was an electronics maintenance technician or some shit, he was deployed with infantry despite not being infantry so imo he should have gotten it

    the difference is it was impossible for women to get that badge, and now it is possible, which is a good change that should have happened ages ago! The armed forces need to be better about recognizing heroism out of sources other than grunts or SF (although, as far as I'm aware, that hasn't changed and only infantry and SF can still get it, the difference is that women can now be infantry and SF)

    That doesn't have any relevance on what I was talking about though

    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    Also, the entire awards process is pretty fucked up, though the CIB vs. CAB distinction is not an issue itself.
    Mahnmut wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Regardless of your gender I don't think you should be expected to carry huge burdens if you're not physically built for it. Trying to do so could get you killed just as easily as, for example, the buddy you're trying to save.

    Not every soldier should be expected to excel in every circumstance. Especially if, despite how physically fit they are, they're not physically built for it. Which is to say, don't send the petite female out to haul back that six nine pushing 250 dude. It's not going to work army or not.

    Look, we sorted weight by ability to a small extent, but everyone needs to carry their own gear. I've been on missions where, after carefully taking everything we didn't need out, we still ended up around 100 lbs of gear apiece. Yes, that is as shitty as it sounds, but so is not being able to prevent the enemy from detonating remote controlled bombs, so we carried batteries for our jammers, or running out of ammo and getting your head sawed off with a dull machete, so we carried enough ammo, or not eating or drinking water, so we carried those, etc. There wasn't a single thing in my bag that couldn't result in a serious injury or death from not having it.

    Also, that 250 lb guy has as much right to not bleed to death as anyone else (also, 6'3" can easily be 250 lbs if they like their protein powder. A 6'9" guy is going to be heavier).

    I'll add more later, but my conclusion from chat: If I had my way, all combat roles would be male only by policy, but commanders could authorize an exception to that policy. That achieves both the goals of keeping standards high and recognizing differences in physical abilities between median men and median women while allowing women who are willing and able to rise to the challenge to do so.

    Wouldn't rigorous but gender-agnostic standards achieve the same goal more directly? I totally appreciate the need for people to have non-relative capabilities -- but if they have them, I don't get why they should need to petition a commander for special treatment?

    Think of it this way. You have, say, 200 Ranger school slots (before the huge washout at the beginning). If women (who weren't hand picked and specially trained to succeed) have a fail rate of, say, 95% as opposed to the 50% (might be a bit higher) rate for men, how can we justify the much higher attrition rate when slots are already so limited that only the smallest fraction of people who want to attend can do so?

    And this doesn't just apply to Ranger school, but women have, to date, a 0% pass rate for Marine infantry as opposed to quite high for men. And again, these are hand picked women, not the median woman. This is an across the board issue for most physically demanding positions.

    Now, while NCOs / officers have an obligation to pre-qualify people, you can't only bet on that. We have to look at expected attrition rates when considering who to send. Every training washout is a slot that could have been occupied by someone else.

    Unlike many other human endeavors, less than optimal procedures are measured in corpses. The difference between putting the right people in the right training and failing to do so is the difference between having to show up at the door of a 21 year old widow/widower and tell them their spouse is never coming home, or a loving embrace at the airport.
    Trace wrote: »
    I also can't think of any way to impede acceptance of women in combat more effectively than telling the male members of their units "you guys are going to have to carry some of her gear for her around the desert you're being deployed to, see she's short so she only has to carry 60 pounds of shit, so the other 20 to 40 pounds will have to be made up by one of you."

    It's kind of patronizing to say "alright women, we're going to be sending you into life and death situations where we expect you to kill other human beings for us, and we expect you to die for your fellow soldiers and them to die for you, but you guys get an automatic +5 on all your scores back here in training because of your gender, presumably in the field the enemy will take it easier on you to compensate"

    well we already didn't recognize it when they had to kill people in support roles. so y'know "Good job saving your buddies but we can't recognize it sorry"


    glad that's changing

    That doesn't really have anything to do with this thread and I don't think anyone here disagrees that a soldier who isn't in a combat role who ends up under fire deserves recognition for combat

    the reason those soldiers don't need the same physical requirements is because if they end up in that situation, it's because something went wrong. Infantry, special forces, etc are deliberately sent into places with bad guys with guns with the express purpose of killing them to death

    This isn't true, and I think reflects a poor (though common even within the military) view. Every soldier is responsible for being good at everything, and world class at their specialty. If you're an accountant, you need to be a good shot. If you're an electronics repair dude, you need to be physically strong. If you're a chef, you need to be able to apply a tourniquet effectively.

    Combat is an utterly pitiless meritocracy.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Unlike many other human endeavors, less than optimal procedures are measured in corpses. The difference between putting the right people in the right training and failing to do so is the difference between having to show up at the door of a 21 year old widow/widower and tell them their spouse is never coming home, or a loving embrace at the airport.

    er

    hasn't ranger school had more than a few deaths?

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    So, if training is the limiting factor, how are people selected for training

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited December 2015
    I don't understand the reason for reflexive insistence that they'd better not make it easier on them.

    to point out, this thread was started by an argument that load requirements should be made easier so that more women can survive the training without a host of injuries

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    but the more important question is where we stand on artists to make sure our combat waifus and husbandos have good avatars ok

    Dynamic6.jpg
    jpeg&output-quality=75

    obF2Wuw.png
  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    I prefer WW2 pinups on aircraft to anime waifus. It seems somehow less skeevy.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    but the more important question is where we stand on artists to make sure our combat waifus and husbandos have good avatars ok

    Dynamic6.jpg
    jpeg&output-quality=75

    Also look at the shame of the pilot in the first photo.

    I ate an engineer
Sign In or Register to comment.