Options

US Military to Allow Women in Combat Roles

1356715

Posts

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Neco wrote: »
    Do we have any reason to think they are going to lower standards? I really don't see that happening. And if it does get lowered, I doubt it will have anything to do with women.

    The thread exists because of a question about whether they should do so. There's no suggestion from anyone in charge that they will be.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    what

    no

    NO

    The point isn't to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice because that's not how you combat injustice.

    The point is to let capable people do the job regardless of gender. THAT is justice. No one should give a flying fuck how many women are in combat roles! Caring about the number of women who succeed is the worst sort of mistake.

    And hey, if there aren't any capable women, well, that's how things shake out, right?

    Turns out that numbers and representation are actually excellent ways to combat injustice. Numbers help you figure out where these issues are happening, and representation helps dismantle stereotypes.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    what

    no

    NO

    The point isn't to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice because that's not how you combat injustice.

    The point is to let capable people do the job regardless of gender. THAT is justice. No one should give a flying fuck how many women are in combat roles! Caring about the number of women who succeed is the worst sort of mistake.

    Based on the data collected, it's gonna be real tough for those first few. Good luck to them and brace for impact.

    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.
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Neco wrote: »
    Do we have any reason to think they are going to lower standards? I really don't see that happening. And if it does get lowered, I doubt it will have anything to do with women.
    Well for 1 thing, people in this thread are already advocating for them to lower the standards so...

    Also, other groups-Police and Fire Departments- either have lowered or been pressured to lower physical standards in the past. Particularly in the FD area the same concerns as in the military are present. The person coming to haul an unconscious 250lb person out of a building needs to be able to carry/lift/drag someone who weighs 250lb. That's a lot easier if you are 6'-200lb yourself, rather than 5'-6" 145. And even at 5'-6" 145 a man is going to have a large advantage at it.

    e:NYFD in fact just hired a women who failed their physical standards.

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/nyfd_recruit_failed_fitness_test_but_is_getting_hi.html

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    One thing is opening up combat for woman and moving towards a more equal distribution will probably help with a lot of the discrimination issues.

    We tend to forget how the demographics in the military skew things.

    u7stthr17eud.png
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    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.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Neco wrote: »
    Do we have any reason to think they are going to lower standards? I really don't see that happening. And if it does get lowered, I doubt it will have anything to do with women.
    Well for 1 thing, people in this thread are already advocating for them to lower the standards so...

    Also, other groups-Police and Fire Departments- either have lowered or been pressured to lower physical standards in the past. Particularly in the FD area the same concerns as in the military are present. The person coming to haul an unconscious 250lb person out of a building needs to be able to carry/lift/drag someone who weighs 250lb. That's a lot easier if you are 6'-200lb yourself, rather than 5'-6" 145. And even at 5'-6" 145 a man is going to have a large advantage at it.

    e:NYFD in fact just hired a women who failed their physical standards.

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/nyfd_recruit_failed_fitness_test_but_is_getting_hi.html

    Standards are not some sort of holy writ handed down from on high. What people are pointing out is that it is absolutely fair to look at a set of standards, and say "defend this measurement".

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    what

    no

    NO

    The point isn't to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice because that's not how you combat injustice.

    The point is to let capable people do the job regardless of gender. THAT is justice. No one should give a flying fuck how many women are in combat roles! Caring about the number of women who succeed is the worst sort of mistake.

    And hey, if there aren't any capable women, well, that's how things shake out, right?

    Turns out that numbers and representation are actually excellent ways to combat injustice. Numbers help you figure out where these issues are happening, and representation helps dismantle stereotypes.

    Not to be rude, but yes. Exactly.
    This is combat. Not the soccer team at your local university. Combat. Where people die if others cant do the job.
    If they arent capable, they dont get in. Period.
    There are scores of males that dont make it either. Why? Because they arent capable.

  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Deadly if someone cant do the job.
    This isn't a female/male issue. Its a capable of doing the job/not capable of doing the job issue.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Neco wrote: »
    Do we have any reason to think they are going to lower standards? I really don't see that happening. And if it does get lowered, I doubt it will have anything to do with women.
    Well for 1 thing, people in this thread are already advocating for them to lower the standards so...

    Also, other groups-Police and Fire Departments- either have lowered or been pressured to lower physical standards in the past. Particularly in the FD area the same concerns as in the military are present. The person coming to haul an unconscious 250lb person out of a building needs to be able to carry/lift/drag someone who weighs 250lb. That's a lot easier if you are 6'-200lb yourself, rather than 5'-6" 145. And even at 5'-6" 145 a man is going to have a large advantage at it.

    e:NYFD in fact just hired a women who failed their physical standards.

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/nyfd_recruit_failed_fitness_test_but_is_getting_hi.html

    Standards are not some sort of holy writ handed down from on high. What people are pointing out is that it is absolutely fair to look at a set of standards, and say "defend this measurement".

    One thing I like about the military, and one big problem with it, is that risk management is so conservative it's short-sighted. They'd rather pile on redundancy than adopt paradigms more sustainable in the long run.

    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.
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    what

    no

    NO

    The point isn't to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice because that's not how you combat injustice.

    The point is to let capable people do the job regardless of gender. THAT is justice. No one should give a flying fuck how many women are in combat roles! Caring about the number of women who succeed is the worst sort of mistake.

    And hey, if there aren't any capable women, well, that's how things shake out, right?

    Turns out that numbers and representation are actually excellent ways to combat injustice. Numbers help you figure out where these issues are happening, and representation helps dismantle stereotypes.

    Not to be rude, but yes. Exactly.
    This is combat. Not the soccer team at your local university. Combat. Where people die if others cant do the job.
    If they arent capable, they dont get in. Period.
    There are scores of males that dont make it either. Why? Because they arent capable.

    If that was a hard and fast rule that'd be neat. But I'm pretty sure plenty of guys get in who probably shouldn't get in, and then get promotions they probably shouldn't get either.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Deadly if someone cant do the job.
    This isn't a female/male issue. Its a capable of doing the job/not capable of doing the job issue.

    Deadliness is inherent. Accepting a non-zero risk, what is the maximum tolerable increase of morbidity and mortality with one percentile decrease in average fitness, and what is the resultant decrease in woman recruit attrition?

    Paladin on
    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.
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    A.) My cousin is military.

    B.) He lives in NYC

    C.) Fuck your sterotyping

  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Dude, not cool. You shouldn't need to resort to stereotypes and assumptions to support your position.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Deadly if someone cant do the job.
    This isn't a female/male issue. Its a capable of doing the job/not capable of doing the job issue.

    Gooseshit.

    You want to tell me that standards show that women aren't fit for combat? Then I want to see your work. I want to see you show me that those standards are a fair and objective assessment that accurately denotes what the needed ability to handle the rigors of combat is. I don't think that is an unfair request.

    And if you can't show the work? Then perhaps that's a sign that the standards aren't as accurate an assessment as you claim them to be.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Deadly if someone cant do the job.
    This isn't a female/male issue. Its a capable of doing the job/not capable of doing the job issue.

    Gooseshit.

    You want to tell me that standards show that women aren't fit for combat? Then I want to see your work. I want to see you show me that those standards are a fair and objective assessment that accurately denotes what the needed ability to handle the rigors of combat is. I don't think that is an unfair request.

    And if you can't show the work? Then perhaps that's a sign that the standards aren't as accurate an assessment as you claim them to be.

    You're not really arguing against Ninjeff. I quoted something way on the last page. Ninjeff had nothing to do with the current veil of difference between men and women. That's on me.

    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.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    You know, I bet you can get some sort of DOD grant funding to study this. If only I had the credentials

    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.
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    Since these standards wouldn't have needed to exclude women until this week, it stands to reason that they were not written with that goal in mind, years ago, when they were written.

    So who were these standards written to exclude? And why?

    Can you show that they were actually written to pick on people, rather than to set, you know, a standard for competence?

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Deadly if someone cant do the job.
    This isn't a female/male issue. Its a capable of doing the job/not capable of doing the job issue.

    Gooseshit.

    You want to tell me that standards show that women aren't fit for combat? Then I want to see your work. I want to see you show me that those standards are a fair and objective assessment that accurately denotes what the needed ability to handle the rigors of combat is. I don't think that is an unfair request.

    And if you can't show the work? Then perhaps that's a sign that the standards aren't as accurate an assessment as you claim them to be.

    You're not really arguing against Ninjeff. I quoted something way on the last page. Ninjeff had nothing to do with the current veil of difference between men and women. That's on me.

    Except that I am, because this is a very tired argument that always comes up when people start pointing out that perhaps some metric isn't as objective or accurate as it should be. Exceptional results require exceptional proof.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.


    No it's not what people are saying:
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    Why should they reduce standards? Women can and do meet the current standards.

    Logistics. Twofold problem:

    Too many women recruits clogs a clogged system with expensive attrition (pj's point)

    Not enough women succeed and become isolated pariahs without the chorus of numbers (jcvc's point)

    Both problems will be addressed by letting more women in in chunks rather than a trickle. Relaxing standards is the simplest way.


    IDK how you read that, but to me that is "lower standards to achieve letting in more women". Not check the standards to see if they are 100% appropriate.



    Also considering at the time(aka beforeyesterday) the standards were made, women were explicitly excluded by rule. That the standards were made as a roundabout way to exclude women seems a bit of a reach.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Deadly if someone cant do the job.
    This isn't a female/male issue. Its a capable of doing the job/not capable of doing the job issue.

    Gooseshit.

    You want to tell me that standards show that women aren't fit for combat? Then I want to see your work. I want to see you show me that those standards are a fair and objective assessment that accurately denotes what the needed ability to handle the rigors of combat is. I don't think that is an unfair request.

    And if you can't show the work? Then perhaps that's a sign that the standards aren't as accurate an assessment as you claim them to be.

    You're not really arguing against Ninjeff. I quoted something way on the last page. Ninjeff had nothing to do with the current veil of difference between men and women. That's on me.

    Except that I am, because this is a very tired argument that always comes up when people start pointing out that perhaps some metric isn't as objective or accurate as it should be. Exceptional results require exceptional proof.

    The military isn't really in a position where they need to justify their standards to random internet people though. Why not write them a letter and see what they have to say.

  • Options
    SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    Hasn't it been pretty well covered ITT that the weight restrictions are what they are because they are regularly required to carry that much and more?

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.


    No it's not what people are saying:
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    Why should they reduce standards? Women can and do meet the current standards.

    Logistics. Twofold problem:

    Too many women recruits clogs a clogged system with expensive attrition (pj's point)

    Not enough women succeed and become isolated pariahs without the chorus of numbers (jcvc's point)

    Both problems will be addressed by letting more women in in chunks rather than a trickle. Relaxing standards is the simplest way.


    IDK how you read that, but to me that is "lower standards to achieve letting in more women". Not check the standards to see if they are 100% appropriate.



    Also considering at the time(aka beforeyesterday) the standards were made, women were explicitly excluded by rule. That the standards were made as a roundabout way to exclude women seems a bit of a reach.

    Yes the primary outcome of my suggestion is to increase woman representation with minimal growing pains. Increasing efficiency of standards is a side benefit. However, that should still be calculated for a complete risk/benefit assessment. Other people may have different reasoning.

    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.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    Since these standards wouldn't have needed to exclude women until this week, it stands to reason that they were not written with that goal in mind, years ago, when they were written.

    So who were these standards written to exclude? And why?

    Can you show that they were actually written to pick on people, rather than to set, you know, a standard for competence?

    Why do people have such a hard time with the idea that standards, like pretty much anything else in the world, merit reevaluation?

    And a lot of times, the exclusion isn't openly intentional. If you have a concept of the ideal soldier that hews to a 6', 210 pound man, it shouldn't be surprising that you will build standards to that ideal.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    I'm a hayseed from small town Kansas with family and friends in the service.

    So maybe we can cut the broad brush ivory tower crap, huh?

    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.
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    Since these standards wouldn't have needed to exclude women until this week, it stands to reason that they were not written with that goal in mind, years ago, when they were written.

    So who were these standards written to exclude? And why?

    Can you show that they were actually written to pick on people, rather than to set, you know, a standard for competence?

    Why do people have such a hard time with the idea that standards, like pretty much anything else in the world, merit reevaluation?

    And a lot of times, the exclusion isn't openly intentional. If you have a concept of the ideal soldier that hews to a 6', 210 pound man, it shouldn't be surprising that you will build standards to that ideal.

    There are tons of soldiers who aren't 6' 200 lb. manly-men.

    What makes you think that the standards are wrong? Because many women won't meet them? Many men don't meet them either.

    It's pretty difficult to see your argument as anything other than a person on the wrong side of the dunning-kruger curve trying to tell the army what is required of soldiers in the field.

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Deadly if someone cant do the job.
    This isn't a female/male issue. Its a capable of doing the job/not capable of doing the job issue.

    Deadliness is inherent. Accepting a non-zero risk, what is the maximum tolerable increase of morbidity and mortality with one percentile decrease in average fitness, and what is the resultant decrease in woman recruit attrition?

    Or restated:

    How many men and women are we will to accept as additional casualties so less capable women(and men too, but the goal here is the women) can be in their desired MOS.

    It seems to me that we have an ethical duty to do all we can to minimize the casualties suffered by our soldiers on our behalf. And with how utilitarianism treats getting killed, the answer from that is probably 0. But If you have a ethics argument for a larger number I'd be interested in seeing it.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    Since these standards wouldn't have needed to exclude women until this week, it stands to reason that they were not written with that goal in mind, years ago, when they were written.

    So who were these standards written to exclude? And why?

    Can you show that they were actually written to pick on people, rather than to set, you know, a standard for competence?

    Why do people have such a hard time with the idea that standards, like pretty much anything else in the world, merit reevaluation?

    And a lot of times, the exclusion isn't openly intentional. If you have a concept of the ideal soldier that hews to a 6', 210 pound man, it shouldn't be surprising that you will build standards to that ideal.

    There are tons of soldiers who aren't 6' 200 lb. manly-men.

    What makes you think that the standards are wrong? Because many women won't meet them? Many men don't meet them either.

    It's pretty difficult to see your argument as anything other than a person on the wrong side of the dunning-kruger curve trying to tell the army what is required of soldiers in the field.

    Because women extremely disproportionately don't meet them. And civilians will boss around the military forever

    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.
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    It probably isn't that easy to demonstrate the direct effect of standards or their efficiency. I think they should be reevaluated but saying "it should be easy to show X" is really wrong on many levels.

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    It probably isn't that easy to demonstrate the direct effect of standards or their efficiency. I think they should be reevaluated but saying "it should be easy to show X" is really wrong on many levels.

    Give me $650,000 and I'll do it in 4 years.

    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.
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    Since these standards wouldn't have needed to exclude women until this week, it stands to reason that they were not written with that goal in mind, years ago, when they were written.

    So who were these standards written to exclude? And why?

    Can you show that they were actually written to pick on people, rather than to set, you know, a standard for competence?

    Why do people have such a hard time with the idea that standards, like pretty much anything else in the world, merit reevaluation?

    And a lot of times, the exclusion isn't openly intentional. If you have a concept of the ideal soldier that hews to a 6', 210 pound man, it shouldn't be surprising that you will build standards to that ideal.

    Everyone talking about the standards needing reevaluation, but what if given our current focus on light infantry combat in hot/mountainous/logistically isolated areas means we need to adjust the standards up?

    Everyone would be fine with them increasing them as well right?

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Deadly if someone cant do the job.
    This isn't a female/male issue. Its a capable of doing the job/not capable of doing the job issue.

    Gooseshit.

    You want to tell me that standards show that women aren't fit for combat? Then I want to see your work. I want to see you show me that those standards are a fair and objective assessment that accurately denotes what the needed ability to handle the rigors of combat is. I don't think that is an unfair request.

    And if you can't show the work? Then perhaps that's a sign that the standards aren't as accurate an assessment as you claim them to be.

    You're not really arguing against Ninjeff. I quoted something way on the last page. Ninjeff had nothing to do with the current veil of difference between men and women. That's on me.

    Except that I am, because this is a very tired argument that always comes up when people start pointing out that perhaps some metric isn't as objective or accurate as it should be. Exceptional results require exceptional proof.

    The military isn't really in a position where they need to justify their standards to random internet people though. Why not write them a letter and see what they have to say.

    The military had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into racial equality.

    The military had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into allowing homosexual individuals to serve openly.

    All signs point to the military having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into allowing transgender individuals to serve.

    And when civilian lawmakers started to look at changing how the military handles sexual misconduct because of all the issues with commanders turning a blind eye, the military kicked and screamed to kill those changes.

    So you'll pardon me if I don't feel all that terribly deferential to the military on their standards.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    The military relaxes standards when they start having a hard time getting enough suitable recruits.

    No reason to do so until then.

    Reducing the weight that the soldiers carry is something that should be done to reduce the weight that the soldiers carry.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I feel like this whole 'relaxing standards' argument is going to be another one of those issues where bunches of people who aren't going to actually bear the negative consequences that come with it, are going to be the group pushing hardest for the change.

    Why yes you the rural hayseed from Kansas may die as a result of this, but I the liberal from NYC will feel better because of the new 'equality' in this abstract concept of the US military I have had 0 interaction with. So clearly we must do it.

    Oh, get off it. What people are saying is that if these standards really are an accurate assessment, then it should be a simple task to demonstrate that they are. And conversely, if that cannot be demonstrated, then the standards should be reevaluated to be accurate. Because as it turns out, there's a long and ignoble history of writing standards to exclude demographics.

    Since these standards wouldn't have needed to exclude women until this week, it stands to reason that they were not written with that goal in mind, years ago, when they were written.

    So who were these standards written to exclude? And why?

    Can you show that they were actually written to pick on people, rather than to set, you know, a standard for competence?

    Why do people have such a hard time with the idea that standards, like pretty much anything else in the world, merit reevaluation?

    And a lot of times, the exclusion isn't openly intentional. If you have a concept of the ideal soldier that hews to a 6', 210 pound man, it shouldn't be surprising that you will build standards to that ideal.

    Everyone talking about the standards needing reevaluation, but what if given our current focus on light infantry combat in hot/mountainous/logistically isolated areas means we need to adjust the standards up?

    Everyone would be fine with them increasing them as well right?

    If an objective review shows that the standards should be revised upwards, than that would be fine.

    The key here being "objective review".

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The military relaxes standards when they start having a hard time getting enough suitable recruits.

    No reason to do so until then.

    Reducing the weight that the soldiers carry is something that should be done to reduce the weight that the soldiers carry.

    Much better to reduce the requirement but not reduce the gear load and leave the grunts at the bottom to figure something out.

    They're used to shit rolling downhill so it will be fine. And if it isn't, well, there's plenty of people to blame.

  • Options
    DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Can I just say something? There is a lot of talk about lugging around 100 pounds of gear as if that is the end all be all of combat effectiveness.

    If that's the case we should get rid of all the men in the Army and replace them with mules.

    Strength hasn't been the deciding factor in combat since the invention of the Colt Peacemaker. Intelligence is. Whoever gets the first shot usually wins the fight and strength is only peripheral to that.

    Smart soldiers beat Strong soldiers 9 times out of ten.

    Plus there is dozens of combat jobs that are not infantry. Artillery and tanks spring immediately to mind. In fact the russian understood that the 6.2 muscle bound hulk wasn't the end all be all of combat when they designed their tanks, most of them are designed for soldiers no taller then 1.55 meters(5.1 feet).

    You still need to carry your gear. No one else is gonna do it for you.

    I work on a military base. A big one. So I get to see what soldiers call 'Rucking', which is hiking with all your gear. There tends to be more of them on Tuesday mornings for some reason. After all, you need to train so that when you do marches with all your gear on, you don't fall over.

    Now the thing is that all that gear is the same for combat and non-combat MOS. The pile of gear is just as big. So I see male and female soldiers both with bags almost larger than they are, wearing helmets and body armor, hiking down along side the road. Carrying all their gear. No one else does it for them.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.