Options

US Military to Allow Women in Combat Roles

1235715

Posts

  • Options
    NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    Equipment should designed to be usable by the most amount of people possible while allowing for the cheapest and fastest capability to issue original kit and also issue replacements.

    That's why vests/helmets are majority S/M/L, plates are S/M/L, uniforms are in a few general measurement categoriess, and M4s/M16s are not going to be replaced by the newest boutique rifle/carbine because the train of replacement parts, training, and knowledge for maintenance already exists.

    NSDFRand on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    No, but a pack that properly distributes that weight over your body makes carrying that weight a lot easier.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I'm just trying to get a feel for how likely it is that the military will design a more ergonomic pack rather than a more powerful weapon. What is the order of priority? The well being of the soldiers or the deadliness of the force?

    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
    edited December 2015
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm just trying to get a feel for how likely it is that the military will design a more ergonomic pack rather than a more powerful weapon. What is the order of priority? The well being of the soldiers or the deadliness of the force?

    need moar bombs ruskies might attack

    Trace on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I'm just trying to get a feel for how likely it is that the military will design a more ergonomic pack rather than a more powerful weapon. What is the order of priority? The well being of the soldiers or the deadliness of the force?

    Depends on the shiny thing and who is getting the money.

  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    No, but a pack that properly distributes that weight over your body makes carrying that weight a lot easier.

    "It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you. "

    we should give all of our guys and gals a magic REI $5000 superpack for many reasons, and when that's done we're still going to be in this same hole, with a slightly lower attrition rate.

    Ergonomics will only take you so far.

    SummaryJudgment on
    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    Kristmas KthulhuKristmas Kthulhu Currently Kultist Kthulhu Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    This is great news. Now how long until XCOM is up and running?

    Kristmas Kthulhu on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    No, but a pack that properly distributes that weight over your body makes carrying that weight a lot easier.

    "It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you. "

    we should give all of our guys and gals a magic REI $5000 superpack for many reasons, and when that's done we're still going to be in this same hole, with a slightly lower attrition rate.

    Ergonomics will only take you so far.

    But apparently, we're not even taking that step.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    No, but a pack that properly distributes that weight over your body makes carrying that weight a lot easier.

    "It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you. "

    we should give all of our guys and gals a magic REI $5000 superpack for many reasons, and when that's done we're still going to be in this same hole, with a slightly lower attrition rate.

    Ergonomics will only take you so far.

    Current combat loads are just way the hell to high for anybody male or female. The amount of knee/back injuries from overloading is high even for men.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    What provisions will reduce microfractures in the woman trainee and combatant to acceptable near man levels

    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
    CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    No, but a pack that properly distributes that weight over your body makes carrying that weight a lot easier.

    "It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you. "

    we should give all of our guys and gals a magic REI $5000 superpack for many reasons, and when that's done we're still going to be in this same hole, with a slightly lower attrition rate.

    Ergonomics will only take you so far.

    Current combat loads are just way the hell to high for anybody male or female. The amount of knee/back injuries from overloading is high even for men.

    What if that is the required load and attrition due to carry injuries is just a requirement?

  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    kaid wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    No, but a pack that properly distributes that weight over your body makes carrying that weight a lot easier.

    "It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you. "

    we should give all of our guys and gals a magic REI $5000 superpack for many reasons, and when that's done we're still going to be in this same hole, with a slightly lower attrition rate.

    Ergonomics will only take you so far.

    Current combat loads are just way the hell to high for anybody male or female. The amount of knee/back injuries from overloading is high even for men.

    This may well be true.
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    No, but a pack that properly distributes that weight over your body makes carrying that weight a lot easier.

    "It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you. "

    we should give all of our guys and gals a magic REI $5000 superpack for many reasons, and when that's done we're still going to be in this same hole, with a slightly lower attrition rate.

    Ergonomics will only take you so far.

    But apparently, we're not even taking that step.

    So they redesign the pack and women have a 3% less incidece of stress fractures, and men are still far and away the successful combat MOS applicants and we're in the same boat.

    (Or, alternatively, they increase the weight requirements to account for the better packs, and women fail out again at the earlier rate.)

    Ultimately, what are you loking for?

    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    SummaryJudgment on
    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Paladin wrote: »
    What provisions will reduce microfractures in the woman trainee and combatant to acceptable near man levels

    These benefits in equipment technology would also apply to men, allowing for weaker, previously disqualified men to make the requisite standards.

    Rising tide lifts all boats. You're back at square one w/r/t skewed gender distributions.

    SummaryJudgment on
    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    No, but a pack that properly distributes that weight over your body makes carrying that weight a lot easier.

    "It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you. "

    we should give all of our guys and gals a magic REI $5000 superpack for many reasons, and when that's done we're still going to be in this same hole, with a slightly lower attrition rate.

    Ergonomics will only take you so far.

    Current combat loads are just way the hell to high for anybody male or female. The amount of knee/back injuries from overloading is high even for men.

    This may well be true.
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    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.

    So what I'm hearing is that all of these people, men and women, that you are seeing meet the standards. They can lift and carry what they need to lift and carry.

    I don't see the problem.

    I had a problem with the fact that most of the women who attempted Army Ranger training wound up developing lots of micro-fractures (although I'll be damned if I can find the news story at the moment google is failing me) and thus couldn't complete the training because their skeleton was slowly shattering in certain spots because of how weight is distributed differently in a woman's body than a man's.

    There needs to be a reevaluation of at least the backpacks is what I'm saying.

    This happened to a bunch of people in my boot camp division. Which was certainly not ranger school. It was also all male.

    So you're saying is the pack you use doesn't perform like it should (allowing you to carry that 100lbs safely because you don't need a broken collarbone in the middle of a firefight) and it should be reevaluated?

    Probably.

    Note that this will take 10 years, cost $4B, and result in lots of precious memes about "$10M backpacks for the Army" and probably something about a bake sale.

    This. Logistics is why rucks, uniforms, and IBAs/IOTVs aren't custom fit for every single soldier/Marine.

    Logistics is also why we haven't switched to a "better" rifle/carbine family.

    What's more important in the military, people or equipment

    er

    both honestly

    Yes but which is more important? Which should be designed in service to the other? Because sometimes it seems the answer is equipment

    you can't really design people.

    I mean, I guess.

    like the equipment needs people and people need the equipment.

    But if a pack sucks at distributing weight to the point where Motrin is called "infantry candy" and apparently commonly is the cause of microfractures then it clearly needs to be looked at. Your infantry man is going to preform less than optimally if he's getting basically getting shin splints from using the pack.

    It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you.

    No, but a pack that properly distributes that weight over your body makes carrying that weight a lot easier.

    "It's not the pack. It's the weight. There are bad packs and good packs, but there is not a magic pack that will carry your 100 pounds for you. "

    we should give all of our guys and gals a magic REI $5000 superpack for many reasons, and when that's done we're still going to be in this same hole, with a slightly lower attrition rate.

    Ergonomics will only take you so far.

    But apparently, we're not even taking that step.

    So they redesign the pack and women have a 3% less incidece of stress fractures, and men are still far and away the successful combat MOS applicants and we're in the same boat.

    (Or, alternatively, they increase the weight limit to account for the better packs, and women dail out again at the earlier rate.)

    Ultimately, what are you loking for?

    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    Depends on the stats. Do a decision tree based on the maximum benefit/cost ratio over a continuous scale, something like that. It can be objectively determined.

    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
    Paladin wrote: »
    What provisions will reduce microfractures in the woman trainee and combatant to acceptable near man levels

    These benefits in equipment technology would also apply to men, allowing for weaker, previously disqualified men to make the requisite standards.

    Rising tide lifts all boats. You're back at square one w/r/t skewed gender distributions.

    That's not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. There might well be men who can't carry someone's fat arse (no offense) who would otherwise not actually run into that situation in a real life scenario (or in that case be in so much better condition because that ranger training is hell on you) but would otherwise be an excellent ranger.

    Absolutes are usually a pretty bad thing. This seems like another case where absolutes lose you people who could otherwise be perfectly capable rangers.

    I don't disagree about high standards, but maybe instead of having to worry about carrying that wounded comrade you get some extra training in medical care. Just because you can't carry as much as the other guy doesn't mean you can't just be trained to a higher degree in the other skills needed in the field.

  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Ultimately, what are you loking for?
    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    If 1), why should we accept a higher incidence of unit injury / loss in capability trying to meet that quota

    If 2), we're in agreement, with the caveat that many women will not make it - nobody, man or woman, is entitled to a combat MOS billet, or especially an 18X - but those that do will not be second class soldiers within that MOS.

    SummaryJudgment on
    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    What provisions will reduce microfractures in the woman trainee and combatant to acceptable near man levels

    These benefits in equipment technology would also apply to men, allowing for weaker, previously disqualified men to make the requisite standards.

    Rising tide lifts all boats. You're back at square one w/r/t skewed gender distributions.

    Women are impacted more so they'll benefit more. Prevalence determines effect size.

    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
    I mean, do Rangers have specializations beyond just being a Ranger. I honestly don't know.

    @programjunkie I guess?

  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Also I can't remember who said it.

    But that thing about training not being biased against women.

    It's been biased towards the upper percentages of physically fit men, which is the same as being biased against women even if its not biased on purpose.

  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    What provisions will reduce microfractures in the woman trainee and combatant to acceptable near man levels

    These benefits in equipment technology would also apply to men, allowing for weaker, previously disqualified men to make the requisite standards.

    Rising tide lifts all boats. You're back at square one w/r/t skewed gender distributions.

    Women are impacted more so they'll benefit more. Prevalence determines effect size.

    There are more small men in the army then all women regardless of size/fitness. If anything, lowering standards and/or weight reduction will make gender parity even worse

    (i mean, parity is 100-0 right now since combat MOS just opened, but after the first incoming class of recruits / MOS reclassifications)

    SummaryJudgment on
    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Ninjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    What provisions will reduce microfractures in the woman trainee and combatant to acceptable near man levels

    These benefits in equipment technology would also apply to men, allowing for weaker, previously disqualified men to make the requisite standards.

    Rising tide lifts all boats. You're back at square one w/r/t skewed gender distributions.

    Women are impacted more so they'll benefit more. Prevalence determines effect size.

    There are more small men in the army then all women regardless of size/fitness. If anything, lowering standards and/or weight reduction will make gender parity even worse

    (i mean, parity is 100-0 right now since combat MOS just opened, but after the first incoming class of recruits / MOS reclassifications)

    Bone density is correlated more with gender than size. I think that's true.

    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
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    What provisions will reduce microfractures in the woman trainee and combatant to acceptable near man levels

    These benefits in equipment technology would also apply to men, allowing for weaker, previously disqualified men to make the requisite standards.

    Rising tide lifts all boats. You're back at square one w/r/t skewed gender distributions.

    Then Intelligence starts to become important. Once the deciding factor isn't how much time you spend in the gym or how much bone density that nature gave you.

    If we don't need hulking supermen to just ruck around the basic combat pack, then the ability of the average soldier to out think the enemy rises in importance.

    It should also be noted that a big problem for women is that until recently they didn't even make equipment like flak jackets with women in mind, forcing them to use jackets intended for men. Anybody that has seen a woman naked understands that there are a few bulges and curves that don't match.

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Just inject everybody with estrogen and testosterone and hope for the best

    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
    CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    Ninjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    Do you agree that any physical standard that is set high enough to only get the most physically qualified is going to exclude far mroe woman than men?

  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Ultimately, what are you loking for?
    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    If 1), why should we accept a higher incidence of unit injury / loss in capability trying to meet that quota

    If 2), we're in agreement, with the caveat that many women will not make it - nobody, man or woman, is entitled to a combat MOS billet, or especially an 18X - but those that do will not be second class soldiers within that MOS.

    There isn't any actual proof of this is combat situations as far as I can tell

  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Ultimately, what are you loking for?
    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    If 1), why should we accept a higher incidence of unit injury / loss in capability trying to meet that quota

    If 2), we're in agreement, with the caveat that many women will not make it - nobody, man or woman, is entitled to a combat MOS billet, or especially an 18X - but those that do will not be second class soldiers within that MOS.

    There isn't any actual proof of this is combat situations as far as I can tell

    The announcement just came down yesterday, so I'm not surprised? :biggrin:

    It's a proxy for Hedgie's argument about lowering standards.

    (BBL, work)

    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Ninjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    Do you agree that any physical standard that is set high enough to only get the most physically qualified is going to exclude far mroe woman than men?

    Again, missing the point. If setting such a standard results in candidates who would meet the actual requirements that the actual duties will impose, then it is overly selective and a poor measure.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Ninjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    PT standards are already evaluated constantly. Not sure what you want here.

  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Ultimately, what are you loking for?
    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    If 1), why should we accept a higher incidence of unit injury / loss in capability trying to meet that quota

    If 2), we're in agreement, with the caveat that many women will not make it - nobody, man or woman, is entitled to a combat MOS billet, or especially an 18X - but those that do will not be second class soldiers within that MOS.

    There isn't any actual proof of this is combat situations as far as I can tell

    The announcement just came down yesterday, so I'm not surprised? :biggrin:

    It's a proxy for Hedgie's argument about lowering standards.

    (BBL, work)

    I don't want to lower the standards as much as I want them modernized.

    I mean, what are they going to do when they wind up with a gifted female soldier who is also gifted when it comes to her breasts. Should she just go under the knife if she's serious about a military career? It sounds like a ridiculous problem to think about but it really isn't.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Ultimately, what are you loking for?
    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    If 1), why should we accept a higher incidence of unit injury / loss in capability trying to meet that quota

    If 2), we're in agreement, with the caveat that many women will not make it - nobody, man or woman, is entitled to a combat MOS billet, or especially an 18X - but those that do will not be second class soldiers within that MOS.

    There isn't any actual proof of this is combat situations as far as I can tell

    The announcement just came down yesterday, so I'm not surprised? :biggrin:

    It's a proxy for Hedgie's argument about lowering standards.

    (BBL, work)

    I don't want to lower the standards as much as I want them modernized.

    I mean, what are they going to do when they wind up with a gifted female soldier who is also gifted when it comes to her breasts. Should she just go under the knife if she's serious about a military career? It sounds like a ridiculous problem to think about but it really isn't.

    Maybe. Better question is can she use it as an excuse for an early hysterectomy

    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
    CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Ninjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    Do you agree that any physical standard that is set high enough to only get the most physically qualified is going to exclude far mroe woman than men?

    Again, missing the point. If setting such a standard results in candidates who would meet the actual requirements that the actual duties will impose, then it is overly selective and a poor measure.

    No, it would get people even better at their duties than the bare minimum required. The applicant pool is larger than the number of available jobs.

    Cabezone on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Ninjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    Do you agree that any physical standard that is set high enough to only get the most physically qualified is going to exclude far mroe woman than men?

    Again, missing the point. If setting such a standard results in candidates who would meet the actual requirements that the actual duties will impose, then it is overly selective and a poor measure.

    No, it would get people even better at their duties than the bare minimum required.

    If the bare minimum isn't enough it probably shouldn't be called that.

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Cabezone wrote: »
    Ninjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    Do you agree that any physical standard that is set high enough to only get the most physically qualified is going to exclude far mroe woman than men?

    Again, missing the point. If setting such a standard results in candidates who would meet the actual requirements that the actual duties will impose, then it is overly selective and a poor measure.

    Assuming of course you can produce a perfect standard that would be neither under nor over selective. Otherwise an overly selective measure(some people don't get a MOS that they could have performed) is preferable to an insufficiently selective one(people get killed).

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Heh, all the military people have stopped posting, guess this thread became intolerable for them

    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
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Quid wrote: »
    Ninjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    PT standards are already evaluated constantly. Not sure what you want here.

    I've invited him to explain whether he wants a qualitative or a quantitative benchmark; still waiting.

    RF had a great post earlier about the logic of sexist animus-based standards that he just skipped over, too.

    He wants to talk.

    SummaryJudgment on
    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Ultimately, what are you loking for?
    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    If 1), why should we accept a higher incidence of unit injury / loss in capability trying to meet that quota

    If 2), we're in agreement, with the caveat that many women will not make it - nobody, man or woman, is entitled to a combat MOS billet, or especially an 18X - but those that do will not be second class soldiers within that MOS.

    There isn't any actual proof of this is combat situations as far as I can tell

    The announcement just came down yesterday, so I'm not surprised? :biggrin:

    It's a proxy for Hedgie's argument about lowering standards.

    (BBL, work)

    I don't want to lower the standards as much as I want them modernized.

    I mean, what are they going to do when they wind up with a gifted female soldier who is also gifted when it comes to her breasts. Should she just go under the knife if she's serious about a military career? It sounds like a ridiculous problem to think about but it really isn't.


    Anyone under 64" or over 77" tall doesn't meet the USAF physical requirements to be a pilot. Anyone over 73" tall can't be a tanker in the army. Sometimes your physiology just prevents you from doing what you would like to be able to do. At least she could make that choice if she wanted to. Can't really shorten/lengthen people as easily.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Ninjeff 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.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    PT standards are already evaluated constantly. Not sure what you want here.

    I've invited him to explain whether he wants a qualitative or a quantitative benchmark; still waiting.

    RF had a great post earlier about the logic of sexist animus-based standards that he just skipped over, too.

    He wants to talk.

    I think I've made it clear that I would like a qualitative benchmark grounded in reality. I have also pointed out why I don't trust the military to be able to do so on their own.

    As for jeep's comment, he fell into the fallacy that active animus has to be shown to say that something is discrimatory. This is one of those reoccurring arguments that constantly pops up, and ignores how the vast majority of discrimination in our society is systematic, built on bad conceptualization.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    This seems like a monstrous question to be asking. I wish you'd taken @SummaryJudgment's out.

    Zero combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity because gender parity is neither desirable nor useful in the military, and justice is served through equal opportunity to achieve a standard, not equal numbers in the units. None of us should care for an instant about gender parity in military combat units! We should only care about the unit's effectiveness at accomplishing missions, and not what the genders of the soldiers involved are at all.

    spool32 on
Sign In or Register to comment.