I don't get where all this fear of lowered standards is coming from.
Before this change, the women who could meet the same standards as men were professionally fucked over for no reason other than their vaginas. Now they're not. I'm sure those women want their fellow combatants to be just as qualified as they had to be.
Women are already in roles where they should have the same physical standard as men and do not. It's not a fear, it's a current reality.
The Corps has already started putting women through some infantry courses. They had 2 go to infantry officers course in the fall. The class had 107 candidates, one of the women and 26 of the men failed the first combat endurance test. The second was unable to complete 2 required events due to medical reasons.
none of the articles I saw mentioned the two candidates pft or CFT scores heading into the course. They also said there hasn't been any more volunteers yet.
I don't get where all this fear of lowered standards is coming from.
Before this change, the women who could meet the same standards as men were professionally fucked over for no reason other than their vaginas. Now they're not. I'm sure those women want their fellow combatants to be just as qualified as they had to be.
Girls in units are fine, in-spite of the spector of some girls getting pregnant surprise surprise not all of them do. There are also these things called condoms, and these weird things called the pill.
With all this one has to question why your male pers are fucking around without taking precautions.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
+1
Options
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
I don't get where all this fear of lowered standards is coming from.
Before this change, the women who could meet the same standards as men were professionally fucked over for no reason other than their vaginas. Now they're not. I'm sure those women want their fellow combatants to be just as qualified as they had to be.
Women are already in roles where they should have the same physical standard as men and do not. It's not a fear, it's a current reality.
I don't get where all this fear of lowered standards is coming from.
Before this change, the women who could meet the same standards as men were professionally fucked over for no reason other than their vaginas. Now they're not. I'm sure those women want their fellow combatants to be just as qualified as they had to be.
Girls in units are fine, in-spite of the spector of some girls getting pregnant surprise surprise not all of them do. There are also these things called condoms, and these weird things called the pill.
With all this one has to question why your male pers are fucking around without taking precautions.
Because they're young and dumb. And so far, the only response seems to be, "Oh well, just chalk it up as another loss to the unit."
Physical standards are already different for men and women. Is it that much of a stretch to imagine that combat school standards may also be different?
Hear about the cow that tried to jump over a barbed-wire fence? It was udder disaster.
They're supposed to be trained soldiers. NCO's and officers should be maintaining that standred.
If losing Women pers to pregnacy loss is a concern it should be drilled into them (male/female) that prophlatics/pill are mandatory.
One does not write off shitty drill or constant U/Ding as lol young and dumb.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Because they're young and dumb. And so far, the only response seems to be, "Oh well, just chalk it up as another loss to the unit."
No, my response is that it should be treated the same as any other medical and disciplinary action. Which, so far as I am aware, is what current policy is. Why do you consider this to be insufficient? Or of a different degree of loss to unit cohesion as some idiot causing a compound fracture?
Physical standards are already different for men and women. Is it that much of a stretch to imagine that combat school standards may also be different?
Are you basing this off of other advanced militaries undertaking similar changes in their standards after introducing women to combat roles or are you just pulling it out of your ass? This is not intended to be snarky I am actually curious.
I don't get where all this fear of lowered standards is coming from.
Before this change, the women who could meet the same standards as men were professionally fucked over for no reason other than their vaginas. Now they're not. I'm sure those women want their fellow combatants to be just as qualified as they had to be.
Women are already in roles where they should have the same physical standard as men and do not. It's not a fear, it's a current reality.
And the military is crumbling m i rite
I say, this situation really pops my monocle
What will happen to our brave fighting men when the women are overcome by the vapors
You're not supposed to fuck in a combat zone, period. Maybe handing out condoms and birth control pills might help, but for many combat arms units, they're in a places that have trouble getting food and clean water.
Are you basing this off of other advanced militaries undertaking similar changes in their standards after introducing women to combat roles or are you just pulling it out of your ass? This is not intended to be snarky I am actually curious.
I doubt we'll see many women in combat arms period. If that's the case, people may demand that standards be re-examined to ensure women are getting a fair shot. And the military, in its infinite wisdom, will probably just lower them because it's the easiest solution.
Hear about the cow that tried to jump over a barbed-wire fence? It was udder disaster.
You're not supposed to fuck in a combat zone, period. Maybe handing out condoms and birth control pills might help, but for many combat arms units, they're in a places that have trouble getting food and clean water.
So discipline them? Again, I'm failing to see the problem you are attempting to suggest. You're not supposed to do a hell of a lot of things in a combat zone. If people do them you make them stop. If that doesn't work you kick them out.
Are you basing this off of other advanced militaries undertaking similar changes in their standards after introducing women to combat roles or are you just pulling it out of your ass? This is not intended to be snarky I am actually curious.
I doubt we'll see many women in combat arms period.
Indeed. That does not mean they should be legally precluded from serving in those positions.
If that's the case, people may demand that standards be re-examined to ensure women are getting a fair shot. And the military, in its infinite wisdom, will probably just lower them because it's the easiest solution.
So just pulling it out of your ass.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't get where all this fear of lowered standards is coming from.
Before this change, the women who could meet the same standards as men were professionally fucked over for no reason other than their vaginas. Now they're not. I'm sure those women want their fellow combatants to be just as qualified as they had to be.
Women are already in roles where they should have the same physical standard as men and do not. It's not a fear, it's a current reality.
And the military is crumbling m i rite
I say, this situation really pops my monocle
What will happen to our brave fighting men when the women are overcome by the vapors
It will be fine, as long as they are strong enough to carry their fainting couches with them.
Yes I am because I couldn't find information on this. So few countries have women in combat arms , especially infantry units. The only exception seems to be the IDF's Caracal Battalion, and I couldn't find hard data on their standards and how it compares to other combat arms in the IDF, to include the all-male ones.
I did find a report on the IDF that recommended instituting quotas to ensure more women are in senior-officer positions.
Now, the only evidence I have to go from quotas to lowering standards is anecdotal, which I know doesn't hold water in a true argument. But in my short experience, I've seen a lot of double-standards for men and women in the military. I've also seen a lot of commanders caving into political pressure to make decisions against their better judgment. Consequently, it's not such a stretch for me to imagine people lowering standards for women in order to satisfy a quota for them in combat arms.
I'm perfectly prepared to admit I'm dead wrong if this doesn't happen. This really is a historic first, which is good in many ways. I just have my doubts, like I do on all things.
Hear about the cow that tried to jump over a barbed-wire fence? It was udder disaster.
This is an interesting development since the Australian military doesn't have women in direct combat roles at the moment either, so I imagine we'll probably end up following suit pretty soon.
I do know that the current physical fitness standards we have do provide for slightly reduced upper body strength requirements when screening women - which is actually a sensible thing since by and large for a lot of roles the military isn't setting the parameters for "must be this capable to be a soldier" so much as they're screening for people who represent a particular overall level of physical fitness, which is at least partly because the logic goes that fitter soldiers have better mental endurance.
Aerobic and everything else is exactly the same for both though.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
You're not supposed to fuck in a combat zone, period. Maybe handing out condoms and birth control pills might help, but for many combat arms units, they're in a places that have trouble getting food and clean water.
Are you basing this off of other advanced militaries undertaking similar changes in their standards after introducing women to combat roles or are you just pulling it out of your ass? This is not intended to be snarky I am actually curious.
I doubt we'll see many women in combat arms period. If that's the case, people may demand that standards be re-examined to ensure women are getting a fair shot. And the military, in its infinite wisdom, will probably just lower them because it's the easiest solution.
If your unit/command has decided no fucking in AO's as a standing order then it's a discipline problem where both female and male pers are at fault. Also frankly a failure of the per's NCO's and Officers in maintaining good order and discipline.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
This is an interesting development since the Australian military doesn't have women in direct combat roles at the moment either, so I imagine we'll probably end up following suit pretty soon.
I do know that the current physical fitness standards we have do provide for slightly reduced upper body strength requirements when screening women - which is actually a sensible thing since by and large for a lot of roles the military isn't setting the parameters for "must be this capable to be a soldier" so much as they're screening for people who represent a particular overall level of physical fitness, which is at least partly because the logic goes that fitter soldiers have better mental endurance.
Aerobic and everything else is exactly the same for both though.
NZ army is the same (surprise surprise).
Boldeds the rational as hilariously I failed RFL's after getting back from deployments. It seems walking up and down/through hill/bush in patrol or marching order was not the same as running/pushups/situps/pullups. Should not have been an surprise as actually being on deployment tended to pre-clude going for unit/individual runs and the usual pt's.
Being a solder made me aerobically less fitter than when we were mearly training to be a solder. Tend's to indicate that fitness standreds are not actually tailored to match actul conditions. Much like drill they're really about something else. One might arrive at this moment of clarity when you realise combat is not conducted in pt kit and running shoes
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Engender primal fear in the enemy that your body carries lethal toxins, not sure if it would help you blend in.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
And snarky answers are easier than addressing actual concerns. If someone showed up for recruitment with a recurring condition that caused them bad stomach pain or bad headaches on a monthly basis, would we accept them for combat duty?
To be clear, I'm not talking about people with a normal cycle, only people who have a harder time with it and who cannot control it with medication.
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
And snarky answers are easier than addressing actual concerns. If someone showed up for recruitment with a recurring condition that caused them bad stomach pain or bad headaches on a monthly basis, would we accept them for combat duty?
To be clear, I'm not talking about people with a normal cycle, only people who have a harder time with it and who cannot control it with medication.
Are you concerned with men being more susceptible to disease due to weaker immune systems than women.
Perhaps the dangers of men with ingrown facial/torso hair that lead to increase incidence of infection in the field are a concern for you.
Or maybe your question is factious and based on women are DIFFERENT. seriously screening for pms . . .
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
+1
Options
TurksonNear the mountains of ColoradoRegistered Userregular
I feel like I need to clarify. Women are still barred from "combat" MOS's (military occupational specialty, aka your job) such as infantry, armor, and artillery.
What has been changed is that women can now be assigned to combat units at the battalion level (previosly, it was only at the brigade/regimental level). An infantry battalion has ~1,000 people in it. Less than half are actual Infantrymen. The rest are support/logistics/maintenance etc. Women can now be assigned into the later half. This does include things like admin clerk, intel analyst, communications, logistics etc etc.
Speaking as a former intel analyst in an infantry battalion, they will see combat if deployed.
oh h*ck
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
And snarky answers are easier than addressing actual concerns. If someone showed up for recruitment with a recurring condition that caused them bad stomach pain or bad headaches on a monthly basis, would we accept them for combat duty?
To be clear, I'm not talking about people with a normal cycle, only people who have a harder time with it and who cannot control it with medication.
I get your point. And I agree with it. But I also think that you need not screen for it because it gets noticed fairly early. And I hope that recruits get a longer time to be reviewed than a few weeks. And anyway, women who experience such distress are most likely not going to bother with it. So the really small amount of those who would are going to have a really hard time with it.
I get your point, I just don't think it's a real concern. Enough conditions that aren't screened also heavily affect ability, and those just get flushed out because it's impossible to make it with them.
I feel like I need to clarify. Women are still barred from "combat" MOS's (military occupational specialty, aka your job) such as infantry, armor, and artillery.
What has been changed is that women can now be assigned to combat units at the battalion level (previosly, it was only at the brigade/regimental level). An infantry battalion has ~1,000 people in it. Less than half are actual Infantrymen. The rest are support/logistics/maintenance etc. Women can now be assigned into the later half. This does include things like admin clerk, intel analyst, communications, logistics etc etc.
Speaking as a former intel analyst in an infantry battalion, they will see combat if deployed.
I thought that this recent announcement was opening even more positions?
Each branch of the military will have to come up with an implementation plan in the next several months, the official said. If a branch of the military decides that a specific job should not be opened to a woman, representatives of that branch will have to ask the defense secretary for an exception.
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
And snarky answers are easier than addressing actual concerns. If someone showed up for recruitment with a recurring condition that caused them bad stomach pain or bad headaches on a monthly basis, would we accept them for combat duty?
To be clear, I'm not talking about people with a normal cycle, only people who have a harder time with it and who cannot control it with medication.
how many women do you think actually suffer from such terrible untreatable PMS that sign up for the military?
be honest.
+5
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
And snarky answers are easier than addressing actual concerns. If someone showed up for recruitment with a recurring condition that caused them bad stomach pain or bad headaches on a monthly basis, would we accept them for combat duty?
To be clear, I'm not talking about people with a normal cycle, only people who have a harder time with it and who cannot control it with medication.
how many women do you think actually suffer from such terrible untreatable PMS that sign up for the military?
be honest.
I know of people who tried to enlist but were rejected for health conditions like asthma. You wouldn't think people with asthma would try to sign up, but they do. I think this is similiar.
Um, you actually have a fairly rigorous health screening before they even let you get near signing up. If a woman has some sort of physical or psychological issue beyond what is normal, then she's obligated to make that known during her screening, and screened out if necessary.
I'm not aware of the standards for women in the different branches, but I'm sure if they could in any way affect readiness they'd turn you away. If you have "PMS" so bad that you're a liability, then you probably have an actual disorder (usually an instant 86, don't pass go etc).
The military, perhaps surprisingly, does not like inheriting your chronic health issues.
They do like causing them, however...
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
And snarky answers are easier than addressing actual concerns. If someone showed up for recruitment with a recurring condition that caused them bad stomach pain or bad headaches on a monthly basis, would we accept them for combat duty?
To be clear, I'm not talking about people with a normal cycle, only people who have a harder time with it and who cannot control it with medication.
how many women do you think actually suffer from such terrible untreatable PMS that sign up for the military?
be honest.
I know of people who tried to enlist but were rejected for health conditions like asthma. You wouldn't think people with asthma would try to sign up, but they do. I think this is similiar.
So? Do you think they would've gotten far?
There are plenty of health conditions that make you unfit to serve. The military doesn't screen for every single one of them because they don't need to. Theoretically I could sign up and get through the screening process and I would be kicked out rather fast since my medical condition is absurdly bad to have for a soldier. And then I would just be one of the many who don't last.
I think you might not fully understand why the screening is as it is. It's a screen. It's a cost-benefit calculation that filters out the stuff that is easy to test, common and objectively a condition that prevents a recruit from making the cut.
Like, in my case it's actually easier and cheaper to let me trough and have me fail than testing every recruit for such a condition. And mine could actually saddle the military with a pretty expensive medical bill, unlike heavy pms.
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
And snarky answers are easier than addressing actual concerns. If someone showed up for recruitment with a recurring condition that caused them bad stomach pain or bad headaches on a monthly basis, would we accept them for combat duty?
To be clear, I'm not talking about people with a normal cycle, only people who have a harder time with it and who cannot control it with medication.
how many women do you think actually suffer from such terrible untreatable PMS that sign up for the military?
be honest.
I know of people who tried to enlist but were rejected for health conditions like asthma. You wouldn't think people with asthma would try to sign up, but they do. I think this is similiar.
This is me laughing pretty hard.
If you think the occurrence of some sort of debilitating and unbearable nontreatable pms is equal to the occurrence of asthma...well I dunno what to say
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
It's bound to be for various command positions. I've seen plenty of women with combat action ribbons.
Now they just need their own fast attack subs and I'll be significantly happier.
It will be like, 10 years until the first female sub officer is eligible for command of her own sub.
It's the most efficacious solution to the logistical issue of women on attack subs, but the current solution (tridents onry) is really just as valid. There is no career penalty for not being assigned specifically to an attack sub.
I feel like I need to clarify. Women are still barred from "combat" MOS's (military occupational specialty, aka your job) such as infantry, armor, and artillery.
What has been changed is that women can now be assigned to combat units at the battalion level (previosly, it was only at the brigade/regimental level). An infantry battalion has ~1,000 people in it. Less than half are actual Infantrymen. The rest are support/logistics/maintenance etc. Women can now be assigned into the later half. This does include things like admin clerk, intel analyst, communications, logistics etc etc.
Speaking as a former intel analyst in an infantry battalion, they will see combat if deployed.
I thought that this recent announcement was opening even more positions?
Each branch of the military will have to come up with an implementation plan in the next several months, the official said. If a branch of the military decides that a specific job should not be opened to a woman, representatives of that branch will have to ask the defense secretary for an exception.
Sounds like they have to open it unless they get an exception?
That is a very poorly written article. I really wish more news outlets would keep a veteran on staff on something to keep down errors when reporting on military news.
The policy change is that woman can now serve in "combat units." Which means they can be assigned down to the battalion level.
I don't want to be a villain, but should we be screening for women who get heavy periods, bad PMS, etc. like we screen for other conditions? We wouldn't send a man with a long term health condition that may act up once a month into combat, would we?
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
And snarky answers are easier than addressing actual concerns. If someone showed up for recruitment with a recurring condition that caused them bad stomach pain or bad headaches on a monthly basis, would we accept them for combat duty?
To be clear, I'm not talking about people with a normal cycle, only people who have a harder time with it and who cannot control it with medication.
This is clearly an actual concern, and I can't believe that the modern military has failed to adress this for so long. The debilitating combat losses incurred by really bad PMS has been mounting since World War II, the first recorded instance being when the all-female Soviet 588th bomber regiment lost one of their more decorated pilots who, after having flown more than a thousand missions, is said to have veered off target to pursue a member of a german infantry battalion, who - upon noticing the aircraft and its crew of 'Night Witches' as they took to calling them - loudly commented that clearly, someone was "not getting enough cock". Due to tender temper of the Soviet pilot, entirely caused by a bad bout of PMS, she then procceded to drop the payloud in the general direction of the infantryman rather than the actual target. The Polikarpov Po-2 could only carry 2 bombs, and they were allegedly both dropped accompanied by the russian phrase "I've got two round things that'll knock your socks right off"
...
Actual concerns are so much more actual if they don't rely on ignoring the past 70 years of military history or tries to make a theoretical problem of something that, were it a practical one, we'd have known about before you were born.
It also ignores all the women currently in uniform in the US military. Presumably they've all been getting away with PMS and heavy flow and. . . really.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Posts
Women are already in roles where they should have the same physical standard as men and do not. It's not a fear, it's a current reality.
Also see this please.
Bears, goddam bears.
It's rifleMAN
Girls in units are fine, in-spite of the spector of some girls getting pregnant surprise surprise not all of them do. There are also these things called condoms, and these weird things called the pill.
With all this one has to question why your male pers are fucking around without taking precautions.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Already in the works. I did read in a Military.com email that the first class of female sub officers recently graduated.
Up by your notifications is a sprocket icon.
My Drafts under there, little x in the top-right of the draft.
And the military is crumbling m i rite
Thank you.
Because they're young and dumb. And so far, the only response seems to be, "Oh well, just chalk it up as another loss to the unit."
Physical standards are already different for men and women. Is it that much of a stretch to imagine that combat school standards may also be different?
If losing Women pers to pregnacy loss is a concern it should be drilled into them (male/female) that prophlatics/pill are mandatory.
One does not write off shitty drill or constant U/Ding as lol young and dumb.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
No, my response is that it should be treated the same as any other medical and disciplinary action. Which, so far as I am aware, is what current policy is. Why do you consider this to be insufficient? Or of a different degree of loss to unit cohesion as some idiot causing a compound fracture?
Are you basing this off of other advanced militaries undertaking similar changes in their standards after introducing women to combat roles or are you just pulling it out of your ass? This is not intended to be snarky I am actually curious.
I say, this situation really pops my monocle
What will happen to our brave fighting men when the women are overcome by the vapors
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
I doubt we'll see many women in combat arms period. If that's the case, people may demand that standards be re-examined to ensure women are getting a fair shot. And the military, in its infinite wisdom, will probably just lower them because it's the easiest solution.
So discipline them? Again, I'm failing to see the problem you are attempting to suggest. You're not supposed to do a hell of a lot of things in a combat zone. If people do them you make them stop. If that doesn't work you kick them out.
Indeed. That does not mean they should be legally precluded from serving in those positions.
So just pulling it out of your ass.
It will be fine, as long as they are strong enough to carry their fainting couches with them.
Yes I am because I couldn't find information on this. So few countries have women in combat arms , especially infantry units. The only exception seems to be the IDF's Caracal Battalion, and I couldn't find hard data on their standards and how it compares to other combat arms in the IDF, to include the all-male ones.
I did find a report on the IDF that recommended instituting quotas to ensure more women are in senior-officer positions.
Now, the only evidence I have to go from quotas to lowering standards is anecdotal, which I know doesn't hold water in a true argument. But in my short experience, I've seen a lot of double-standards for men and women in the military. I've also seen a lot of commanders caving into political pressure to make decisions against their better judgment. Consequently, it's not such a stretch for me to imagine people lowering standards for women in order to satisfy a quota for them in combat arms.
I'm perfectly prepared to admit I'm dead wrong if this doesn't happen. This really is a historic first, which is good in many ways. I just have my doubts, like I do on all things.
I do know that the current physical fitness standards we have do provide for slightly reduced upper body strength requirements when screening women - which is actually a sensible thing since by and large for a lot of roles the military isn't setting the parameters for "must be this capable to be a soldier" so much as they're screening for people who represent a particular overall level of physical fitness, which is at least partly because the logic goes that fitter soldiers have better mental endurance.
Aerobic and everything else is exactly the same for both though.
If your unit/command has decided no fucking in AO's as a standing order then it's a discipline problem where both female and male pers are at fault. Also frankly a failure of the per's NCO's and Officers in maintaining good order and discipline.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Yes being a women is a health condition . . .
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
NZ army is the same (surprise surprise).
Boldeds the rational as hilariously I failed RFL's after getting back from deployments. It seems walking up and down/through hill/bush in patrol or marching order was not the same as running/pushups/situps/pullups. Should not have been an surprise as actually being on deployment tended to pre-clude going for unit/individual runs and the usual pt's.
Being a solder made me aerobically less fitter than when we were mearly training to be a solder. Tend's to indicate that fitness standreds are not actually tailored to match actul conditions. Much like drill they're really about something else. One might arrive at this moment of clarity when you realise combat is not conducted in pt kit and running shoes
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
And snarky answers are easier than addressing actual concerns. If someone showed up for recruitment with a recurring condition that caused them bad stomach pain or bad headaches on a monthly basis, would we accept them for combat duty?
To be clear, I'm not talking about people with a normal cycle, only people who have a harder time with it and who cannot control it with medication.
Are you concerned with men being more susceptible to disease due to weaker immune systems than women.
Perhaps the dangers of men with ingrown facial/torso hair that lead to increase incidence of infection in the field are a concern for you.
Or maybe your question is factious and based on women are DIFFERENT. seriously screening for pms . . .
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
What has been changed is that women can now be assigned to combat units at the battalion level (previosly, it was only at the brigade/regimental level). An infantry battalion has ~1,000 people in it. Less than half are actual Infantrymen. The rest are support/logistics/maintenance etc. Women can now be assigned into the later half. This does include things like admin clerk, intel analyst, communications, logistics etc etc.
Speaking as a former intel analyst in an infantry battalion, they will see combat if deployed.
I get your point. And I agree with it. But I also think that you need not screen for it because it gets noticed fairly early. And I hope that recruits get a longer time to be reviewed than a few weeks. And anyway, women who experience such distress are most likely not going to bother with it. So the really small amount of those who would are going to have a really hard time with it.
I get your point, I just don't think it's a real concern. Enough conditions that aren't screened also heavily affect ability, and those just get flushed out because it's impossible to make it with them.
I thought that this recent announcement was opening even more positions?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/us/pentagon-says-it-is-lifting-ban-on-women-in-combat.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
Sounds like they have to open it unless they get an exception?
be honest.
I know of people who tried to enlist but were rejected for health conditions like asthma. You wouldn't think people with asthma would try to sign up, but they do. I think this is similiar.
I'm not aware of the standards for women in the different branches, but I'm sure if they could in any way affect readiness they'd turn you away. If you have "PMS" so bad that you're a liability, then you probably have an actual disorder (usually an instant 86, don't pass go etc).
The military, perhaps surprisingly, does not like inheriting your chronic health issues.
They do like causing them, however...
So? Do you think they would've gotten far?
There are plenty of health conditions that make you unfit to serve. The military doesn't screen for every single one of them because they don't need to. Theoretically I could sign up and get through the screening process and I would be kicked out rather fast since my medical condition is absurdly bad to have for a soldier. And then I would just be one of the many who don't last.
I think you might not fully understand why the screening is as it is. It's a screen. It's a cost-benefit calculation that filters out the stuff that is easy to test, common and objectively a condition that prevents a recruit from making the cut.
Like, in my case it's actually easier and cheaper to let me trough and have me fail than testing every recruit for such a condition. And mine could actually saddle the military with a pretty expensive medical bill, unlike heavy pms.
This is me laughing pretty hard.
If you think the occurrence of some sort of debilitating and unbearable nontreatable pms is equal to the occurrence of asthma...well I dunno what to say
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
It will be like, 10 years until the first female sub officer is eligible for command of her own sub.
It's the most efficacious solution to the logistical issue of women on attack subs, but the current solution (tridents onry) is really just as valid. There is no career penalty for not being assigned specifically to an attack sub.
None at all.
That is a very poorly written article. I really wish more news outlets would keep a veteran on staff on something to keep down errors when reporting on military news.
The policy change is that woman can now serve in "combat units." Which means they can be assigned down to the battalion level.
My comment was dumb.
Awaiting Sky marshal Meru to take over the pentagon.
...
Actual concerns are so much more actual if they don't rely on ignoring the past 70 years of military history or tries to make a theoretical problem of something that, were it a practical one, we'd have known about before you were born.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."