But this is a bunch of bullshit. I know what you're saying and what you're getting at but there are also men, currently in the infantry, who can't even perform to the standard or have the upper body strength and/or cardio to do the job well. But they aren't prohibited from applying for the position, they aren't prohibited from serving in that capacity. So you see, the problem isn't the strength standard; the problem is not even letting women try for that position.
Agreed. "Presence of penis" is a ludicrous test, it's clearly neither necessary nor sufficient for the job.
Like, it's ludicrous that I could probably reclass infantry as somebody who barely makes the standard, while a female who can outperform me is dismissed outright.
A recruit is a recruit, treat them as such. They want to go to infantry school, have at it. They wash out, they get sent to a different school. Male or female. At least let them give it a shot. I'm sure we'll all be pleasantly surprised at just how well they can perform given enough time to adapt to the change.
The PT standards and tests need to be changed anyways (again), and I'm sure allowing women into these roles will expedite that.
No shit. I mention pushups only as an analogue for upper body strength in general, but the current physical standards are only very loosely correlated to the actual requirements of combat.
But military officials said the occupations, such as infantry and artillery, have exacting physical requirements that will not be altered.
The military has different physical standards at Army and Marine basic training. But for those trying to get into the infantry and other combat arms specialties the standards for men and women would be the same.
That doesn't seem like a particularly clear statement to me. It's not clear whether he's talking about elevated fitness standards for combat arms that currently apply to male recruits, or what. It's been a while since I went through OSUT, but when I did (as a 19K) the only requirement on the APFT was to pass...there was no higher "combat arms" standard. I have heard references to higher requirements to pass infantry OSUT at present, but never seen an actual cite (aside from "check the manuals," but I don't care enough to go digging). Anybody familiar with the relevant FMs or docs that lay out what "exacting physical standards" they're talking about?
Because I see no reason that can't simply refer to things like forced march distances and such (which when I went through were longer than the BCT standard), or even an elevated APFT score requirement, while allowing women to still be graded on the same female scale.
But of course, APFT scores only correlate loosely with combat effectiveness anyway. Still, it's unclear what this means, and I'm interested to find out.
Well, the SECDEF is supposed to clarify with more statements later.
I took it to mean that they'll have to pass the male standards on the APFT after all the runs and beat-downs you do beforehand.
Yeah, that is the meaning that makes sense. But just looking at the statement and how vague it is it feels like it could just as easily mean "both males and females will have to perform all the same physical events, and both will be required to score the same elevated physical fitness scores" where that last bit is referring to doing so on their respective scales (just as with age).
Unless all infantry recruits are required to meet the same APFT standards regardless of age as well...I know that's an Airborne thing (everybody has to pass the 18-21 bracket IIRC), didn't think it was an OSUT thing.
It just seems like, and I know this is a reversal of the current discussion, it's a bit of a waste to allow women into the positions if only a percentile or two can meet the standard. If nothing else you'd need some incredibly rigorous pre-screening to ensure that training slots don't go to people with little hope of passing. Which we already do, obviously, to some extent. Meh. Just feels like if the subset that can qualify is actually that small, then it potentially causes more problems than it solves.
Of course, it can also mean we need to re-evaluate the standard to begin with.
So yeah, back and forth, a lot to think about, good that we seem to be coming at it from the right standpoint now if nothing else...justifying individual exclusions, rather than justifying individual inclusions. Which was largely the previous policy.
Something else mcdermott pointed out is that currently women make up 17% of the military.
We know that the military has had trouble recruiting, and lowered standards to meet their quotas. This results in picking up some troops who are maybe more 'troubled' than really belong in the military. My anecdotal evidence indicates the more 'troubled' soldiers gravitate towards infantry man and other less 'technical' specialties. Ones not open to women right now...
If those MOS's are now opened to women, and women end up filling even 15-20% of the troops in those specialties, that means (ideally) the worst 20% of those men won't be recruited at all or will leave through attrition.
Considering the 80/20 rule, even if women are overall less available for deployment, by dropping 80% of the issues, the military as a whole could possibly end up far better and more capable. In this case, the numbers may show men are far more deployable individually then women, but it's only BECAUSE of women that can happen.
The bulk of the recruiting problem was the optempo, which has since fallen. I don't think "women who want to be infantrymen" will make up the recruiting gap next time we start sending people on 18-month-on, 6-month-off deployments to play "dodge the bomb" in canvas HMMWVs with steel plates strapped to them like some shit out of Mad Max because we're too cheap to pay for real gear and because we started an operation we didn't have the manpower to see through. /venting
In seriousness, though, the Army is getting ready to shove people out left and right as we downsize. Expect to see incentives dry up as well. The military recruitment always seems to run as a pendulum between "you better have a diploma, high ASVAB score, and no criminal record if you want to even speak to a recruiter" and "we will give six-figure bonuses to anybody with a pulse" based on the current fiscal situation and the odds of finishing your enlistment minus a limb.
EDIT: Not that opening more positions to women won't help, mind you. Just that the recruitment issues we saw in the mid-late '00s probably would not have been remotely solved by this.
Heh, when I tried to get in, I was in the 94th percentile on my ASVABs but was nine pounds under for my height. Recruiter sent me home for a month to eat this and drink that, came back had lost another two pounds. He laughed and said this wasn't for me. So all I had to do was wait for a war? Ah well, I got to jump out of a plane on my own anyway, lol.
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
Honestly, how would I change the PT test? I'd outright get rid of the pushup, situp, and the run tests. I'd change it to more closely match the CFT or "here's the start line, here's your ruck, here's your combat load, you have X time to ruck 10 miles and complete the obstacle course there". The obstacle course consisting of rope climbing, walls, short dashes with ammo cans, shoot moving and communicating. At each obstacle there is grader who solely marks go or no go and at the end there's a grader who calls out your time.
There, I've incorporated strength, cardio and endurance into 1 measurable test, which will solely measure your ability to complete the test and the time it took you. There are no separate times or measures for male or female, it's a go or no-go and time thing.
Yes, people will get injuries, yes it'll hurt and kick some out, but it's better to bleed during peace than at war. And as far as those people bitching about getting out for failing a test like that, all I'd tell them is "go, you're replaceable." If you can't get your ass over a wall or up some rope, and if you can't make the 10 mile ruck and then complete a series of tasks, then you have no reason to be in the infantry or a combat arms unit.
Honestly, how would I change the PT test? I'd outright get rid of the pushup, situp, and the run tests. I'd change it to more closely match the CFT or "here's the start line, here's your ruck, here's your combat load, you have X time to ruck 10 miles and complete the obstacle course there". The obstacle course consisting of rope climbing, walls, short dashes with ammo cans, shoot moving and communicating. At each obstacle there is grader who solely marks go or no go and at the end there's a grader who calls out your time.
There, I've incorporated strength, cardio and endurance into 1 measurable test, which will solely measure your ability to complete the test and the time it took you. There are no separate times or measures for male or female, it's a go or no-go and time thing.
Yes, people will get injuries, yes it'll hurt and kick some out, but it's better to bleed during peace than at war. And as far as those people bitching about getting out for failing a test like that, all I'd tell them is "go, you're replaceable." If you can't get your ass over a wall or up some rope, and if you can't make the 10 mile ruck and then complete a series of tasks, then you have no reason to be in the infantry or a combat arms unit.
I don't know, I think the specific standard you're describing may be excessive for vehicle-based combat arms in a modern environment. Still, pretty much right there with you.
Biggest problem is logistics. I've heard more than one person claim the reason there's so much resistance to changing the APFT to anything more comprehensive is that, as it is, you can administer an APFT with nothing more than a stopwatch, the manual, and an appropriate 2-mile stretch of road. Getting every unit through a course like that could wind up being a nightmare, particularly on the reserve end. On the active end it'd be a pain too, but on the reserve end you have to realize that just getting every soldier through BRM yearly is difficult.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.
I don't know, I think the specific standard you're describing may be excessive for vehicle-based combat arms in a modern environment. Still, pretty much right there with you.
Biggest problem is logistics. I've heard more than one person claim the reason there's so much resistance to changing the APFT to anything more comprehensive is that, as it is, you can administer an APFT with nothing more than a stopwatch, the manual, and an appropriate 2-mile stretch of road. Getting every unit through a course like that could wind up being a nightmare, particularly on the reserve end. On the active end it'd be a pain too, but on the reserve end you have to realize that just getting every soldier through BRM yearly is difficult.
You know, I hadn't actually considered the logistics of it. I can definitely see that being the single biggest issue with changing the APFT.
Infantrymen not thinking about logistics? Unthinkable.
I forget if you're actually infantry or not, but I'm not letting that get in the way of a good joke.
EDIT: And seriously, even adding pullups means adding thousands and thousands of pull-up bars. And developing a standard for pullup bars. And now you can only grade as many soldiers simultaneously as you have pullup bars. And blah blah blah.
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.
Strength isn't nearly as important for a ranged class. Plus women have +1 Constitution and darkvision, so it balances out.
Infantrymen not thinking about logistics? Unthinkable.
I forget if you're actually infantry or not, but I'm not letting that get in the way of a good joke.
I was a red leg who during my first tour was re-purposed into infantry, then on my 2nd tour CAV scouts. Then I went to a drill sergeant unit and all that became insignificant.
Edit:
And you know what's absolutely demoralizing? See drill sergeants who don't know how to zero, can't shoot, can't qual, and can't do PT.
Non infantry drill sergeants are usually made up of support unit personnel, who get very little combat training outside of basic training. Which is why many MOS'as have their own basic/advanced training facilities separate from the others.
This is exactly what I was trying to get across. We don't want them having sex, so we need to deal with it, and part of that is more punishments.
No, it isn't. That you constantly jump to punishment as a solution for anything you don't like is disturbing.
People are capable of rational thought and impulse control, and so, if they choose not to have sex, that is a choice that they should be just as capable of keeping as other choice that they make in joining the military. We are not wild animals that get overcome by pheromones and have no ability to prevent ourselves from engaging in sexual activity. To be frank, if we can't trust soldiers to be able to resist the urge to have sex with each other, then I'm not sure that we should be trusting them with deadly weapons.
Personally, I think that it makes good sense to keep soldiers from having sex with each other, for the unit cohesion concerns people raised earlier. But regardless of the reason (STDs, pregnancy, cohesion, etc.) sex is most certainly not something that people are incapable of abstaining from, and while in a combat zone, I see no reason not to expect that. And if people cannot live up to our expectations, then like any other rule violation, they should be punished. If there is no reason for people not to have sex, then that is a different matter entirely, but we seem to have made the decision (at least for now) that it should not be allowed in combat zones.
Except your idea of mode and harsher punishments doesn't fucking work.
People don't have sex in a combat zone certain they can deal with the consequences. They do it certain they won't get caught.
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
The current low physical standard for men in the army is the bare minimum you are expected to be able to physically do. It's not designed to test how good of a soldier you are. Men passing at the very minimum are usually not very capable soldiers.
And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
The current low physical standard for men in the army is the bare minimum you are expected to be able to physically do. It's not designed to test how good of a soldier you are. Men passing at the very minimum are usually not very capable soldiers.
Not very capable at stuff men are naturally good at tho. Where as a woman who was as good as a bare minimum man at man stuff would be really, really good at woman stuff.
A good way of thinking about this would be to imagine a world where women have always had control over the military and they are just now letting men in. The current women soldiers would be saying that a man that would be able to run on 600 calories a day and fit into a Bradley designed for a 110 woman if they wanted to be in the infantry. Would that situation be "soldier is a soldier"? Would those test be a good indication of viability in combat?
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
The current low physical standard for men in the army is the bare minimum you are expected to be able to physically do. It's not designed to test how good of a soldier you are. Men passing at the very minimum are usually not very capable soldiers.
Not very capable at stuff men are naturally good at tho. Where as a woman who was as good as a bare minimum man at man stuff would be really, really good at woman stuff.
A good way of thinking about this would be to imagine a world where women have always had control over the military and they are just now letting men in. The current women soldiers would be saying that a man that would be able to run on 600 calories a day and fit into a Bradley designed for a 110 woman if they wanted to be in the infantry. Would that situation be "soldier is a soldier"? Would those test be a good indication of viability in combat?
Current practical requirements for soldiers are that you be able to carry your rucksack (75+ pounds) on a hike, and be able to grab and drag/lift 150+ pound people out of a dangerous area if they're wounded.
These requirements weren't made just to cater to men.
I don't know why women being allowed into a different role would change that policy. it didn't change when they started entering the military in the first place.
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
The current low physical standard for men in the army is the bare minimum you are expected to be able to physically do. It's not designed to test how good of a soldier you are. Men passing at the very minimum are usually not very capable soldiers.
Not very capable at stuff men are naturally good at tho. Where as a woman who was as good as a bare minimum man at man stuff would be really, really good at woman stuff.
A good way of thinking about this would be to imagine a world where women have always had control over the military and they are just now letting men in. The current women soldiers would be saying that a man that would be able to run on 600 calories a day and fit into a Bradley designed for a 110 woman if they wanted to be in the infantry. Would that situation be "soldier is a soldier"? Would those test be a good indication of viability in combat?
Current practical requirements for soldiers are that you be able to carry your rucksack (75+ pounds) on a hike, and be able to grab and drag/lift 150+ pound people out of a dangerous area if they're wounded.
These requirements weren't made just to cater to men.
I was specifically talking about the higher standards for schools and such but yes even those tests speak to a man carrying a packload designed for a man and then picking up a man.
Not that those or any other requirements are bad, just that we need to think about how different people have different capablities and how to best test them without built in bias.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?
I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.
And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?
I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.
The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.
how much upper body strength do you need to hold and fire an M4? You guys are talking like they're still swinging swords out there. A bullet fired by a woman will kill you just as well as one fired by a man, because yes, a bullet is a bullet.
I don't know why women being allowed into a different role would change that policy. it didn't change when they started entering the military in the first place.
It should either be done away with, or equally required for both genders.
how much upper body strength do you need to hold and fire an M4? You guys are talking like they're still swinging swords out there. A bullet fired by a woman will kill you just as well as one fired by a man, because yes, a bullet is a bullet.
If firing an M4 was all soldiers needed to do, as far as upper body strength goes, you'd have a point.
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.
how much upper body strength do you need to hold and fire an M4? You guys are talking like they're still swinging swords out there. A bullet fired by a woman will kill you just as well as one fired by a man, because yes, a bullet is a bullet.
There is more to being combat infantry than just shooting. Remember - 75 pound rucksacks and dragging 150 pound bodies around, or lifting 30+ pound ammo cans around, or hefting a Barrett around.
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.
how much upper body strength do you need to hold and fire an M4? You guys are talking like they're still swinging swords out there. A bullet fired by a woman will kill you just as well as one fired by a man, because yes, a bullet is a bullet.
It's more the fact that you are required to pull wounded soldiers out of the line of fire and carry your equipment over long distances. I have female friends that are 95-105lbs, who I would never, ever trust to be able to do either of those things even though they were amazing distance runners and in terrific shape. And when dealing with putting people in life or death situations, it is OK to say "No, you cannot properly do this job, you should not be front line infantry." On the other hand, my high school team had a girl playing linebacker (who wasn't half bad). I would be perfectly OK seeing her on the front line because I know if a 160lb squad mate of hers got shot she could haul his ass out of trouble if she had to.
The problem I have with the whole "soldier is a soldier" line of reasoning is that current physical test are designed for men being good at combat related stuff men are good at (upper body strength for example) without also looking at areas where women would naturally beat men (multitasking ext) that are also important in combat.
A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.
how much upper body strength do you need to hold and fire an M4? You guys are talking like they're still swinging swords out there. A bullet fired by a woman will kill you just as well as one fired by a man, because yes, a bullet is a bullet.
spacekungfuman on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?
I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.
The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.
It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .
And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?
I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.
The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.
It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .
Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?
I don't know why women being allowed into a different role would change that policy. it didn't change when they started entering the military in the first place.
It should either be done away with, or equally required for both genders.
the draft?
it's pretty unlikely there will be another war where a draft will be necessary for a few reasons
1) if the US gets in a war with a country its standing military can't handle that country will almost certainly be a nuclear power, if war kicks off with China or Russia no amount of riflemen will save anyone
2) swarms of infantry just isn't how we fight wars anymore, the individual cost of each infantry soldier in terms of training, equipment, salary and other military benefits has gone up exponentially since the last draft, you can't just give them a rifle and a uniform and send them on their way now
i just don't see a draft happening in our lifetimes
And for fuck's sake their commander, of his own accord and zero oversight unless they opt for court martial, can cut their pay in half, put them in restricted barracks (basically getting grounded with a bunch of shitty rules), and extra bitch work on top of their job every day for two months. What else should they be able to do? Flog them?
I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.
The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.
It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .
Go several years when someone is right there willing to have sex with you for most of the duration. Then you can come back and talk about impulse control. You are being a goose.
Posts
Agreed. "Presence of penis" is a ludicrous test, it's clearly neither necessary nor sufficient for the job.
Like, it's ludicrous that I could probably reclass infantry as somebody who barely makes the standard, while a female who can outperform me is dismissed outright.
No shit. I mention pushups only as an analogue for upper body strength in general, but the current physical standards are only very loosely correlated to the actual requirements of combat.
That doesn't seem like a particularly clear statement to me. It's not clear whether he's talking about elevated fitness standards for combat arms that currently apply to male recruits, or what. It's been a while since I went through OSUT, but when I did (as a 19K) the only requirement on the APFT was to pass...there was no higher "combat arms" standard. I have heard references to higher requirements to pass infantry OSUT at present, but never seen an actual cite (aside from "check the manuals," but I don't care enough to go digging). Anybody familiar with the relevant FMs or docs that lay out what "exacting physical standards" they're talking about?
Because I see no reason that can't simply refer to things like forced march distances and such (which when I went through were longer than the BCT standard), or even an elevated APFT score requirement, while allowing women to still be graded on the same female scale.
But of course, APFT scores only correlate loosely with combat effectiveness anyway. Still, it's unclear what this means, and I'm interested to find out.
I took it to mean that they'll have to pass the male standards on the APFT after all the runs and beat-downs you do beforehand.
Yeah, that is the meaning that makes sense. But just looking at the statement and how vague it is it feels like it could just as easily mean "both males and females will have to perform all the same physical events, and both will be required to score the same elevated physical fitness scores" where that last bit is referring to doing so on their respective scales (just as with age).
Unless all infantry recruits are required to meet the same APFT standards regardless of age as well...I know that's an Airborne thing (everybody has to pass the 18-21 bracket IIRC), didn't think it was an OSUT thing.
It just seems like, and I know this is a reversal of the current discussion, it's a bit of a waste to allow women into the positions if only a percentile or two can meet the standard. If nothing else you'd need some incredibly rigorous pre-screening to ensure that training slots don't go to people with little hope of passing. Which we already do, obviously, to some extent. Meh. Just feels like if the subset that can qualify is actually that small, then it potentially causes more problems than it solves.
Of course, it can also mean we need to re-evaluate the standard to begin with.
So yeah, back and forth, a lot to think about, good that we seem to be coming at it from the right standpoint now if nothing else...justifying individual exclusions, rather than justifying individual inclusions. Which was largely the previous policy.
Heh, when I tried to get in, I was in the 94th percentile on my ASVABs but was nine pounds under for my height. Recruiter sent me home for a month to eat this and drink that, came back had lost another two pounds. He laughed and said this wasn't for me. So all I had to do was wait for a war? Ah well, I got to jump out of a plane on my own anyway, lol.
There, I've incorporated strength, cardio and endurance into 1 measurable test, which will solely measure your ability to complete the test and the time it took you. There are no separate times or measures for male or female, it's a go or no-go and time thing.
Yes, people will get injuries, yes it'll hurt and kick some out, but it's better to bleed during peace than at war. And as far as those people bitching about getting out for failing a test like that, all I'd tell them is "go, you're replaceable." If you can't get your ass over a wall or up some rope, and if you can't make the 10 mile ruck and then complete a series of tasks, then you have no reason to be in the infantry or a combat arms unit.
I don't know, I think the specific standard you're describing may be excessive for vehicle-based combat arms in a modern environment. Still, pretty much right there with you.
Biggest problem is logistics. I've heard more than one person claim the reason there's so much resistance to changing the APFT to anything more comprehensive is that, as it is, you can administer an APFT with nothing more than a stopwatch, the manual, and an appropriate 2-mile stretch of road. Getting every unit through a course like that could wind up being a nightmare, particularly on the reserve end. On the active end it'd be a pain too, but on the reserve end you have to realize that just getting every soldier through BRM yearly is difficult.
A girl's +1 dexterity isn't useful if you are encumbered by your bag and can't run. +1 strength is better for a fighter, so women will always be at a disadvantage.
You know, I hadn't actually considered the logistics of it. I can definitely see that being the single biggest issue with changing the APFT.
EDIT: And seriously, even adding pullups means adding thousands and thousands of pull-up bars. And developing a standard for pullup bars. And now you can only grade as many soldiers simultaneously as you have pullup bars. And blah blah blah.
Please stop
Strength isn't nearly as important for a ranged class. Plus women have +1 Constitution and darkvision, so it balances out.
I was a red leg who during my first tour was re-purposed into infantry, then on my 2nd tour CAV scouts. Then I went to a drill sergeant unit and all that became insignificant.
Edit:
And you know what's absolutely demoralizing? See drill sergeants who don't know how to zero, can't shoot, can't qual, and can't do PT.
Except your idea of mode and harsher punishments doesn't fucking work.
People don't have sex in a combat zone certain they can deal with the consequences. They do it certain they won't get caught.
The current low physical standard for men in the army is the bare minimum you are expected to be able to physically do. It's not designed to test how good of a soldier you are. Men passing at the very minimum are usually not very capable soldiers.
Not very capable at stuff men are naturally good at tho. Where as a woman who was as good as a bare minimum man at man stuff would be really, really good at woman stuff.
A good way of thinking about this would be to imagine a world where women have always had control over the military and they are just now letting men in. The current women soldiers would be saying that a man that would be able to run on 600 calories a day and fit into a Bradley designed for a 110 woman if they wanted to be in the infantry. Would that situation be "soldier is a soldier"? Would those test be a good indication of viability in combat?
Current practical requirements for soldiers are that you be able to carry your rucksack (75+ pounds) on a hike, and be able to grab and drag/lift 150+ pound people out of a dangerous area if they're wounded.
These requirements weren't made just to cater to men.
Probably not.
There's no reason they shouldn't already be included. We've drafted people into support roles before.
Nobody's going to fight to get added to the SSS, and there's no will to do away with it either.
No that isn't even a military policy as far as I'm aware but one congress has to alter if they want to.
I have the will!
Cause seriously I don't ever want the chance of putting my life in the hands of some one who has no desire or reason to be in the military.
I was specifically talking about the higher standards for schools and such but yes even those tests speak to a man carrying a packload designed for a man and then picking up a man.
Not that those or any other requirements are bad, just that we need to think about how different people have different capablities and how to best test them without built in bias.
I basically agree with you, but wouldn't dishonorable discharge be a pretty strong incentive? That's a life ruiner right there.
The point is, you're talking about suppressing a rudimentary biological need. And it has been proven time and time and time and time and time again that abstinence doesn't work. If you want to stop STD's and pregnancies, make condoms and birth control readily available, and include a sex ed course in basic training. I guarantee you that will do more to stop the issues that we banned having sex for more than the bans ever did.
how much upper body strength do you need to hold and fire an M4? You guys are talking like they're still swinging swords out there. A bullet fired by a woman will kill you just as well as one fired by a man, because yes, a bullet is a bullet.
It should either be done away with, or equally required for both genders.
If firing an M4 was all soldiers needed to do, as far as upper body strength goes, you'd have a point.
There is more to being combat infantry than just shooting. Remember - 75 pound rucksacks and dragging 150 pound bodies around, or lifting 30+ pound ammo cans around, or hefting a Barrett around.
And that's a routine combat task. That's before we get into shit-hits-the-fan scenarios, like "quickly pull a 200lb man out of a burning HMMWV" tasks.
It's more the fact that you are required to pull wounded soldiers out of the line of fire and carry your equipment over long distances. I have female friends that are 95-105lbs, who I would never, ever trust to be able to do either of those things even though they were amazing distance runners and in terrific shape. And when dealing with putting people in life or death situations, it is OK to say "No, you cannot properly do this job, you should not be front line infantry." On the other hand, my high school team had a girl playing linebacker (who wasn't half bad). I would be perfectly OK seeing her on the front line because I know if a 160lb squad mate of hers got shot she could haul his ass out of trouble if she had to.
It's really easy to not have sex. I'm not having sex right now, as a matter of fact. It really bothers me when people make it out like you can't resist having sex with someone, especially as an excuse for adultery. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am concerned about giving deadly weapons to people with impulse control that is so poor that they can't help but have sex when told not to. . .
Have you had sex in, say, the last twelve to eighteen months or so?
the draft?
it's pretty unlikely there will be another war where a draft will be necessary for a few reasons
1) if the US gets in a war with a country its standing military can't handle that country will almost certainly be a nuclear power, if war kicks off with China or Russia no amount of riflemen will save anyone
2) swarms of infantry just isn't how we fight wars anymore, the individual cost of each infantry soldier in terms of training, equipment, salary and other military benefits has gone up exponentially since the last draft, you can't just give them a rifle and a uniform and send them on their way now
i just don't see a draft happening in our lifetimes
Go several years when someone is right there willing to have sex with you for most of the duration. Then you can come back and talk about impulse control. You are being a goose.