Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
United States Armed Forces finally recognizes combat duty of women
Posts
Not that I think you're arguing the latter, but i do sometimes see that end of the false dichotomy alluded to.
Basically, I disagree with the notion that we couldn't overcome a lot of the hurdles for women with some doctrinal or technological changes with no loss and maybe some gain in effectiveness.
As far as women handling those roles though, there's a really easy way to tell if they can: try it. I don't see a strong enough case to justify not making an attempt, just a strong enough case to make sure you keep data so you can assess.
edit: on a semi related note: jesus 155 rounds are heavy. I mean, I knew they weren't light but if wikipedia is correct I was 50 pounds light.
This article is from last year but a female Marine captain was concerned about the ammo carrying and whatnot if women served in live combat roles.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
edit: that said, she clearly has a legitimate concern that's worth further investigation. in case that wasn't clear
She's also right that what works for one service may be deeply stupid for another, and that they should be handled individually. I'd probably go further and break it down to MOSs at a minimum, although I can see how that might be an administrative nightmare for everyone involved.
Doesn't this really still come down to "let's be objective about our standards"?
I mean the big benefit is: you can set one standard. You can even raise it so you exclude pretty much all women. But the thing about that? You'll exclude pretty much as many men as well, but be left over with a force with capabilities you were forced to really think about.
I would argue it's a very good thing to be thinking about standards outside of gender-specificity, because it means you have to ask whether something makes sense, or if in fact should be somewhat higher or so. It can only be a good thing to have the military studying it's standards and making sure they make sense - and hell - it'd be really great to see more work done on tying physical fitness standards back to expected combat situations and the like as well.
The current men's standard does this, you don't need to raise it. Which is the point, it shouldn't be lowered, but people seem to want to lower it for some reason.
But, yes, mostly what this is is an argument for careful consideration of what standards you need to complete your mission. If that excludes women, oh well. If it excludes men, also oh well. I would love to believe that the Army will pull that off in the near future, but I'm not going to hold my breath. It's a political issue, so it's going to be handled politically and hopefully someone will manage to minimize the fallout from that.
You'd probably want to do this anyway, since you can only push so many recruits through IET at a time, so you'd only be training female infantrymen at a fairly low rate (assuming either a low recruit rate or high attrition rate, which is likely).
You could still push female soldiers down into combat battalions in every other brigade simultaneously, but just not push them into combat arms MOSs (or perhaps not into line companies...which only have like two positions per company that are non-combat MOSs anyway).
And therefore want them punished even more harshly for no reason other than some still aren't slavishly obeying your personal values.
Your sense of respect is jacked.
I don't think there is vie in continuing this. The revaluation that "SKFM cares a lot about rules and believes there is no such thing as a disproportionate punisent because people can avoid all punishment by following the rules" is hardly shocking, but also not very related to this thread.
Re: things like mortar shell weight, could the answer just be that women soldiers who can't lift those shells could just serve in combat positions that don't require lifting mortar shells?
@chanus
Perhaps a bit hyperbolic. Yes, rape is always wrong, and prison rape is a real problem that needs to be fixed.
@chanus
Don't they load mortars with little trolleys that hold the shell level on a rack and raise them up with the pull of a lever? 155 pound shells sound like it'd be too much on anyone's back, man or woman.
For all practical matters, even if no woman can meet the objective standards - I assume some SOF standards, where even the men who can meet the standards are the exception, are close to this - it should still be open to women to try, and fail. If women wash out because they can't meet the same standard as everyone else, so be it.
Now, that said, I definitely think that there should be more open thinking on the standards, and why they are set. Perhaps the main reason strength is so important - like many people said here - is so that any soldier can pick up and move any (injured) soldier. If the maximum acceptable weight standards were lowered by a few percent, the demand for pure strength wouldn't be so significant and our lighter and fitter force could focus on other needs. Maybe the military could have a lower standard, but incorporate more things like mandatory strength training on the low end.
Perhaps weight should be given a higher priority than it is now - new weapons and equipment could incorporate more composites and features like automatic loaders or caseless ammunition. Hell, maybe the military can put more emphasis on tools like 'big dog' to help carry equipment in all terrain, reducing the equipment that all of the soldiers personally carry. This would not only benefit women, but would benefit the force as a whole. Like mcdermott said - the amount of equipment our soldiers are carrying is pushing the limits of what even exceptionally fit men are capable of.
Modifying the way we fight war because of new demands isn't something new. It's possible we'll find that incorporating changes that allow more women to fight improve the force as a whole.
I have heard from a friend in the JAG corps of certain instances where gender caused some issues in the Navy. It's not a completely groundless concern. It's just a concern that isn't compelling because
1. The instances are very rare
2. The instances where it comes up before JAG aren't more common than other serious personnel issues where gender is a non-factor, teenage boys being sufficiently capable of dickery when left to their own devices
3. One should not establish a gender-wide exclusionary policy based on these rare examples of bad conduct any more than we should exclude men from combat roles because of the small minority that are charged with rape.
Then stop bringing it up. You're the one who keeps posting your myopic views on how things should work. Not other people.
@chanus
So basically this all nicely ties back to my original assertion of "If you can't handle serving in the same unit/squad/whatever with women, you're probably no fun to serve with in the first place"?
edit: meant to respond to @skfm's quote that's also quoted here: If there's a substantial need for upper body strength for some task, and there are no women that can manage it[1], then I think the reasonable thing to do would be to simply move on with the people that can handle it. That said, if all you have is that they will be at increased risk for some set of injuries, I think the right thing to do is inform them of all the risks you're aware of and to provide some sort of alternate promotion path if they decide those sound unreasonable[2].
1: Potentially, there is also the case where equipment might need to be expensively retrofitted for a very small number of women who could otherwise manage it, in which case I would suggest that you not allow it. Not that I can come up with anything that would apply, but it's worth mentioning.
2: This one gets tricky, because you have a pair of issues that you may need to balance. On the one hand, you don't want to require someone to put themselves at greater risk than their male counterparts would for an equal chance of advancement. On the other hand, you might end up in a case where all the advancement routes provide unequal risk. How you balance those is a problem best left until after you have data to show you need to care though.
Are you unaware that military research already does all this? They always try to make shit as light as possible.
Yea, AFAIK the military always tries to make things lighter, so that soldiers can carry more.
Side note: A little weirded out to see people discussing sex in this thread.
American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
Except the thing -you're- picked to carry. That was designed in 1953 and is apparently made entirely of steel.
So, a tank?
I don't want to accidentally provide something that can be taken up by the "women have no place in front line units!" crowd. Women can do just about anything a man can do as well as a man, and that includes being the proverbial bad apple that ruins everything for everybody. It's just that while it sometimes does happen, infrequently, it doesn't happen because the individual in question was a woman, it happened because she's an asshole.
There are definitely some gender-specific problems with assholery that can arise from an integrated unit. Including some that are possibly more likely than any equivalent assholery that would arise if you replaced those women with men. Which is to say that the introduction of women increases the overall asshole potential, and increases the average realized level of assholery. And beyond simple "you can't handle serving with chicks" bullshit.
Still, nothing that necessarily warrants exclusion, and nothing that can't be addressed.
One of these days I want to see that expressed in a mathematical formula. Like the Greater Internet Fuckwad theory.
@chanus
It's a combination of the two.
Fairness is the impetus for the change, in that limiting the roles females can fill has very real and measurable impacts on their pay and promotional opportunities.
But our goal is to have the best military possible, which is why (presumably) careful study will go into determining which, if any, standards can be relaxed to allow more females to qualify because those standards do not impact unit combat performance.
It's entirely possible that in some cases, that's "none of them." So the standards exclude most women.
In some cases, it's entirely possible that being able to admit (physically) top-performing women actually means a higher level of overall performance, as they would be (hopefully) replacing bottom-performing men. The two soldiers may perform equally in raw physical performance, but the kind of female soldier motivated to achieve that level of performance (which for her gender is exceptional) will probably be motivated to far outperform that (physically) low-performing male soldier in other ways.
Basically, a female able to pass the male standards at the APFT is a top performer on the female scale. Somebody that highly motivated is likely to be a pretty decent soldier all-around. APFT performance doesn't completely correlated to overall competence and motivation, but it's definitely an indicator.
The military shouldn't stop with this by integrating women soldiers into its ranks. It's another good step for progress. A lot has to done to protect women soldiers from issues like rape, for instance.
Heh, that reminded me of the movie GI Jane. She was told by the Master Sargent that she could pass the obstacle course with more time and do girl pushups and such but she was determined to perform at the men's level and refused special treatment.
Sounds like you know exactly what I am talking about. :p
If you cater the physical requirements to the individual job you can even have specific tests per unit rather than one for the whole army. Infantry can have a test that includes loaded ruck march, artillery can have a test that includes weight transfers between two points, drone pilots can have a general fitness test like what the army uses now.
Also, that way your unit's test can be taken using equipment that the unit is required to have on hand just to be combat effective.
A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
The difference is that these are specifics, and the PT test is supposed to be standardized across the entire military. The single most prevalent issue you will encounter is people changing their MOS. Example: say you have an Infantry sergeant who is transferring to intel. How are you going to assess the physical aptitude of this infantry sergeant in relation to their job in intel? Or vice versa. If an artillery unit is the closest unit in vicinity to another unit, and they need foot support, the artillery unit needs to be able to ruck up and get the fuck down there, quick, fast, and in a hurry. This is what the PT test is supposed to assess. Because like the Marine Corps, every unit is supposed to be able to perform the very, very basic necessities of an infantry unit. How competent they are doing so is irrelevant (since this seldom happens, and usually you just use fillers until replacements come). But that notion, that every unit is supposed to be able to ruck out and carry a standard load, regardless what their MOS specialty is, carries through at all levels of the military.
The PT test as it stands now "assesses" your cardio and physical ability in order to perform that task. That's the standard, that's the requirement everyone in the military is supposed to meet. You are not allowed to test for other specifics, for example, in Artillery, we aren't allowed or able to test an individuals ability to carry and load a round into a howitzer in a specified amount of time. That's not something that they're supposed to be graded or evaluated on. You're graded and evaluated on your ability to perform the most basic tasks in the military: You're physical strength to endure carrying X amount of weight Y miles, the time it took for you to do so, and then your ability to shoot your rifle.
Because in the Military everyone at their very most basic level is an infantrymen or needs to be able to fulfill a replacement role in the infantry.