I never said we should have the same scores necessary for given positions. Rather, I am suggesting that there be a single scale. A 120 should be a 120 and a 295 should be a 295. There shouldn't be a different test for women. Instead there should simply be different acceptable minimums.Originally Posted by SJPONeill
Sorry for the confusion.
Adam L
What are you saying now? That everyone done the same test but the minimum standard required from women is different (lower)?
For combat arms there should be one standard, but there are a great many areas where physical strenght isn't as important. What is needed though is good general fitness. An average woman in minimum acceptable fitness will score lower than an average male who is at minimal acceptable fitness. In an ideal world there would be one standard, but there are certain areas where we need everyone we can get.
Adam L
Over the years I have somewhat moderated my feelings physical fitness in the military. I have decided that competence at your job is FAR more important than physical fitness. When I go to finance to get my pay problems fixed, I want a guy who will get that done in a timely and effective manner. If I can find that guy, I don't care if he can do A sit-up or run two miles in under a day, he is still much preferable to the guy who can score 400 on the extended scale PT test but leaves my paperwork in a desk drawer for two months until I have to resubmit it for the second or third time. Sure, ideally we would like to have both, in a perfect world but since we live in this one I would prefer that supervisors recognized which of those two things is more important.
There is a caveat to my view, however. For some jobs, notably most Combat Arms (excluding Armor) physical fitness is a component of job competence. In other words, you can be fat and out of shape and still be a good PAC clerk or Heavy Wheel Vehicle Mechanic but you cannot be a fat and out of shape and be a good infantryman. That is an oversimplification and I realize that some basic fitness standards are necessary for everyone in the force. I am simply trying to put things in perspective with regards to physical fitness standards. I have seen too many guys who were good at their jobs whose lives were made extra difficult because they were not the strongest at PT or did not meet the arbitrary height/weight standards and at the same time I saw way too many "PT Studs" get over with not being particularly good at their jobs because they were good at PT.
Having said all that, I am definitely a proponent of changing PT standards to be more in line with the Branch or even MOS.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
Terry Pratchett
I believe you are casting the net too wide. This issue being argued here is simple.Over the years I have somewhat moderated my feelings physical fitness in the military. I have decided that competence at your job is FAR more important than physical fitness. When I go to finance to get my pay problems fixed, I want a guy who will get that done in a timely and effective manner. If I can find that guy, I don't care if he can do A sit-up or run two miles in under a day, he is still much preferable to the guy who can score 400 on the extended scale PT test but leaves my paperwork in a desk drawer for two months until I have to resubmit it for the second or third time. Sure, ideally we would like to have both, in a perfect world but since we live in this one I would prefer that supervisors recognized which of those two things is more important.
There is a caveat to my view, however. For some jobs, notably most Combat Arms (excluding Armor
Having said all that, I am definitely a proponent of changing PT standards to be more in line with the Branch or even MOS.
Is it necessary to have the same physical fitness standard and physical capability for male and female soldiers doing exactly the same job?
My personal experience with being co-located with a company of MPs in Iraq in '03 at (then) Camp Kalsu tells me that some women could do just fine in combat arms. The last two excuses of why women could not be in combat arms that I held on too were disproved there. Our hygiene and living conditions were as minimal as they can be and not a single female soldier was sent home for "feminine issues". There was also no sexual harassment or women sent home pregnant, we were too busy fighting and surviving. They kept cool under fire and did not complain any more (often less) then the men. Now when we got to Kuwait, where the women were treated different, sexual assault and pregnancies were the rule, not the exception. Treat them like soldiers and they might surprise you and live up to the expectation. My final caveat is that until there are enough women that want to do infantry, the few who could do it and are willing to try will be harassed and hazed into quitting, unfortunately.
Reed
This is already being done in theater.Besides aviation, the combat role I think women could be most suited for is certain SOF roles.
I don't mean on ODAs - I don't think women belong on a sure enough rucksack team - but, as I mentioned, the OSS and SOE employed numerous women agents in occupied Europe with parachute insertions, espionage, sabotage, partisan liasons, etc., being done by women at times. All of this put them in position for death or capture. I also believe women could be suited for certain counter terrortist roles.
Besides, if you get a couple of gals who look like the ones protrayed in Where Eagles Dare how could you not be for it?
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The problem is almost always misogynist males. And you know what? The Army would be better without them.
One thing about COIN, Combat Arms are only support for the main effort, which is not kicking in doors and shooting people in the face. The "Main Effort" should be staffed with lots of females, whether soldier or not.
This standard would be varied because of the differing physical demands of the various work requirements or to accommodate females?
Forget about the two standards thing. Make one standard and waiver in anyone we really nead. (For example: Mathematicians who just don't cut it physically, but it doesn't matter because the closest they will get to the frontlines will be a computer several thousand miles away.) All I was trying to say is that absolute minimum standards for waiverability for men and women should be different. That was kind of stupid now that I think about it. If we suddenly need a brilliant computer programer who hasn't left his mother's basement in 35 years and is 2 cheeseburgers away from a heart attack we probably won't give a damn.
Adam L
The issue of women in combat is, as usual, obscured by the traditional Western prejudice, romanticism and chivalry. Therefore, some obvious facts:
1) Women, on average, make much worse soldiers than men.
2) It makes no sense to require women to possess physical standards identical to men. You will not make women men, anyway. I hope I will offend nobody by observing that women differ physically from men, and this has consequences for various tests. If someone doubts it, I suggest to watch some sports on TV. A woman in a good physical condition will have different physical capabilities from a man.
3) This is no reason not to allow female citizens to die for their country. Al-Qaida does it, despite the notorious Arab sexism. Why shouldn't America do the same? The main problem in Afghanistan is not enough soldiers on patrols. Any soldier helps. Even if women are not as good as men, they can still fight, die, and kill. They will suffer perhaps more casualties - but even so, if we send 1000 women to Afghanistan, and 200 are eliminated, we have still 800 soldiers more than we would have otherwise. Anyone, Taliban are a fairly weak opponent, and women should manage to kill them.
4) It is well known that young women and men tend to engage in sex when placed in close proximity; and even if they do not, thanks to the well-known American self-discipline, you still get some feelings, which are impossible to eliminate. This is bad for unit cohesion. Moreover, women are, as I wrote above, different physically from men (on average smaller, weaker, lighter etc) and therefore require different standard kit, etc.
5) For those reasons, women in combat will be most useful if placed in an all-female unit. This has been the usual practice in all armies that used female soldiers. I think that as a minimum, an all-female battalion would be required to function effectively. Such a unit could help to offset inadequate number of troops in Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons
6) Such a unit would also have wide ranging public relations possibilities. It would serve to showcase the oppression of women by Taliban, esp. if there was a widespread volunteer movement amongst feminists.
We don't have a great track record with "separate but equal" through myriad flavors of segregation, and "separate + unequal" has all kinds of problems, too. Your idea addresses one issue (intramural sex) but is rife with many others.
Really? The usual practice? You say that like it is obvious and I honestly don't know -- can you provide more examples than one obscure Benin group? Of legitimate employment of all-female units, rather than some training / sourcing process.
Please, be all means explain to me how this is a FACT and not an OPINION that you ASSUMED to be true.
Reed
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks