Infanteer: What have you seen to be the advantages/disadvantages of women in combat arms MOSs? Also are they both enlisted and officer or just one or the other?
SJPOneill: I think a smaller service would not be the end of the world. But I do not think that the qualifier/disqualifier should not necessarily be a physical test because their are some people out there that just are not physically fit but are very smart and have great critical thinking skills, which certain services demand. I still want those guys on my side but maybe not in certain MOSs. So does it change from service to service or from MOS to MOS (the standard)? Then linking it back into the topic, does a female that passes whatever the standard is have the ability to join combat arms MOSs and then test at that follow on schools PT/academic test?
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.
Sorry for the confusion.
Adam L
Hmmm....yes and no. Yes, the Canadian Forces is fully integrated, but the debate over whether they are better of for it is still a matter of some debate. Norfolk made some very interesting and insightful comments to this respect in this thread.
Adam L
Yes, but kipping pull up technique can be taught with relative ease. Physical strength isn't as easy. Give me 15 minutes and I'll have 50 men doing Kipping pullups. Training on properly conditioned muscles is a whole other thing. I think your comments about whether you would do much in reality without some sort of kipping pull up is very weak. You could also make the argument about push ups. How often do you have to keep your body that straight? When would you be unable to get to your knees before pushing yourself up? Push ups and pull ups are simply effective time tested methods of increasing strenghty (when used as an exercise) and/or measuring strength.
Adam L
Last edited by Adam L; 10-01-2010 at 07:50 AM.
OSS and SOE both used women agents in WWII in Europe. So women have successfully served in some sort of special ops capacity in modern war.
Having said that, I don't know the details of how the were used but I don't think they were members of Operational Groups or Jedburghs.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Women in normal combat units are still an experiment, for there's not enough relevant (combat) experience with them.
The Russians dodged the problem of uncertainty about the psychological effects by training women as snipers - a speciality which is typically not much integrated into the cohesive small units of infantrymen.
Btw, it is totally self-evident to me that fitness requirements for soldiers of need to be blind to gender. The job description (aka MOS) and the individual's weight&size should be the only influences on the minimum standard.
For what purpose?
The only valid purpose is: in order to increase the likelihood of victory in combat (military necessity). All other purposes (such as equal opportunity) are irrelevant.
Actually, no.
Equal opportunities are seen as a right, and a military cannot defend the freedom and well-being of its country by violating its values and rights of its citizens.
There are more possible reasons anyway; the recruitment pool is widened, thus recruitment might become cheaper, saving taxpayer money.
Fuchs
We've discussed this somewhere else; but the bottom line is that Germany and the US have different values and rights re: employment and the place of the military vice general society, in their basic laws (for us, Constitution) and statutory laws.
So, neither did the older US policy (no women in the military) violate US values and rights of that time; nor does the current policy (women in limited combat roles) violate US values and rights of today.
Cheers with the rest of the debate.
Mike
So the military should have to accept the mentally retarded, the overweight and the physically handicapped? It is, after all, a right. We'd save money in recruitment, too, since we might not have to recruit so hard. Military effectiveness be damned, right?
And I am not equating the three groups, just pointing out three other groups that have even fewer options for service than women.
This same debate comes up periodically and it never really changes. PT is always the first thing that is brought up. Ignoring all the emotional issues, the simple fact is that females do not produce large amounts of testosterone which is the primary muscle builder in males. It also increases bone density. Women's bodies are simply not made for strength. That is just biology. Now, of course someone always has a story about a female he knew that that could do a thousand dead hang pull-ups and then run six minute miles for ten miles. That's great but the PT test standards aren't built toward the exceptions, they are built toward the averages. Is the average female able to physically do the same things as the average male. The answer is no.
“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
Equal opportunity is irrelevant here. The job of the US Armed Forces is to be combat effective. All assets are to be used where, when and if practicable. If you can argue the military is not doing so for arbitrary and capricious reasons then you have a point then you might have a legitimate grievance.
Adam L
I have always assumed that the PT tests / Battle fitness tests I did were designed around the minimum physical requirements (through years of experience) required of a soldier to perform in the type of unit. The minimum standard would apply across the board while the better units trained against a higher (self imposed) standard.
None of this should have changed... to either make it easier or more difficult for females to join the army and any particular unit. It anything has changed - up or down - then that is a problem.
Bookmarks