SecDef opens all military occupations to women

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by lowendlinux, Dec 8, 2015.

  1. lowendlinux, Dec 8, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2015

    lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #1
    http://www.army.mil/article/159473/

    I know that most here don't care but a few might. Here are the seven guidelines:

    3 sounds good

    4 How are we going to do that and whats the criteria? The women competing for those places are physically and mentally ready or they're not what needs to be taken into account?

    I'm not jaded enough to think this wasn't thought through I just wish there were some details.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  3. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #3
    That's the point the military is go / no-go so the women either meet the standard or they don't there's no mitigation. What differences need to be taken into account?
     
  4. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #4
    Rock on ladies...without modified standards. That should include PT tests as well. One standard for all.
     
  5. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #5
    When I was in the Army during the '90s and women PT standards were always lower then the men's!
     
  6. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    I don't see a big issue with that for non combat jobs, but if they are allowing them into combat (which I think they should) they need to meet the same requirements as men.
     
  7. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #8
    4. Studies conducted by the services and SOCOM indicate that on average there are physical and other differences between men and women, and implementation will take this into account.

    How much did this study cost and how long did it take? Cause my five year old could have told you that.

    Insert scene from Kindergarten Cop here.
     
  8. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #9
    Then why is the third way modern feminists calling for equal rights? Then the standards should be equal!

    Plus if women really want combat direct rolls then they should be added to the Selective Service they turn 18 just like the 18 year old boys!!!
     
  9. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #10
    The end results of those studies were actually pretty interesting. Mixed sex military units tend to be weaker physically, with shorter marching distances, and more injuries sustained compared to all male units, but also tend to be much more tactically clever, working as a more cohesive whole during operations.

    It's not all bad news. There are some distinct advantages and disadvantages.
     
  10. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #11
    Probably because it takes 2 of them to reach a jar of peanut butter on the top shelf...
     
  11. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #12

    Some of these quotes are a little biased.

    Regardless of whether he has an underlying point, he's clearly biased. I don't know the guy's height, but I assume a significant portion of his weight is due to muscle mass. 130 pounds is pretty close to the median for a woman of moderate height and body fat without a lot of muscle tone. I don't see how that represents someone in his potential peer group. If he used 170 pound without gear for the guy's weight, he would at least be choosing closer to the median in each group. It's not sensible to use a clear outlier in one, then reach for a sample closer to the middle in the other case.
     
  12. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #13
    How much experience do you have with special operations? They tend to be big dudes for a reason. I didn't know a single person in the 19th or the JTAC's that were under 190lbs on the low end. It's not like the movies where they are super lean and ripped looking fitness models with 5% body fat.

    Even LLVI qualified soldiers were much bigger than the 35P's in SCIF's. One of the reasons I started packing on weight and getting more muscular was to keep up with guys in the 19th, which was easier at 200lbs than my natural weight of about 170.
     
  13. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #14
    That was part of my point. I assumed he put on a lot of bulk during training. His build is probably quite far from the median level with respect to other men. He used a female example who would fall much closer to the median with respect to other women rather than a sub 5% outlier who is more likely to apply for that role.
     
  14. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #15
    I agree with that, we need equality in all areas.
     
  15. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    Real simple solution would be to only deploy women special forces in their own squads of other women, if they can carry their own, so be it, if not, then we will know pretty quick.
     
  16. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #17
    I was more than 280 in battle rattle being that I was 240 before gear. I work 150M from a whole battalion of these guys, none are small and that's not going to change, if big Army is going to push this on SOC they're going to have to find women that are the exceptions. This has always been one of the sticking points with women in these positions and IMHO it remains a big issue we just carry a great deal of crap and because of that combat soldiers are not light. We spend an inordinate amount of time getting smaller men able to carry a buddy I just don't know if we can find women that can and still meet standards.
     
  17. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #18
    I thought the smaller guys would fail out, unless they want some those specific candidates for other skills that make up for their size.

    I'm 5'10" and have floated between 165 and 180 (right now around 180 although I can't pinch as much fat as I would have expected). I have met women larger than myself who were pretty built, which is why I said that the assumption of 135 pounds as a typical candidate isn't a very fair one. If the guys who make the cut aren't average, it doesn't seem realistic to consider an average woman as a hypothetical candidate. I certainly don't think they should look for token candidates just to be able to say they have women in certain units, and I didn't intend to imply that.
     
  18. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #19
    The problem isn't just with the special forces it's with just about all combat arms. The amount of PT (generally twice a day) that's done daily especially with them will keep women reasonably small though I'm sure exceptions exist. I cannot and won't speak for group but it's hard to wash folks outside of entry level training for not being able to do certain things especially if they meet the standards. I had a private that was 5'10" and 145 wet his PT score was 290 and could shoot anything you gave him with skill but he couldn't make a 12 mile march with anything other than a 45# ruck and M4 i.e. he meet every standard but couldn't do what was really necessary. The part that needs fixed is integrating things like actual gear weights into the standards vs having a default 45# requiring a soldier to be able to carry another soldier x number of meters.

    I'm sure the Army has given thought to all of this and there are solutions I'm just not sure what they are outside of redefining qualifications and standards which is probably not a bad thing.
     
  19. kapolani macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #20
    I have a hard time imagining a woman passing BUDs.

    May be possible.

    I was in the top 3 any sport or physical evolution while growing up. When I went to BUDs I was maybe middle of the pack. We started with 138 and graduated with 19.

    If you can carry my ass out of the fire - I was about 185ish - over 220 with full kit - then maybe I would let you come along.

    I've never met a woman that could carry that weight for an extended period of time.

    Majority of SPECWAR guys don't want women with them. Nothing sexist about that. Just the way it is.
     
  20. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #21
    They're going to get them...

    If a little time goes by and none make it through rules will be changed.
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    Said [apparently] the highest ranking officer in the army. :rolleyes:
     
  22. mildocjr macrumors 65816

    #23
    Notice it says equal opportunity, if a female can carry me out of the warzone, by all means sister, jump in, if she can't she probably won't make it through the initial training.

    A female should be able to have the opportunity to join Ranger or SF, if she doesn't pass then she doesn't get it, same as the males. If she does pass, then that means she's qualified for it, if I'm in the thick of a firefight I don't give a damn if the person next to me is white, black, male, female, gay, or straight, I'm just hoping they can shoot well.
     
  23. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #24
    I think that at the upper extremes of physical fitness, male and females have areas where either gender can have advantages.

    For instance, in terms of extreme endurance (ie. 24 hour or 100 mile marathons) female athletes tend to outperform their male counterparts. And I think you could make an argument that being able to physically keep going for very long periods like that could have a benefit in a combat situation. And while male athletes are almost inevitably going to outperform their female counterparts in some areas (ie. upper body strength) - there may be areas where the women can outperform the men.

    If you design a Special Forces training program that only emphasizes upper-body strength; while ignoring extreme endurance - then ultimately the force might suffer by excluding females.

    I think that is, perhaps, the sort of issue that the military needs to consider.
     
  24. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #25
    No the military doesn't need to account for anything..

    There is an established and documented standard they either meet it or they don't it's very binary. I don't need a woman or man that can run a 100 miles i need a woman or man that can carry an 80# ruck with body armor and combat load of their weapons system for 25 to 30 miles and be able to shoot and think when it's over.

    If you want to talk about the ineffectiveness of the current Army PT and Hight and weight standards to meet this requirement then lets talk.
     

Share This Page