One giant step Backwards?

[47MartialMan]

There are exceptionally strong women and exceptionally weak men. Anyone who can do the job right should have it.

Agreed

 

[heretic888]

I'm not sure I'm quite getting your reasoning here, sgtmac_46.

Are you suggesting that if, say, that that uberliciously elite woman (the 1 out of 1000 you suggested) would be capable of doing the job, that they shouldn't be given it??

 

[heretic888]

We as men still have an instinctive reaction, for the most part, to protect women from harm, and I honestly think that is a good thing.

Instinct is not the word I'd use.

I think part of this stems from commonsense (i.e., most women are obviously physically weaker than most men). An equal part stems from mythic-agrarian values (i.e., women should submit to men in accordance with the Great Plan).

As with all things, its probably a synthesis of motivations and agendas.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm not sure I'm quite getting your reasoning here, sgtmac_46.

Are you suggesting that if, say, that that uberliciously elite woman (the 1 out of 1000 you suggested) would be capable of doing the job, that they shouldn't be given it??

I said we should be very careful we don't reduce standards in the name of advancement. And if that means that only 1 out of 1000 women is considerable suitable for the role, then we don't take any more than that just so that she can advance her personal career. Do you disagree? Or, more to the point, if you're going in to surgery, do you want the surgeon who was the top of their class, creme of the crop, or the guy who got by because they didn't want him not to have a chance? I bet I know the answer before you even give it.

So far i've heard lots of arguments and anecdotal evidence about women performing in standard military units admirably, and I have no reason to doubt those. But, please remember, those units are manned by the average and below average male soldier, definitely not the hardcharges and elite. The above average, uberliciously elite woman (1 out of 1000), is serving in those average units and showing herself to be the equivalent of the average male soldier. Congradulations to them, they've now performed at the level of the average male soldier. I've yet to see any female super soldiers, however, and I don't think i'm going to see them in the near future. So I doubt i'm going to see any real life GI Jane elite SF or Navy Seals performing commando operations. If we do see that woman, she'll be more than just 1 in 1000, she'll be 1 in 100,000 or more.

 

[Flatlander]

For me, this entire issue is necessarily linked to the idea of standards. If standards of ability have been codified into a system of training and testing, and are founded in rational data, they ought never be comprimised. Rather, they should continue to be refined. However, if any human is able to achieve a "pass" on the test, let'em go do their thang. I don't see gender as being a necessary component in the discussion of standards of excellence.

 

[sgtmac_46]

For me, this entire issue is necessarily linked to the idea of standards. If standards of ability have been codified into a system of training and testing, and are founded in rational data, they ought never be comprimised. Rather, they should continue to be refined. However, if any human is able to achieve a "pass" on the test, let'em go do their thang. I don't see gender as being a necessary component in the discussion of standards of excellence.

They shouldn't be, but they end up being. There are some who have such a drive to show that women are as capable at ANYTHING as a man, that they are willing to stack the deck to prove it. That's what we have to be careful of.

 

[TonyM.]

Like changing the PT test in airborne school for women so they can pass it. Bad idea.

 

[arnisador]

What, it's currently the optimal test? That's not clear to me.

 

[Tgace]

http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/reed/20020311.htm

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."

Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:

"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.

"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."

From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:

"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."

 

[sgtmac_46]

What, it's currently the optimal test? That's not clear to me.

Are you suggesting that reducing the standards would make it "Optimal"? Reducing standards ALWAYS improves standards...lol. You see, this is what happens. Those on the other side of this issue ALWAYS lose sight of the mission. The new mission becomes "fairness" and what does fairness have to do with combat? Either perform, or get out of the way.

 

[Tgace]

Of course none of this means that if a woman can meet the standards and "make the grade" that she should be kept from the job...however with the military's new role as "social laboratory" and the current trend of separate standards, I dont see that happening.

 

[Tgace]

My kids are watching "The Incredibles" on TV right now and I just heard the "When everybody is Super....no one will be" line...sounds appropriate to this discussion.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Of course none of this means that if a woman can meet the standards and "make the grade" that she should be kept from the job...however with the military's new role as "social laboratory" and the current trend of separate standards, I dont see that happening.

That's the only purpose the military seems to serve in the minds of leftists, is that of a social laboratory. That's why this is even an issue. They hate the role of the military, but they still see it as a useful social laboratory, that's why they don't see demanding the pull out of ALL troops from Iraq, but also demanding that women stay as long as possible.

 

[arnisador]

Are you suggesting that reducing the standards would make it "Optimal"?

I didn't say to reduce them. Are they the best way to measure what is needed to succeed? Just because you have a test, doesn't mean it's a good one. Look at the SAT. Everyone uses it, but it's well-known to be a poor predictor of success in college.

You see, this is what happens.

People jump to recast your point to fit their preconceived biases? Yeah, I see it all the time.

 

[Tgace]

Anecdotal story..when I was in MP school, in order to graduate you had to complete a 20 mi road march (after a week in the field) under full "battle load". Guess which soldiers were allowed to get picked up in trucks after "falling out" of the march around the mid point...

Lets just say there were a couple of one sex in those trucks who didnt make it and a couple of the opposite sex who did complete the march. Needless to say you didnt "really" need to complete the march in order to graduate because I saw all those people in the final formation.

 

[arnisador]

One question that story raises is, Is it necessary for an MP to be able to complete a 20 mile march, or is it just a traditional requirement?

There's a difference between wanting unqualified people in there and wondering if there are artificial barriers, like a "Can you pee out a window?" test for would-be soldiers.

 

[Tgace]

Yes I do. Just because MP's drive HMMWV doesn't mean they dont have to park their rides at a rally point a signifigant distance from an objective and assault a position a signifigant distance away, carrying signifigant loads.



How do you determine if you are really making a test that measures a signifigant capability from a test that is being designed to be "fair" to a segment that couldnt pass the "traditional" one?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I didn't say to reduce them. Are they the best way to measure what is needed to succeed? Just because you have a test, doesn't mean it's a good one. Look at the SAT. Everyone uses it, but it's well-known to be a poor predictor of success in college.


People jump to recast your point to fit their preconceived biases? Yeah, I see it all the time.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how dumbing DOWN the standards serves any pragmatic purpose, other than to ensure more people can pass it and be "fair". Fairness alone is not a valid military objective. Do you question by Ranger regiments need to have extremely demanding physical fitness requirements?

In answer to your question, the standards in the military are generally originally created by those who have experienced combat and understand what it required physically, mentally and emotionally to perform well in that realm. That is why the Ranger course, the UDT/SEAL course, the SF course, the Delta selection process, etc, were all created by people who have operated in those environments, not some desk rider in the Pentagon who wants to look more fair. I'll defer to those operator's expert opinions on what is necessary, not the opinions of some political hack with an agenda. If you water the standards down, people die and those that meet the standards have to carry the load for those who don't.

 

[Tgace]

There is a point to be made in requiring ALL jobs in the service to meet the same PT standards. My father-in-law was a commander of an Army field hospital (reserve). He used to complain that the most experienced surgeons were being kicked out because they couldnt meet the Army's PT standard as well as the younger (less experiebced) doctors could. Who would you want digging a bullet out of you? However, the closer to combat the job is, the tougher the standard should be IMO...not based on sex, but job.

 

[arnisador]

Yes I do. Just because MP's drive HMMWV doesn't mean they dont have to park their rides at a rally point a signifigant distance from an objective and assault a position a signifigant distance away, carrying signifigant loads.

Fair enough. I defer to your judgment here,

How do you determine if you are really making a test that measures a signifigant capability from a test that is being designed to be "fair" to a segment that couldnt pass the "traditional" one?

One tries to make the test not so much traditional as appropriate--ensuring that it measures what is desired. It's not easy.

My background is academics, where we keep using the SAT although it's known to be a poor predictor of college performance. But, it's hard to find a good one.