One giant step Backwards?

[Tgace]

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

Not with sexual politics on your back it isnt. The pressure to make the tests "fair" would probably be intense.

 

[arnisador]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how dumbing DOWN the standards serves any pragmatic purpose

I'm still waiting to see where I said they should be revised downward, as opposed to being fit to the tasks.

In answer to your question, the standards in the military are generally originally created by those who have experienced combat

Well, by men who have experienced combat.

Why would you oppose reviewing the physical requirements to see if they suit the positions? Is a push-up the right measure? What's wrong with ensuring they fit the task?

"The only thing harder than getting a new idea into a military mind is getting an old one out." --Attributed to various sources

 

[arnisador]

Not with sexual politics on your back it isnt. The pressure to make the tests "fair" would probably be intense.

I agree, and that's not what I want.

But I also know that the U.S. military has been run by men for hundreds of years. The requirements have surely been fit to them, and it's reasonable to review them for biases that have crept in because there was no need to keep them out.

Forty years ago, you'd have been told that swearing and hazing were essential to boot camp, and you couldn't produce soldiers without them. Sixty years ago, you'd have been told that you need to be able to shove trainee paratroopers out of airplanes the first time. Eighty years ago, you'd have been told that being Caucasian was necessary for a serviceman. Yes, physical standards are different--but if the military was still judging the necessity of things on their own, we'd have an all-white, all-male, drafted army.

It's a conservative and tradition-bound organization, as you may be aware!

 

[Tgace]

If there was no "need to keep them out" then there was no bias. The bias arose when women entered into the system and they discovered that they couldnt treat then the same way. Of course there was also inappropriate treatment of women by the "system" but thats different. If those hundreds of years of combat experience didnt mean anything because they were all experienced by men, what does that say for the martial arts and the expierences of men there?



And the MEN found that they needed signifigant upper body strength and muscular endurance to survive combat. Which is different from the other "social" issues like hazing etc....

 

[arnisador]

The same upper body strength argument was used with respect to female police officers and firefighters. Are women failing in those jobs?

 

[Tgace]

There is a wider variety of "acceptable job performance" in those jobs than there is in infantry combat. And more places for people of varying strength. When the whole platoon has to go 20 mi with 70 lb packs and weapons, be able to jump walls and into windows in full "battle rattle" and throw grenades (X) yards, the whole platoon has to do it. Combat is different...

Look Im the first one to say, "if you meet the standards you get the job"...many men failed to make the current standards for many military jobs...should the standards have been altered for them to make up for the differences in abilities between men?

 

[arnisador]

Look Im the first one to say, "if you meet the standards you get the job"...many men failed to make the current standards for many military jobs...should the standards have been altered for them to make up for the differences in abilities between men?

No. All I ask is that the standards match the job requirements. Marching long distances: Yes, obviously. Keep that requirement. Doing (standard) push-ups: Favors men for anatomical reasons, and not the only way to measure strength. Why not replace a requirement of n pushups in m minutes with a requirement of showing that a person can lift a weight equivalent to, I don't know, a machine gun? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about...test what needs to be tested.

I don't want to lower standards. I want the standards to be rational, not merely traditional.

I understand your fear that it'd be used for social engineering, though. Yet, the racial integration of the military stands as a high point in equal opportunity in the U.S.; and, the military still discriminates against homosexuals, who, to the best of my knowledge, aren't physically weaker than heterosexuals on average. So, I don't trust the military to do this right without oversight, to be frank.

In my gut, I'm not all that crazy about women in the infantry, to be frank...but, the tests should measure what needs to be measured. That's all I ask. No quotas, no lowered standards.

 

[Tgace]

Nothing I can disagree with there. Im all for the good old "American underdog".
Not that Danica Patrick was an "underdog", her skills are apparent, but who couldnt help but root for her. You have a driver, a car and 500 laps. Get out there and race and see who wins, thats the way it should be. She wasnt given any special treatment. Didnt have to do 450 laps. And she came close to winning. She probably will be winning some major races soon. Thats what I respect, get out there and excell just like anybody else..no excuses.

 

[Tgace]

If women are to be allowed in infantry roles, should the government then be able to "force" them into combat in the event a draft becomes necessary?

 

[arnisador]

If women are to be allowed in infantry roles, should the government then be able to "force" them into combat in the event a draft becomes necessary?

If they're allowed into the infantry, they should be drafted into it if--as seems unlikely--a draft is ever re-enacted. Of course, I'd expect fewer would be placed there for the reasons we've been discussing.

 

[Flatlander]

Here's my thought, though I should preface it by offering that I've not served. Also, that I do agree that there are very likely duties that must be staffed appropriately, and for some, the top 1 - 0.5% of physically able men should probably be doing them, in the name of efficiency, expediency, and timeliness. However, I also believe that, due to the wide variety of responsibilities that I'm certain must exist within the Military in General, there must be some to which women are better suited in terms of their own abilities.

Thus, for the sake of general efficiency, it would be in the best interest to the overall success of the military to attempt to make the testing for those instances relevant and suitable.

 

[arnisador]

there are very likely duties that must be staffed appropriately, and for some, the top 1 - 0.5% of physically able men should probably be doing them, in the name of efficiency, expediency, and timeliness

I can see the reasonableness of that in a few cases--as you say, reasons of efficiency (possibly financial).

Of course, haven't they tried some all male ships, some all female ships, and some mixed?

 

[Cryozombie]

A related but separate question...

If we do eventually allow female infantry*ahem*persons... and they begin to get pregnant to avoid going into combat...

Can we treat them the same as a male who, say, shoots himself in the foot to avoid combat... or not?

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. An interesting point brought up by one of Lucian Truscott's novels--you folks DO know that today's women are passing harder physical tests than men had to pass twenty years or so ago?

2. I wonder why nobody has brought up the possibility that, using the arguments advanced so far, there might just be military tasks that women were better suited for than men? After all, there appears to be evidence that they have better pain tolerance, dexterity, and endurance...

 

[arnisador]

It's widely believed by those in the service that this happens--e.g., to avoid being called up if in the Reserves or Guard.

I don't know how to prosecute and penalize that, even though in principle I agree.

 

[arnisador]

I wonder why nobody has brought up the possibility that, using the arguments advanced so far, there might just be military tasks that women were better suited for than men?

I've heard this suggested before--that women may make better pilots, for example.

 

[Flatlander]

2. I wonder why nobody has brought up the possibility that, using the arguments advanced so far, there might just be military tasks that women were better suited for than men? After all, there appears to be evidence that they have better pain tolerance, dexterity, and endurance...

I did. Upthread. 8 minutes ago.

 

[Tgace]

Ive heard that women can take more "G's" then men but that men "in general" have better spatial abilities when it comes to air combat. Once again, make some sensible, "scientific" tests and training standards and let the people fall into the jobs they are best suited for, regardless of sex.

 

[arnisador]

I think we're in agreement!

 

[Flatlander]

I think we're in agreement!

:rofl: Unpossible!