|
On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all.
1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man.
2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue.
2. Women create competition amongst men in the group.
3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers.
4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men.
Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways.
|
United States24680 Posts
On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel.
Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then?
2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men.
2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy?
3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations.
4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military.
Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it?
I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue.
|
On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Show nested quote +Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? Show nested quote +2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. Show nested quote +4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Show nested quote +Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue.
I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are.
Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it.
|
United States24680 Posts
On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat.
Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it.
I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person.
|
On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Show nested quote +Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person.
You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies.
As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore.
Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift.
|
On September 16 2013 03:00 AiurZ wrote:Show nested quote +To play devil's advocate and use an extreme example, if an 80 year old man who is quite fit for his age (top 10%) and I (average, but still much fitter than the 80 year old) apply for a physical job, is it right to give him the job due to being so ahead of the curve (assuming he can safely do the job) for his age/gender, even though I would do the job much better? This kind of leads into an affirmative action discussion though, which I definitely don't want to transfer over to (even though there is relevance). the problem, i feel, with trying to use extreme examples in this scenario is that these are obviously not the only physical characteristcs that they would be looking for (same as the example about "someone in a wheelchair who tries really hard"). there's probably going to be some other things that they are looking for (even if they aren't explicitly stated) and there's obviously a lower bound filtering out extremely fit 80 year old men/women. my post more along the lines of thinking about the issue in a different direction: rather than thinking about things as having these arbitrary constraints ie having a specific mile time, being able to do a certain amount of push-ups that these are more of tests to filter out for a specific subset of the population, in this case looking to filter out for a subset of people that are X% more fit than normal.
The problem is that the tests do not filter out a subset of the population. They select for two subsets - the fittest men and fittest women, and the consequence of the cutoffs is that women qualify over more fit men. What needs explaining is what added value being female brings to the table, to compensate for their poorer physical performance.
The top X% argument explains very little, because it doesn't look at the top X% of the population as a whole, but the top X% of men and women separately. If you start playing around with reference groups like this, why stop at men and women? You can have different standards for, say, people who are two standard deviations shorter than the average, or various ethnicities or people with multiple sclerosis.
What cannot be ignored, though, is that literally the purpose of different requirements is to have some women qualify ahead of physically more capable men. Do note that the top X% argument has never enticed professional sports teams to field women over men.
|
The United States military doesn't actually do anything useful, so they might as well have it meet diversity standards. And I think it's really problematic to say that, for instance, rape in the military should be solved by segregating/eliminating women in the military. Maybe just eliminate men, if they can't control themselves, in most military scenarios women will still perform equally so it's not that big of a loss. (everyone can shoot a gun, pilot a vehicle etc.)
Also, the physical requirements work both ways. Men are heavier and it's more difficult to carry them. And if they were really that worried about strength, they would put everyone on steroid regimes, but as far as I know they don't.
For the firefighters example, presumably it helps to have some smaller, stocky people around for certain jobs. And if it was a given that diversity would be a feature of the workplace, then roles and equipment could be developed to give women higher functionality. I would dare to say that in most cases it will work out just fine.
And men aren't better at physical sports than women, it's just that the most popular sports all favor men. Women are more flexible and such. Presumably one of the reasons that gymnastics is always ridiculed is that it favors women, so it becomes part of dumb gender wars.
|
On September 16 2013 12:04 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person. You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies. As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore. Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift.
I think Micronesia already pointed out that not all military positions require above-average physical strength. For example, let's say a woman wanted to fly an apache helicopter. What is your objection to that?
Also, lol @ your statistics, i.e., "I read a study", and my dad can squat 300 lbs easily, and he's over 50, which tells me that you have no idea how much weight the average military person can manage. If this were some exercise forum, someone would have asked "Do you even lift?" by now.
|
On September 17 2013 10:47 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 12:04 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person. You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies. As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore. Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift. I think Micronesia already pointed out that not all military positions require above-average physical strength. For example, let's say a woman wanted to fly an apache helicopter. What is your objection to that? Also, lol @ your statistics, i.e., "I read a study", and my dad can squat 300 lbs easily, and he's over 50, which tells me that you have no idea how much weight the average military person can manage. If this were some exercise forum, someone would have asked "Do you even lift?" by now.
Also claims "most" military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+... and where is the evidence for this claim exactly? If I had to think of all my old friends in the infantry... I dont think most of them can bench 225... most are on the skinny side from all the cardio training. Squatting 300 or benching 225 (lolbench) doesnt have too much transfer to being able to ruck long distances.
|
Yeah those numbers are bullshit. There is a reason that the military emphasizes body weight standards and cardio capacity above all else, and it doesn't have a thing to do with squatting 300 lbs.
|
On September 16 2013 12:04 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person. You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies. As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore. Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift.
haha what the fuck? most men in the military can't squat 300+ and bench 225+. most units don't even do strength training, but rather bodyweight/cardio type stuff.
i think before deciding whether females can be integrated into combat roles the military should come up with a better pt test that actually evaluates how well a person can do in combat. the pt test right now is so fucking stupid. pushups, situps and a run. the only thing you get out of doing pushups is being able to do more pushups. same with situps. and when the fuck are you going to run 2 miles in combat? if you're running 2 miles in combat you're probably in an escape and evade situation and you're fucked anyways. there's a reason the sof community has adopted different pt programs (THOR3 for sf and RAW for rangers, i'm not familiar with other branches sof pt programs). a real test that actually means something should be made before standards are.
|
On September 17 2013 10:47 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 12:04 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person. You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies. As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore. Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift. I think Micronesia already pointed out that not all military positions require above-average physical strength. For example, let's say a woman wanted to fly an apache helicopter. What is your objection to that? Also, lol @ your statistics, i.e., "I read a study", and my dad can squat 300 lbs easily, and he's over 50, which tells me that you have no idea how much weight the average military person can manage. If this were some exercise forum, someone would have asked "Do you even lift?" by now.
Full-squatting 300 lbs, i.e. below parallel, is quite a lot. In the gym I worked out for three years, I saw less than ten people ever squatted this much. For reference, see: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/SquatStandards.html
I can't see any particular reason why women couldn't fly helicopters, though I have trouble understanding why fitter men should be excluded from the same positions on the basis of more stringent physical requirements. Either they are irrelevant and shouldn't apply at all, or they need apply to both sexes.
|
On September 17 2013 16:39 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 10:47 ninazerg wrote:On September 16 2013 12:04 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person. You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies. As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore. Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift. I think Micronesia already pointed out that not all military positions require above-average physical strength. For example, let's say a woman wanted to fly an apache helicopter. What is your objection to that? Also, lol @ your statistics, i.e., "I read a study", and my dad can squat 300 lbs easily, and he's over 50, which tells me that you have no idea how much weight the average military person can manage. If this were some exercise forum, someone would have asked "Do you even lift?" by now. Full-squatting 300 lbs, i.e. below parallel, is quite a lot. In the gym I worked out for three years, I saw less than ten people ever squatted this much. For reference, see: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/SquatStandards.htmlI can't see any particular reason why women couldn't fly helicopters, though I have trouble understanding why fitter men should be excluded from the same positions on the basis of more stringent physical requirements. Either they are irrelevant and shouldn't apply at all, or they need apply to both sexes.
300lbs squat is not that much actually. I got there after 3 months of lifting with rippetoe`s routine (although my body weight is close to 100kg). But yea, i already did two years of fencing, so that might have helped with leg strength. My brother has been lifting for 2 years, and he can squat 180kg (natural). Reason why you probably saw less then 10 people squat that amount is because they are obviously retard teenagers who have everday upperbody day, and just want big biceps and a 6-pack. (damn, those people piss me off in the gym)
but yea, guys in the military dont do much strength training.
|
On September 18 2013 00:38 SupplyBlockedTV wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 16:39 Darkwhite wrote:On September 17 2013 10:47 ninazerg wrote:On September 16 2013 12:04 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person. You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies. As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore. Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift. I think Micronesia already pointed out that not all military positions require above-average physical strength. For example, let's say a woman wanted to fly an apache helicopter. What is your objection to that? Also, lol @ your statistics, i.e., "I read a study", and my dad can squat 300 lbs easily, and he's over 50, which tells me that you have no idea how much weight the average military person can manage. If this were some exercise forum, someone would have asked "Do you even lift?" by now. Full-squatting 300 lbs, i.e. below parallel, is quite a lot. In the gym I worked out for three years, I saw less than ten people ever squatted this much. For reference, see: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/SquatStandards.htmlI can't see any particular reason why women couldn't fly helicopters, though I have trouble understanding why fitter men should be excluded from the same positions on the basis of more stringent physical requirements. Either they are irrelevant and shouldn't apply at all, or they need apply to both sexes. 300lbs squat is not that much actually. I got there after 3 months of lifting (although my body weight is close to 100kg). But yea, i already did two years of fencing, so that might have helped with leg strength. My brother has been lifting for 2 years, and he can squat 180kg (natural). Reason why you probably saw less then 10 people squat that amount is because they are obviously retard teenagers who have everday upperbody day, and just want big biceps and a 6-pack.
I post this fairly often on this site, but it would do you well to read up on availability heuristics and why they often make for false qualifiers. I've been involved in fitness training for going on 5 years, and though I'm fairly confident that my experience is enough to say that a 300 lbs squat is a fairly advanced lift, all I need to do is look at exrx.com's strength standards, which has already been conveniently linked. (exrx.com is hands down the best PT resource on the web) You'll see that, up to 220 pounds, a 300 lbs squat is considered an intermediate lift, or one that requires regular training for a number of years.
|
On September 18 2013 00:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:38 SupplyBlockedTV wrote:On September 17 2013 16:39 Darkwhite wrote:On September 17 2013 10:47 ninazerg wrote:On September 16 2013 12:04 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person. You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies. As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore. Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift. I think Micronesia already pointed out that not all military positions require above-average physical strength. For example, let's say a woman wanted to fly an apache helicopter. What is your objection to that? Also, lol @ your statistics, i.e., "I read a study", and my dad can squat 300 lbs easily, and he's over 50, which tells me that you have no idea how much weight the average military person can manage. If this were some exercise forum, someone would have asked "Do you even lift?" by now. Full-squatting 300 lbs, i.e. below parallel, is quite a lot. In the gym I worked out for three years, I saw less than ten people ever squatted this much. For reference, see: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/SquatStandards.htmlI can't see any particular reason why women couldn't fly helicopters, though I have trouble understanding why fitter men should be excluded from the same positions on the basis of more stringent physical requirements. Either they are irrelevant and shouldn't apply at all, or they need apply to both sexes. 300lbs squat is not that much actually. I got there after 3 months of lifting (although my body weight is close to 100kg). But yea, i already did two years of fencing, so that might have helped with leg strength. My brother has been lifting for 2 years, and he can squat 180kg (natural). Reason why you probably saw less then 10 people squat that amount is because they are obviously retard teenagers who have everday upperbody day, and just want big biceps and a 6-pack. I post this fairly often on this site, but it would do you well to read up on availability heuristics and why they often make for false qualifiers. I've been involved in fitness training for going on 5 years, and though I'm fairly confident that my experience is enough to say that a 300 lbs squat is a fairly advanced lift, all I need to do is look at exrx.com's strength standards, which has already been conveniently linked. (exrx.com is hands down the best PT resource on the web) You'll see that, up to 220 pounds, a 300 lbs squat is considered an intermediate lift, or one that requires regular training for a number of years.
Ok i get your point. I also do have friends who still struggle with 80kg after 2 years. I guess my bodyweight and my history of fencing and frequent running helped alot for me. But i also think many people at the gym just dont push it enough...but maybe thats also just me :D.
edit: also to add more to the discussion, today during a internship as paramedic i overheard two nurses speaking about a male and a female security agent passing by. When they get called in for aggresion they go with only two agents. In my honest opinion, a woman can have all the training in as many martial arts as she wants, but when a guy who is dubble her size and bodyweight starts getting aggressive, what can she do? call for assistence? The nurses had a valid point saying that it isnt a job for women (these nurses were two women btw).
|
60 year old man has to run 2miles faster than a 18 year old female? GG
|
I think it's simply due to they don't want to turn away female recruits as they need to make sure they have a certain level of female in the army so that they can put some in different departments if necessary?
|
On September 17 2013 16:39 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 10:47 ninazerg wrote:On September 16 2013 12:04 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person. You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies. As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore. Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift. I think Micronesia already pointed out that not all military positions require above-average physical strength. For example, let's say a woman wanted to fly an apache helicopter. What is your objection to that? Also, lol @ your statistics, i.e., "I read a study", and my dad can squat 300 lbs easily, and he's over 50, which tells me that you have no idea how much weight the average military person can manage. If this were some exercise forum, someone would have asked "Do you even lift?" by now. Full-squatting 300 lbs, i.e. below parallel, is quite a lot. In the gym I worked out for three years, I saw less than ten people ever squatted this much. For reference, see: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/SquatStandards.htmlI can't see any particular reason why women couldn't fly helicopters, though I have trouble understanding why fitter men should be excluded from the same positions on the basis of more stringent physical requirements. Either they are irrelevant and shouldn't apply at all, or they need apply to both sexes.
Who said anything about exclusion? The military is huge, and is in constant need of new people.
|
The listed standards are pretty pathetic if the goal is to have a physically superior fighting force. Given the lax standards, this is obviously not the goal, and as such the relative values are largely irrelevant. The standards are nothing more than a capture code on a website - an absolute baseline to make sure that, yes, you are a walking, talking human being.
|
On September 18 2013 07:33 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 16:39 Darkwhite wrote:On September 17 2013 10:47 ninazerg wrote:On September 16 2013 12:04 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:54 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:51 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:40 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 iamho wrote:On September 16 2013 11:05 micronesia wrote:On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote:
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all. 1. Women do not have the physical strength, size, or endurance to serve in an combat units. Do you not realize that many military positions do not involve significant use of physical strength, size, and endurance? Take a look at a list of military designators for any branch of the military sometime. 'Combat units,' regardless of if women should serve in them or not, only make up one segment of military personnel. Don't give me that "not all women are weak stuff" either, only women in the fourth standard deviation of strength are comparable to an average man, let alone a combat-ready man. I'm not sure how you specifically came up with 'fourth standard deviation' but regardless, it isn't necessary for the majority of women to be capable of meeting whatever physical standards you are thinking of... it's only necessary for the women who are accepted into the military to do so. So what if only 5% of women are as 'strong' as you feel they need to be? Why couldn't that 5% join then? 2. Women cannot endure the stress of combat units either, whether physical (spinal issues) or mental. PMS is also a serious issue. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Women do have some problems that men don't have, and vice versa, but I haven't actually seen you present evidence that this is sufficient to keep women entirely out of the military, but not men. 2. Women create competition amongst men in the group. What does this even mean? The way you are talking we should bar women from applying for jobs and force them to stay home with the kids, cook, and clean. Would that make you happy? 3. Men will naturally act to protect female soldiers. Well if there is actual evidence to support this claim of yours then I'm sure military training is utilized to prevent this from becoming a problem. I want to emphasize again that the military is not just about boots on the ground in combat situations. 4. The DoD has created all sorts of "diversity" initiatives which makes it easier for underqualified women to serve alongside qualified men. I'm not familiar with the specifics but this definitely sounds like it could be a problem. However, it is not a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Of course, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if military standards were the same for both genders, because then there would be almost no women in the armed forces anyways. I don't think the standards for men are so hard in most military positions that there would be almost no women. Granted, there would be less. Is it really that hard for a motivated woman to run a mile and a half in 10:45, do some pushups and do some situps if they train at it? I think you really need to do some introspection and figure out why you have such a view on this issue. I have such a view because I live in the real world, not your politically-correct fantasy land. The basis of your argument rests on "not all women are like that!". No, but 999 in 1000 are. Source? I think you are underestimating the capabilities of women (who work out, not necessarily random women). Also, you are not addressing the fact that many military positions (not a small percentage) don't involve physical combat. Your implication that I'm a misogynist because I don't think women should serve in the military is really troubling, and it makes me sad that the so many of your generation have been brainwashed into such lies. Men and women are not equal. Deal with it. I have not claimed that men and women are equal. Some people definitely are brainwashed and go too far with trying to seek out gender equality in foolish ways. You have the wrong person. You're right, I was only referring to combat units and should've said so explicitly, my apologies. As for the 999 in 1000, it comes from a study I read that showed how little the distributions of strength in men and women overlapped, though I can't find the study anymore. Its worth noting though that most military men can squat 300+ lbs and bench 225+. That would take a woman at least a decade of training (naturally, no steroids), frankly I have never seen a woman lift those weights in my lift. I think Micronesia already pointed out that not all military positions require above-average physical strength. For example, let's say a woman wanted to fly an apache helicopter. What is your objection to that? Also, lol @ your statistics, i.e., "I read a study", and my dad can squat 300 lbs easily, and he's over 50, which tells me that you have no idea how much weight the average military person can manage. If this were some exercise forum, someone would have asked "Do you even lift?" by now. Full-squatting 300 lbs, i.e. below parallel, is quite a lot. In the gym I worked out for three years, I saw less than ten people ever squatted this much. For reference, see: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/SquatStandards.htmlI can't see any particular reason why women couldn't fly helicopters, though I have trouble understanding why fitter men should be excluded from the same positions on the basis of more stringent physical requirements. Either they are irrelevant and shouldn't apply at all, or they need apply to both sexes. Who said anything about exclusion? The military is huge, and is in constant need of new people.
This thread is literally named physical standards for women. The function of physical standards is to exclude whomever fails to meet them. This really isn't hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
