First female 11X has been accepted

[Imperializt Russia]

The current 'standard'

Long story short,

For a Male to barely pass a PT test in the Army (he'll be shit on by everyone around him for being weak)
42 Push ups (in two minutes)
53 Situps (in two minutes)
and a 15:54 two mile


Female to barely pass a PT test in the Army (no one cares)
19 Push ups
53 situps
and a 18:48 two mile


You can not seriously tell me that a male passing the bare minimum standard and a female passing her bare minimum standard are going to be anywhere near par in terms of physical capability.

I agree, those different standards are not acceptable.

I'm curious though, if the Army is only just beginning to accept women in combat roles, where are these data coming from?

When I was talking to recruiters for the British Army (I concede, for combat support and combat support in the reserves at that), I was told quite flatly that the pushup and situp standard really does not matter (though still assessed) and it's the 1.5mi run time that is important for basic entry.
Again, it's CS so the run time doesn't exactly matter either.

I figure the logic is, you'd eventually work up to the pushup and situp standard during training anyway but the run time is a measure of broad fitness.

[Conserative Morality]

I disagree with that notion.

If you aren't trying to be the best at everything (yes, you can even be the best at picking up dog's shit) then you aren't trying hard enough.

There's only so much to be said about raw muscle though, it also requires guile to get there.

A few problems with this.

1. Doesn't matter how hard you try. There's only one who's "the best" unless there's a tie. Gold sticker for a good try is not the best, though the determination and will in striving to do so regardless of outcome is admirable.

2. Always trying to be 'the best' at everything is counterproductive. Specialization is the seed of civilization - you can be good at many things, but concentration on a smaller number of skills is what makes the world go 'round.

3. Always trying to be 'the best' at everything is pointless. If I pick up dog shit, I don't necessarily give a fuck about being the best dog-shit-picker I can be. My dog isn't going to go out into the yard and say "Wow CM. You really picked up my shit with skill. I really appreciate this!"

I mean, if you *want* to be the best pooper-scooper around, if that's you're dream, go for it, but most of us just want to get it done and get back to trying to be the best at things we care about.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I disagree with that notion.

If you aren't trying to be the best at everything (yes, you can even be the best at picking up dog's shit) then you aren't trying hard enough.

There's only so much to be said about raw muscle though, it also requires guile to get there.

A few problems with this.

1. Doesn't matter how hard you try. There's only one who's "the best" unless there's a tie. Gold sticker for a good try is not the best, though the determination and will in striving to do so regardless of outcome is admirable.

2. Always trying to be 'the best' at everything is counterproductive. Specialization is the seed of civilization - you can be good at many things, but concentration on a smaller number of skills is what makes the world go 'round.

3. Always trying to be 'the best' at everything is pointless. If I pick up dog shit, I don't necessarily give a fuck about being the best dog-shit-picker I can be. My dog isn't going to go out into the yard and say "Wow CM. You really picked up my shit with skill. I really appreciate this!"

I mean, if you *want* to be the best pooper-scooper around, if that's you're dream, go for it, but most of us just want to get it done and get back to trying to be the best at things we care about.

Which is the point. I am not saying you have to be the best at everything, but that if you are going to do it, don't half-ass it simply because "you cannot be the best". If you are going to do something don't just do 90% of the work and leave the other 10% laying around. It's a pain in the ass to get that extra 10% out of things, sure, but not doing it is half-assed.

[Conserative Morality]

Which is the point. I am not saying you have to be the best at everything, but that if you are going to do it, don't half-ass it simply because "you cannot be the best".

This is a correction, then, to the previous statement?

If you are going to do something don't just do 90% of the work and leave the other 10% laying around. It's a pain in the ass to get that extra 10% out of things, sure, but not doing it is half-assed.

There's a big difference between completing the job and trying to be the best at it.

[Imperial City-States]

In all honesty it's more about endurance than it is raw strength. Don't get me wrong strength is extremely important.

[Eol Sha]

The way I see it, no one should be denied the opportunity to join the military and serve their country just because they are a woman. Now, Uxo, I think, brings up some good points about training standards. On that, my viewpoint is that the standards shouldn't be lowered below their current levels. Before inclusivity comes the defense of the country and the quality of our servicemen and women. If the standards are to be lowered, though, then it can't be by too much. And if 80% of women in boot camp get drummed out in the process then so be it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Which is the point. I am not saying you have to be the best at everything, but that if you are going to do it, don't half-ass it simply because "you cannot be the best".

This is a correction, then, to the previous statement?

If you are going to do something don't just do 90% of the work and leave the other 10% laying around. It's a pain in the ass to get that extra 10% out of things, sure, but not doing it is half-assed.

There's a big difference between completing the job and trying to be the best at it.

To this statement?

Then my only objection is 'best at everything'. You can't have a unit of people who are all the best.

I disagree with that notion.

If you aren't trying to be the best at everything (yes, you can even be the best at picking up dog's shit) then you aren't trying hard enough.

There's only so much to be said about raw muscle though, it also requires guile to get there.

I never said you had to be the best, did I? I said TRYING. You can try to be the best at everything you do. If you aren't the best then you aren't the best, but that doesn't mean you didn't try to be the best.

[Conserative Morality]

I never said you had to be the best, did I? I said TRYING. You can try to be the best at everything you do. If you aren't the best then you aren't the best, but that doesn't mean you didn't try to be the best.

Then we're back to points #2 and #3.

2. Always trying to be 'the best' at everything is counterproductive. Specialization is the seed of civilization - you can be good at many things, but concentration on a smaller number of skills is what makes the world go 'round.

3. Always trying to be 'the best' at everything is pointless. If I pick up dog shit, I don't necessarily give a fuck about being the best dog-shit-picker I can be. My dog isn't going to go out into the yard and say "Wow CM. You really picked up my shit with skill. I really appreciate this!"

I mean, if you *want* to be the best pooper-scooper around, if that's you're dream, go for it, but most of us just want to get it done and get back to trying to be the best at things we care about.

[Zarkanians]

I disagree with that notion.

If you aren't trying to be the best at everything (yes, you can even be the best at picking up dog's shit) then you aren't trying hard enough.

There's only so much to be said about raw muscle though, it also requires guile to get there.

You shouldn't be focusing on trying to be The Best when doing a job. You should be focusing on getting the job done. Life isn't an arcade game or a basketball match. Nobody is going to notice if you filled three more magazines than everybody else or eradicated every dot of dog shit in your back yard (vs. the guy who gets every piece but is unable to get some of the little fragments that sprinkled off and ended up mostly hidden by grass or snow). The important thing is consistently completing every job that you are assigned, and part of that is not being exhausted by futile attempts to outdo your peers. Blind ambition is useless.

[Bourbon Duo-Sicilie]

Personally I think woman should be allowed into the military, but they have to meet the physical requirement.

[Zarkanians]

Personally I think woman should be allowed into the military, but they have to meet the physical requirement.

Which physical requirement?

[Pope Joan]

Two years ago, women began passing the grueling Marine infantry basic training. With the same requirements and standards as men.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=w ... mp=yhs-003

My friend's daughter has now joined those who have passed basic, and will soon pilot a helicopter in the Mideast.

Okay deniers, what's wrong with the success these women are demonstrating, on the same level playing field?

[Luminesa]

Personally I think woman should be allowed into the military, but they have to meet the physical requirement.

Which physical requirement?

The requirements that are needed for one to serve in the armed forces?

[Wallenburg]

Personally I think woman should be allowed into the military, but they have to meet the physical requirement.

Which physical requirement?

You know which one.

[Esternial]

Sure, but to know whether the female standard is too low we'd actually need to know how these women perform and not just base our judgement solely (though I'll agree it's relevant) on whether they pass the female/male standards.

You want equality, remove the female 'standard'. Both sexes have the same standard. Performance in a Combat Arms role is extremely dependent on how physically fit someone is. If you're on the verge of passing out after running 100m in full kit and can't accurately fire your weapon then you have no use being in a combat element.


When in Rome, do as the Romans.

That's a fair point and I agree.

[The balkens]

You want equality, remove the female 'standard'. Both sexes have the same standard. Performance in a Combat Arms role is extremely dependent on how physically fit someone is. If you're on the verge of passing out after running 100m in full kit and can't accurately fire your weapon then you have no use being in a combat element.


When in Rome, do as the Romans.

That's a fair point and I agree.

indeed.

[Imperializt Russia]

Sure, but to know whether the female standard is too low we'd actually need to know how these women perform and not just base our judgement solely (though I'll agree it's relevant) on whether they pass the female/male standards.

You want equality, remove the female 'standard'. Both sexes have the same standard. Performance in a Combat Arms role is extremely dependent on how physically fit someone is. If you're on the verge of passing out after running 100m in full kit and can't accurately fire your weapon then you have no use being in a combat element.

We seem to have veered back to the "standards are relative, not absolute" point again.

[Imperial City-States]

You want equality, remove the female 'standard'. Both sexes have the same standard. Performance in a Combat Arms role is extremely dependent on how physically fit someone is. If you're on the verge of passing out after running 100m in full kit and can't accurately fire your weapon then you have no use being in a combat element.

We seem to have veered back to the "standards are relative, not absolute" point again.

Which veers back to the point of, you don't stay on top by degrading your standard everytime a large change happens

[Imperializt Russia]

We seem to have veered back to the "standards are relative, not absolute" point again.

Which veers back to the point of, you don't stay on top by degrading your standard everytime a large change happens

90% of casualties in a major war between world powers will be caused by artillery, PGMs and air power so the physical fitness of the individual infantryman is of relatively minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

The Russians will not retake East Berlin because a tiny fraction of the US infantry got an extra two minutes to do a two mile run.

[The balkens]

Which veers back to the point of, you don't stay on top by degrading your standard everytime a large change happens

90% of casualties in a major war between world powers will be caused by artillery, PGMs and air power so the physical fitness of the individual infantryman is of relatively minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

The Russians will not retake East Berlin because a tiny fraction of the US infantry got an extra two minutes to do a two mile run.

"Sir, should we have infantry take that ground?" Why bother, its not in the grand scheme of things."

[Imperial City-States]

Which veers back to the point of, you don't stay on top by degrading your standard everytime a large change happens

90% of casualties in a major war between world powers will be caused by artillery, PGMs and air power so the physical fitness of the individual infantryman is of relatively minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

The Russians will not retake East Berlin because a tiny fraction of the US infantry got an extra two minutes to do a two mile run.

Ah yes, obviously as someone who has deployed multiple times, I am mistaken in that physical fitness is critically important for the modern soldier.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Which veers back to the point of, you don't stay on top by degrading your standard everytime a large change happens

90% of casualties in a major war between world powers will be caused by artillery, PGMs and air power so the physical fitness of the individual infantryman is of relatively minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

The Russians will not retake East Berlin because a tiny fraction of the US infantry got an extra two minutes to do a two mile run.

*russian laughter intensifies*

[Kubra]

90% of casualties in a major war between world powers will be caused by artillery, PGMs and air power so the physical fitness of the individual infantryman is of relatively minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

The Russians will not retake East Berlin because a tiny fraction of the US infantry got an extra two minutes to do a two mile run.

Ah yes, obviously as someone who has deployed multiple times, I am mistaken in that physical fitness is critically important for the modern soldier.

Well, where were you deployed?

[The balkens]

90% of casualties in a major war between world powers will be caused by artillery, PGMs and air power so the physical fitness of the individual infantryman is of relatively minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

The Russians will not retake East Berlin because a tiny fraction of the US infantry got an extra two minutes to do a two mile run.

*russian laughter intensifies*

Cheeki breeki

[Imperial City-States]

Ah yes, obviously as someone who has deployed multiple times, I am mistaken in that physical fitness is critically important for the modern soldier.

Well, where were you deployed?

Iraq once and Afghanistan twice.