NationStates

Imperial City-States wrote:

Wallenburg wrote: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?

This is the standard to be in the Army. Not strictly combat roles as no such test formally exists.

Imperial City-States wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Are the 19 pushups and 53 situps also marked in two minute intervals?

Correct, my apologies, forgot to annotate.

Wallenburg wrote:

Imperial City-States wrote:

This is the standard to be in the Army. Not strictly combat roles as no such test formally exists.

Ah.

So desk clerks and shit have to pass this too?

Kautharr wrote:

Warped Woods wrote:Can't have a child without a daddy either. They'll just turn gay from the mother's effeminacy.

No, a woman's place is in the home to nurture and raise the children. A man's place is at work or at war. Back when that was how the world was, there was no gay or transgender people.

Esternial wrote:

Imperial City-States wrote: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.

Never claimed they would be but is she a detriment if she passed the female standard and not the male standard?

Could be that the male standard is just higher than it realistically could be for them to be suitable soldiers. We'd need to know some performance records from women that have actually passed this standard, especially those that barely passed it, before we can say "this standard is shit".

For all we know they can be suitable soldiers and the male standard has just been set too high.

Esternial wrote:

Imperial City-States wrote: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.

Never claimed they would be but is she a detriment if she passed the female standard and not the male standard?

Could be that the male standard is just higher than it realistically could be for them to be suitable soldiers. We'd need to know some performance records from women that have actually passed this standard, especially those that barely passed it, before we can say "this standard is shit".

For all we know they can be suitable soldiers and the male standard has just been set too high.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Esternial wrote:Never claimed they would be but is she a detriment if she passed the female standard and not the male standard?

Could be that the male standard is just higher than it realistically could be for them to be suitable soldiers. We'd need to know some performance records from women that have actually passed this standard, especially those that barely passed it, before we can say "this standard is shit".

For all we know they can be suitable soldiers and the male standard has just been set too high.

I don't think 43 push ups in two minutes is unrealistic for the military.

It is, in fact, perfectly realistic to achieve that with proper training.

Imperial City-States wrote:

Esternial wrote:Never claimed they would be but is she a detriment if she passed the female standard and not the male standard?

Could be that the male standard is just higher than it realistically could be for them to be suitable soldiers. We'd need to know some performance records from women that have actually passed this standard, especially those that barely passed it, before we can say "this standard is shit".

For all we know they can be suitable soldiers and the male standard has just been set too high.

That is the standard for females to be in the Army. women do pass that, regularly. Those who barely pass it don't deserve to be in the military.

The Male standard isn't 'too high' it's where it should be, the goal is to be in peak physical shape. Not 'meh' physical shape.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Esternial wrote:Never claimed they would be but is she a detriment if she passed the female standard and not the male standard?

Could be that the male standard is just higher than it realistically could be for them to be suitable soldiers. We'd need to know some performance records from women that have actually passed this standard, especially those that barely passed it, before we can say "this standard is shit".

For all we know they can be suitable soldiers and the male standard has just been set too high.

I don't think 43 push ups in two minutes is unrealistic for the military.

It is, in fact, perfectly realistic to achieve that with proper training.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Imperial City-States wrote:
That is the standard for females to be in the Army. women do pass that, regularly. Those who barely pass it don't deserve to be in the military.

The Male standard isn't 'too high' it's where it should be, the goal is to be in peak physical shape. Not 'meh' physical shape.

Depends on what you call "peak" though.

I don't think those standards are anywhere near top performance for a man, but it is by no means mediocre.

Esternial wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I don't think 43 push ups in two minutes is unrealistic for the military.

It is, in fact, perfectly realistic to achieve that with proper training.

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.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Imperial City-States wrote:
Correct, my apologies, forgot to annotate.

No problem.

Now, the only thing that concerns me is the 19 pushups. I'd say that if a woman wants to be in the military at least 40 should be a competent assessment.

Esternial wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I don't think 43 push ups in two minutes is unrealistic for the military.

It is, in fact, perfectly realistic to achieve that with proper training.

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.

Imperial City-States wrote: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.

Ceterius wrote:See, what I'm getting from this thread, is that there are a lot of sexist fraggers in the military today.

Wallenburg wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
No problem.

Now, the only thing that concerns me is the 19 pushups. I'd say that if a woman wants to be in the military at least 40 should be a competent assessment.

Same. I am a very weak guy and I can still do 20 if I put my mind to it. A woman wanting to make a profession out of combat duty ought to show some real muscle.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Same. I am a very weak guy and I can still do 20 if I put my mind to it. A woman wanting to make a profession out of combat duty ought to show some real muscle.

More importantly, women wanting to make a profession out of the military have to show ambition.

It's not enough to just be a woman who has real muscle, since she is at a handicap because of the preconceived notions people have about women. It's like being a short guy in a team. I'm 5'6", against a bunch of 6'0" guys I gotta compensate with something, and my height is not it.

Imperial City-States wrote:

Ceterius wrote:See, what I'm getting from this thread, is that there are a lot of sexist fraggers in the military today.

Sexism has little to do with it. People are a little touchy when it comes to their lives being put at risk.

Imperial City-States wrote:In the military, and especially the Combat Arms side of the house. Respect is not given (beyond rank) it's earned. For a woman to be respected she needs to earn it, and by that i mean she has to be on top of literally everything and be the best at everything, that is the only way she will gain respect.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Imperial City-States wrote:In the military, and especially the Combat Arms side of the house. Respect is not given (beyond rank) it's earned. For a woman to be respected she needs to earn it, and by that i mean she has to be on top of literally everything and be the best at everything, that is the only way she will gain respect.

And the same standard holds for respecting men? Being on top of everything and being the best at everything?

Imperial City-States wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
More importantly, women wanting to make a profession out of the military have to show ambition.

It's not enough to just be a woman who has real muscle, since she is at a handicap because of the preconceived notions people have about women. It's like being a short guy in a team. I'm 5'6", against a bunch of 6'0" guys I gotta compensate with something, and my height is not it.

In the military, and especially the Combat Arms side of the house. Respect is not given (beyond rank) it's earned. For a woman to be respected she needs to earn it, and by that i mean she has to be on top of literally everything and be the best at everything, that is the only way she will gain respect.

Imperial City-States wrote:In my experience? absolutely.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Imperial City-States wrote:In my experience? absolutely.

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

Conserative Morality wrote:

Imperial City-States wrote:In my experience? absolutely.

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