NationStates

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:51 am**

Wallenburg wrote:
Imperial City-States wrote:

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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:54 am**

Soldati senza confini wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:57 am**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:00 am**

Soldati senza confini wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:01 am**

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

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:01 am**

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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:02 am**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote: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?

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Conserative Morality wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:07 am**

Soldati senza confini wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:11 am**

Soldati senza confini wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:14 am**

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

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:20 am**

Bourbon Duo-Sicilie wrote:Personally I think woman should be allowed into the military, but they have to meet the physical requirement.

Which physical requirement?

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:22 am**

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?

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:24 am**

Zarkanians wrote:
Bourbon Duo-Sicilie wrote: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?

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:39 am**

Zarkanians wrote:
Bourbon Duo-Sicilie wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:56 am**

Imperial City-States wrote:
Esternial wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:56 am**

Esternial wrote:
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.

That's a fair point and I agree.

indeed.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:00 pm**

Imperial City-States wrote:
Esternial wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:11 pm**

Imperializt Russia wrote:
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.

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

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:16 pm**

Imperial City-States wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:18 pm**

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Imperial City-States wrote:
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."

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:18 pm**

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Imperial City-States wrote:
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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:21 pm**

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Imperial City-States wrote:
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.

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:21 pm**

Imperial City-States wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote: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?

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:22 pm**

The Huskar Social Union wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote: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

Posted: **Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:23 pm**

Kubra wrote:
Imperial City-States wrote:
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.

NationStates

First female 11X has been accepted