Standards differ for men and women
Earlier I wrote, "I am authoritative. I served for twenty years.
Women have a lower standard to meet than men. Here is a link: United States Army Physical Fitness Test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And here are the basics for the ones most likely to be in combat:
Exercise . . . Men . . . Women
Pushup . min 42 - max 71 . . . min 19 - max 42
Situp Same standard for both
2 mile run min 15:54 - max 13:00 . . . min 18:54 - max 15:36
Men have more upper body strength and endurance than women. "
I am unable to contend with such extraordinary blindness.
Can you not tell from the table above that the maximum number of pushups that women are required to do is the minimum for the males? Shouldn't that be an indicator that there are two different standards?
Can you not tell from the table above that the maximum (meaning best time) for women is barely a passing number for men? Shouldn't that be an indicator that there are two different standards?
The requirements will be lowered so as to be "inclusive." This is a social experiment.
As far as your comment about how the army is only one branch...it will be where the majority of the infantry and armor positions are found. I did serve in joint assignments but cannot recall my Navy brethren ever discussing the quality of their armor battalions nor their dismounted infantry tactics.
The Marine Corps, while truly outstanding, is a very small service.
Earlier I wrote, "I am authoritative. I served for twenty years.
Women have a lower standard to meet than men. Here is a link: United States Army Physical Fitness Test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And here are the basics for the ones most likely to be in combat:
Exercise . . . Men . . . Women
Pushup . min 42 - max 71 . . . min 19 - max 42
Situp Same standard for both
2 mile run min 15:54 - max 13:00 . . . min 18:54 - max 15:36
Men have more upper body strength and endurance than women. "
I am unable to contend with such extraordinary blindness.
Can you not tell from the table above that the maximum number of pushups that women are required to do is the minimum for the males? Shouldn't that be an indicator that there are two different standards?
Can you not tell from the table above that the maximum (meaning best time) for women is barely a passing number for men? Shouldn't that be an indicator that there are two different standards?
The requirements will be lowered so as to be "inclusive." This is a social experiment.
As far as your comment about how the army is only one branch...it will be where the majority of the infantry and armor positions are found. I did serve in joint assignments but cannot recall my Navy brethren ever discussing the quality of their armor battalions nor their dismounted infantry tactics.
The Marine Corps, while truly outstanding, is a very small service.
I think you should provide me with some citations for women serving in the infantry and armor in those countries. I did a quick look and did not find any stories that said that men and women served in mixed infantry and armor companies. I saw mentions of battalion and above positions (like intelligence and logistics) in "combat units" but did not see specifically infantry and armor.
I would also like to see some of those nation's studies on the military effectiveness of their mixed units in combat. That might be difficult to do. How much fighting have Finland and Sweden done?
In most of those nations, except for Canada, military service is a joke. In Germany, unless things have changes the recruits are on active duty for training for 18 months.
Given this decision I am certain there are hundred of pages of effectiveness studies available for review by interested parties. I did not find any. I did find arguments about equality. This is not about that.
He is responsible whether he wants to distance himself or not. This isn't a Leon Panetta or anyone else's decision. It's the Commander in Chief's decision. Whatever the case.
But I would still like to hear your opinions on what the policies are should we inevitably need to implement a draft. Women in combat means all women need to register for the draft and when one is implemented, correct?
You are asking me to predict the future...hmmm. One of the things I state on my profile is that I'm "non clairvoyant" which means I lack the power to be able to see beyond the range of ordinary perception or predict the future. Logic is apart from this but related.
There is also an axiom that is appropriate here; "Negative expectations yield negative results. Positive expectations yield positive results." If your mindset opposes the integration of the genders in combat, you will look for and attune yourself to anything you can find that will reinforce your beliefs to a point of unconsciously rejecting anything that weakens such a belief.
Lastly, what some consider a "social experiment" I see as a progressive enlargement of liberty...which is the value that gives people the right to control their own actions without hindrance. Gays in the military and women in combat, fall into that category.
There is also an axiom that is appropriate here; "Negative expectations yield negative results. Positive expectations yield positive results." If your mindset opposes the integration of the genders in combat, you will look for and attune yourself to anything you can find that will reinforce your beliefs to a point of unconsciously rejecting anything that weakens such a belief.
Lastly, what some consider a "social experiment" I see as a progressive enlargement of liberty...which is the value that gives people the right to control their own actions without hindrance. Gays in the military and women in combat, fall into that category.
One of the closest comparisons we have to the changes this may present comes from Canada, I found it interesting:
"Canadian commanders have said women fighters perform as well as their male counterparts. Maj. Eleanor Taylor became the first Canadian woman to command an infantry company in a war zone. Army Brig. Gen. Dean Milner, the last commander of Canada's combat mission, said Maj. Taylor was "easily" one of the best officers to serve under him. "The bottom line is they are soldiers," Gen. Milner said in an interview."
Canada Offers Lessons as U.S. Opens Combat to Women - WSJ.com
"Canadian commanders have said women fighters perform as well as their male counterparts. Maj. Eleanor Taylor became the first Canadian woman to command an infantry company in a war zone. Army Brig. Gen. Dean Milner, the last commander of Canada's combat mission, said Maj. Taylor was "easily" one of the best officers to serve under him. "The bottom line is they are soldiers," Gen. Milner said in an interview."
Canada Offers Lessons as U.S. Opens Combat to Women - WSJ.com
Call it what you want. If it improves our ability to fight and win I support it. If it is a "progressive enlargement of liberty" then you need to try it elsewhere and get back to us with the results. Let's see how mixed units work in the Swedish Infantry during their next prolonged war before we damage our military in the name of some utopian ideal.
Wishing for a thing does not make it happen. Show me the studies that overwhelming show that mixed gender units in prolonged combat has more positives, meaning it improves our ability to close with and destroy the enemy with fires and maneuver, than negatives (which means it fails to do so). If there are no studies this is a progressive social experiment. I believe it is intended to harm the military.
I base my assessment on who is proposing it.
I question whether you read the article provided....but as requested:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub830.pdf
8 Other Nations that Send Women to Combat
Around The Globe, Women Already Serve In Combat Units : NPR
There are many more, but I leave the rest to you.
Here we are the world's last remaining superpower........and all with restricting women's roles in combat. But we need to look at what other countries are doing....countries historically dependent on the United States both militarily and economically?
Suppressed southern rebels, took on the Kaiser and Nazi armies, involved in many wars and police actions.......
How did we do it?
Suppressed southern rebels, took on the Kaiser and Nazi armies, involved in many wars and police actions.......
How did we do it?
Anecdotes are not studies
I read this one. It was not a study. It was a series of papers with anecdotal evidence that women exposed to combat situations did a great job in dealing with complicated and dangerous situations. That is not in question.
On to the next two. Maybe there will be something beyond anecdotes...
I read this one. It was not a study. It was a series of papers with anecdotal evidence that women exposed to combat situations did a great job in dealing with complicated and dangerous situations. That is not in question.
On to the next two. Maybe there will be something beyond anecdotes...
Hmmmm.....okay, how do you define a "Study", as that is somewhat important if I intend to answer you query.
I had already read this:
Australia - infantry, special operations and artillery are opened in 2011. But no study. And I am not aware of sustained combat operations that Australia has been involved in or what the Aussies discovered. So again, not a study.
Canada has 99 female soldiers are "combat troops." There was no data about how many were in mixed infantry units, how much combat those mixed units had engaged in nor what their social experiment indicated. So again, not a study.
Denmark says women performed as well as men in combat roles. That is not the right question. Did combat effectiveness go up or did it go down. No data was provided. So again, not a study.
France. Well. I would be impressed except that there was no data. So again, not a study.
Germany has active duty for training. The report says 800 soldiers serve in combat arms. However, there waas no data and no evaluation of the relative combat effectiveness of single sex versus mixed sex infantry, armor or cavalry (reconnaissance) units. So again, not a study.
Israel. Artillery. While it is technically a combat arm it does not close with the enemy. So again, not a study.
New Zealand. If they did study it was not shared. Where has their infantry fought and how well did the mixed units fight relative to all-male units? There was no data. So again, not a study.
Norway. I would be impressed if there had been any data provided. But there wasn't.
One more to go.
I had already read your third reference. It was shallow, no data and suspect as well.
So still no studies on combat effectiveness of mixed-sex units in the infantry, armor, special operations and cavalry units.
The other countries were driven by the desire to provide equal opportunity to females rather than to improve their ability to conduct combat operations. They are all social experiments.
A study, in this case, requires a comparative analysis of many units of each type conducting similar combat operations on similar terrain and similar weather conditions against a similar enemy.
We could run a hundred scenarios at each of the various combat training centers and use that data to evaluate the comparative combat effectiveness of each kind of unit.
If we had enough data about other nations' experiences with mixed units and either had intelligence data or other nations provided all of their data to us we could evaluate better the impacts of having men and women in units whose primary mission is to attack the enemy and kill or capture him.
So far I do not see any real data.
Anecdotal evidence is fine if you are deciding where to go for dinner. But not for something as important as national survival.
very well, unfortunately you require more for further debate than I find you worthy of providing.
Because you seem to provide nothing I have not dealt with many times, come off as unpleasant, and in general do not provide me with anything resembling pleasure you are something to avoid.
enjoy the forum.
I understand. When one lacks intellectual curiosity it is far simpler to fall back upon ones ignorant biases (if I may borrow your phrase).
My point stands. This is a social experiment that has nothing to do with national defense. We will pay a price in the short run. We may pay a much larger price in some future war.
Similar threads
