Matrix Games Forums

I have watched this debate for almost sixty years. There is never anything new introduced. The same assumptions
are made by the same types of people. They are proven wrong and they come back to the same topic the next time
it is introduced with the same argument, which is bankrupt. I have never suggested that training standards be
lowered for anybody and if it happens then it is a separate issue. It is not wrong for me to brand myself when the
others in the discussion speak in tropes that even Rush Limbaugh is afraid to wear out. My own experience with
this issue has been entirely the problem that certain men have with accepting a female presence. No one speaks
"obvious truth" and "common sense" is not particularly common in the political arena. If a woman can qualify as
an infantry specialist (and when the chips are down the qualification appears to be scoring 98.6 or so on the
thermometer test) why should she be barred from this? I guess it is because some gentlemen don't like the idea.
I will not delve into exactly why they feel threatened by such a thing.

I have no issues with a woman who can pass the "test". As long as it is the same test that every infantryman gets, not just the female variety.

Your quips and jabs may seem like a mask to you, or a great trophy.
They are merely exposing you. All see with a knowing eye?

And, the person you choose to quote is telling too.
I quote no one but myself (and M.A.).

G.B.S. is truly G.B.S., so to speak. Emphasis on the B.S. (as most progressive excrete).
Good day. Good sports. [;)]

RR

Drum rolls of truthy faux profundity echo across the landscape.

“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” - Nietzsche

But Nietzsche apparently never wrote this. He seems to have come closest with, "There are no facts, only interpretations."

Oh yeah! I remember this guy now...with the GBS quote! If you think Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were evil, GBS is in that same category (he just never ran a country). Pure evil!

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Political correctness is forcing the trainers to pass them no matter what.

I recall reading from somewhere (don't wanna search for it) that in USA Army (if I recall it correctly) it is required of man to throw hand grenade 35 meters, but woman can pass it with only 25 meters. Is that the political correctness you're talking about?

Assuming I remember it right and article in question is accurate and true, I call it political incorrectness and variety of sexual discrimination. I propose following change in terminology: those who throw hand grenade 35 meters be named from men to combat personnel, and those who fall under the mark down to 25 meters be named from women to logistics personnel. Both combat personnel and logistics personnel would be open for both men and women equally. That way women, who can carry their own backpack and toss grenade, can be in harm's way if they so much desire for it. And USA Army can recruit more men who meet the lower (now called 'women') standard. Would that serve better for sexual equality? Why not?

ORIGINAL: danlongman

I have watched this debate for almost sixty years. There is never anything new introduced. The same assumptions
are made by the same types of people. They are proven wrong and they come back to the same topic the next time
it is introduced with the same argument, which is bankrupt. I have never suggested that training standards be
lowered for anybody and if it happens then it is a separate issue. It is not wrong for me to brand myself when the
others in the discussion speak in tropes that even Rush Limbaugh is afraid to wear out. My own experience with
this issue has been entirely the problem that certain men have with accepting a female presence. No one speaks
"obvious truth" and "common sense" is not particularly common in the political arena. If a woman can qualify as
an infantry specialist (and when the chips are down the qualification appears to be scoring 98.6 or so on the
thermometer test) why should she be barred from this? I guess it is because some gentlemen don't like the idea.
I will not delve into exactly why they feel threatened by such a thing.

Thought I'd piggyback on what Matti brings up. Here are the "standards". What is wrong with these "standards"?
If you cannot see it, it only means that you won't see it?

Basic Training
The individual Army Basic Training, or APFT scoring, is different if you're male or female. If you're a male between 17 and 21, you need to perform 35 pushups, 47 situps within two minutes, and run two miles in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. Female applicants in the same age group need 13 pushups, 47 situps and must run two miles within 19 minutes, 42 seconds. These requirements change for male basic trainees between ages 22 and 26. The regulations call for 31 pushups, 43 situps and two miles to be covered in 17 minutes, 30 seconds or less. For females, these figures move to 11 pushups, 43 situps and run times under 20 minutes, 36 seconds. Each of these parameters are assigned a score. Your total score must be 150 or more, with each segment requiring a minimum of 50 points to graduate to Advanced Individual Training, or AIT. The more situps and pushups you do -- and the lower your two mile run time -- the more points you score. A perfect score is 300.
AIT
Infantry AIT, or Infantry School, is part of the infantry's OSUT, or One-Station Unit Training, at Fort Benning. This specialized instruction teaches advanced techniques in weapons operation and maintenance, preparing fortified positions and using communications gear. This is where you learn the core of your infantry skills. AIT also features individual fitness requirements, much like those you encounter in basic training. These requirements are elevated, however, at this stage in your training. Males between 17 and 21 need to perform 42 pushups, 53 situps within two minutes, and run two miles in 15 minutes, 54 seconds or less. Female applicants in the same age group must do 19 pushups, 53 situps and run two miles in 18 minutes, 54 seconds. For males between ages 22 and 26, this drops to 40 pushups, 50 situps and run times increase to 16 minutes, 36 seconds. For females within the same age bracket, these figures decrease to 17 pushups, 50 situps and a run time under 19 minutes, 36 seconds. AIT fitness scores must total 180 or more, with a minimum 60 points at each phase. AIT completion is essential prior to being shipped to your unit.

Keeping the canards and the Rush Limbaughs out of it you can see that the standards are not standard. Even older military men are required to be able to do more physically than the younger military women?
How would you like to show up in a combat zone while waiting two minutes for the "females" to show up?
If all had the same standard would they not all perform and show up together?
And, please keep the professors, managers, and even trash collectors out of it (though, I believe that I do not see women trash collectors because they cannot handle the physical demands of the job and therefore are very few of the total.)

To blend with Matti. The women can show up late to the firefight and lob grenades into the backs of their fellow infantrymen? But, that's OK. Tell the dead boys parents that the women supporting them had met the standards? That would be comforting, eh?

The difference is in facts and emotions. See the facts? Not the emotion.

RR

Thank you, Roadrunner. For a moment I though my idea is so dumb that it's not worth commenting how dumb it is.

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

Thank you, Roadrunner. For a moment I though my idea is so dumb that it's not worth commenting how dumb it is.

Although, there are dumb ideas, yours was not one of them.
A man throwing a "passing" woman's distance 'standard' would fail the man's standard?

To be consistent; I would take the woman who could throw the distance of the man's standard. Do sit ups, push ups, and run the distance time of the man's standard. Then there would be only one "standard". No bell shaped curve. No bonus points for being a certain "type". No easing of goals because society imposes it.

Army green would truly be the standard. When you look at the rows of army green all combat infantry would be the same standard? You can count on them to accomplish the task without having to take in "limiting factors"?

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Words to live by?

RR

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

To be consistent; I would take the woman who could throw the distance of the man's standard. Do sit ups, push ups, and run the distance time of the man's standard. Then there would be only one "standard". No bell shaped curve. No bonus points for being a certain "type". No easing of goals because society imposes it.

Common "traditional" role of the women in military service is not in the fighting, but in the auxiliary, support, logistics, and administration. Nurses, cooks, radio operators, secretaries. Case in point. To my understanding, great majority of the women in militaries everywhere are still assigned to such duties with additions of maintenance crews and vehicle operators. Only very few women get assigned to combat roles, and in those few are in the infantry branch. Increase performance requirements to level of the men, and whole lot of the women wouldn't be worth to be even general's secretary. But by keeping the women's standards and accepting men into it would increase pool of noncombat military personnel while freeing up ablebodies from those to the combat units (infantry and else). Why not?

Today Army plays Navy, two of the US military academies, that is, in American football. Why will there be no women on the field? Why indeed are collegiate sports still segregated by gender in the US military academies? This seems to conflict with US policy regarding gender integration of women. Before I reconsider my position on women in infantry roles -- and I was an 11b infantryman during the first part of my military career -- I want to see women competing successfully with men in collegiate athletics. It seems like a reasonable proof of policy.

Key point on American military forces----this is politics plain and simple.

Women in the US military are not held to the same physical standards as men period. They have to complete a PT test just like males but they have much, much lower standards for a pass/successful test.

So a woman that barely passes a PT will be much weaker than any male that barely passes the Army PT Test....that is really the big problem with this.

If women are equals in roles in the military then they need to be held to the same physical standards. They do that and im happy with the decisions. As some woman in the military are extremely capable physically others barely pass the standard which would get almost all but the eldest men in the military kicked out.

So you start lumping women into infantry units that barely pass female PT standard and it will bring down the performance in those units. Leadership will be unable to do anything about it because by regulations they meet the minimum female PT standards which are a far cry from the physical standards most infantry need to be able to do their job.

There are females I do believe capable of being infantry dont get me wrong, many though I dont believe could do it from what I have seen in my years service.

ORIGINAL: chaos45

So you start lumping women into infantry units that barely pass female PT standard and it will bring down the performance in those units. Leadership will be unable to do anything about it because by regulations they meet the minimum female PT standards which are a far cry from the physical standards most infantry need to be able to do their job.

Really? Is leadership so incapable it can't lump weaker women to logistics to maintain and drive cargo trucks? Or keep them working in mess hall or whatever else?

Matti- A Soldier is a Soldier if they meet the standards you can do nothing against them basically. The Army has rules and regulations that command is bound to follow.

So anyone that passes their respective PT test based on Age/sex is a fully capable Soldier by the Army's standards.

Logistics has had Female Soldiers for a long time, Logistics however is typically much less physically demanding than being in the Infantry, Armor, or Combat Engineer fields.

Equal work should equal, equal standards----thats what the military really needs for something like this to actually work and not just be political BS.

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

Calm it down with the interpersonal attacks or the thread will need to be locked.

Cheers

Pip

You are correct that personal attacks are unnecessary. Everyone on this forum has a right to their opinion...as long as it agrees with MINE![;)]

ORIGINAL: parusski


You are correct that personal attacks are unnecessary. Everyone on this forum has a right to their opinion...as long as it agrees with MINE![;)]

Hear, Hear. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: chaos45

So you start lumping women into infantry units that barely pass female PT standard and it will bring down the performance in those units. Leadership will be unable to do anything about it because by regulations they meet the minimum female PT standards which are a far cry from the physical standards most infantry need to be able to do their job.

Really? Is leadership so incapable it can't lump weaker women to logistics to maintain and drive cargo trucks? Or keep them working in mess hall or whatever else?

Why Matti, that would be sex discrimination? [;)]
Isn't it easier to stay politically correct and just lower the standards for just the women who cannot meet the standards?
For some reason someone somewhere believes in 'that' is "fairness". All those years of "if the boys can do it girls can too" mentality. [8|]
Maybe for management, trash collecting, and other things but in the combat zone peoples lives are continuously at stake? Sadly, no one higher up makes that argument in public. [:-]
Maybe then you can get the support from the mothers who watch their sons go off to war? Instead of saying "I hope that Sally will be able to keep up with my Johnny" they might say "hell no, let Sally stay at home or somewhere where she won't get Johnny killed." [:(]

Not to say that Mary or Sue cannot get the job done if they pass the common standard that men do. But, just maybe Sally should be held to the higher standard too?

Just sayin'.

RR

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

Really? Is leadership so incapable it can't lump weaker women to logistics to maintain and drive cargo trucks? Or keep them working in mess hall or whatever else?

Why Matti, that would be sex discrimination? [;)]

How so? If Mary can carry her own backpack while hiking up the hills and mountains but Sue can't, why should Sue come along and have her bag carried by Mary? Would leaving Sue to cook back in the mess hall really be sexual discrimination?

Matti: According to the feminazi's (among others) in the US, yes, that would be discrimination. You would be surprised how many people think the military is about government run job creation. I remember back when the Iraq war began, there was a woman who refused to be deployed (I think she was arrested and court martialed) she said that she joined the Army as a job and never thought she might have to be deployed or fight.

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

Really? Is leadership so incapable it can't lump weaker women to logistics to maintain and drive cargo trucks? Or keep them working in mess hall or whatever else?

Why Matti, that would be sex discrimination? [;)]

How so? If Mary can carry her own backpack while hiking up the hills and mountains but Sue can't, why should Sue come along and have her bag carried by Mary? Would leaving Sue to cook back in the mess hall really be sexual discrimination?

Matti you just fell shy of the point. It would be sex discrimination if the lesser standards are adopted as OK standards.
If Mary and Sue can meet the men's standards (or, infantrymen standards) let them fight and (maybe) die along side the rest of the combat infantry soldiers. If Sally is given a pass on lesser standards she needs to do something else.
The heck with political correctness in this case. At that point Sally would be a liability that any unit could not afford to hump?

RR