Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The test is a "real world" test of combat. If a large number of women can't hack it, they can't hack combat. And if that is the case, why are they in the Army?
There's an advantage to a smaller build.
Swift and quiet.
I used to work security in serval nights clubs in my younger days eight times out of ten the bigger guys were slow, it was the smaller guys who were quick they didn’t hit as hard but they were harder to hit.
As a girl....most guys were much better in gym...and in cross-gender sports. I sincerely think it is mother nature.
The author assumes it is bias in the test against women...men are kind of better on average than us at most physical stuff to be perfectly honest.
The test should be tailored properly to what is needed in combat and then administered from there. Some women will pass and some men will fail....but men will probably pass at higher rates....we can't guarantee an even-steven outcome if we want the best military.
I'm a woman and I agree with this post.
I don't think it's pc or not pc. It's simply nature that most men are stronger than most women.
HOWEVER, to ban all women from combat duty bc most would fail the test - hell, there was an article about how it was hard to recruit now bc so many of the guys would fail, too.
THAT is what we mean by wanting equality and fairness. Not just letting women through. But at least giving them the chance.
I say this after spending a lot of time being frustrated in my youth because I could actually outperform guys they would give a chance to and they wouldn't even let me try because of my gender. That is the horsepucky we're trying to eliminate.
I don't think it's pc or not pc. It's simply nature that most men are stronger than most women.
HOWEVER, to ban all women from combat duty bc most would fail the test - hell, there was an article about how it was hard to recruit now bc so many of the guys would fail, too.
THAT is what we mean by wanting equality and fairness. Not just letting women through. But at least giving them the chance.
I say this after spending a lot of time being frustrated in my youth because I could actually outperform guys they would give a chance to and they wouldn't even let me try because of my gender. That is the horsepucky we're trying to eliminate.
Preach! I’m not close to beating some marine at their strengths - but I could hold my own and had resistance power. It’s also mental. Ask those who are into martial arts. Again place people at what they are good at - period.
The test should be tailored properly to what is needed in combat and then administered from there. Some women will pass and some men will fail....but men will probably pass at higher rates...
Pretty much this. And as much as it hurts some fragile male egos, some women can quite easily outfight some men. If the can do the job - and if they want to do the job - there's no reason to not let them.
A decent read on the subject - interview with an infantrywoman who did two tours in Afghanistan, and I'm sure the Talib would very much rather she'd stayed at home baking cookies:
People always point to the separate male and female leagues in sports, which is a valid point — it is biology — but infantry isn’t the major leagues, SOF is. Obviously we’d love to have all our infantrymen consist of 6’5″ super-athletes, but it’s not realistic. If you’re letting in small guys who barely pass the standards, what’s the compelling argument for keeping women out?
I'll let someone else look up Audie Murphy's height and weight.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 10-08-2019 at 12:28 PM..
As a girl....most guys were much better in gym...and in cross-gender sports. I sincerely think it is mother nature.
The author assumes it is bias in the test against women...men are kind of better on average than us at most physical stuff to be perfectly honest.
The test should be tailored properly to what is needed in combat and then administered from there. Some women will pass and some men will fail....but men will probably pass at higher rates....we can't guarantee an even-steven outcome if we want the best military.
7 years Army. I'd have a woman in my fire team, IF they're squared away, and strong enough to do some of the male stuff.
Some examples:
Fireman-carry 250 lbs (this is generally harder for a woman but, if they can fireman carry 200lbs, we'll see...)
Kick in doors, test on differing doors while wearing full battle-rattle.
Man or woman, head needs to be on a swivel.
A strong idiot is still an idiot. A smart wimp is still a wimp. Man or woman, I'll have either but, they got to be BOTH strong and smart. ...and I have to trust you.
However, it is has been proven that all other conditions being equal, men due to their biochemistry are usually bigger and stronger than females, such that females are at an extreme disadvantage in un-armed combat. And for you feminist who are gonna say, well women don't get disarmed -NO. SHUT UP!- Weapons jam, ammo runs out, guns get dropped or broken etc... all women aren't Serena Williams, hell, most men aren't Serena Williams...
I know of no woman who can carry 250 pounds. Heck....I can barely lift my 45-pound suitcase off the carousel. (And don't get me started about the jars. Tricky little devils!)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
