Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Ladies first.

Ladies first. (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 05:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
<1% succeed, day in, day out, it's too much, physically. There's no shame, I'm not being a chauvinist, it's simply about physics.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "day in, day out".

Isn't whether it's chauvinist dependent upon which of us is right? If you're as wrong as I'm asserting, I can't see what would cause you to arrive at such a false conclusion other than chauvinism.

This of course applies to me as to whether I'm being hopelessly idealistic.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 07:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

This of course applies to me as to whether I'm being hopelessly idealistic.
I believe that is likely the case, IMO. My wife is athletic, 5'10", strong (can lift 100lb bags of soil and mulch without issue), but she can't fireman-carry me more than ~20', and she completely ran out of steam hiking 8 miles with a 70lb pack.

"Day in, day out" means just that, the morning march is 15 miles, with an 80lb pack. You do that almost every day.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 08:24 AM
 
We're not really trying to argue that men and women are generally, of equal physical capability are we? Look, it makes sense to bolster our forces with strong, violent women, but let's not be silly in wholesale abandoning biology here.
ebuddy
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 08:57 AM
 
There will be some specific percentage of women who will meet whatever specific fitness and endurance criteria are set for the various "combat" jobs in all services, so there will be female Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen in traditionally all-male combat units on a permanent basis. That is guaranteed. This has happened before. When my wife enlisted in the Air Force, they were working on a gender imbalance in the various healthcare jobs, and refused to let her go into any of them. Instead, they sold her on avionics. She excelled, was selected to teach her technical training school immediately on graduation, and proved herself both an extremely competent instructor and technician and that she was significantly better as an NCO than several of her male peers.

However, I do not think the primary issue in this discussion is, or ever has been, females being permanently assigned to combat units. Not at all. It is about being able under the military's rules to get credit when and if they find themselves in a combat situation. It is patently unfair for two Soldiers to wind up shooting their way out of an ambush, with one getting both combat cretic and being qualified to earn the Combat Infantryman badge, while the other just gets a oat on the back, only because one is male and the other female. The U.S. military establishment is essentially stating that the days of large scale, force-on-force battles are essentially in the past (at least with the current world situation), which means that ALL of our military people can find themselves in combat situations, pretty much without any warning. Evening the playing field so that the female members can get credit for BEING in combat such that they can advance along with their male peers is really just a matter of equality under the rules.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I believe that is likely the case, IMO. My wife is athletic, 5'10", strong (can lift 100lb bags of soil and mulch without issue), but she can't fireman-carry me more than ~20', and she completely ran out of steam hiking 8 miles with a 70lb pack.

"Day in, day out" means just that, the morning march is 15 miles, with an 80lb pack. You do that almost every day.
I'm not sure I buy this. Do you have a source? Nowhere I've looked mentions this, and everywhere mentions the super long march as an "event" that happens at a certain week, not every day.

If you're talking in the field, I don't buy that either. You march that long if you have to, but all that accomplishes otherwise is to make a unit tired for when it's time to kill people.

How much training did your wife do for this specific event? Is she in literal peak condition, i.e. there is no amount of training which would improve her ability? Is your wife 18?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We're not really trying to argue that men and women are generally, of equal physical capability are we? Look, it makes sense to bolster our forces with strong, violent women, but let's not be silly in wholesale abandoning biology here.
I don't think they're of equal physical capability. Not even close.

That's not what's being argued though. The question is whether passing a particular test is within the realm of possibility.
( Last edited by subego; Feb 17, 2013 at 12:37 PM. )
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 12:11 PM
 
What is the minimum height a man can be to enter armed services? Weight? Can a 5'5" man fireman carry a 6'4" man? How far is required? If he can't, is he kicked out or just mocked and called a sissy?

There are women who can, and if they can, why not let them.

Also, I can kick all of your butts.

(*The 20 yr old me could kick butt. The 40 yr old me will just sit on you until you cry uncle.)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 12:36 PM
 
And you have the blue stars to prove it.

In the Marines, the minimums are 4'8" 4'10" and 91 lbs. for both men and women.

I don't know if there's a set weight for the fireman's carry.


Edit: quick Google gives me the impression it's someone of roughly your weight.
( Last edited by subego; Feb 17, 2013 at 05:27 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't think they're of equal physical capability. Not even close.

That's not what's being argued though. The question is whether passing a particular test is within the realm of possibility.
I guess I don't understand why that's at issue though. If the candidate cannot pass the particular test, it should be impossible to serve the role for which that test is designed to scrutinize. If there are different tests to accommodate different capabilities, shouldn't the roles reflect those capabilities?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I guess I don't understand why that's at issue though. If the candidate cannot pass the particular test, it should be impossible to serve the role for which that test is designed to scrutinize. If there are different tests to accommodate different capabilities, shouldn't the roles reflect those capabilities?
I agree.

It's been proposed it is physically impossible for the vast majority of women under consideration (young, healthy, 5'2"+) to complete this challenge regardless of training.

This is at issue because I consider the proposition to be false. So false I (incorrectly and inappropriately) accused Shaddim of trying to bullshit me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
What is the minimum height a man can be to enter armed services? Weight? Can a 5'5" man fireman carry a 6'4" man? How far is required? If he can't, is he kicked out or just mocked and called a sissy?

There are women who can, and if they can, why not let them.

Also, I can kick all of your butts.

(*The 20 yr old me could kick butt. The 40 yr old me will just sit on you until you cry uncle.)
This is exactly the point, it's about physics. Some women can meet all the requirements for an infantry assignment (SS Troopers style), and if they want to do it, more power to them, and I mean that with 100% sincerity. However, I think that number is very small, based on physical limitations, if they are held 100% to the physical criteria required for males. No mockery, I have nothing but encouragement and support for anything a woman wants to do. They have their own strength that men can only dream of, but it infrequently involves upper body muscle mass.

I'm rather fit now, I can bench 315lbs for ~8-10, depending on the day, but as a young man of 21, I was a sheer force of nature. If my knee hadn't blown out, or if we'd had better rehabilitation options, I was completely intent on being a mean, green, killing/healing machine (I wanted to be a HC in the FMF). I was obsessed with anything Marine/Force Recon.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And you have the blue stars to prove it.

In the Marines, the minimums are 4'8" and 91 lbs. for both men and women.

I don't know if there's a set weight for the fireman's carry.


Edit: quick Google gives me the impression it's someone of roughly your weight.
She's doing well, then, because I weigh 195 and she's ~125, and she can carry me about 20' on level ground.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 05:17 PM
 
Well, shit. She's a rail. She's nowhere near minimum weight requirements for her height. She'd have to put on 15 to get let in the door.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I guess I don't understand why that's at issue though. If the candidate cannot pass the particular test, it should be impossible to serve the role for which that test is designed to scrutinize. If there are different tests to accommodate different capabilities, shouldn't the roles reflect those capabilities?
As Glenn pointed out, it's about proper compensation and attribution for women in combat situations, not specifically their MOS. If a female corpsman finds herself in the middle of a fierce firefight, she should receive all compensation and awards that she is due, no question. However, if she wants to be in SOC, then she needs to meet all standards specified, and it should be 100% w/o gender bias.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 05:26 PM
 
Also, for the record, the height minimum is 4'10". I fail base 12.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, shit. She's a rail. She's nowhere near minimum weight requirements for her height. She'd have to put on 15 to get let in the door.
That's her natural weight, and it doesn't vary a great deal, as she's physically active most of the time. The only period where she gained beyond that was when she was pregnant with our daughter, I think she went up to ~150, but after her birth my wife went back to her "usual" weight in 4-5 months.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 05:38 PM
 
She's got work ahead of her then if she wants to be a Marine. No more of this 2-3,000 calorie shit.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
She's got work ahead of her then if she wants to be a Marine. No more of this 2-3,000 calorie shit.
I still don't believe it would matter. Not to say she couldn't, at all, but I think it's doubtful. I'd support her if that's what she wants to do, but the realist in me sees that her chances are very slim.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 11:12 PM
 
In other countries women carry 40 lb baskets and jugs of water balanced on their head for several miles. Sometimes several times a day. 60 year old women do this.

I think we overestimate the sexual dimorphic strength characteristics since in the US they are a culture of men who work out all the time to be unnaturally bodybuilderistic while women strive to be (look like) unnaturally weak french modelistic.
I think women could be trained to do all those things, even to carry an 80 lb pack 15 miles pretty easily; although, over time, it would destroy their spine in the process...
it's not about you
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 11:16 PM
 
If the standards were lowered just to allow women to qualify by carrying a 50 lb pack 15 miles that would be more fair. Women do that up and down mountains all the time as a hobby in the world of backpacking. Anyone here a backpacker?
it's not about you
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 11:17 PM
 
There's active, and there's building muscle mass. There are plenty of sports women participate in that build the appropriate muscles for carrying packs and endurance.

The BU Women's Crew team are all required to be at least 5′ 10 and 150 pounds.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 01:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
In other countries women carry 40 lb baskets and jugs of water balanced on their head for several miles. Sometimes several times a day. 60 year old women do this.

I think we overestimate the sexual dimorphic strength characteristics since in the US they are a culture of men who work out all the time to be unnaturally bodybuilderistic while women strive to be (look like) unnaturally weak french modelistic.
I think women could be trained to do all those things, even to carry an 80 lb pack 15 miles pretty easily; although, over time, it would destroy their spine in the process...
Very good point. Not only with age, but I think we're dealing with a less than ideal nutrition and training regimen.

Make that a young, first world woman. Offer her three years of room, board, food, and training. Offer $100MM for success.

Less than half a percent can succeed under these conditions? I don't buy it.


Is this a baroque scenario? Absolutely. No question. This is why I enjoy claims of "this is the laws of physics". The shackles of practicality are removed the moment the question becomes what is possible.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 04:35 AM
 
Make that a young, first world woman. Offer her three years of room, board, food, and training. Offer $100MM for success.
LOL! The goal posts are a movin'! Take 100 ladies at random in the correct age bracket, drop them at the depot at Parris Island, you'd be lucky if any make through all of Basic, going by male standards only. That's what I'm saying. No $100M incentive, no 3 yrs training beforehand, just right out of HS, like any 18 y/o guy who is joining (maybe for tuition money). You can buy it, or not.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 05:23 AM
 
If that's what you meant, you should have said that.

If you believe citing the "laws of physics" - as you have repeatedly - is evidence for that argument, you are mistaken. What is at play is motivation and training. That's not the laws of physics.

As for your claim I'm moving the goalposts, were these statements not clear enough? I intentionally put them in there in case you were actually making the reasonable argument your percentage applied to women off the street.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
To be clear, you are catching I'm saying these women get training, right?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I posit almost any 18-year-old girl who's over, say, 5'2", and isn't defective in some manner, can be trained to the point they'd get through "male" Marine Basic.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's the percentage of women... for which there is simply no amount of physical training that could get them in good enough shape to accomplish this march?
If your reply to no amount is "less than one percent", coming up with a scenario as I did isn't moving the goalposts, it's a demonstration of what you're claiming.

Three years and $100MM is what is known in the parlance, as an amount.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 05:55 AM
 
That's right. Women off the street, .5% can complete Marine Basic training by male standards. That may be excessive, but it could be possible.

"But, there are tri-athletes who can do it easily, w/ 3 yrs training and a financial incentive!!"

Well, I'd say they make up part of that .5%, then.

Edit: That's what I did say.

Years ago I read an article, I think it was in Newsweek, that mentioned a study where less than .5% of women were capable of passing Marine basic, by the male standards. Still, that's some, and it's encouraging.
Then you started the "But... but... but..."
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 06:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's right. Women off the street...
Which I was explicitly not talking about, and made that clear multiple times.

Is it too much to ask you to respond to the question I ask rather than what you feel the question should be?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 06:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
I bet that there are women in Pakistan and other mountainous third world countries that could shit all over the majority of males in first world armed forces.

While wearing flip flops.

At -20.

Celsius.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
How much?
Thats Afghanistan BTW.



Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
This is funny as shit.

Lest someone thing it was F, and hence, no big deal.
Or worse, think it's -20K.

-20F = -29C

-t
Embarrassed I am. Man enough to admit my mistakes I am.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which I was explicitly not talking about, and made that clear multiple times.

Is it too much to ask you to respond to the question I ask rather than what you feel the question should be?
Yes, because your assertion is that the .5% figure is BS. Yes, I believe it's an issue of capability, not motivation.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 10:20 AM
 
Anybody who willingly wants to join the military already has their own incentives, be it tuition, a paying job, travel, training, patriotism. Anybody thus motivated, male or female, has to find it within themselves to keep up. Trying builds character.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 11:11 AM
 
Since Panentta is opening combat roles to women, he opens the door to requiring women to register for Selective Service.
Rostker v. Goldberg
In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them." Implicit in the obiter dicta of the ruling was to hold valid the statutory restrictions on gender discrimination in assigning combat roles.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Anybody who willingly wants to join the military already has their own incentives, be it tuition, a paying job, travel, training, patriotism. Anybody thus motivated, male or female, has to find it within themselves to keep up. Trying builds character.
Again, I agree 100%. I'm grateful to any person who elects to serve, regardless of gender.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yes
Noted.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Since Panentta is opening combat roles to women, he opens the door to requiring women to register for Selective Service.
Rostker v. Goldberg
Don't women have to volunteer for combat positions? I think men don't have a choice.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 06:40 PM
 
If we have to have selective service, I'm fine with women registering for it... but really do we need it. Separate thread.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 09:50 PM
 
Equality does mean equality, the good and the not-so-good. It's necessary.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 06:15 AM
 

Covered in mud, five hours after starting, triple amputee Corporal Todd Love charges to the finish line after competing over ten miles of rugged terrain across 75 obstacles in an event called The Beast.

Next?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 06:17 AM
 
He doesn't have to carry the weight of his own legs.

Cheater.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 06:19 AM
 
"It's only a flesh wound!"
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 07:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"It's only a flesh wound!"
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2