Jump to content


Photo

Female Warriors


  • Please log in to reply
1307 replies to this topic

#41 T19

T19

    Love Life, hate Taxes

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,579 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 0821 AM

I will check at work today and post the current standards... but as the link I posted shows, Canadian Women have been getting killed at the front since WW1, just now they are actually fighting and doing well in most cases... same can be said of most men.

as for one standard for all... that does not take into account age... so soldiers at 45 would be excluded from combat because they cannot do as many pushups as a 21 year old? Historical evidence blows that assumption all to hell, with older weaker solders often winning bravery medals and saving mens lives.

Same can be said for women. Yes they are smaller, Yes they are weaker, But the same could be said for a man at 5ft 5 and another at 6ft 4

#42 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,481 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 0852 AM

I have to agree with the bridgedwelling Hittite, maybe i`m just an old fashioned male but women in combat just feels plain wrong to me, for both morally and conscious reasons.
  • 0

#43 rohala

rohala

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 504 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 0904 AM

as for one standard for all... that does not take into account age... so soldiers at 45 would be excluded from combat because they cannot do as many pushups as a 21 year old?

Why not?

Same can be said for women. Yes they are smaller, Yes they are weaker, But the same could be said for a man at 5ft 5 and another at 6ft 4

Not all men are used in combat either. Even conscript armies divide their conscripts based on their physical abilities. Combat is reserved for the fittest soldiers.

The problem I see with the mentality here is that people see serving the army as an opportunity to make money and not an organisation that is supposed to be as effective as possible given a finite amount of resources.
  • 0

#44 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,761 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 0913 AM



As someone who less than 36 hours ago just got fireman carried up a slippery jungle mountain by a 5'2" 19 year old blonde who would be lucky if she weighed fifty kilos soaking wet, after I was 'hit' in a close country ambush on an ex run by SAS and Commandos I'm somewhat of a convert - I'm a six foot tall 85kg guy, with another thirty odd kilos of crap and a weapon hanging off me.

She was also one of three of us that got a shot off in the sniper stalk (she got caught after the shot though - she got too close)

She managed to lead her team in a KC mission as successfully as could be (it was a push to failure exercise) where as my stellar leadership ended in a village massacre Ken would be proud of (we did kill the target bomb maker... and woman with a weapon...and a dude with a phone...and a dude with a stick...all but the woman shot in the back... :unsure: ) but thats another story...


I'm glad there was one there that could do the job when it needed to be done. There are always exceptions to the perceived norm.

Here is an interesting find on men vs. women body strength:

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8477683

And Andrew, with regards to the "open mind," I don't think I've seen anybody here with a closed one. The only person here that seemingly has a "closed mind" is thekirk - and according to his personal, hands-on experience dealing with his female soldiers, he entered into the situation with an "open mind," but the repeated negative results of his encounter eventually led to him changing his mind on the matter (based on personal experiences). I don't call that "having a closed mind." I call that a "personal determination."


Sorry, I did not mean that in the common MSM term of open mind... I meant it in terms of open your mind to the possibilities.. There are some things a female may have issues with... but a small man will have equal problems. But when coming up with a plan I always used the know strengths and weaknesses of my troops to assign tasks...right soldier for the job.

Again sorry if my post is perceived as a slam, not my intention


The 'open mind' appreciation remains arguable, having read posts to date in this thread. JasonL and T19 are correct about the benefits of real physical testing /training standards, which only see much effect in SOF as far as the US forces. Even with the improvements in the USMC, there is no discriminator vs. MOS and the true requirements of the position, all of which are enumerated in long-standing publications [MOS Manual in the USMC].

Apart from an unfortunately high level of self-convinced in the forces, as TheKirk once was [his own admission], it is clear that the 'civilians' are not at fault, except for those in civil service alongside the uniforms in the service HQ, who actually make the rules.

The main reason we can't 'get it' in the US forces is their sheer size. There is no way that the manpower weenies will permit true testing for the requirements of each specialty, because so many men, as well as women, would be invalidated from the more challenging specialties that these would remain unfilled, perhaps by 50%.

We have always had to make do in units with men too weak or of insufficient endurance, and everybody compensated. Nothing was said and the mission accomplished. If TheKirk 'broke' people by giving them orders beyond their capacity, well I sympathize with those soldier-victims.

The US forces passed up a unique moment when we went 'co-ed', and that was to design specialized physical performance testing that qualify both men & women for the designated tasks. I always said that the woman able to pass the recon battalion physical test would not have any problem with her battle buddies or anybody else, on and off duty, for that matter. Think of the 'marines' in the Alien II film, where the women gave and took with their squad and performed as well as anybody. Likewise the women tankers able to hump ammo, suspension components and carry out all crew tasks with endurance, would have no problems.

Such physical standards would disqualify so many men and women as to make the US forces fall far below required manning levels. That's why the leadership [not the civilians] will not let it happen. Complaints about different standards for men and women in physical testing are simoply not relevant. These ensure a modicum of fitness for general service. Nor are the standards particularly well-maintained. The soldiers I saw in Germany with the 1AD and supporting echelons in 2005 were in too many cases [and I mean relatively small numbers] overweight and underwhelming, but they mostly had served in the 2003-04 Iraq deployment of 15 months and had probably gone slack as part of their recovery.
  • 0

#45 Rocky Davis

Rocky Davis

    Old Broken Down Retired Tanker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,980 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 0916 AM

I will check at work today and post the current standards... but as the link I posted shows, Canadian Women have been getting killed at the front since WW1, just now they are actually fighting and doing well in most cases... same can be said of most men.

as for one standard for all... that does not take into account age... so soldiers at 45 would be excluded from combat because they cannot do as many pushups as a 21 year old? Historical evidence blows that assumption all to hell, with older weaker solders often winning bravery medals and saving mens lives.

Same can be said for women. Yes they are smaller, Yes they are weaker, But the same could be said for a man at 5ft 5 and another at 6ft 4


One standard for all disregarding sex. So, all 21 year old soldiers (male or female) have the same standard. Lowering the standards somewhat accounting for age is a proper thing. Lowering the standards somewhat because of sex is not.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that each event weighs as much as another one. Your +1 experience is equal to thekirk's -1 experience. Since I only had a female or two assigned one time (as clerks), and have never dealt with them in the field tanking, I have no personal anecdotes to sway my opinion.
  • 0

#46 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,761 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 0925 AM

I have to agree with the bridgedwelling Hittite, maybe i`m just an old fashioned male but women in combat just feels plain wrong to me, for both morally and conscious reasons.


I understand the sensitivities. But War is Hell, and the nation sending both men and women into service will just have to consider the likely costs more clearly than has been the case so far, and whether crackpot schemes and adventures really ought to be attempted. Why should only mothers of sons weep?

The US went to volunteer forces in 1973 precisely so that professionals could be ordered into action regardless of political opinions and other distractions [ex post Vietnam]. They would be paid better to brave the dangers without regard to how the home front reacted. Quite a dream, eh?

Edited by Ken Estes, 25 May 2012 - 0926 AM.

  • 0

#47 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2012 - 0941 AM


I will check at work today and post the current standards... but as the link I posted shows, Canadian Women have been getting killed at the front since WW1, just now they are actually fighting and doing well in most cases... same can be said of most men.

as for one standard for all... that does not take into account age... so soldiers at 45 would be excluded from combat because they cannot do as many pushups as a 21 year old? Historical evidence blows that assumption all to hell, with older weaker solders often winning bravery medals and saving mens lives.

Same can be said for women. Yes they are smaller, Yes they are weaker, But the same could be said for a man at 5ft 5 and another at 6ft 4


One standard for all disregarding sex. So, all 21 year old soldiers (male or female) have the same standard. Lowering the standards somewhat accounting for age is a proper thing. Lowering the standards somewhat because of sex is not.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that each event weighs as much as another one. Your +1 experience is equal to thekirk's -1 experience. Since I only had a female or two assigned one time (as clerks), and have never dealt with them in the field tanking, I have no personal anecdotes to sway my opinion.


What about the fact that women bring some situationally unique capabilities to the battlespace (or whatever buzzword you want to use)? Push-ups, situps and 2mi worth running are all pretty nebulous parameters anyway. The lack of something that tests leg strength and back core/stabilizer muscles (like a squad test) is to me pretty surprising for instance. A "carry heavy shit/other recruit x distance" test would make too much sense too.

I find the notion that women getting shot up is abhorrent, but that men getting shot up is far less so pretty damn offensive when you get down to it as well. It boils down to essentially valuing the life of a woman more/differently than the life of a man, which basically violates a whole set of tenets of modern humanism. Women haven't been reproductive assets that require protection for a very long time. Societies that are ostensibly supposed to value the protection of certain elements also are rife with abusing those same elements (rape, battery, etc, etc) at pretty damn high rates, so it always comes off as a very hollow argument too.

As for anecdotes: I agree completely, which is why I try to avoid using them to argue a point if at all possible. Certainly there is zero data that confirms a overall failing of women to perform soldierly duties in any armed forces that employs them universally.

Edited by Jason L, 25 May 2012 - 0943 AM.

  • 0

#48 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,436 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 0944 AM

I hope this is additional information, and not gas on the blaze:
http://thesoldierslo...n-the-infantry/
It's from a blog by a Marine LtCol (ret).
  • 0

#49 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,761 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1000 AM

I hope this is additional information, and not gas on the blaze:
http://thesoldierslo...n-the-infantry/
It's from a blog by a Marine LtCol (ret).


Who's the LtCol? It is not this Nate. Is the article signed?

CMC is conducting a test of women serving in previously prohibited MOS.' It's his opinion that it is needed, it does not mean anything is inevitable. If anything, it will provide evidence. That is all.
  • 0

#50 Hittite Under The Bridge

Hittite Under The Bridge

    Would you like to touch my monkey?

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,491 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1055 AM

I find the notion that women getting shot up is abhorrent, but that men getting shot up is far less so pretty damn offensive when you get down to it as well. I


You would.
  • 0

#51 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,296 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1132 AM

The US forces passed up a unique moment when we went 'co-ed', and that was to design specialized physical performance testing that qualify both men & women for the designated tasks. I always said that the woman able to pass the recon battalion physical test would not have any problem with her battle buddies or anybody else, on and off duty, for that matter.


I took this opportunity to read up on actual physical demands for the Bundeswehr today, since my personal memory stems back from conscription time, when recruits (all male, obviously) were graded as T1 through T5; IIRC T1 being "unrestricted fitness for all occupations", T2 "fit with restrictions for individual occupations", T3 "limited fitness for service", T4 "unfit for service at this time" and T5 "unfit for service". T2/T3 would get exclusions for various occupations - based on the medical exam, not a fitness test. T1 types tended to end up in light infantry or the Guard Battalion; I was T2 due to slight sight deficiencies and borderline blood pressure after doing the usual ten squats for stress.

I also went through the officer candidate exam separately and passed the physical fitness test for volunteers easily despite being worried about it before, never having been the sportive type. Back then it was 4 x 9 meter pendulum sprint, 40 seconds of sit-ups and push-ups each, a standing long jump and a twelve minute Cooper Test of running. There was a maximum of six points per item to be achieved, with a total of 15 and no less than two in any individual test required to pass. Of my group, only one failed when he gave up in the final Cooper Test. I think I pretty much maxed the push-ups and sit-ups (for which I had specifically trained), and the long jump by virtue of my bean-pole legs. It seems at least today enlisted and NCO applicants take a cardio stress test instead of the Cooper test.

In reality, I lacked upper-body strength (still do), and scaling the wall at the obstacle course during basic training was damn nigh impossible to me. There was a test involving chin-ups only in training, and I managed a grand total of one. We were expected to significantly increase our achievements by the end of the term, which in my case was secured by my squad leader grabbing me in the second test and pushing me up while loudly counting "Two, three, four, five, six ...", with me protesting between laughs that nobody would believe this (but nobody asked questions, either). Every soldier was expected to take this test at least once per year.

When women were admitted, they had to go through the same PFT, but with less required to get the same points as men. I would want to believe that the personnel offering career tracks at the end of the exam were keeping in mind that the female results counted for less than the male ones, but my above experience with superiors trying to adjust reality to expectations don't make me hopeful. As the US, we don't actually have occupation-specific tests (save for the special operations forces), and the only saving grace would likely have been the aforementioned self-selection of women towards the "typical female" specialities.

Fast-forward to 2010, and we no longer have the yearly PFT, but the all-brand-new-and-shiny Basic Fitness Test. It includes an 11 x 10 meter sprint test where you start from lying on your belly with your hands on your back, turn around a pylon after ten meters, lie back down at the start, then go again (maximum time of 60 seconds); hanging chin-up for as long as possible (minimum time of five seconds), but starting from a box and not pulling yourself up (well, that would have solved all my problems!); and a 1,000 meter run (maximum time of 6:30 minutes). According to the Bundeswehr website, "a sophisticated point system referencing genetically based biological differences refering to gender and age permits a fair, scientifically-founded judgement". Apparently his translates to female requirements reduced by 13 percent for running, and 30 percent for hanging. Another bonus applies for soldiers of age 36 and up.

Jump to the end of that year, and a female cadet drops out of the main mast of Navy sail training ship Gorch Fock in the port of Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, and dies. To be fair, she had been a prior service NCO, deployed in Operation ATALANTA off East Africa, and there were other factors than mere physical fitness at play, not least that the cadet crew had just been flown in from Germany the night before and had to cope with the change of time and climate zones in addition to little sleep while going up into the rigging for the first time in their life. Some also questioned whether training on a sail ship was still necessary in this day and age.

The point is, among the recommendations made by an investigative committee and since implemented was a greater emphasis on making sure of the required physical fitness in pre-training prior to embarking cadets. Which is, of course, nothing else but an occupation-specific standard. And all that took was the death of a young sailor (who happened to be a woman).

Edited by BansheeOne, 25 May 2012 - 1357 PM.

  • 0

#52 thekirk

thekirk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,440 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1333 PM

Unlike a lot of the people commenting here, particularly one, I can put specific names and faces with specific times, dates, and incidents where people were injured and/or permanently disabled due to this fantasy-land concept. Some of those people who were disabled became so at my specific order, in service of a specific mission I was tasked with accomplishing by my unit. So, this is not an abstract concept to me--It is a reality I had to cope with as a leader. Abstractions don't come with names and faces, or guilt for failing them as a leader when one really had no other option--Thanks to the idiocies forced by idealists.

The issue is not one of rights or ideals. The issue is one of "Does this ideal work in the real world?". I have to conclude that it doesn't. Over the course of my experience dealing with females in the military, I observed a couple of things that make me conclude that they have a valid role and duty for military service, but they do not belong in front-line units, period. You can quote studies all you want, and specific incidents with exceptional female servicewomen, but the thing you cannot do is refute reality and the dirty little secrets nobody wants to talk about.

The reality of the situation is that while the studies show women can potentially become as physically capable as males, the reality is that the majority don't. Go to any gym on any Army base, and take a quick survey of who is there after duty hours working out on strength-building: The population is almost entirely male. The individuals who need it the most, the females, are not utilizing the equipment. Then, go out and check the jobsites and monitor who is actually doing the physical labor. It won't be the women, either. Routinely, the men in any given unit will be the ones carrying the heavy loads, and doing the physical labor--Even within the same trades. And, yes--This is a failure of leadership. Even if you do your best to divvy up the tasks equitably, you wind up assigning them in a discriminating way, just because you're tired of waiting three hours for six women to get a job done that three males will accomplish in two or three. That's just in garrison. Move that to the field for training, or deployment to a combat zone, and things become exponentially worse. You don't have the luxury of waiting extra time to get something done, even when it doesn't involve people shooting at you. The supply chain still needs raw strength to get a lot of things done, even in "rear areas".

One of my old medics is now medically retired for PTSD, which he acquired during one of his multiple tours in Iraq, going out on route clearance missions nearly every day. That guy spent more time outside the wire than any Combat Engineer in his unit, nearly double the time that they did. Why was that? Because he was in a unit that the Army decided could cope with having females assigned as Combat Medics. Due to that, he and another couple of male medics wound up doing nearly all the work outside the wire for an entire section of medics, while most the females spent their entire tours inside the wire running sick call or working in the BAS. They weren't going outside the wire for one simple reason: They lacked the body strength to do their jobs and be able to pull casualties out of blown-up vehicles. As a result, three male medics wound up doing the work for ten, while seven female medics spent their time inside the wire. I should mention that only three of those female medics completed their full tour in Iraq, the other four returning early for "stress" or becoming pregnant. I think one got injured while doing PT, as well. The three male medics completed their tours, one later developing PTSD due to overwork and overexposure to trauma, while another damaged his back pulling a casualty out of a burning vehicle. After he damaged his back, he had to keep going out, and never got a chance to fully heal up from the injury. That turned it into a chronic problem, and resulted in his later medical discharge. One year in Iraq, two burned out male medics who are no longer available to the Army for continued service. Both probably unnecessarily crippled for life to one degree or another, because some lackwit thought it a good idea to assign women to a combat unit. That's one of the "dirty little secrets"--In that many times, having women assigned to key jobs means overworking the males serving alongside them in those same key jobs, due to actual physical incapacity to do the same job, and a greater propensity not to complete tours.

I've worked with some great female Soldiers, who I'd gladly put up against any of the guys I worked with or knew. The problem is, those women were few and far between, exceptional, and the Army in it's wisdom, wants to make believe that every woman in the Army meets those standards--When they manifestly don't. Give me 100 women, and I can probably train 10 to 15 out of a hundred to meet the lower end of the spectrum of male standards. Give me 100 males, and I can train 85 to 90 of them to meet those same standards. Yet, in the end, I have to keep the females who don't meet those male minimum standards, and throw out the men who don't. The women wind up being assigned against my strength as though they were males. How the hell does that work, again? Again and again, the ideal dies when placed up against actual implemented reality. Sure, under ideal circumstances, you can train and maintain quite a few women to male standards, but at what cost? Who the hell has the time to supervise and enforce the additional physical training? Trust me on this one--I've been there: You will not be able to make this happen unless you spend time out of your day to enforce it happening, and that's not likely to be a part of the duty day, either. Someone is going to have to take those physically inadequate people down to the gym, and put them through remedial PT each and every day, and good luck making that happen when it's all females who fail the test. The chain of command is going to come to you and ask "Why are you making these people, who pass the APFT, do more PT? They meet the Army standard....". Why force that on leadership that already has a million and one other priorities that we've deemed more important?

I'm not interested in idealistic "concepts". I'm more interested in what actually gets done, and what happens when those ideals meet the real world. We can say "Gee, look: The Russians had women in combat... Why can't we?". The problem is, we're not recruiting our Army and Marine Corps women from among the population of a semi-developed nation fighting for its survival. We are dealing with little Suzy Valleygirl, who likely never did any sports or athletics as a girl, and who has very, very limited background in doing anything physical whatsoever. Trying to turn that raw material into someone you want filling a slot in your military unit is quite a different proposition, and in my experience, is simply not worth the massive effort involved. We've been lying to ourselves since the beginning of this whole experiment back in the 1970s, and it's about damn time we stopped. There are literally thousands of victims of this bullshit idealism out there, male and female, who have and will suffer from this shit until we stop.

A lot of this problem goes right to culture, and how very few women have managed to lay down the groundwork, in terms of greater bone density and strength in their youth. Why this is, I don't care--I had to deal with the higher propensity for stress fractures and joint injuries that resulted from it. That's the reality, not the ideal: The girls with athletic backgrounds, whose bodies could have withstood the rigor of military training? I didn't get those--I got the sedentary city girls who never played a game of softball in their lives, or who never walked further than the nearest bus stop. The raw material is simply lacking, and the military does not, I repeat, does not have the time or the money to spend to get these people up to a standard and maintain it, not when it could be recruiting males who are more likely to meet the standards, and who have the physical capacity to be trained to do so with less time and resources devoted to doing so.

Every single enlisted female I had that was worth a damn, and especially the ones who worked their asses off to keep up with the guys, ended their military careers with enough accumulated damage to their bodies that most of them could have, and should have, been medically retired. I had a 90-lb female supply clerk, a girl who had more heart than half of my guys, who ended her career in the service with destroyed knee and hip joints--To the point she couldn't have re-enlisted if she'd wanted to. While she worked for me, I swear she spent at least as much time on profile or crutches as she did off them--And, not because she was a slacker, either. She kept doing her best to keep up, and breaking herself. We'd go on road marches, and she'd do the ten miles just as well as the guys, but here's the thing: I'd be carrying the same sixty-seventy pounds of weight she was, but that's less than a third of my body weight. For her, that was like nine-tenths. Any wonder I'd be sore for a day or two, and she'd be half-crippled for a week? Not to mention, her stride was maybe twenty inches, to my thirty-six. For half that road march, she'd be running to keep up with the males who were comfortably walking along at a normal pace.

And you wonder why I feel like shit, almost twenty years after this? She quite simply should never have been put into that position, but thanks to the idealists view, she was. And, I had to be the one forcing this crap to happen. The Army lied to her, and told her "Yes, you can do this job we put you into...". The reality? The idealists system put her into a situation where she'd wind up virtually crippling herself for life. I ran into this young lady about ten years after I had her in my unit. She was a civilian, working in a sedentary job, with almost completely destroyed knee joints. She was looking at having to have both of them replaced with artificial ones, as if she were a seventy year-old. Unfortunately, she didn't have the medical insurance to do that, and neither the Army nor the VA were going to help her, since they'd never done the proper documentation of what I thought were clearly service-related injuries. That right there is an actual reality-based outcome of idealism, folks. And, I'm sure the usual suspects will tell me it's not valid, as it is anecdotal, and not properly vetted because some moron of a Ph.D hasn't spent ten million dollars validating what common sense and a short check at the orthopedic center on any military base will tell you.

And, I'm the sexist. Amazing, ain't it?

Edited by thekirk, 25 May 2012 - 1354 PM.

  • 0

#53 T19

T19

    Love Life, hate Taxes

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,579 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1339 PM

as for one standard for all... that does not take into account age... so soldiers at 45 would be excluded from combat because they cannot do as many pushups as a 21 year old?

Why not?

Same can be said for women. Yes they are smaller, Yes they are weaker, But the same could be said for a man at 5ft 5 and another at 6ft 4

Not all men are used in combat either. Even conscript armies divide their conscripts based on their physical abilities. Combat is reserved for the fittest soldiers. The problem I see with the mentality here is that people see serving the army as an opportunity to make money and not an organisation that is supposed to be as effective as possible given a finite amount of resources.


At 45 your body after years in the Miliatary is hurting...
Where did I say people where in it for the money?

The CF has an outstanding reputation in the battlefield.. must be our training and culture :blink:

#54 T19

T19

    Love Life, hate Taxes

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,579 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1350 PM

Like I said, we have females in combat roles. they go out side the wire. They get shot at, and shoot back. some live, some dont, some wish they had not.

Kirk, on your medic thing, sound to me that your national policy of not letting women do what they trained seems to be the problem not the women not wanting to go. Cant blame that on women

#55 thekirk

thekirk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,440 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1413 PM

Like I said, we have females in combat roles. they go out side the wire. They get shot at, and shoot back. some live, some dont, some wish they had not.

Kirk, on your medic thing, sound to me that your national policy of not letting women do what they trained seems to be the problem not the women not wanting to go. Cant blame that on women


National policy had nothing to do with it. The unit in question did a reality-based test to determine whether or not the medic had the upper body strength to pull a dead weight out of a hatch on a vehicle. All the male medics were able to, and none of the females ever managed it. Due to that, they chose not to take the women outside the wire, and I can't say I blame them, either. The Army decided they could get by with female medics, and then assigned random women who had that specialty to the unit without regard to their physical capacity. Whose fault is that? Would you want to be the commander writing home to Mrs. Smith telling her that her son died screaming in a burning vehicle because someone who was supposed to be able to couldn't pull him out of it? And, yes, it is likely that there would have been someone nearby to help, but you can't count on "likely" when people are shooting at you.

Most of those girls wanted to do the job, too. The problem was that they weren't physically capable of doing it. It's a two-fold betrayal, in my mind: You build up someone, telling them that they can do the job, only to leave them behind because their body's physical characteristics don't allow it. The other half is, you assign them to a unit where they are supposed to perform that task, and that unit finds out they can't, then overloading the ones who can--Who happen to be male. The system screwed two groups here--The women, setting them up for failure and disappointment, and the men, setting them up to work themselves to death.

And, yes--Some units did use women in these roles. This particular one had a commander who'd gone through the experience of losing one of his men in an IED strike because someone hadn't possessed the upper-body strength to pull him out of a burning hatch. As a result, he instituted a policy that you had to demonstrate you could do this (using a dead-weight dummy that was actually lighter than the average guy in the unit, BTW...) before going out on patrol with the teams. None of the female medics ever managed the test, even after extensive remedial work. All of the crew members of the vehicles did so, usually on the first try.

If you think pulling an injured man out of a vehicle hatch under fire is an easy task, here's what I suggest: Go fill a gunnysack full of rice or beans, until it weighs about 175lbs. Put it into a trash can, and put that next to a table. Now, standing on the table, try getting that bag up and onto the table. Have someone shoot at you with a paintball gun while you're doing this, while someone else starts a fire under the table. At that point, you've probably only replicated about a tenth of the difficulty of the task...
  • 0

#56 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,761 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1417 PM

I'm sure T19 has no idea how it is pulling a man out of a tank hatch, theKirk.
  • 0

#57 thekirk

thekirk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,440 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1428 PM

Oh, and here's another anecdotal data point I just remembered about...

Circa 1995, right after we got our first female medics, we had the opportunity to send them off for their EFMB, or Expert Field Medical Badge. I put it out to the medics, asking for volunteers (it's not a mandatory thing...), and I got precisely two that wanted to spend the time prepping for it, and taking part. One was my 45-year old male senior medic, and the other was one of my newly-assigned females. I sent them both off to the competition, which consisted of a variety of tasks including casevac drills and medical testing stations. When it was all over with, the one who came back with the badge was my senior medic, while the teenage female failed the road march and one of the casevac drills. Seems like a garden variety result, with a veteran's experience overcoming the youth and strength of a new recruit, right? Not so much...

The older male medic? This guy used to scare the living shit out of me on every road march, and every time we went to do something physical. I was convinced he was going to go down to a heart attack, to the point where I procured one of the then-new portable defibrillators to have on standby for him, just in case. He'd come from a previous background of hospital duty, and was a great guy, but for the love of God, he sure as hell shouldn't have been in a combat arms unit--He was almost clinically obese, and barely able to pass an APFT. He later got discharged due to developing diabetes, and if you'd seen the guy, you'd have wondered how the hell he met the body weight standards. The female medic in question? Maxed her APFT, every time, and was probably one of the fittest females I ever had work for me. She routinely worked out at the gym, and was pretty much the poster-girl for being in shape. And, yet... Which one of them managed to pass the physical standards portion of the EFMB?

Somewhere in that time frame, I started to seriously question what the hell the powers-that-be were thinking. Up to that point, I'd bought the whole "girls are as good as the guys" thing, hook, line and sinker. Afterwards? I started noticing things, like who was getting injured more in routine training. Conclusions followed...
  • 0

#58 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,296 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1446 PM

I don't think we'll gain anything by belaboring the point of individual fitness requirements for any given occupation, since everybody seems to agree on their necessity. Everybody also has some anecdotal evidence of people who failed or exceeded expectations, of miserable loaders and courageous medics to throw around. And B does not necessarily always follow from A. For all my lack of strength and always being the weakest link in the squad during medical basic, I never had any trouble lifting and carrying anybody over my shoulder with properly executed technique, for example, which makes Luke being carried uphill by a petite girl totally believable to me (and when I transferred to military police and had the joy to do basic all over again, I found that with three months of service over my new squadmates, I could outmarch the lot of them, including rather more athletic types, while carrying an additional backpack).
  • 0

#59 Rocky Davis

Rocky Davis

    Old Broken Down Retired Tanker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,980 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1523 PM

OK, class . . . time for a little quiz on logics . . . find the common denominator amongst these examples:

1. On any golf course, there are men's tees, ladies' tees and pro tees. Pro tees provide the longest hole distance and difficulty. The men's tees are somewhat lessened in distance and difficulty. The ladies' tee is always shortest in distance. Men are normally allowed to tee off from the men's tee or the pro tee. Women golfers can choose any of the three.

2. There is a PGA (Professonal Golfing Association) and an LPGA. Men cannot play in the LPGA and women cannot play in the PGA.

3. There is a PBA (Professional Bowlers Association) and an LPGA. Men cannot play in the LPBA and women cannot play in the PBA.

4. There is a men's pro tennis circuit and a women's pro tennis circuit. Men cannot play in the women's league and women cannot play in the men's league.

All these things have one thing in common. What is it and why is it?

;)
  • 0

#60 thekirk

thekirk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,440 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 1537 PM

OK, class . . . time for a little quiz on logics . . . find the common denominator amongst these examples:

1. On any golf course, there are men's tees, ladies' tees and pro tees. Pro tees provide the longest hole distance and difficulty. The men's tees are somewhat lessened in distance and difficulty. The ladies' tee is always shortest in distance. Men are normally allowed to tee off from the men's tee or the pro tee. Women golfers can choose any of the three.

2. There is a PGA (Professonal Golfing Association) and an LPGA. Men cannot play in the LPGA and women cannot play in the PGA.

3. There is a PBA (Professional Bowlers Association) and an LPGA. Men cannot play in the LPBA and women cannot play in the PBA.

4. There is a men's pro tennis circuit and a women's pro tennis circuit. Men cannot play in the women's league and women cannot play in the men's league.

All these things have one thing in common. What is it and why is it?

;)


Common sense?
  • 0