Women in the military

[Deleted]

I agree... for specialized forces. But for general military? Women on average are smaller than men, so why would you turn away a large group of people willing to lay down their lives and serve, based on something they cannot control?

Quite simply because the bar is set to ensure that when someone deploys to a war zone they are physically and mentally capable and robust enough to handle frontline soldiering.

If you fail to achieve that grade you're a liability not an asset and you'll endanger not only mission success but the lives of everyone around you.

[Jackmoves]

They should have the exact same standards as the men, for any job. You never know what may happen and you need some muscle, Iraq and Afghanistan both showed there is no such thing as front lines anymore.

Depends on the job and unit imo, sometimes it might be worth sacrificing a lil bit of endurance and physical capability for other pros that men can't bring to the table.

[Deleted]

In the US anyway, women aren't generally allowed into combat units, but more in support and logistic roles. Although there is now a push into letting women into combat units, even then, they're being limited to logistic positions within that combat unit. The chances of them actually needing to drag someone into cover is minimal.

Additionally, push ups aren't really a good indicator of how much someone can "drag". In your hypothetical scenario, it's entirely possible that someone who is extremely light, say 140lbs, can do 100 push ups, but they'd be likewise unable to drag someone who weighs 200 pounds and has a lot of gear.

Also, where are you getting this "gear alone can weigh anything up to 200lbs"? Maybe if you're carrying your main pack with you, but even with a flak jacket, ammunition, weapon, radio, and other miscellaneous crap, you really shouldn't be carrying around that much crap.

If you go on a 3 day patrol you need that much "crap".

[jaykaywhy]

They turn away men for having low requirements, why not let them in also? Women can train and become as fit and as strong as a man, check out some of the fitness competitors for proof.

What? No. That's why they have a Men's Category and a Women's Category.

It's a proven fact that testosterone is a huge factor in the development of strength and muscle. It's also a proven fact that women naturally have less muscle than men.

Do the math.

[MerinPally]

Considering all the crap female soldiers tend to get from their male co-soldiers, I don't think you should begrudge them requirements that are slightly lower.

Why should being discriminated against (not saying it's right that it happens though) mean that you should have lower standards?

If you're going out to Kandahar and you get hit and you need someone to pull you out of the way so you can get medical help which you desperately need, SHE might not be able to do it but HE might. Therefore, as SHE was not able to do the job which may end up with a soldiers life lost, but HE could have done it, why should SHE be there in the first place?

The idea is that if you send out 300 soldiers, you want 300 coming back home. If you stand to lose some due to having lower standards for a section of the group, you are putting lives at risk.

However, not being a military person, I have a question - I look at those numbers for MEN. Could it not be argued, or even arranged, that the requirements for men are above and beyond what could commonly be needed out in the field, and therefore by setting womens slightly lower, they are still above the critical level but obviously not as high? I can understand getting them as high as possible and the higher/faster they are the better but as long as the womens numbers are above the level of "If you can pass this you will save a life" then would it matter as much?

[jaykaywhy]

If you go on a 3 day patrol you need that much "crap".

I've been on 15+ day patrols, and I didn't carry around that much crap.

[Osyrus]

i am honestly a bit sad that you all think that women preform so poorly in the military.

Physically speaking women are unable to match most men in upper body strength, however lower body strength we are capable of matching men.
I do however agree that the amount that the womens versions of the exercises is decreased by a bit too much.

Just note, a discussion like this is the reason that some woman want to but refuse to join the military due to being hassled by their male counterparts. Im there to do my job- please stfu that i have a vagina.

edit: do you also realize there is a thing called adrenaline? and a 140 woman will be able to drag her partner. she is trained the same way you are. dont look at them as woman look at them as soldiers- what they are.

[Kasierith]

They turn away men for having low requirements, why not let them in also? Women can train and become as fit and as strong as a man, check out some of the fitness competitors for proof.

I know they can be as fit and strong, thats why I said for special forces it should be the same. But the thing is, the average man has higher strength, speed, and endurance than a woman... so the limit is set higher. The change in requirements is to attempt to balance it out, because overall those attributes are essentially the components of overall health.

[Deleted]

Depends on the job and unit imo, sometimes it might be worth sacrificing a lil bit of endurance and physical capability for other pros that men can't bring to the table.

Not really, the benchmarks (certainly for UK forces) are reasonable regardless of gender. The further up the food chain you go the narrower the window of acceptability but even then, they're still achievable.

Currently the only units in the UK that women aren't allowed to serve in are Frontline Infantry Units, I don't see what they could bring to the table that would justify allowing them to be physically underpar because of relaxed physical criteria.

[Deleted]

What? No. That's why they have a Men's Category and a Women's Category.

It's a proven fact that testosterone is a huge factor in the development of strength and muscle. It's also a proven fact that women naturally have less muscle than men.

Do the math.

So we should put lives at risk for that reason?

[Kasierith]

Quite simply because the bar is set to ensure that when someone deploys to a war zone they are physically and mentally capable and robust enough to handle frontline soldiering.

If you fail to achieve that grade you're a liability not an asset and you'll endanger not only mission success but the lives of everyone around you.

That mentally capable part is a big part of it. The point is to push people to their limits and over them. If they have already gone past their maximum capabilities, in training, you know that in a real situation in terms of physical strength and mental capacity they can handle a real combat situation, because those combat situations are not as rigorous or stressful as the training itself (in terms of those, yes I know actual combat is far more complicated... but training is meant to remove those as obstacles).

[Deleted]

I've been on 15+ day patrols, and I didn't carry around that much crap.

ECM Suite,
300 rds for personal weapon,
200 5.56 link for LMG,
300 7.62 link for GPMG,
Radios, Batteries,
NV equipment,
7 litres of water,
3 days rations,
3 x 51mm Mortar shells,
Insulating clothing,
Body armour,
helmet,
Personal weapon,
Spare Javelin rockets,
Optics + Binos,

Yeah, we carried about 130lbs on the ground, we also did 99% of our moves via foot and at night to avoid IED threat.

[Deleted]

i am honestly a bit sad that you all think that women preform so poorly in the military.

Physically speaking women are unable to match most men in upper body strength, however lower body strength we are capable of matching men.
I do however agree that the amount that the womens versions of the exercises is decreased by a bit too much.

Just note, a discussion like this is the reason that some woman want to but refuse to join the military due to being hassled by their male counterparts. Im there to do my job- please stfu that i have a vagina.

edit: do you also realize there is a thing called adrenaline? and a 140 woman will be able to drag her partner. she is trained the same way you are. dont look at them as woman look at them as soldiers- what they are.

Sure, women are trained exactly the same as I am. Even though womens pushups requirements are almost half that of the men, they get to do the easy version.

[jaykaywhy]

Fitness tests are there to test exactly that-- fitness.

They're not supposed to test performance in a combat zone. If the fitness tests were supposed to test performance, then they are poorly constructed. I don't remember a single time on any of my deployments where my life, or my squadmember's life, depended on how many pull ups I could do, or how fast I could 3 miles in sneakers. Running sprints in boots 'n' utes with gear on is an entirely different skillset than running 3 miles in ~18 minutes.

[Deleted]

They should have the exact same standards as the men, for any job. You never know what may happen and you need some muscle, Iraq and Afghanistan both showed there is no such thing as front lines anymore.

I agree. The standards should be exactly the same even if it only means a select few women get through and serve in combat. I wouldn't want to die because a politician thought it would be good for womens rights to let women serve and that woman can't pull or carry me out of danger, or slow a patrol down because her bag is too heavy.

EDIT: This is with regards to front-line forces; Infantry, Para's, RM's etc. Arguably the same could be said for any role that has a high posibility of being in a forward operating position. Soldier first, specialization second. I don't know. I don't mind women serving in the military, but unless they're at the same physical strength as the men, they shouldn't be allowed to serve on the front line.

[Deleted]

Everyone can easily reach those requirements, so it's more about proving will to make an effort, then anything else. Requirements are set so, that men and women need about same amount of will, time and effort to reach them.

[Jackmoves]

Not really, the benchmarks (certainly for UK forces) are reasonable regardless of gender. The further up the food chain you go the narrower the window of acceptability but even then, they're still achievable.

Currently the only units in the UK that women aren't allowed to serve in are Frontline Infantry Units, I don't see what they could bring to the table that would justify allowing them to be physically underpar because of relaxed physical criteria.

I agree with you there, as I wrote in my earlier post, if a woman want to serve in a rifle company for example she should be up to the standards that are set for men, I was thiking more about int ops, the swedish army has made good use of women in Afghanistan for HUMINT for example as they've had an easier time to bound with the afghan women.

[Sackman]

Depends on the job and unit imo, sometimes it might be worth sacrificing a lil bit of endurance and physical capability for other pros that men can't bring to the table.

A vagina?

Seriously not sure what you are lobbying with your comment, I'm with the OP, requirements are requirements and they should be equal. If I was a woman I would expect the same, and would be insulted that I have to do less to get in, as if I required a handicap.

Alongside that, the success of the military is on the servicemen and womens ability to do their job, the requirements are in place to ensure that applicants are thoroughly processed, physically and mentally, so that there is no doubt that they can perform as expected. To lower the requirements for women is to make the whole requirements in the first place redundant - either there is a required health and mental state, or there isn't, it can't be different for both. (In conclusion, scrap requirements, or make them the same)

[jaykaywhy]

So we should put lives at risk for that reason?

By your logic, only men who can drag 300 pounds should be in the military. Doing 75 pushups doesn't mean you can drag 300 pounds. You can be a 140 pound skinny person that can crank out 75 pushups, but that doesn't mean you can drag someone that weighs 300 pounds.

If your focus is on that aspect, why is your question only aimed at women? What about older males who have less of a fitness requirement than younger males? They have lower standards, so they shouldn't be allowed in the military either.

[Deleted]

That mentally capable part is a big part of it. The point is to push people to their limits and over them. If they have already gone past their maximum capabilities, in training, you know that in a real situation in terms of physical strength and mental capacity they can handle a real combat situation, because those combat situations are not as rigorous or stressful as the training itself (in terms of those, yes I know actual combat is far more complicated... but training is meant to remove those as obstacles).

In all honesty, I found war about 50x more physically and mentally stressful than training. I admit, training was horrendous, but there's only so much physical and mental stress one can exert on a human body given the resources of the beautiful British environment. There's just no way you can replicate the stress of literally having your life depend on your ability to cover lots of ground, at speed, with lots of weight under the constant threat of being dead or blown to pieces at any minute.

However, I will say, I'm not saying women shouldn't serve, I'm just saying even the requirements for the men by actual war-fighting standards, don't go far enough (IMO) to find the perfect candidate, I just think lowering them (for whatever reason) will move successful applicants further away from the required standard.

We don't have 2 Tier wars - a physically watered down version for women, and a more demanding one for men, so it's only just and proper that they achieve the same standards. Honestly, I know plenty of very fit women that would make the grade anyway, I wouldnt want them going to a war zone physically under-prepared and being at extra risk because of it, that's all.