SgtMaj Speaks Up About Women in Infantry Study

[buck008]

Okay well, this is the real world, with real life problems, not some SJW convention.

You can and SHOULD make blanket statements to be on the safe side, unless you room to form for a slip up in case you try something different.

Example: If someone is a registered pedophile, but they say he was rehabilitated, do you as a business owner still want him as an employee, even when you deal with children in said business?

But he's rehabilitated they said!

Most sane people will say, "fuck no get him out of here." Then you have young, naive business owners who MAY give a chance. Probably not.

You just judged him/stereotyped/blanketed all pedophiles.

TL;DR

Stereotypes/blanketing exists for a reason, because on mass scales endeavors, it works.

If blanket statements were an acceptable way of conducting yourself, they wouldn't have given these women a chance at all.

[Realsykes]

If blanket statements were an acceptable way of conducting yourself, they wouldn't have given these women a chance at all.

You forgot the part where I said, "if you have room to slip up/try something different."

But thanks for not reading....I guess.

You think this study would've been performed at the height of the war?

FUCK no.

Because they didn't have time for that shit. Now they do.

Whoolah.

[Deleted]

The problem isn't so much with their DBZ power level of awesomeness, but the range of it. If the cream of the crop can barely hit the fifth percentile, then that means a lot. Let's throw out an example. A team of 20 male members is formed. Probability wise, one male member is under performing. Now let's create a mixed team. 20 members, 5 are females. That means five members are under performing. The risk in extremely dangerous situations, which infantry is exposed to, causes a much lower success rate for potential missions. Etc etc. Hope that makes some more sense to you.

Look I get it, the female members are more likely to be physically weaker. But again - every army will have a lower fifth percentile. You could take that scenario of yours and replace instances of women with "men in the lower 5%" and it would have the same implications. And yet is this sergeant talking about those guys and how they shouldn't be in the military?

Accepting biology isn't sexist. But using that biology as an excuse to single out women even when there are men at the same level is. If they pass the required tests then they're not under performing. They're performing within the accepted range.

[Chingylol]

Ex army here, and the results didn't surprise me. I was in a combat MOS (field artillery) which was all male in my battery, but when we did PT with our battalion which consisted of quite a few woman, they were ALWAYS last in everything. Some of these women were very athletic and strong willed, but when it came to raw strength they were definitely in the last 10%. Even during our runs they struggled to keep up in the middle/end of the pack.

[Realsykes]

You could take that scenario of yours and replace instances of women with "men in the lower 5%" and it would have the same implications.

Nope, not at all.

Women come with other things like logistics/Supplies problems, unit troubles, etc.

It's not the same.

- - - Updated - - -

I was a 19D. My experience is basically the same if not a little worse. They ALWAYS complained when we had to go to the field, and they got to go in for showers once every 3 days too! Pissed us off when we had to stay out there for weeks or months at a time w/o coming back for showers.

Yep, one of many problems that most people don't think about but is actually a huge problem.

Feminine Hygiene.

One of many, but it exists.

[buck008]

You forgot the part where I said, "if you have room to slip up/try something different."

But thanks for not reading....I guess.

You think this study would've been performed at the height of the war?

FUCK no.

Because they didn't have time for that shit. Now they do.

Whoolah.

And football teams don't change quarterbacks mid season unless something disastrous has happened. Your point? If the military legitimately thought that women couldn't hack it because women are inherently unable to do so, they would never have wasted the time on it.

[Deleted]

Nope, not at all.

Women come with other things like logistics/Supplies problems, unit troubles, etc.

It's not the same.

We were talking about physical strength. But what unit troubles are you talking about?

[Zantos]

No, I'm saying he's wrong for saying that women shouldn't be infantry just because they're women. He admits females passed the training. He's saying they still shouldn't be allowed in infantry, and shouldn't be drafted, because they're women.

Edit: seriously, he's talking about how a woman will never be a pro quarterback. As if that has anything to do with being a soldier. As if the minimum physical requirements for being a soldier=pro-quarterback.

Seriously? This guy knows better then you. Period. If he says that he observed women being inefficient in every aspect then guess what? Their inefficient in every aspect.

Just because they passed the schooling, that doesn't automatically mean their capable of doing the job like a man. There are certain marks that they need to hit to pass. If they hit the minimum mark on every test, then of course they won't be as effect as those who hit the middle of the mark. They are literally on the bottom tier of whose capable.

He also isn't saying they shouldn't be drafted. He is saying we shouldn't be pushing for such gender equality in the fields until they Are able to be drafted. Until they have the same obligation to this country as the men, there is little use in pushing for these stupid equality rules.

He is right. This is not where legislation belongs. The law makers forcing them to let women into positions they Obviously are unable to perform, just because "lawl equality", is insane.

[Zantos]

We were talking about physical strength. But what unit troubles are you talking about?

Off the top of my head? Supplies: pads / tampons once a month would be a start. Losing blood and bad cramps being a hindrance to their performance. One they cannot change or do anything about.

- - - Updated - - -

And football teams don't change quarterbacks mid season unless something disastrous has happened. Your point? If the military legitimately thought that women couldn't hack it because women are inherently unable to do so, they would never have wasted the time on it.

They aren't. Legislation is.

[Deleted]

I don't think you entirely understand it, though. I'm not saying they're unacceptable in the field. But team distribution is what will matter. If the army goes from having say 100% male to 75% male and 25% female, the implications may surprise you.

Well is that happening? All I'm saying is that if women can pass the required tests then that's that, even if they're in a lower percentile. A pass is a pass.

[Independent voter]

Problem for women is they can't get very far unless they have a combat badge.

Why not just put one girl per squad limit or something, that way they can get the combat badge and not have to do heavy lifting other than their own gear.

[Ripster42]

That's not at all what he is saying.

- - - Updated - - -



You need to re-read what he said. Badly.

Huh, seems like YOU need to reread it. Because that's what he's saying. Maybe point out where I'm wrong. Show me how being a pro quarterback has anything to do with women being soldiers. Or where he says all women don't meet infantry standards. Really, just that last part. His own premise doesn't support his conclusion. In any way.

[Lumideta]

Tell me, did he admit that 2 women passed? I mean, I read it, so I know he did. Why should they be excluded, just because they're female? He's saying they don't belong in infantry because they're women, even though they passed.

The training he is referring to isn't the Ranger School. He saluted the two females that passed Army Ranger School. The Sgt Maj is Marine Corps and has nothing to do with Ranger School.

[Deleted]

Off the top of my head? Supplies: pads / tampons once a month would be a start. Losing blood and bad cramps being a hindrance to their performance. One they cannot change or do anything about.

I get the tampon things, which is why I didn't ask "what supply issues?". I asked "what unit troubles?" because usually people bring up the same tired arguments about women serving with men causing trouble "they might fall in love!" and I was wondering if that was what was meant.

[Zantos]

I get the tampon things, which is why I didn't ask "what supply issues?". I asked "what unit troubles?" because usually people bring up the same tired arguments about women serving with men causing trouble "they might fall in love!" and I was wondering if that was what was meant.

Ah. I just thought of something random. I mean, that monthly thing is a huge hindrance factor since it will inevitably slow the unit down.

[Chingylol]

I was a 19D. My experience is basically the same if not a little worse. They ALWAYS complained when we had to go to the field, and they got to go in for showers once every 3 days too! Pissed us off when we had to stay out there for weeks or months at a time w/o coming back for showers.

LOL yeah, going into the field was interesting with them, although I didn't see them much because they were in headquarters. They were mostly supply, 88 mike drivers, and human resource/paralegals and shit.


I will say one thing.. The biggest boner killer is seeing a grumpy female soldier in oversized BDU's with a kevlar unshowered for 3 days digging a foxhole with camo paint half off because of sweat.

[Ripster42]

No one, "passed" anything in this study, this study showed that even the BEST females could only match the bottom 5% of the males.

As for the two females who passed ranger? They're outliers, given that they've both been in for a while, and have had access to the top of the line training, not to mention they were just physically gifted as individuals. THEN they went to ranger school. Also, it's like the shark attack effect. Want to know why you hear about Shark attacks in places like Wyoming and Colorado? States so far away and completely irrelevant as far as shark attack awareness goes? Because it. never. happens.

This is the first time in history this has happened, it's a big deal, that doesn't suddenly mean there are tons of females out there hiding all this time who can throw around with the likes of these two. They were a special case.

No, he even qualified that statement. He said "in most cases." He said, the best, in most cases. Which means not the best. It's clear as day.

So, since we can clearly see that two women passed ranger school, something most infantry don't have to do, what does this have to do with anything except that women can pass a harder test than is required by infantry school? How does this have any merit in whether women should be able to be combat soldiers except as a positive example? Regardless of how rare they are.

This is the first time in history what has happened? Women in the military? Don't kid yourself.

[Deleted]

I have already mentioned where they are required to be able to go back and shower once every 3 days. That is VERY disruptive for training when you are out in the field doing combat training to be missing members of your platoon/troop/squadron 1/3 of the time...

Well I wouldn't know about that rule. That's a requirement in training? Or in the actual field?

Also what test are you talking about passing btw?

Well I'm not an expert on them but I assume they don't let just anyone join the military right? I wouldn't pass. Bottom line is, if they're qualified it's not really relevant that they're in the lower 5% because there will always be a lower 5%. One could argue that maybe the requirements need to be more stringent - I don't know enough to talk about that. But then why only talk about the women in the lower 5%?

[Deleted]

So he went in with a bias for women and still he concludes on their physical Peak women cant even come close to men?

That should tell some people at least something.

But what I do think is giving them a chance to compete is the right thing to do. There are some women that actually can beat men (I am talking very few) so giving those gals a chance is great.
What I dislike greatly tho is the treatment women get in such drafts. It is imo pretty degrading if you let the Guys do a minimum of 20 pushups for example and the women have double the time for just 12. As a man I don't give a shit about what I have to do but those willing and able-bodied gals are beeing treated like fools which is inherently disrespectful in my eyes.

[Chingylol]

I have already mentioned where they are required to be able to go back and shower once every 3 days.

They were allowed to go back?? Damn, I didn't know that..