I would "hope" that they would get rid of the physical standards difference. I never thought it made sense to begin with. If you expect to perform the same tasks, then be prepared to meet the same standard as everyone else...if you can't meet the same standard, then maybe you aren't suited for a combat role...that applies to men and women...
-----Original Message----- From: Jerry Milo Johnson [mailto:jmi...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:03 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Combat jobs now open to women - let the debates begin I don't expect them to be in infantry for 5 years or more, nor in special forces (except maybe in special women-specific units for female-only roles) for a decade. This change just (the way I read it) means that they are not SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED from combat zones or operations. Which was already pretty much true, but not "officially". The slacking of standards is a valid and huge concern, and that (and only that) is the real issue for me in all of this. On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Bruce Sorge <sor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I understand where your'e coming from Jerry and I partly agree. > Personally I am against it for a few reasons. I'll list them here: > > 1. Physical Conditioning: While I do not doubt that there are women in > the world who can perform as well or better than men in athletics, the > majority cannot. I'll use the standard Army Physical Fitness standards > for males and females in the 17-21 age category, which is the age > bracket most people join the military. > > Mens standards: > Pushup event - two minutes - minimum standard is 42, 90% is 64 and > 100% is > 71 > Sit-up event - two minutes - minimum 53, 90% is 72 and 100% is 78 Run > event - two miles - minimum is 15:54, 90% is 13:42 and 100% is 13:00 > > Females standards: > Pushup event - two minutes - minimum standard is 19, 90% is 36 and > 100% is > 42 > Situp event - two minutes - minimum 53, 90% is 72 and 100% is 78 Run > event - two miles - minimum is 18:54, 90% is 16:24 and 100% is 15:36 > > You can clearly see that the pushup and run events are vastly different. > The only thing that women have to do as well as men is the sit-up > event. In fact, a female can max her time in a little less than what > it takes a male to pass the minimum. > The reason I bring up the 90% range is because in the Infantry, 90%, > or a total score of 270 is OUR standard. It's not a written official > standard, it's the standard that we hold ourselves to. One of the > reasons is that if you want to try out for the Expert Infantryman's > Badge, you have to score a MINIMUM of 270 on the PT test. > > 2. Now let's get into some other physical aspects of the job. > Infantry often will be walking for miles on end with a rucksack > weighing from 60 - 100 lbs, sometimes more. Soldiers going through > Ranger School will carry even more weight. That is a lot to ask of a > woman who does not have to have the same physical endurance level of a man. > > Armor has it's own set of challenges. Their ammunition weighs from 41 > - 50 lbs depending on what type of ammunition it is, and a tank > carries 48 rounds. So as a loader you would be expected to have to > help load 48 rounds into a tank to make it ready for combat. And a > loader is expected to be able to load a tank in a few seconds (that's > putting a round in the breach from the ammunition rack). This is done > in a very confined space and the rounds are awkward to hold. The M-2 > machine-gun that sits on the commanders cupola weighs in at 84lbs. > This has to be hoisted up onto the tank, then to the turret, then > mounted on the machine-gun mount. Not an easy task for a physically fit man. > > Artillery has it's own set of challenges as well. Their ammunition > weighs in at 106 lbs and they carry 28 rounds on the vehicle (this is > an M-109 Paladin SPH). Again the loader is expected to be able to load > a round every > 15 seconds, sometimes faster. > > Tanks and artillery also have a LOT of heavy components to them. > Breaking track is something that a crew of four men in a tank, three > in a Bradley and four in a Howitzer, all in top shape struggle to do quickly. > > 3. Now let's talk hygiene. We all know that women have special > hygienic needs. From bathing on a regular basis to managing menses, > all of these things that are taken for granted at home are a challenge in the field. > Often a combat arms soldier will go days and weeks, sometimes over a > month without a proper shower in a training environment. In combat > it's worse. At the opening of OEF and OIF soldiers often would go > weeks without being able to have a proper shower. Fortunately for men > all we really need are some baby wipes to wipe our pits and junk and > were good. This is not the case with women. There are studies that > show that women require more time to clean themselves properly than > men do. A quick google search will produce a lot of results. > > 4. Now lets talk about the general climate of combat arms jobs. These > are jobs (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Special Forces, Delta Force, > Ranger) that are only open to men and thus the workplace is a men only > workplace. It's no myth that soldiers are crude and obnoxious to the > outsider. Infantrymen do some strange things and say pretty much > anything that is on their minds and no one really cares. (And I know > some female soldiers who could give a male soldier a run for his money > on shit talking as well, this is not an area where men have a lock). > Anyway, there are way too many females in the Army who would be highly > offended by some of the things we say or do on a regular basis. The > words shit and fuck are part of everyday vocabulary to us. There is a > constant climate of one upmanship that is alive and well in the > infantry. We all want to be faster, better than the man to our right > and left. Everything is a competition in the infantry, whether it's > eating, doing PT or doing regular infantry shit, we are ALWAYS competing with each other. > > Now again, with this all being said, I am not saying that there are > not SOME women out there would could thrive in this environment, but I > feel that they are the exception and not the norm. The military would > be hard pressed not to have two standards for men and women. In fact, > they already to, the PT test. That is a great example of the > double-standard that the Army has. > > While Israel is a good example of women performing well in combat > arms, again I think that they are the exception rather than the norm. > Israelis are raised with conflict. Men and women there, at least the > last couple of generations and the generations to come are raised > around war. Bombs, shootings and the like. They have a different > mentality than women in America have (my own opinion not based on > fact). I honestly believe that women in general in American will fail > more than succeed if they are held to the same standard as men. Even > Ranger School, there is no exception to the standard. WHether it is me > as a 49 year old Infantryman trying out for the coveted Ranger tab, or > an 18 year old kid, we both have to perform at the same standard, that > of the 18 year olds. From my experience in my 17+ years in the Army, > the standards will be lowered and morale will go down if women are allowed in combat arms. ' > > > On Jan 23, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Let them. Then I can stay here at home warm on my couch. Oh, wait. I > > already was. =) > > > > Can we say only ugly women can go? Or married women? (selfish > > interests > > here) > > > > Israel seems to be doing ok with it. And we have known this is > > coming > since > > it was originally announced in July. > > > > And women have actually been in combat in most of our wars to date, > > including the Revolution, on both sides. > > > > What we SHOULDNT do is lower the training or requirements in ANY WAY > after > > this announcement. If they can handle the work, and desire to, I say > > let them. > > > > We can figure out HOW it works later. It is not as if this is going > > to start on Monday. > > > > I assume there will be pushback from the troops. But that is true of > > any change. Any change at all. > > > > Overall, I think it is the right move. But it needs to be done smartly. > The > > most important purpose of the military is being a sharp stick. not a > > shining model of civil rights. we need to keep that stick sharp. > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:360412 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
