Indeed, and to be honest, I'd wager that 98% of the women in the armed forces would roll their eyes at this news, they are tougher than men always give them credit for, but again you have to wonder if that's partially down to how society tends to defer towards the pretty blonde with pipe-cleaner legs and arms rather than the Vasquez type, although it's a lot less like that these days than it was even forty years ago. :up:

That's good, I would hate to have to pull you aside at the next subsim meet to explain stuff.:03:

Note, I used all of the self control in the world, to not post a 1950's educational film here.:03:
I did find a really funny one though.

You think you could PM me it? Those always make me laugh.

I think it boils down to the individual not the sex.I mean look around in any populated area and tell me how many fairly dainty men you see(not talking campy types sexual preference is not the concern here but how one carries himself).Not to say that every man has to be a star athlete but you know what I am getting at. Plenty of men either lack the heart or the physical strength to perform at the level that being a solider requires or other jobs that require a good deal of physical labor.

Just from my personal experience in the military I know that there are males who should be able to a given task on thier own without help yet find that they need help anyway.On the flip side of the coin I had a female troop under me she was tiny just over five feet tall and she could do the same jobs without asking for help.I trained this woman in all the flight line tasks which require the most physical exertion like pushing aircraft jacks around and even up onto a low flatbed.

I told her that she'd get much more respect if she did it herself rather than ask for help and she did.Of course I also witnessed some females who I felt performed at a lesser level than they actually could but they had male peers with the same work ethic.If you really want to do something you will if you want to be lazy you can.I guess that might be a rip off of Henry Ford "Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right." that applies to people with sloth like work ethic because they want to be lazy and chances are the still get by most of the time.

Another thing I was thinking as well is how many male Marine Corps recruits fail their PT standards what they in the USMC and every other branch is wash the recruit back a few weeks the USMC has special platoons where PT washouts go and the enter time they are there they are doing physical training then they get sent back to a normal platoon.USMC basic is pretty tough and has a pretty high failure rate(as in kicked out not a wash back) mostly failure to meet physical standards even for males.One thing I wonder as the article does not say are the females completely failing or just getting washed into a PT platoon where a fair percentage are catching up and later completing basic.

Just a thought as there is no honest article out there anymore always an agenda one way or the other and I can see this whole deal being used by both the "woman are too weak" types and the "women should have a standard that is special for them but still should have any job in the military types".

Three pull ups as entry requirement is meaningless.
What is more important is done during the actual training when building physical and mental condition from ground up.
Women may need bit different set of exercises (called here effort ladder)to arrive eventually at the similar physical condition as men.
It is because physiological differences and different upbringing.
This may require two parallel training pathes or adjusting it to everybody - that is equal starting point.


I think that a lot of women can do exactly same things as men but why do they need this crap is beyond me....
As said here earlier there are a lot of other stuff women can do without the need of proving anything.
But then again a lot of men do a lot of stuff because the need to prove something then ...whatever.
I guess it is logistic nightmare for the army to adapt where men had dominated for so long.

I am ex-military.
Before my army time I said:
"Women in the military? Hell why not?"
After my service I said:
"Women in the military? Hell no!"
(Of course, combat-unit related, not generally)

Once you've seen a woman desperately trying and trying to just load an assault rifle (HK G3A3) you quickly change your mind from
"Let's all run around with flowers in our hair!" to "Never change a running system!"

When you see them collapsing to the ground in pain, being unable to run a few miles due to monthly circumstances, you start to imagine "What if..."

Women in combat units? No thanks!
Women in the military? Of course, no question about that.

:rotfl2:

You havent seen them all.:haha:

Female body has the stronger immune system, but more bodyfat and less muscles than the male body, additionally the fat is located differently in the body. As a result, women become colder much faster than male, and the average woman is weaker in strength than the average male. Obviously, muscles can be trained, but it may take a woman more training effort to reach the strength level of an average male, and then she is no longer the statistically average women, but the exceptionally well-trained woman.

However, it can be done, by training. And that is what has to be demanded. Future wars and infantry actions in a firefight will not stop to be defined by what the welltrained male soldier can do and bear, what he can carry and how he can pull his own weight over an obstacle or into cover. And so it is last but not least in women's very own interest to train that hard to make it to that level instead of being given an easier ride. No MG out there will fire slower bullets because they fly towards a female body.

When selecting recruits, you obviously need criteria by which to decide who passes and who not. These criteria should reflect, ideally, the probability that after military training sessions have ended, the education and training indeed has been finished successful, and so to reduce the number of those who fail or break down in the course of that program. That is why it makes sense to filter out physically unsuited or unfit people at the very beginning, no matter whether they are boys or girls. If you lag behind too much, you also become a burden and hindering ballast for the whole course, and so the education and training quality for all others suffers as well.

A woman wanting to pass for marine training, better makes sure BEFORE going there that she has trained enough to pass the test. Like all males as well.

In the end, infantry fights are defined by male power standards, not female standards. A girl either meets these standards, or not. But to have the weaker of two standards being introduced through the back door - that is insane. One standard for all - and the tougher one.

When it comes to military training(in particular at the beginning) a lot depends on determination and not necessary physical strength.
A lot of guys that actually exercise before army service fall off while others stay.
You never know....
Too often it is issue of personal character.
The smart way is to make the training changing in a way that will put a person to the test while eventually arriving to the required level.

I would assume that what I say about muscle power in principle is true for will power as well. At least concerning the desired effect of training.

I cannot assess that, have no such experience myself. To me, the military shall not know men and women. Only soldiers, or more precise: warriors. Either a person has qualified to be one, or not. The women you describe, obviously have not.

Muscle power is important but may vary , that is why at completion or during training some carry MGs other LAW's or MGs and other mortals and so on...

It often depends on combination body mass and strength and personal skills with given weapon.
You may have little bony guy that may be assinged m203 for example or be a sharpshooter.

Still getting the story backwards.
It isn't introducing the weaker of several standards through the back door, it is delaying the raising of one of those standards.
As for one standard for all, that would mean removing the age standards too as older troops pass the test by meeting only the minimum requirement while younger troops fail if they only meet the minimum requirement

Considering that Diversity is near the top of the Military's priority?
Not surprising.

Google the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

/thread

So true! I love that movie :smug: