Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ogdibus]

It's not as difficult for armor as it is for clothing because the armor is worn over clothing, and you don't worry about the way that it looks in the same way as clothing.  If someone is complaining that their armor doesn't fit right, chances are that it fits very poorly.  I've worn armor that doesn't fit before, and it's very physically taxing compared to armor that does fit.

[Vector]

Well I'm under the impression this is also true, although there is no maths of science behind it, simply experience with clothes shopping, knowing that there are a lot more different fitting clothes for different female body types than male. Men have an easier time fitting into stuff because we don't have breasts to contend with. They tend to vary in size, and it is a logistical pain in the ass.

So do dicks... I know men who have a hell of a time finding pants that fit in the crotch.

[Willfor]

Boobs are the least limiting factor in armor, and have been throughout history. Unless one is the exception, simple binding takes care of the problem. The real limiting factors are the places where the armor rests on the hips and shoulders because these are where the weight of the armor is supposed to fit very well to ensure that someone can use it for long duration without experiencing exhaustion. Well fit armor barely makes it presence known to the wearer, and poorly fit armor is hell on earth.

[Descan]

To be honest, I've seen a LOT of wildly different male body types, from the hulking muscular to the skinny to the runner-type to the husky to the swimming type, that I'm not so sure that "They have different sizes of breasts!" is all that great an indicator.

Not to mention that if the army says "You must be between these two heights and weights to enlist", I can certainly see them saying "You must be between these two cup sizes to enlist". Though perhaps that'd be treading on dangerous ground.

[Max White]

It's not as difficult for armor as it is for clothing because the armor is worn over clothing, and you don't worry about the way that it looks in the same way as clothing.  If someone is complaining that their armor doesn't fit right, chances are that it fits very poorly.  I've worn armor that doesn't fit before, and it's very physically taxing compared to armor that does fit.

So if a fit will fit a more busty woman about as well as a flat chested woman, why won't a fit made for a flat chested man also work?

So do dicks... I know men who have a hell of a time finding pants that fit in the crotch.

Yea, that can be true if you are wearing skinny jeans, but lets face it, you would need to be some sort of Roman god for that to be an issue any other way. I'm sorry but for the vast majority of pants a man will wear this is not an issue.

[Leafsnail]

So if a fit will fit a more busty woman about as well as a flat chested woman, why won't a fit made for a flat chested man also work?

Have you ever looked at a woman before

I mean, at parts other than the breasts.

[Vector]

Usually requiring your soldier to be able to run takes care of the larger cup sizes.

So do dicks... I know men who have a hell of a time finding pants that fit in the crotch.

Yea, that can be true if you are wearing skinny jeans, but lets face it, you would need to be some sort of Roman god for that to be an issue any other way. I'm sorry but for the vast majority of pants a man will wear this is not an issue.

.... The guy I was talking about wasn't wearing skinny jeans.

[misko27]

Usually requiring your soldier to be able to run takes care of the larger cup sizes.

So do dicks... I know men who have a hell of a time finding pants that fit in the crotch.

Yea, that can be true if you are wearing skinny jeans, but lets face it, you would need to be some sort of Roman god for that to be an issue any other way. I'm sorry but for the vast majority of pants a man will wear this is not an issue.

.... The guy I was talking about wasn't wearing skinny jeans.

I'm afraid I can't call him anything then a statistical outlier then.

[GreatJustice]

It strikes me as being a bit of a waste of money to make women their own armour, considering more than half of women can't even pass the basic upper strength tests. Keep in mind, those are the bare minimum requirements, so even just barely making those requirements would make you a big liability.

This is basically a gigantic publicity stunt by the DoD. It isn't like adding women to the active services is going to somehow increase their effectiveness, and if anything it won't be long before they start loosening standards to let more women in (since "10% of women make it through basic training" isn't so good for publicity), and that's before all of the practical issues.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It strikes me as being a bit of a waste of money to make women their own armour, considering more than half of women can't even pass the basic upper strength tests. Keep in mind, those are the bare minimum requirements, so even just barely making those requirements would make you a big liability.

This is basically a gigantic publicity stunt by the DoD. It isn't like adding women to the active services is going to somehow increase their effectiveness, and if anything it won't be long before they start loosening standards to let more women in (since "10% of women make it through basic training" isn't so good for publicity), and that's before all of the practical issues.

And you somehow think "military loosens training standards for diversity" is going to be good publicity? Everybody knows women have lesser ability to grow muscle mass, it's not surprising they have trouble getting into the Marines (who have the toughest standards anyway). Anyway, if you can pass the basic strength tests, you aren't a liability. That's what the tests are for. Strength is important but it isn't the most important aspect in the age of machine guns and drone strikes, not by far.

[GreatJustice]

It strikes me as being a bit of a waste of money to make women their own armour, considering more than half of women can't even pass the basic upper strength tests. Keep in mind, those are the bare minimum requirements, so even just barely making those requirements would make you a big liability.

This is basically a gigantic publicity stunt by the DoD. It isn't like adding women to the active services is going to somehow increase their effectiveness, and if anything it won't be long before they start loosening standards to let more women in (since "10% of women make it through basic training" isn't so good for publicity), and that's before all of the practical issues.

And you somehow think "military loosens training standards for diversity" is going to be good publicity? Everybody knows women have lesser ability to grow muscle mass, it's not surprising they have trouble getting into the Marines (who have the toughest standards anyway). Anyway, if you can pass the basic strength tests, you aren't a liability. That's what the tests are for. Strength is important but it isn't the most important aspect in the age of machine guns and drone strikes, not by far.

Women are now signing up for positions in the infantry, not as drone operators. In the infantry (and the marines, etc), soldiers are expected to carry over 100 pounds of equipment at any given time, cover very long distances quickly, and do all of this while in the middle of a firefight. While strength isn't important in the old sense of swinging a sword or bayonet in close quarters, it is important in the sense that you have to carry so much weight for so long, which (if recent studies are anything to go by) is even worse for women due to muscle tear. This is, again, ignoring all of the temporary, cultural downsides, like the macho Western instinct to protect a woman above other priorities, the substantially increased costs from having to adjust equipment, and so on.

Also, the USMC minimum requirements are:
-3 pull ups
-100 crunches in 2 minutes
-3 miles in 18 minutes

Are those exceptionally hard requirements that only the strongest can manage? Once again, those are the bare minimum requirements, and it isn't a good sign if most can't even manage to hit that.

EDIT: Whoops, I actually overestimated the minimum requirements. Hypothetically, a person could pass with 3 miles in 28 minutes or 40 crunches in 2 minutes.

[Dutchling]

"-3 pull ups"

Seriously xD?

[GreatJustice]

"-3 pull ups"

Seriously xD?

Yeah, they aren't terribly restrictive. They're quite a bit higher in the UK, for example.

Oh, and if anyone wants proof that I'm not making this up as a joke, here you go

[Loud Whispers]

This is, again, ignoring all of the temporary, cultural downsides, like the macho Western instinct to protect a woman above other priorities

This is a biological instinct in men, not some temporary cultural thing. Hardwired right into the brain.

[Willfor]

Okay so. Maybe I should come out and say this. I mean, I'm not in America, I'm in Canada. Still. I have an aunt in the armed forces, and if she gets into another combat situation -- she was on the ground in UN peacekeeping force in some hairy situations -- I want her to have effective body armor. I have a friend who was homeschooled in the same group as me, who wants to go into the armed forces, and if she gets into a combat situation I want her in combat armor that is effective.

Is this an unreasonable opinion? Am I asking too much not to have people I am personally associated with not die to faulty equipment? Is this an unreasonable thing for anyone to desire? Simply projecting my feelings onto people in America who may or may not have loved ones who go into combat situations, this is a real concern to people who exist and make up a not insignificant amount of people. Is it unreasonable to ask that they be treated fairly?

I live five minutes outside a military base, I work just outside a military base, and I see women in combat fatigues all the time. I see them in full kit when they're on training, running alongside the road. This issue is personal to me because I see people all the time who could very easily be affected by something such as this, and I know people who this can affect.