Print

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

Yes

10 (76.9%)

No

3 (23.1%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Xantalos]

Waitwaitwait. Isn't endurance a better quality than raw strength for the military save for machine gunners and the like?

Testosterone is a steroid. Given equal exercise, the person with more testosterone will put on more muscle. Or do you guys disbelieve that steroids do anything, and all those people in sports are abusing them just for laughs?

That would make sense, actually.

[DJ]

You need both strength and endurance for hauling gear. You can have exceptional endurance unloaded, but if you have sub-par strength you'll still tire out faster than others when you're weighed down, because you'll be straining a lot more.

[Xantalos]

...
That is true, although I'd imagine you'd have to have both in order to get in, but they'd like a person who can lift 50 pounds 50 times than a guy who can lift 100 pounds 10 times (in a row).

[kingfisher1112]

I think Women in the military are alright. We've got a few in Australia, and they don't hinder us at all. Still, I believe there is a difference in size and strength. Men could be suited to transport, artillery, and tank crews because of that strength. Women, due to smaller stature, could be used in Special Forces ( SAS) and marksman roles for less of a target.

Edit: Oh yeah, has it been brought up that same sex units might be a good idea because you're more likely to forge a friendship with a same-sex person than an opposite-sex one? Just curious, it's something I don't think has been explored.

[Neonivek]

Possibly one of the statements that annoys me the most but that I can't argue against, because it is true, is that you could take the worst male pro basketball team and put them up against the best pro female basketball team (heck make it the female all stars) and the males will win.

But there are differences in male and female athletics that doesn't boil down to outright strength.

For example even a male and female of equal strength (and weight) cannot do the same amount of pushups or sit ups because of how their body weight is distributed.

It is actually why in some professions they restructure the physical. It doesn't mean females do 18% less but rather that 18% gets weighted somewhere else.

[Hiiri]

• 1 High School Rowing Team (Adolescent Males) were able to match the times of 1 Olympic Rowing Team (Adult Females).
  ∴ (therefore) All Men are naturally predisposed to being stronger than all Women.
  ∴ (also therefore) Women don't have anything to bring to the Military.

NO! Fix:

• A High School Rowing Team (Adolescent Males, most likely non-superhuman*) is able to match the times of a Olympic Rowing Team (Adult Females).
  ∴ (therefore) Men are naturally predisposed to being stronger than women.
  ∴ (also therefore) There are going to be less women in the military.

*Correct me, if I'm wrong.

While you can't make that conclusion based on one rowing team, the general trend is towards athletic men beating athletic women. And until this trend changes, we can expect there to be less women in the army.

@Solifuge: You seem like an intelligent person, I can't help but wonder if you're being dishonest on purpose.

Edit: Also, just because men might be stronger than women, doesn't mean an individual man is stronger than an individual woman. I don't know if I can ever stress this enough.

[Yannanth]

I didn't read much past the first page, but I find the arguments thrown around here really silly.

Equal opportunities is what you're looking for. Affirmative action is sometimes called positive discrimination - which in my view, is always a negative.

And FYI, OP, a lot of rapes in the Central African Republic, where banditry is rife, are committed by women. Same goes for the DR Congo with its warbands. Now, the Afghan reality is obviously a lot different to that of Central Africa as women very much were second-class citizens (in cities at least, less so in rural areas) under Taliban rule and couldn't become soldiers. But to say that all rapes are committed by men is feminist bullcrap. Plain and simple.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

As for having small soldiers? That would be a no. The main job of soldiers is to carry things around and do manual labour. The Army generally likes bigger people as they are more useful in day to day activities. Though they do need small people to be fighter pilots.

My platoon sergeant is 5'5" 180 pounds. Most cut human being I have ever seen. He's been in for over nine years and like 4 pushes. He could kill you a billion ways over, I guarantee.

[Eagle_eye]

I don't think 180 pounds is ever considered small.

[Frumple]

5'5" definitely is, though, at least for a male in the states. 5'10" is about average for males, over here. Dude's about as tall as the average stateside woman. Which would bely the whole "small soldiers bad" thing (which is just kinda' silly, really, especially looking back into history or at certain other nations today).

[DJ]

To have 180 pounds on 5'5" height without being obese you have to have a really wide frame.

[Zangi]

To have 180 pounds on 5'5" height without being obese you have to have a really wide frame.

I'm pretty ignorant of physical biology stuff.... but, how heavy is muscle?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

To have 180 pounds on 5'5" height without being obese you have to have a really wide frame.

I'm pretty ignorant of physical biology stuff.... but, how heavy is muscle?

Heavier than fat, lighter than bone.

[Max White]

Heavier than fat.
Problem is that putting on muscle is a lot harder than putting on fat. I'm willing to bet that Gotdamnmiracles sergeant has a healthy mix of both.
These body builders with all bulk muscle and no fat are trying to look pretty, not be fit. Military fit often involved a layer of fat that insulates, fuels muscle and protects from impact.

[Loud Whispers]

I think Women in the military are alright. We've got a few in Australia, and they don't hinder us at all. Still, I believe there is a difference in size and strength. Men could be suited to transport, artillery, and tank crews because of that strength. Women, due to smaller stature, could be used in Special Forces ( SAS) and marksman roles for less of a target.

Rate eligibility at 15-24 requires a 2.4km run in 11 minutes 13 seconds. Women get 2 minutes and 2 seconds extra.
SAS, SBS, SRR eligibility requires a 2.4km run in under 9 minutes and 30 seconds, followed by 44 pressups and 50 sit ups in two minutes. That is the initial test. This is what follows.
Most joining an elite branch or applying for special training will have come from some other military branch with its own training regime, like the RM.
There is much more to do with the elite forces than giving a small target. Small stature generally does not help you at all. Being strong and basically unbreakable, much better.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Much more.

Tl;dr
Physical profiling is stupid, base eligibility on ability.