Print

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

[Virex]

Well then, certainly a baseline "upper body strength" limit should be enforced rather than a gender one? Move the goalposts to the same spot instead of giving different requirements.

The problem with that is that the army already has trouble attracting the current number of woman soldiers, let alone a number that could be considered satisfying. Making boot-camp harder is only going to worsen that problem.

[Vector]

No.  If she can't at least drag her fellow soldier (hell, even I could probably do this easily with a little training, and "physically strong" is not a moniker I would ever attach to myself), she doesn't get to be a soldier.  End of story.

Lowering barriers to entry is one thing.  Lowering the standard of the entire profession is another.

[kaijyuu]

Hrm, any particular reason it's in their interest to want to "attract" women more than men? Do they have some minimum limits to fulfill? Or is it just PR? (honest question here, 'cause I don't know)

[Virex]

The army is a public institution. It's in the interest of the public to attract more women into the army, so it's in the interest of the army to do so.

[Glowcat]

The solution to weaker upper body strength is giving all female soldiers a powered exoskeleton (aka power armor). Economic? No. Awesome? Yes!

[Vector]

The military as it functions today requires a certain kind of fighting.  The interest of the public is to

a. Show that women can fight, as well (we can)

b. Be protected by a strong military

If not as many women can function in the military with the low standards of "can pull buddy over battlefield," then that's how it's going to have to be (though if that's the only standard for entry, all-female groups would take care of the problem).  Different people are good at different things.  Give women a chance, and if they can't cut it, keep that chance open.  More and more will get in, more women will start being more physically active in their childhoods, and it'll work.  But the army is the army, and this standard is not arbitrary.

[MonkeyHead]

 

No.  If she can't at least drag her fellow soldier (hell, even I could probably do this easily with a little training, and "physically strong" is not a moniker I would ever attach to myself), she doesn't get to be a soldier.  End of story.

Lowering barriers to entry is one thing.  Lowering the standard of the entire profession is another.

The army is a public institution. It's in the interest of the public to attract more women into the army, so it's in the interest of the army to do so.

Well then, certainly a baseline "upper body strength" limit should be enforced rather than a gender one? Move the goalposts to the same spot instead of giving different requirements.

Consider the situation of a wounded front line soldier - thier medic (gender irrelevant) isnt able to carry them to saftey/evac. My perception of the logic of the situation should stipulate any combat medic should be tested to see if they can carry a geared up soldier, be they male, female, whatever. The situation where any medic could be on duty who could not carry out such a duty is wrong - plain as. For me, the issue is that lives are at stake, which goes above and beyond any perceived notions of "political correctness" (a term I dislike) or "equality".

[Virex]

But barring a lot of women from patrol duty just because they lack the muscle strength is also wrong, so there has to be some kind of compromise possible here. Maybe reduce the weight of the gear?

[MonkeyHead]

Banning is the wrong word, and also it shouldnt be about "banning women".

People that cant carry the gear/perform strength related duties could be a liability to thier squadmates, and as such shouldnt be in a position where it could bite someone in the ass. Gender here should not be the defining factor, simply the ability to discharge whatever duties are deemed relevant.

Lighten the gear? Heh. OK. What should they leave behind?

[Vector]

And like I said, the numbers of "fewer people in gamma category do x are y" aren't such a problem, so long as we get away from the language of "this is because people in gamma category suck."

People should do what they are able to do (give what they owe), and they should be treated well no matter what that is.  That's the basic idea.

[ggamer]

I believe the whole point of this is that the army is making different standards for different genders. Just raise the bar to a point where if a woman would be fit enough to make it to that point, she can become a soldier, yet all the other soldiers must reach this mark as well.

Then of course, there's the whole "Sexual Abuse" Thing. Which isn't so much a thing as a really fucking serious issue. Although the same could be said of schools, or generally any establishment where men are going to be close to women. All it would be is essentially a co-ed dorm, with more shouting and gun firing.

[kaijyuu]

Is keeping one's hands to themselves too much to ask?

I'm all for desegregation. I'm also for kicking anyone's ass out if they can't respect their fellow squad members as human beings. If there's a problem, its not that men are lecherous perverts who will rape at the first opportunity; it's that people turn a blind eye to assault. This sort of thing should have zero tolerance, both from superiors AND fellow members of their unit. Too bad snitching is apparently a higher form of betrayal than rape to some people.

[GlyphGryph]

(except possibly in quartering...I'm not averse to leaving that like it is)

I am - but I also don't think we're anywhere close to being in a situation where it is a possibility yet.

But barring a lot of women from patrol duty just because they lack the muscle strength is also wrong, so there has to be some kind of compromise possible here. Maybe reduce the weight of the gear?

I don't see what is wrong about barring those who can not do a job safely and effectively from doing the job, unless and until it negatively impacts those who can do the job successfully.

I honestly don't care if the military or any part thereof is equal part male/female or not. Heck, I don't care if there are no women at all in certain roles - as long as the the type of discrimination keeping them out is actually legitimate aka they are being kept out because they can not do the job. But that means if there ever WAS a woman who could do the job, she shouldn't have a problem, and any job the women CAN do shouldn't have the fact that they are a women influence the situation.

I know its not super simple - if you have no women, then suddenly a culture builds up that excludes women. I understand there are complications. But I don't think we need equality in numbers to insure equality in opportunity, and the very notion that we do is both insulting and absurd.

[sluissa]

To give a similar example. (At least in this area) Firefighters, whether they are male or female are required to go through the same tests. Everyone must be able to drag a 200 lb dummy a certain distance as well as carry heavy hose gear up several stories of stairs and several other tasks, all while wearing full fire fighting gear.

We still have female firefighters here. They're the serious minority, but they exist and in general get along fine with most of the other people there. And every year there are still a decent number that try the test and several who pass it.

[Euld]

The solution to weaker upper body strength is giving all female soldiers a powered exoskeleton (aka power armor). Economic? No. Awesome? Yes!

1. Lower the strength entry standards for women.
2. Outfit all military women with Samus-type power suits.
3.
4. World peace!