Why aren't women held to same physical standards as men in the armed forces?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



TempAccount

riv6672

cdtm
The hair thing is kind of odd.

Is hair shaving strictly a conformity thing? Or is it shaved because its seen as a liability in combat?

riv6672

Emperordmb

TempAccount

riv6672
Just going w. what i inferred from the OP.

Surtur
The hair thing is bullshit lol. There is zero excuse for it: if men are made to shave their heads so should women.

And if stuff is broken down into age groups fine: it should still end up with a 20 yr. old male and a 20 yr. old female both needing to meet the same requirements. And with a 30 yr. old male and 30 yr. old female meeting the same, etc. and so on. Anything else is sexist.

And no the requirements should not be lowered for men so women can compete and we can still go "they have equal requirements now".

Oh and I hope when they do push ups the ladies aren't doing lady push ups.

Surtur

Raptor22
Originally posted by Surtur
The hair thing is bullshit lol. There is zero excuse for it: if men are made to shave their heads so should women.

And if stuff is broken down into age groups fine: it should still end up with a 20 yr. old male and a 20 yr. old female both needing to meet the same requirements. And with a 30 yr. old male and 30 yr. old female meeting the same, etc. and so on. Anything else is sexist.

And no the requirements should not be lowered for men so women can compete and we can still go "they have equal requirements now".

Oh and I hope when they do push ups the ladies aren't doing lady push ups. i agree with the hair thing. But i dont see how u can u be fine with special rules based on age but not sex.

If the whole idea is to have an equal set of physical standards for everyone, why would it be ok for some male soldiers to be held to 1 standard, but an older or younger male soldier who's slower/weaker can be held to a lower standard based off their age but a woman cant based off their sex?

Personally as for the OP, back in the day i used to have the mindset that everyone should be held to the same physical standards for fairness, equality etc... I used to think it was B.S that i could do a certain number of pushups or run a mile in a certain time and fail a physical test but someone get lower scores and get in because they're a woman. Just typing it now, kinda makes it still seem like BS, and obviously isnt fair or equal.

But while militaries defiantly need some soldiers that are physically superior. What they need more than that, are soldiers, period.

Just imagine if we removed every soldier from our armed forces, man/woman, young/old who didnt meet the strictest physical levels that a young man in his prime has to reach. Or military numbers would be decimated instantly.

People usually ask a question along these lines during these discussions - if im a 250 lb soldier trapped in combat would a weaker/slower woman be able to cary me to safety or pull me out.

I think a more appropriate question would be- if im a 250 lb soldier trapped in combat would i rather that weaker woman try to pull me out, or no one, because we didnt have enough personal and the ones we do have are stretched too thin to come for me.


To sum it up, in my op. We do need "physical monsters" out there. And men in their prime age are the ones that can attain those levels. Thats why we have those standards for them. To force the ones who can reach those levels to reach them. But we also need bodies, so we have lower standards for others (women and men before/past their prime) to fill the ranks.

Not to sound harsh to women or young/old men, , but every chess board needs pawns. Are they as good or strong as the other pieces? Nope. But go into a game without yours and see what happens. Is a pawn going to protect ur king as good as a queen? Nope. But its better than nothing.

Surtur
If it were up to me the age thing wouldn't be okay either, but I wanted to focus more on the male vs female thing given that is the topic and I didn't feel the age thing negated the points being made. So that "fine" was less meant to signal "I am fine with this" and more "fine that might be true but this sexism is still wrong and if they're gonna do it by age they should at least apply it to both sexes equally"

TempAccount
Also don't believe in age brackets. Male at his peak strength (late twenties) should be the standard. No compromises for those older or younger.

snowdragon
Originally posted by TempAccount
Also don't believe in age brackets. Male at his peak strength (late twenties) should be the standard. No compromises for those older or younger.

#agreed

Most reasonably fit men through their 40's could achieve "warhawk."

Surtur
Originally posted by TempAccount
Also don't believe in age brackets. Male at his peak strength (late twenties) should be the standard. No compromises for those older or younger.

Yep, those soldiers who have gotten older to the point that they can no longer meet the requirements should be assigned to non-combat duties.

Likewise, if a woman can't meet the same requirements the men have to she should be assigned a non-combat role.

Surtur
Originally posted by Raptor22
Personally as for the OP, back in the day i used to have the mindset that everyone should be held to the same physical standards for fairness, equality etc... I used to think it was B.S that i could do a certain number of pushups or run a mile in a certain time and fail a physical test but someone get lower scores and get in because they're a woman. Just typing it now, kinda makes it still seem like BS, and obviously isnt fair or equal.

But while militaries defiantly need some soldiers that are physically superior. What they need more than that, are soldiers, period.

Just imagine if we removed every soldier from our armed forces, man/woman, young/old who didnt meet the strictest physical levels that a young man in his prime has to reach. Or military numbers would be decimated instantly.

People usually ask a question along these lines during these discussions - if im a 250 lb soldier trapped in combat would a weaker/slower woman be able to cary me to safety or pull me out.

I think a more appropriate question would be- if im a 250 lb soldier trapped in combat would i rather that weaker woman try to pull me out, or no one, because we didnt have enough personal and the ones we do have are stretched too thin to come for me.


To sum it up, in my op. We do need "physical monsters" out there. And men in their prime age are the ones that can attain those levels. Thats why we have those standards for them. To force the ones who can reach those levels to reach them. But we also need bodies, so we have lower standards for others (women and men before/past their prime) to fill the ranks.

Not to sound harsh to women or young/old men, , but every chess board needs pawns. Are they as good or strong as the other pieces? Nope. But go into a game without yours and see what happens. Is a pawn going to protect ur king as good as a queen? Nope. But its better than nothing.

If this is the logic you want to use then shouldn't the physical requirements be lowered for both men and women? After all...that trapped 250 lb soldier would also benefit from a weaker man trying to pull him out as opposed to nobody at all.

And it's not like they couldn't make it so that the more elite combat roles have higher physical requirements, but again those requirements should be equal for both men and women too.

Raptor22
Originally posted by Surtur
If this is the logic you want to use then shouldn't the physical requirements be lowered for both men and women? After all...that trapped 250 lb soldier would also benefit from a weaker man trying to pull him out as opposed to nobody at all.

And it's not like they couldn't make it so that the more elite combat roles have higher physical requirements, but again those requirements should be equal for both men and women too. u need something in place that forces the ones that can reach the highest levels to reach those levels. Men in their prime can. Women and older/younger men cant. If u lower the requirements for the ones who can it will decrease the number of the ones that actually do because now they wouldnt have to.


Also this isnt a topic that i have a set in stone, unflappable opinion on. I personally go back and forth on this one in my own head, so its not like ur arguing something that i necessarily disagree with.

The more i think about i find myself being able to come up with better reasons for different requirements based on age rather than sex.

At least with age, a younger person, like a 19 year old, would have the ability to grow physically with age and then more would be expected out of them the older they got. With an older soldier it would make sense that even a small physical decline would be made up for with knowledge and experience.

Im finding it difficult to find good reasons for letting women, who are in their prime physical age, to be held to a different set of standards of men of the same age.

I think ill continue to mull this one over a bit.

Silent Master
Lowering the standards would mean more pawns could get in, which you say that we need. so what is the problem?

Raptor22
Originally posted by Silent Master
Lowering the standards would mean more pawns could get in, which you say that we need. so what is the problem? it would also decrease the number of queens produced. Which are also necessary.

Surtur
Originally posted by Raptor22
it would also decrease the number of queens produced. Which are also necessary.

So men are gonna be held to different standards, should women receive equal pay to them in the military?

Silent Master
Originally posted by Raptor22
it would also decrease the number of queens produced. Which are also necessary.

The best of the best already far exceed the minimum standards, so lowering the standards wouldn't effect them.

playa1258
They don't need to be because most them **** their way out of the standards.

StiltmanFTW
n0RIKHfwAhA

Raptor22
Originally posted by Surtur
So men are gonna be held to different standards, should women receive equal pay to them in the military? have soldiers placements in these requirement tests factored into their pay before?


I thought it was based off rank, years of service, time spent deployed etc...

Surtur
Originally posted by Raptor22
have soldiers placements in these requirement tests factored into their pay before?


I thought it was based off rank, years of service, time spent deployed etc...

If we're gonna demand more out of people of the same rank for something out of their control..why not compensate them more?

Raptor22
Originally posted by Silent Master
The best of the best already far exceed the minimum standards, so lowering the standards wouldn't effect them. ur post is pointless. Since the "queens" in the anology are referring to any of the soldiers that pass the requirements for the prime age group for males.

Or are u arguing that out of that group, they all far exceed the minimum standards and none just make it by?

Silent Master
The queen is one of, if not the most powerful piece on the chess board, pawns would be the ones that just barely pass. therefore lowering the standards would get you more pawns and wouldn't effect the other pieces, as they already surpass the minimums.

Raptor22
Originally posted by Surtur
If we're gonna demand more out of people of the same rank for something out of their control..why not compensate them more? i would assume its because the military decided that the factors that do determine their pay are more significant than push up tests.

Do u disagree? If so how much monetarily should the tests factor into their pay in ur op?

Surtur
Originally posted by Raptor22
i would assume its because the military decided that the factors that do determine their pay are more significant than push up tests.

Do u disagree? If so how much monetarily should the tests factor into their pay in ur op?

I never said it should be the only factor, but if we're going to expect more work out of them why shouldn't there be some perks?

Raptor22
Originally posted by Silent Master
The queen is one of, if not the most powerful piece on the chess board, pawns would be the ones that just barely pass. therefore lowering the standards would get you more pawns and wouldn't effect the other pieces, as they already surpass the minimums. except thats not what the queen represented in my analogy. It represented what i already explained and the pawns were anyone who didn't meet said standards.

No amount of ur tap dancing will change that. But feel free to continue, u know i love a good show.

Raptor22
Originally posted by Surtur
I never said it should be the only factor, but if we're going to expect more work out of them why shouldn't there be some perks? i never said u said it should be the only factor. Im asking u how much it should.

And to answer ur question again

i would assume its because the military decided that the factors that do determine their pay are more significant than push up tests.

Silent Master
People that don't meet the minimums wouldn't be in the military as the failed the tests. if they aren't in the military, they can't be military pawns.

cdtm
Originally posted by Silent Master
The best of the best already far exceed the minimum standards, so lowering the standards wouldn't effect them.

It's effectively penalizing someone to be the best in the first place.


Why put in the effort, when you're seeing people far inferior to you make similar achievements?

Raptor22
Originally posted by Silent Master
People that don't meet the minimums wouldn't be in the military as the failed the tests. if they aren't in the military, they can't be military pawns. wow.

The queen in the analogy was any soldier the met the requirements for the prime age group for males.

The pawns were those that dont meet those requirements but do meet the lesser requirements for their age/sex group.

Anyone above or beyond those standards or whatever u meant by "best of the best" were never part of surts and my discussion so they didnt factor into the analogy.

Im honestly confused as to what ur so confused about.

Silent Master
They either pass the standards for their group or they fail. there are no lower standards for them to pass after failing the main test.

cdtm
Originally posted by Silent Master
They either pass the standards for their group or they fail. there are no lower standards for them to pass after failing the main test.


Sliding scale standards, are no standards at all.


If you're lowering the bar to get more representative groups checked off, then you absolutely are affecting those who passed on a higher standard. It's unfair to them, and erades morale among the rank and file.

riv6672
This thread got really funny really fast!

Textbook GDF.

Surtur
Originally posted by Silent Master
They either pass the standards for their group or they fail. there are no lower standards for them to pass after failing the main test.
Originally posted by cdtm
Sliding scale standards, are no standards at all.


If you're lowering the bar to get more representative groups checked off, then you absolutely are affecting those who passed on a higher standard. It's unfair to them, and erades morale among the rank and file.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/gVoBC0SuaHStq/giphy.gif

Silent Master
Originally posted by cdtm
Sliding scale standards, are no standards at all.


If you're lowering the bar to get more representative groups checked off, then you absolutely are affecting those who passed on a higher standard. It's unfair to them, and erades morale among the rank and file.

Which I think is Surtur's point. if they lower standards to get more people, the elite. IE those that easily surpass the standards should be rewarded for putting in the extra work.

Surtur
Originally posted by riv6672
This thread got really funny really fast!

https://i.imgur.com/EgrhcsW.jpg

Raptor22
Originally posted by Silent Master
They either pass the standards for their group or they fail. there are no lower standards for them to pass after failing the main test. not at all what i was saying

cdtm
Originally posted by Silent Master
Which I think is Surtur's point. if they lower standards to get more people, the elite. IE those that easily surpass the standards should be rewarded for putting in the extra work.



You're saying I'm talking like Surt now.



..

.oh, no. eek!

Surtur
Originally posted by cdtm
You're saying I'm talking like Surt now.



..

.oh, no. eek!

^Like a dagger to my heart

playa1258
Women have no business in combat units.

The pogs can keep them.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.