Any thoughts on "Women in combat report".

Any thoughts on how a potential revised test would look? I certainly hope they still keep male and female standards for the general test. Vamp, Scout or patentesq if you agree with the premise that there needs to be a "genderless" PT test for combat do you have any thoughts on how the test should be determined and what it should look like?
 
Right now, the different standards of the PFT accounts for the differences between the biological makeup of men and women. This is very fair, because if it was a single test, males would have an unfair advantage over femails.

But if you are a female and want to serve in a front-line Army Ranger unit, you should totally be permitted to do so. But then females should be required to meet the same standards as the males.
 
patentesq said:
Right now, the different standards of the PFT accounts for the differences between the biological makeup of men and women. This is very fair, because if it was a single test, males would have an unfair advantage over femails[sic].
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct. The reason for this is because it is solely a physical fitness test, a benchmark for physical fitness. Many attempt to make it something more, something that it is not. IF the standards were the same for both sexes, females would require a much higher level of physical fitness to meet the minimums than would a male.
 
Totally correct. There is a difference between physical "FITNESS" and physical "CAPABILITIES". The standards need to be about physical "CAPABILITIES" and not "FITNESS". If your job "in the field" requires carrying a 35lb sack and a 10lb radio for hours at a time, then the "Standards" need to consider this. The sack and radio doesn't know, OR CARE, if you're a woman, 140 lbs, 5ft 2in, etc... They don't make a "Lighter" version. It's not like the guys get to use a TRC-176 and the women get to use an IPOD.

If a pararescue needs to carry/drag/etc... the average size fellow serviceman of 200 lbs fully clothed, then that needs to be in the standards to be able to do. Trust me; the downed pilot or crew member isn't going to give a crap if you're a woman or man when you come to save them. However; they will care when you say: "I can't pick you up. Stay here while I go get some more help".

Make the standards based on Physical "CAPABILITIES" and everything will be right.
 
I think the problem is too many people don't want it to change because for some it will become a major issue.

Let's say the Army allows women in combat, the question is if that female wants to be a Ranger or on Delta Force, does she get a different PT test, or does she have to meet the current stds. that are in place?

If you believe they should create a test for females, why?
 
Pima said:
I think the problem is too many people don't want it to change because for some it will become a major issue.

Let's say the Army allows women in combat, the question is if that female wants to be a Ranger or on Delta Force, does she get a different PT test, or does she have to meet the current stds. that are in place?

If you believe they should create a test for females, why?
Click to expand...

I don’t think set standards are what is the issue for women trying to get into things like Rangers, SEAL, Recon etc. I think it is the training. Will they just completely desegregate it? Women and men mixed in together with training or have separate training grounds?
 
Pima said:
2. Genetically we are different, and medically we have issues that occur frequently. Forward troops work and train as a unit, that is an issue they need to address if the unit is 10-20 people and in the middle of nowhere with min. supplies. They all have an impact on the mission.
Click to expand...

I just remembered something that affects this argument (maybe). I heard that many soldiers carry tampons because they are pretty damn good at plugging bullet holes (and bloody noses!). Don't know how true that is, but if so, then feminine needs might not be such an issue. Hell, some might be happy that a female soldier in the field with them brought herself a good supply that can second as medical equipment in a combat/medivac scenario!

Sorry, random and strange discussion, but my brain is fried from 2 hours of microeconomics this morning!
 
Future,

Sorry, but if you use living in barracks with the other sex during training is the issue, than there are much bigger problems than I even thought about!

As a woman, I have no issue sleeping in a room full of guys because I trust them. Maybe I am reading too much in that post.

Hornet,

WHAP...did you duck your cranium fast enough!:shake: I wish that I could gather my thoughts to respond to that, but you know me, I won't ever be able to because everytime I read that post I will be :rofl:

Obviously it must be a slow day at Rand!
 
futureAFA said:
I don’t think set standards are what is the issue for women trying to get into things like Rangers, SEAL, Recon etc. I think it is the training. Will they just completely desegregate it? Women and men mixed in together with training or have separate training grounds?
Click to expand...

Future; that is exactly what "Set Standards" are. That includes training. No desegregation at all. When I went to survival school, women weren't doing it then. If they were then, or doing it now, I would expect them to be side by side. The standards; which includes training, MUST be standard. All for one and one for all. That is the only way it can be uniform. If PJ's are open to everyone, then everyone does the exact same training, together. Same with ANY AFSC or job you can think of. If the military can't find a way to integrate the entire process standard, then they aren't ready to integrate. There can't be separate training, facilities, considerations, etc... Injuries, bullets, captivity, bombs, and especially DEATH is not prejudice. Neither can the training be.
 
I am told it is supposed to be more functional- related and that it won't be a single test. There will be a few different tests so you don't always take the same one. This way people are not only ever doing 3 exercises in prep for the PT test.
 
Christcorp said:
Future; that is exactly what "Set Standards" are. That includes training. No desegregation at all. When I went to survival school, women weren't doing it then. If they were then, or doing it now, I would expect them to be side by side. The standards; which includes training, MUST be standard. All for one and one for all. That is the only way it can be uniform. If PJ's are open to everyone, then everyone does the exact same training, together. Same with ANY AFSC or job you can think of. If the military can't find a way to integrate the entire process standard, then they aren't ready to integrate. There can't be separate training, facilities, considerations, etc... Injuries, bullets, captivity, bombs, and especially DEATH is not prejudice. Neither can the training be.
Click to expand...

I agree. I thought by “set standards” you initially meant just PFT and things along those lines.

And Vampsoul, I don’t understand how it would necessarily make it more functional? I understand having multiple PT test though, that makes sense.
 
I have a question that I've never seen really addressed and I hesitate to even ask it, but you guys are usually patient with my questions, so I will. If taken POW, would a woman be treated differently than a man in this situation or the same way??
 
Depends on the captives. But either way, she would most likely be treated differently. Possibly better, but also possibly worse. But almost guaranteed differently. Too many people believe that there's all these "Rules of War". Considering first that our current military involvements aren't legally "Declared Wars", even if things like the Geneva Convention were recognized, that doesn't mean they'd have to be followed. We aren't in a declared war. Second; when dealing with terrorists or individuals that don't necessarily represent an entire country; main reason we aren't in a declared war; would you expect them to follow a set of rules. And yes; if you want me to say it; rape could most definitely be a real possibility.

The only way POW's can be protected by their home nation, is if both sides agree to a particular set of rules. Unfortunately, many of the people our military engage in, couldn't give a crap about rules. Even if you look back to WWII, prisoners were treated differently in the Pacific theater of war than they were in Europe. Back then, we were at war with a "Country". Today, we aren't at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... We're fighting individuals and groups.
 
Caroline: I should have added this to my past response, but I forgot to. As Americans, we collectively live by a similar set of morals and values. These have been developed by our largely Christian society; and enforced by our judicial system of laws. Which too are based on our moral and religious beliefs. Unfortunately, not everyone in the rest of the world believes as we do. If you're looking for someone to reassure you that a woman will be treated with respect, you're not going to find that. At least not from me. If we were at war with a country that had similar values and morals and us, then chances are that women might be treated similar to men. If we are at war with individuals/groups, such as currently in Afghanistan or Iraq, I can tell you that women will not be treated the same. And in either scenario; if our adversary believes they can gain information or an advantage by using our morals and values against us; e.g. having the male prisoners hear the screams of a female prisoner being tortured, raped, etc..., then they will probably use that to their advantage. So, if you want some reassurance that a woman is going to be treated equally to a man when captured; you're not going to get that reassurance. Most likely, the captors will use a female prisoner to their advantage over the male prison population. War and battle is not as humane or as civilized and many would like to believe it is. Rules are on paper. And those rules only apply if both sides agree they do. Terrorist groups and such don't sign pacts like the geneva convention.
 
Short and sweet if your concern is being raped, underlying tone of the question IMHPO, than I pose this for you to ponder.

John McCain was used and abused as a POW, to this day he cannot brush his own hair due to the abuse he endured. His father ordered bombings over his POW camp knowing his own son was there.

The Geneva Convention exists, but I would not enter as a female (I am a female) believing the enemy adheres to it.
 
Christcorp and Pima ... thank you so much for you replies. No, I wasn't looking for reassurance, Christcorp, I thought that was the answer, but was unsure. And Pima, I didn't mean to imply that what men go through as POWs was in any way better or worse than what a woman would go through.
 
I think you missed the point I was saying. It is bad for both, but if I had to be honest I think for a woman it is even worse.

My pt was don't think that the enemy is going to follow the Geneva Convention to the letter.

For me personally, I am a chicken, I also was married to an AF officer for 20 yrs that flew. It was always on my mind when he was in the sandbox of being shot down and captured. I thought of myself in that position, and I knew I could never do that life because of fear.

You have to ask yourself if they do not adhere to the Geneva Convention are you still all in?

Look at the POWS for the past 30 - 40 yrs. For Gulf I, I can't remember his name, but he beat himself up because he knew they wanted him to make a video tape to be used as propaganda.

We still have MIA's, who knows what happened to them!

If getting captured is a big issue, than you need to address it personally thinking about the worst thing they could do to you...multiply that by 100 and ask are you still ready? I am not kidding, take your worst fear and I bet you still didn't touch the top of the iceberg.
 
Pima ... it's not me, it's my high school daughter I'm thinking of who has the academies in mind. I went to USMMA for a year and a half and left due to medical reasons. But I'm a worrier by nature and already scared about my kids going off to college of any kind!
 
If you are a worrier by nature, than her life will make you go insane.

You already are worrying about the worst case scenario that statistically is what 1 in a million?

Family members always asked me how I dealt with Bullet flying fighters? Simple answer, Faith. I came to an acceptance that if he was meant to die that day, he would die. I could lock him the house, but that was not going to save his life. I chose to accept this fact and relished in seeing him loving life and his career. I did not think about the bad that could happen, I was just happy to have him for that moment in life now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top