soper@BRL.MIL (CSD) (06/22/91)
From: Marc Soper SSG (CSD) <soper@BRL.MIL> If women are going to be aloud into combat MOS's they should have to meet the same standards as men. As it stands right now a female 26 years old has to do 16 push-ups to pass and 56 to max. A male the same age has to do 42 push-ups to pass and 82 to max. For sit-ups a female age 26 has to do 46 to pass and 85 to max. A male the same age has to do 48 to pass and 87 to max. For the 2-mile run a female of the same age has to complete the run in 19min. and 36sec. to pass to max she has to run it in 15min. and 36sec.. A male the same age has to complete the run in 16min. and 36sec. to pass and 12min and 36sec. to max. Now the older you get the bigger the spread between the sex's gets. I am Airborne Infantry and I have no problem have women in a combat MOS but if they are they should have the same standards. Also if they alow women in to combat MOS's they should also be able to be drafted. The one strange thing that I have noticed is most of the people who are complaining about women not being in combat MOS's are not in the military, or if they are they are not in a combat MOS themselves. So I guess what I'm saying is let people who it affect make the choice! SSG SOPER AIRBORNE INFANTRY ALL THE WAY AND THEN SOME!!!!!!
military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (06/25/91)
From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) I knew this topic was a touchy one, but so far everyone's behaving pretty well. I'd like to remind everyone to keep cool heads, avoid flaming and insulting other authors, and to try to stick to facts rather than opinions. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bill Thacker Moderator, sci.military military-request@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 Send submissions to military@att.att.com
jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) (06/25/91)
From: jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) >From: Marc Soper SSG (CSD) <soper@BRL.MIL> >... Also if they alow women in to combat MOS's they >should also be able to be drafted. I think that whether or not women are allowed in combat MOSs, they should be subject to the draft. My reasoning is this: if women are allowed in combat, they should be subject to being compelled into combat (same as men). If not, they should be subject to being compelled into service so that men (under this assumption capable of serving in combat MOSs) could be transferred into combat positions. Before the Gulf War began (November, I think), one of my girlfriend's instructors asked the men in the class what they would do if it came to war. My girlfriend replied that the instructor should probably consider what the women would do, as well. -- Jeff Medcalf jkmedcal@uokmax.{uucp|ecn.uoknor.edu} !chinet!uokmax!jkmedcal BoB smokes *my* pipe! We carry in our hearts the true country... In 1869, the waffle iron was invented, thus solving the annoying tendency of waffles to wrinkle in the dryer. No new tale to tell.
military@cbnews (06/25/91)
From: sun!pro-amber.cts.com!rsopicki (System Administrator) In-Reply-To: message from soper@BRL.MIL Finally someone who makes sense in this issue. I agree with the Sarge 100%. I spent 21 years in the Navy and I can see no place for women on Naval combatants. When the stuff hits the fan I always wanted someone with me that I could count on to help me force a jammed hatch, pull wounded away from an accident or hit. I just don't think women can fill that billet. ---- ProLine: rsopicki@pro-amber Internet: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-amber!rsopicki ARPA: crash!pro-amber!rsopicki@nosc.mil
psg@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) (06/27/91)
From: "Paul S Galvanek" <psg@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Judging from the responses I got in my mail box it is obvious I didn't make my point clear with my last posting. So I'll try again... I believe the military uses a different criteria for judging "physical competence" than the "she can run faster than most men climb better than most men etc.." The question the military is more concerned with is will soldier x that we've spent years and many dollars training be physically able AND available when called upon to preform their duties in a real combat situations. Women's reproductive differences pose to great a variable for military planners when it comes to the availability part, a problem that no man presents them. We know for certain no percentage of men will need to be excused from duty due to severe PMS or pregnancy while the later can be chosen at any given time by the woman or by accident. Being that this simply a matter of nature it seem perfectly legitimate for the military to avoid this potential problem by excluding the source. Since this subject is not really in keeping with sci.military I won't continue it here but feel free to contact me by e-mail... Paul Galvanek
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) (06/27/91)
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) In article <1991Jun25.024731.27841@cbnews.cb.att.com> jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) writes: >... >I think that whether or not women are allowed in combat MOSs, they should be >subject to the draft. My reasoning is this: if women are allowed in combat, >they should be subject to being compelled into combat (same as men). If not, >they should be subject to being compelled into service so that men (under this >assumption capable of serving in combat MOSs) could be transferred into combat >positions. The reason why women should _not_ be drafted is very simple: somebody has to take care of the kids. What's the point of fighting a war if you're not going to leave anyone behind to take care of the families of the combatants? One of the main reasons (both practical and psychological) why armies have fought throughout all of history is to preserve their homes. Now, in the name of Political Correctness, it has become fashionable to see the armed forces as an instrument of social policy, and as a career opportunity to which everyone ought to have an equal right. Sorry, but that's not the way it works: the armed forces exists for a social purpose, all right--but not for _these_ purposes. The army exists to preserve our state, and our homes and families, and for no other reason whatever. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au (06/27/91)
From: bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au In article <1991Jun25.025044.28238@cbnews.cb.att.com>, military@cbnews writes: > > > From: sun!pro-amber.cts.com!rsopicki (System Administrator) > In-Reply-To: message from soper@BRL.MIL > > Finally someone who makes sense in this issue. I agree with the Sarge 100%. > I spent 21 years in the Navy and I can see no place for women on Naval > combatants. When the stuff hits the fan I always wanted someone with me > that I could count on to help me force a jammed hatch, pull wounded away > from an accident or hit. I just don't think women can fill that billet. As a counter example. I spent ten years in the Australian Army in unit which due to circumstance varied from between 33% to 50% females at various times. Both in the field on exercises, and in barracks, the females were as good as their male counterparts at being soldiers. They usually knew their trade as well as the males and were, in some cases, able to outperform the males. It was, I admit a supply unit, not a combat unit, however as the Oz Army practices the concept of all arms defence, a soldier serving in a supply unit has to be nearly as proficient in infantry tasks as they do in their technical trade the distinction has become rather blurred. The only problems they had were that they were physically weaker (which is understandable as little effort had gone into specialised physical fitness programs for them) and unable to lift as heavier weights as the males. However their enthusiasm for what they were doing was usually much greater and they also tended to be better educated. Most importantly they knew the problems and they at least tried to overcome them, rather than sitting on their arse and whingeing about them. The Australian military has generally been openned up to females with regards to what positions they can fill. In the airforce they are undergoing flight training for everything except fighters at the moment. In the Navy while they are not intended to serve on combatants, because of the nature of their roles that distinction has gone by the wayside. In fact on the HMAS Westralia, the second supply ship which served in the Gulf were the first members of the WRAN to ever officially serve in a combat zone. In the army nearly all positions, except infantry, armour, and artillery are now open to females. *Climbs on soapbox* As I said in my last post on the topic, don't allow sexism to blind you to what females can, or cannot do. There is no reason to believe they cannot function as well as males in any role, no matter what. If they can reach the physical standards necessary, then there is no reason why they cannot fufill that role. By denying them the right to even at least attempt to try for those positions you are simply saying they are not the equal of men, and they should be home being baby factories and cooking meals (read: "Barefoot and Pregnant, chained to a sink/stone"). I would have thought that in the thirty years since feminism appeared on the scene more people would be a little more receptive to what has been said over the years about what it represents. If women want to be able to explore all the possibilities of what equality means, and that includes serving in a combat role in the military, then good on them. I will, based on past experience, give'em a go at least. If they can perform then they can stay. If they cannot perform then, just as with any male who cannot perform, they go. *Climbs off soapbos* Just my two cents worth, thats all. :-) -- Brian Ross -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we got it so wrong in the Middle East yesterday, what makes you think we are going to get it right this time?" Arthur Schlesinger --------------------------------------------------------------------------
GNewsam@itd.dsto.oz.au (G.N. Newsam) (06/28/91)
From: GNewsam@itd.dsto.oz.au (G.N. Newsam) Given the importance of this issue, it seems worthwhile trying to clarify it a bit. As I see it there are really two questions: 1. Is there some moral or ethical reason for the services to refuse to accept women. 2. Is there some practical reason for ... The consensus so far on 1. seems to be strongly in favour of no. When it comes to ethical questions, individuals are human beings first and men or women a long way second; if its ethically OK for one to fight its OK for the other. 2. seems a much more complex question. However I would like to make a point about selection procedures. It is always important not to confuse the particular and the general; human beings vary alot and no sweeping statement about either sex is ever going to be true. But at some point any large organization has to make this confusion. Since the only exact simulation of reality is reality itself, the services have to rely on some proxy measurements when trying to select people that will be able to perform effectively in combat. These measurements will always fail some who would actually perform well and vice versa, but at some point the cost of making better selections outweighs the cost of coping with failures the existing system lets through AND the cost of not using good people that the system rejected. Thus the question is: is sex on its own is a sufficiently good measure of combat ability to justify using it as a necessary selection criterion? When fighting was low-tech, strength was very important (and so was fitness but the two shouldn't be confused). Since being a tall male correlates very well with strength press gangs and suchlike could make quick selections that took people the services could generally use and that rejected people that would have been relatively ineffective. Nowadays combat requires much more precise skills, so services need much precise selection criteria. If sex is no longer an accurate predictor of such skills on its own (and to be accurate it must predict that men will have the needed skills AND that women won't), then it shouldn't be used as a single selector by itself (although it could justifiably be included in composite measures if it improved their predictive power). It follows from all this I am in favour of standard criteria for all service personnel, but with the caveat that the criteria really do measure essential skills and performance. Measures such as numbers of pushups etc, really only measure fitness, and even then may be poor actual predictors of fitness unless corrected for body wieght or something similar. G.N. Newsam ANZUS: The last line of defence for penguins.
GNewsam@itd.dsto.oz.au (G.N. Newsam) (06/29/91)
From: GNewsam@itd.dsto.oz.au (G.N. Newsam) Given the importance of this issue, it seems worthwhile trying to clarify it a bit. As I see it there are really two questions: 1. Is there some moral or ethical reason for the services to refuse to accept women. 2. Is there some practical reason for ... The consensus so far on 1. seems to be strongly in favour of no. When it comes to ethical questions, individuals are human beings first and men or women a long way second; if its ethically OK for one to fight its OK for the other. 2. seems a much more complex question. However I would like to make a point about selection procedures. It is always important not to confuse the particular and the general; human beings vary alot and no sweeping statement about either sex is ever going to be true. But at some point any large organization has to make this confusion. Since the only exact simulation of reality is reality itself, the services have to rely on some proxy measurements when trying to select people that will be able to perform effectively in combat. These measurements will always fail some who would actually perform well and vice versa, but at some point the cost of making better selections outweighs the cost of coping with failures the existing system lets through AND the cost of not using good people that the system rejected. Thus the question is: is sex on its own is a sufficiently good measure of combat ability to justify using it as a necessary selection criterion? When fighting was low-tech, strength was very important (and so was fitness but the two shouldn't be confused). Since being a tall male correlates very well with strength press gangs and suchlike could make quick selections that took people the services could generally use and that rejected people that would have been relatively ineffective. Nowadays combat requires much more precise skills, so services need much precise selection criteria. If sex is no longer an accurate predictor of such skills on its own (and to be accurate it must predict that men will have the needed skills AND that women won't), then it shouldn't be used as a single selector by itself (although it could justifiably be included in composite measures if it improved their predictive power). It follows from all this I am in favour of standard criteria for all service personnel, but with the caveat that the criteria really do measure essential skills and performance. Measures such as numbers of pushups etc, really only measure fitness, and even then may be poor actual predictors of fitness unless corrected for body wieght or something similar. G.N. Newsam ANZUS: The last line of defence for penguins.
tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no (Tarjei Jensen) (06/29/91)
From: tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no (Tarjei Jensen) There is going to be more than enough people left after a draft to take care of the kids. In Norway only 2/3 of the males finish the year/15 months of service. Around 11.5 percent (According to a newspaper article I read some years ago. For 4.1 million people that yields around 470 000 people.)of the population are available to the armed forces in peace time. In case of an emergency this could increase. Greetings from Norway, -- // Tarjei T. Jensen - if it ain't broken, fix it anyway! // tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no || +47 87 21138 // Working, but not speaking for the Norwegian National Library.
nanis@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Jeff Nanis) (06/29/91)
From: nanis@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Jeff Nanis) I don't think this is an inappropriate topic for sci.military, however, I would like to see the topic organized into several sub-topics. The issue of women in combat roles falls neatly into three somewhat distinct arguments: a) Women flying combat missions in aircraft. Issues here involve G-tolerance, reflexes, and implications of shoot-down, capture, and treatment as POWs. b) Women onboard ship. Combat or not, this involves issues of physical strength, pregnancy, and fraternization in close quarters. c) Women in ground combat. This involves physical strength, endurance, and the aforementioned POW problem. Posters, Bill, everyone, I think if we can keep these issues separate and identify _what_ we mean when we talk about "women in combat", the discussion will be much less prone to emotional flame wars. -- Jeff Nanis Radars 'r' us. nanis@ll.mit.edu An official opinion? Not on my life.
jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) (06/29/91)
From: jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes: >Now, in the name of Political Correctness, it has become fashionable to see >the armed forces as an instrument of social policy, and as a career >opportunity to which everyone ought to have an equal right. Sorry, but >that's not the way it works: the armed forces exists for a social purpose, >all right--but not for _these_ purposes. The army exists to preserve our >state, and our homes and families, and for no other reason whatever. This may not be a correct topic for this group, since it is nontechnical in nature, but I don't know what the proper group would be. I see the military in the classical sense: a body which is able to further national objectives by the use of armed force. This includes, but is not limited to, preserving our state, homes, and families. It also includes many reasons that were given for the Gulf War: protection of vital resources for our selves and allies, protection of friendly nations' borders, protection of "freedom (this is not a flame, but the Kuwaitis do not define freedom the same way that most Americans would)" and liberty, and so forth. I do not see the armed forces as an instrument of social policy. However, my original argument (about women being subject to the draft) still stands. In no case would all able-bodied men be drafted, nor would all able-bodied women if women could be drafted. I do think, however, that the best women should be as available to the military as the best men. If this is inappropriate to sci.military, please let me know. [mod.note: So long as postings remain rational and don't become repetitive, I think it's appropriate. I do think we've about covered all the issues; I realize that arguments are unlikely to change many peoples' opinions on this matter, and once they've all been presented, I think the topic can be dropped. - Bill ] Thanks -- Jeff Medcalf jkmedcal@uokmax.{uucp|ecn.uoknor.edu} !chinet!uokmax!jkmedcal BoB smokes *my* pipe! Triangle Fraternity ok88 In 1869, the waffle iron was invented, thus solving the annoying tendency of waffles to wrinkle in the dryer. No new tale to tell.