Should Women be allowed to see frontline service?

[Wookiemonster]

Higher endurance and stamina levels, for instance. As an illustration, I've heard that the Air Force encourages women to become fighter pilots, because we handle the G forces better.

In general, it's fair to say that men have more brute power. It is not fair to say that women are weaker. We have different forms of strength, that's all.

This however depends on the activity. When speaking of the activities required of Ground Force Troops, most women are simply not able to preform at the level required to keep up with most Infantry troops (be they Marines or Soilders)


In cases where my husbands life might depend on his fellow Marine picking him up and hauling his 190lbs well over 100 yards, yes it is totally fair for me to say that most women are weaker and could not do this.

 

[Storm]

This however depends on the activity. When speaking of the activities required of Ground Force Troops, most women are simply not able to preform at the level required to keep up with most Infantry troops (be they Marines or Soilders)

Do you have a cite on this?

In cases where my husbands life might depend on his fellow Marine picking him up and hauling his 190lbs well over 100 yards, yes it is totally fair for me to say that most women are weaker and could not do this.

Slight quibble: it is totally fair for you to say that those who can't meet the requirements should not be allowed into the position.

It is NOT fair to stereotype women as incapable and deny them the opportunity to serve.

 

[Wookiemonster]

Do you have a cite on this?

Working on it.

Slight quibble: it is totally fair for you to say that those who can't meet the requirements should not be allowed into the position.

It is NOT fair to stereotype women as incapable and deny them the opportunity to serve.

My point is that everytime women have demanded equality in their "rights" to sereve in certian roles in the military standards have been dropped so that women could meet them, rather than women stepping up and preforming at the same standard as men are required to.

Also note...I said MOST women...Becuase lets face it...MOST women could not pick up 190lbs and run with it.

 

[Storm]

Working on it.

Cool, thanks.

My point is that everytime women have demanded equality in their "rights" to sereve in certian roles in the military standards have been dropped so that women could meet them, rather than women stepping up and preforming at the same standard as men are required to.

I've already said I don't approve of this.

Also note...I said MOST women...Becuase lets face it...MOST women could not pick up 190lbs and run with it.

Most men couldn't, either.

 

[TheKnight]

I don't see a problem with it. If they do allow it, they should have all-female units and all-male units....Co-ed units would be asking for trouble.

 

[Oberon]

Do you have a cite on this?

Do you have one for "women have more endurance?"

The standards are lowered for women in the US military.

 

[Storm]

Do you have one for "women have more endurance?"

Nothing handy, but a quick google turned this up:

The information presented in the previous two paragraphs leads to the prediction that women might compete against men most successfully in events lasting several hours, where overheating and glycogen depletion are particularly common. The limited data we have so far provide preliminary support for this idea. It has been shown that women can sometimes finish ultramarathons in times similar to those of men who can beat them in "short" (26.2-mile) marathons (Bam et al., Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 29: 244-7, 1997). And when men and women with equivalent marathon times are pitted against each other in ultras, the women tend to win (Speechly et al., Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 28: 359-65, 1996).​

The standards are lowered for women in the US military.

How many times do I have to say I don't approve of this?

 

[Oberon]

Nothing handy, but a quick google turned this up:

Hardly supports your point. All it suggests is that women might do better against men in competitions requiring more endurance over brute strength, not that they have more endurance. Men still typically win in marathons and endurance competitions.

How many times do I have to say I don't approve of this?

My point was that this is true even with endurance requirements. If women have more endurance (generally) why lower the requirements?

 

[Storm]

If women have more endurance (generally) why lower the requirements?

THEY SHOULDN'T!

Did it get through that time? Do I have to resort to huge fonts and bright colors?

Quit wasting my time with this strawman.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Nobody should be on frontlines.

 

[Oberon]

THEY SHOULDN'T!

You are still missing my point. The point is that if your statement about the endurance of women was true, there would be no need to lower requirements of endurance tests because women would actually be MORE capable than men in these areas. Yet this isn't done. They are lowered because women are in general not as capable of endurance feats as men are. The gap (as suggested by your link) may be smaller than with brute strength, but it exists nonetheless.

 

[Storm]

You are still missing my point. The point is that if your statement about the endurance of women was true, there would be no need to lower requirements of endurance tests because women would actually be MORE capable than men in these areas. Yet this isn't done. They are lowered because women are in general not as capable of endurance feats as men are. The gap (as suggested by your link) may be smaller than with brute strength, but it exists nonetheless.

Huge fonts and bright colors it is then.

I DO NOT SUPPORT LOWERING REQUIREMENTS FOR WOMEN. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE NECESSARY OR ACCEPTABLE. YOUR POINT IS IRRELEVANT TO MY POSITION.

 

[Oberon]

Huge fonts and bright colors it is then.

Again missing the point. Try reading carefully.

1. You claim women have more endurance in general.
2. You provide no source for this
3. I am providing indirect evidence against this point. My indirect evidence is the existence of lowered standards for endurence tests in the military.
4. If women, as you claim, had more endurance, then there would be no need for lowered standards in this area.

It all goes back to my earlier point, which you disagreed with, on the physical capabilities of women vs. men.

 

[Storm]

then there would be no need for lowered standards in this area.

THERE IS NO SUCH NEED! Such practices are themselves sexist!

 

[Panda]

Storm you are still missing the point. He is not saying that you support it but that these change of requirements supports the view that you are wrong on woman having more endurance. And please do not use massive text everyone here can read it and there is really no need.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

lol...

 

[Panda]

My view is that if a woman can pass the same tests as men then they should be allowed to serve.

 

[Storm]

Storm you are still missing the point. He is not saying that you support it but that these change of requirements supports the view that you are wrong on woman having more endurance.

The fact that sexism is deeply entrenched in the military has no bearing on physiology.

And please do not use massive text everyone here can read it and there is really no need.

Apparently there is!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing handy, but a quick google turned this up:

The information presented in the previous two paragraphs leads to the prediction that women might compete against men most successfully in events lasting several hours, where overheating and glycogen depletion are particularly common. The limited data we have so far provide preliminary support for this idea. It has been shown that women can sometimes finish ultramarathons in times similar to those of men who can beat them in "short" (26.2-mile) marathons (Bam et al., Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 29: 244-7, 1997). And when men and women with equivalent marathon times are pitted against each other in ultras, the women tend to win (Speechly et al., Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 28: 359-65, 1996).
​

I had a quick look at the stats for the Ironman triathlon; at the medal-winner level, the mens' times seem to be consistently 45 minutes to 1 hour quicker than the women.

I know that the Ironman isn't an "ultramarathon", but the level of exertion and endurance should be comparable: the course consists of a 2-mile swim, a 112-mile bike and a full 26.2 mile marathon.

 

[Panda]

The fact that sexism is deeply entrenched in the military has no bearing on physiology.

They why didn't you say that instead of repeating the same thing over and over? If someone doesn't understand the first time making it bigger is not going to help.