DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6969|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

krazed wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:


Yes but blacks weren't given lower fitness standards to get into the military then expected to complete the same tasks. If women were allowed to serve in combat, then their fitness level must be the same as the males.
this is where i have the problem... although some of the women i've seen serving are bigger than the men

i just don't think it's a good idea to have different qualification levels for each gender
Here's a link to a .pdf version of the Army Physical Fitness Test score card. http://www.usma.edu/dpe/testing/apft_sc … 705%29.pdf

You need to score a minimum of 60 points in each of the following events: Pushups, Situps and a 2 mile run.

For a 24 year old male you need a minimum of:
Pushups - 40
Situps - 50
2M run - 16:35

For a 24 year old female you need a minimum of:
Pushups - 17
Situps - 45
2M run - 19:36

As you can see there is a drastic step down for the requirements of a female vs those of a male. Until those standards are the same I will never trust any female to perform a physically demanding task like being an infantryman is.
Army

The PFA consists of a shuttle run, push-ups and sit-ups.
Male requirement: 15 Push-ups, 45 Sit-ups, 7.5 Shuttle run score
Female requirement: 8 Push-ups, 45 Sit-ups, 7.5 Shuttle run score
Navy and Air-force requirements are non gender specific.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003
So the military men says no and armchair generals says yes...

I guess no should be the right answer. I think SERE and Seven both make good points about women in combat...

But for logistical role, I personally see no problem.

Remember, most women who join the military aren't there to kill.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

So the military men says no and armchair generals says yes...

I guess no should be the right answer. I think SERE and Seven both make good points about women in combat...

But for logistical role, I personally see no problem.

Remember, most women who join the military aren't there to kill.
Most are there to find a husband. I had a rule of thumb when I was in the Army that every time we received a new female into our unit that she would be either married or pregnant within six months of arrival. I was wrong one time. That girl lasted a full year.

This rule of thumb of course only applies to the non-lesbians.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-10 05:45:32)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6856|Mountains of NC

DrunkFace wrote:

Navy and Air-force requirements are non gender specific.
no, their not
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6698|'Murka

DrunkFace wrote:

Navy and Air-force requirements are non gender specific.
You must not be talking about US, then.

I'd be extremely surprised if any country's physical fitness requirements were exactly the same between male and female.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6969|Disaster Free Zone

SEREMAKER wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Navy and Air-force requirements are non gender specific.
no, their not
Yes they are.

FEOS wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Navy and Air-force requirements are non gender specific.
You must not be talking about US, then.

I'd be extremely surprised if any country's physical fitness requirements were exactly the same between male and female.
No, I'm talking about the Australian defence force, because that is specifically why this thread was started.

Here I'll quote the very first line in the OP.
At the moment in Australia, there are certain parliamentary figures calling for Women to be allowed in combat roles in the Australian Defence Force.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6856|Mountains of NC

DrunkFace wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Navy and Air-force requirements are non gender specific.
no, their not
Yes they are.

FEOS wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Navy and Air-force requirements are non gender specific.
You must not be talking about US, then.

I'd be extremely surprised if any country's physical fitness requirements were exactly the same between male and female.
No, I'm talking about the Australian defence force, because that is specifically why this thread was started.

Here I'll quote the very first line in the OP.
At the moment in Australia, there are certain parliamentary figures calling for Women to be allowed in combat roles in the Australian Defence Force.
next time specify aussieland or it will be taken as USA



the 1st line was a explanation not the intention of the op

Last edited by SEREMAKER (2009-09-10 10:43:00)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6969|Disaster Free Zone

SEREMAKER wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Navy and Air-force requirements are non gender specific.
no, their not
Yes they are.

FEOS wrote:


You must not be talking about US, then.

I'd be extremely surprised if any country's physical fitness requirements were exactly the same between male and female.
No, I'm talking about the Australian defence force, because that is specifically why this thread was started.

Here I'll quote the very first line in the OP.
At the moment in Australia, there are certain parliamentary figures calling for Women to be allowed in combat roles in the Australian Defence Force.
next time specify aussieland or it will be taken as USA



the 1st line was a explanation not the intention of the op
Written by an Australian, referring to the ADF, linking to Australian news article about a current Australian issue... but has nothing to do with Australia. I hate to tell you the world does not revolve around the US so maybe you should specify americaland especially in a thread about another countries issues.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6856|Mountains of NC

DrunkFace wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Yes they are.

No, I'm talking about the Australian defence force, because that is specifically why this thread was started.

Here I'll quote the very first line in the OP.
next time specify aussieland or it will be taken as USA



the 1st line was a explanation not the intention of the op
Written by an Australian, referring to the ADF, linking to Australian news article about a current Australian issue... but has nothing to do with Australia. I hate to tell you the world does not revolve around the US so maybe you should specify americaland especially in a thread about another countries issues.
Heres the rest of the op, since you missed it :

" So what is your take on women in the military. I know there are many members/ex-members of various military's on this site so I would like your opinions as you guys know what it is truly like. I know that there are several countries such as Israel, Canada and New Zealand that already employ females in combat roles. However, personally, I think the current set up should remain. Women should be allowed in any role in the military except combat roles. Maybe it is just a chauvinist side of me, but I feel that it could create many problems. The emotional side may have a large impact, as the death/capture of a female is generally taken a lot harder, especially if male soldiers have "connections" with captured or killed females. Also the practical side, the military effectively having to police their own force more carefully to ensure nothing happens, and also  captured women may often be raped etc. "

referring to other countries ..... other countries .... and for the past couple of pages we've been talking about US requirements


keep up or fall out





AU has the same requirments for males and females ......

Australian Navy Physical Fitness Assessment and Recommended Fitness Program

Please note that the 500 metre swim the 2.4km run and beep test are interchangeable. Recruits will generally only perform one of these aerobic tests.

Age Less than 35 years

Male

Number of push-ups = 25

Flexed arm hang = 25 seconds

Number of sit-ups = 25

2.4km run = 13 minutes

500 metre swim = 12.5 minutes

Beep test = 7.4

Female

Number of push-ups = 10

Flexed arm hang = 25 seconds

Number of sit-ups = 25

2.4km run = 15 minutes

500 metre swim = 13.5 minutes

Beep test = 6.9


and they look the same

Last edited by SEREMAKER (2009-09-10 11:09:10)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6969|Disaster Free Zone
Great source... how about the ADF site.
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/fitness/

*
      Navy

      The PFA for Navy entry consists of the shuttle run to a standard of 6.1.

      The only exceptions are Navy Clearance Diver and Naval Reserve Diver applicants, who must pass the PFA at the following standards:
      Heaves (chin-ups): 6, Push-Ups: 30, Sit-Ups: 25, Shuttle Run: 10.
    *
      Army

      The PFA consists of a shuttle run, push-ups and sit-ups.
      Male requirement: 15 Push-ups, 45 Sit-ups, 7.5 Shuttle run score
      Female requirement: 8 Push-ups, 45 Sit-ups, 7.5 Shuttle run score

      For Special Forces Direct Recruiting Scheme (SFDRS) candidates, the PFA standards are:
      Male requirement: 30 Push-ups, 60 Sit-ups, 10 Shuttle run score
    *
      Air Force

      The PFA for Air Force entry consists of the shuttle run to a standard of 6.5

      The only exceptions are Ground Defence Officer and Airfield Defence Guard applicants, who must pass the PFA at the following standards: Push-Ups: 15, Sit-Ups: 45, Shuttle Run: 7.5.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6856|Mountains of NC

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Guardian_Ekim
I'm a god damn American Jedi
+51|6837|775

Honestly, I think PMS plays a huge rule. I wouldn't want to hole up in a bunker with a woman on the rag for fear that someone would piss her off and she'd kill anyone that was in her way, even allies.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6969|Disaster Free Zone

SEREMAKER wrote:

http://www.endlesshumanpotential.com/military-fitness-tests.html
The official ADF site... or your know it all personal opinionated blog comparing countries fitness tests... I know which source I'm going to trust.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6856|Mountains of NC

go ahead ........ since they provided more details and its not like they're pulling statistics out of their ass
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

SEREMAKER wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:


next time specify aussieland or it will be taken as USA



the 1st line was a explanation not the intention of the op
Written by an Australian, referring to the ADF, linking to Australian news article about a current Australian issue... but has nothing to do with Australia. I hate to tell you the world does not revolve around the US so maybe you should specify americaland especially in a thread about another countries issues.
Heres the rest of the op, since you missed it :

" So what is your take on women in the military. I know there are many members/ex-members of various military's on this site so I would like your opinions as you guys know what it is truly like. I know that there are several countries such as Israel, Canada and New Zealand that already employ females in combat roles. However, personally, I think the current set up should remain. Women should be allowed in any role in the military except combat roles. Maybe it is just a chauvinist side of me, but I feel that it could create many problems. The emotional side may have a large impact, as the death/capture of a female is generally taken a lot harder, especially if male soldiers have "connections" with captured or killed females. Also the practical side, the military effectively having to police their own force more carefully to ensure nothing happens, and also  captured women may often be raped etc. "

referring to other countries ..... other countries .... and for the past couple of pages we've been talking about US requirements


keep up or fall out





AU has the same requirments for males and females ......

Australian Navy Physical Fitness Assessment and Recommended Fitness Program

Please note that the 500 metre swim the 2.4km run and beep test are interchangeable. Recruits will generally only perform one of these aerobic tests.

Age Less than 35 years

Male

Number of push-ups = 25

Flexed arm hang = 25 seconds

Number of sit-ups = 25

2.4km run = 13 minutes

500 metre swim = 12.5 minutes

Beep test = 7.4

Female

Number of push-ups = 10

Flexed arm hang = 25 seconds

Number of sit-ups = 25

2.4km run = 15 minutes

500 metre swim = 13.5 minutes

Beep test = 6.9


and they look the same
Christ man, how much lower can the requirements go? 25 pushups? 25 situps? You don't even need to be in shape to meet those.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:

Great source... how about the ADF site.
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/fitness/

*
      Navy

      The PFA for Navy entry consists of the shuttle run to a standard of 6.1.

      The only exceptions are Navy Clearance Diver and Naval Reserve Diver applicants, who must pass the PFA at the following standards:
      Heaves (chin-ups): 6, Push-Ups: 30, Sit-Ups: 25, Shuttle Run: 10.
    *
      Army

      The PFA consists of a shuttle run, push-ups and sit-ups.
      Male requirement: 15 Push-ups, 45 Sit-ups, 7.5 Shuttle run score
      Female requirement: 8 Push-ups, 45 Sit-ups, 7.5 Shuttle run score

      For Special Forces Direct Recruiting Scheme (SFDRS) candidates, the PFA standards are:
      Male requirement: 30 Push-ups, 60 Sit-ups, 10 Shuttle run score
    *
      Air Force

      The PFA for Air Force entry consists of the shuttle run to a standard of 6.5

      The only exceptions are Ground Defence Officer and Airfield Defence Guard applicants, who must pass the PFA at the following standards: Push-Ups: 15, Sit-Ups: 45, Shuttle Run: 7.5.
That's even worse! 15 pushups required by the Army!?!? I haven't done a pushup in 5 years and I could bang out at least forty right now.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
rdx-fx
...
+955|6879
Women in the Infantry is generally a poor idea. 
Not just the general lack of upper body strength, carrying capacity, or overall muscle mass. 
Not even the hygene issues of being in the same uniform, in the same stinking hole for a month or two.

The single largest issue with women in the Infantry is that they are too much of a distraction to the generally adrenaline/testosterone soaked 18-22 year old males that make up the Infantry.

Bottom line:
The Infantry is in the business of winning close combat engagements, not being politically correct.


That being said..
SOME women excell as Military Intelligence analysts.  Some women seem exceptionally endowed to track multiple threads of evidence, remember minor details, and generally "Think in 100 directions at once".

SOME women can also make excellent Engineers.  Attention to detail, more cautious with explosives, more attentive during long lectures about boring topics filled with many small details (that can blow your nuts off if you forget them).
Women can also make outstanding Medics (compassionate, etc), Pilots ("Think in 100 directions at once" again).

And all of the above fields often find themselves in front of the Infantry on a battlefield.

It's a culture difference.
Any other unit type, even other Combat Arms units (Field Artillery, Engineer), can accommodate women in their ranks.
Infantry is the domain of the 18-22 year old male who , if he cannot clearly determine if he is to; kill it, fuck it, drink it, or carry it on their backs - becomes terribly confused.  Such confusion is a Bad Thing.

And, a final bit of advice to any military male:
If the meat is green, don't eat it.
(i.e., don't date military women.  Especially women in the ranks of E1-E4 or O1-O2)

Edit: to put it seriously..
Infantry is a high-adrenaline, high-testosterone, high-competition culture where aggressiveness, competitiveness, exceptional physical endurance, and a warrior ethos are paramount.  When you have a large group of young males spun up in that mindset and culture, the introduction of a nice pair of tits into the equation can be disastrous.  They lose their focus on their mission, they start acting the player or clown for the women, they start thinking about fucking rather than fighting, they start looking at the guy next to them not as a comrade-in-arms but rather as competition.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-09-10 19:28:28)

RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7002|US

DrunkFace wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Its the question about killing somebody.

You will all say Yes, In the moment of truth I will take another person's life..


But will you?



But i'm on the Fence with this one..
Exactly the same 'morality' is experienced in something like 98% of males, yet through training you can desensitise anyone into killing instinctively.
I think Grossman analyzed this pretty effectively in On Killing.

The fact of the matter is that there are already female US military members with combat experience.  They don't have "combat roles" but combat found them anyway.  So far, there is no real evidence that they perform at a lower combat standard (WRT being able to kill).
rdx-fx
...
+955|6879

RAIMIUS wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Its the question about killing somebody.

You will all say Yes, In the moment of truth I will take another person's life..


But will you?



But i'm on the Fence with this one..
Exactly the same 'morality' is experienced in something like 98% of males, yet through training you can desensitise anyone into killing instinctively.
I think Grossman analyzed this pretty effectively in On Killing.

The fact of the matter is that there are already female US military members with combat experience.  They don't have "combat roles" but combat found them anyway.  So far, there is no real evidence that they perform at a lower combat standard (WRT being able to kill).
There are a minority of people who can 'pull a trigger' on another human.
There are even fewer people who can 'pull a trigger' and not get a head full of scramblefuck out of the incident.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7002|US
Yep.
Grossman's work had the 1-2% figure for those who can kill without remorse/psychological trauma.
Training and conditioning are the keys to modern combat killing.  That's why we shoot at human-shaped targets, practice FoF, sing jodies about violent actions, etc. etc.
rdx-fx
...
+955|6879

RAIMIUS wrote:

Yep.
Grossman's work had the 1-2% figure for those who can kill without remorse/psychological trauma.
Training and conditioning are the keys to modern combat killing.  That's why we shoot at human-shaped targets, practice FoF, sing jodies about violent actions, etc. etc.
That conditioning may get a few more people to pull a trigger.
Doesn't do much to separate those who should be pulling triggers from those who shouldn't.

The time to come to terms with killing another person is before you pull the trigger, not after.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6856|Mountains of NC

pulling the trigger wasn't hard for me .... over time, things have caught up to me .... in my insomnia thread I talk about it
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7002|US

rdx-fx wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Yep.
Grossman's work had the 1-2% figure for those who can kill without remorse/psychological trauma.
Training and conditioning are the keys to modern combat killing.  That's why we shoot at human-shaped targets, practice FoF, sing jodies about violent actions, etc. etc.
That conditioning may get a few more people to pull a trigger.
Doesn't do much to separate those who should be pulling triggers from those who shouldn't.

The time to come to terms with killing another person is before you pull the trigger, not after.
No argument there.
The ability to kill can be trained.  The ability to deal with the effects...well we, as a society, haven't had the same level of success.
Lai
Member
+186|6438
Bump

https://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/F72C86E8-CA13-4419-A670-0A66D0564678/0/02.jpg

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard