Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-25-2013, 04:41 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,535
As we evolve as a species we will eventually understand when it come to intelligence, physical ability and desire to succeed, there is not any difference between the sexes, whatever the endeavor, be it CEO or an 11B MOS.
__________________

__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-25-2013, 05:01 PM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERhoosier View Post
Also- I wonder what society's current warm fuzzy feelings about 'equality' might become next time the US must reinstitute the draft & folks start seeing their daughters being sent off to be wounded/killed in combat.
Of course, if there is a draft, women should be subject to it. And, anyone in the military can be wounded or killed, female or not. I don't personally value my daughter's life more than that of my son's.

One point that I also think is important is that women do get killed in combat now. Just because certain occupations haven't been open to them that doesn't mean that they can't be sent to combat zones and killed. Keeping women out of certain occupations does, in fact, keep some women from advancing who could advance more if those occupations were open to them.

As to whether standards should be the same for men and women, it depends on what the standard is supposed to measure.

For example on the fitness standards they differ between men and women - what is the purpose of the standards? Is it to determine whether someone meets minimum standards necessary to do certain tasks? Or is it to determine if someone has a healthy level of fitness?

If it is the latter then it would probably be reasonable to have different male and female standards. For example, take body fat as an example. Because of female anatomy what is a healthy body fat for women is higher than what is a healthy body fat for mean. This is biology.

A woman has less upper body strength than men as a whole - so a woman who can do X number of pushups would be a very healthy and fit woman while for a man that same number of pushups would not be indicative of being healthy and fit.

On the other hand, if the purpose of say a standard for pushups is to do a particular job and to do that job you need a certain amount of upper body strength and you can show you have it by being able to do X number of pushups then for that purpose the number of pushups required should be the same whether male or female.

In the past (not saying this is true now), physical standards were often set in some fields at a level that women couldn't meet when the job didn't actually require or need that level of physical fitness (to be absurd to make the point - requiring that you be able to do 150 pushups in order to get a job as a clerk. ). That is the standard was set with the design of keeping women out of it, rather than because the job required that standard.

TL; DR

If the standard is meant to show general healthy fitness and not for specific jobs then the standard should be based upon gender based norms as men and women do differ in what shows fitness for each (ex: body fat percentage)

If the standard is meant to show minimum qualifications to be able to competently do a job - the standard should be the same for men and women but it is important to be sure that the standard is really and truly based upon what is needed for the job.
__________________

__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:36 PM   #23
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kearneysville
Posts: 53
No. There are a very small number of females capable of humping the loads required of ground troops, and are strong enough to kick open a door, pull a fallen comrade out of harms way, or fight hand to hand if it comes to that. The problem is that the number of females that can meet those standards does not justify upsetting the esprit de corp and camaraderie of a modern ground combat unit.

There are also other issues, such as pregnancy....not good to have a unit train, and then have to deploy without pregnant females.

I graduated from Ranger school, among other schools, and I think you would be hard pressed to find a female that could hump 120 lbs and an M60 (dating myself) up and down the TVD.

What will happen is that the standards will be watered down...separate run formations, different physical tests, lighter packs....that is what always happens.
__________________
Sniggle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:55 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Koolau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNNIE36 View Post
I guess I have a diferent take on the subject. I'm from the old school and saw the time when equality for gender and even race was being stressed (really pushed). Manufacturing in the midwest was strong and women wanted to get in on the bigger paying jobs held by men. I'm talking union type jobs, hourly rate, both skilled and unskilled labor. I saw the women come in and try to do some of the tougher jobs where strength was required. They couldn't do it and the guys had to cover for them. Same pay but their buddies had to do most of the hard work. So most of them were given jobs in the same union classification that didn't require and heavy lifting. That's bull**** as far as I'm concerned. If you work in a particular classification you ought to be able to any job within that classification.

Then came the next step, becoming a female supervisor. The word came down from the top to the department heads. If you "don't find someone soon who can be promoted to supervisor, we will and you may not like who we pick".

It still goes on today in other skilled areas. Women firefighters. How many women do you know that can carry a 100 lb hose up three flights or stairs while wearing full gear including air packs. They can't, so what happens? The standards are changed. The requirements are reduced to accommodate the women. I say bull****.

Women want equality but equality is never reached because the standards are changed until the women can meet the requirements. Now to the subject of the military. Both my son and son-in-law were in the Marines. They both agree that most women will not be able to do what their male counterparts are required to do in boot camp. They worry that standards or requirements will be changed until most of the female recruits can do the assigned tasks. I know women are now flying jets, even off aircraft carriers as Navy pilots. I can understand that and agree with that senario. And there has been some women in combat roles in the middle east and some have been killed.

Maybe the time has come for this change. I can see the handwriting on the wall and a high ranking woman in the military made a statement the other day on TV. She of course was all for this, because she said "it's hard for a woman to attain the rank of General without having been in some combat assignment". You see, it's all about getting the rank and competing for those high ranking officer positions, not about being able to join the guys in a little hand to hand combat. I say it's bull****!
It's not so much that I'm from the "old school" (though I wouldn't deny it). It's more that I am just plain "old". I also recall when the plant floor was a hot, dirty, dangerous place to w*rk. The j*bs were heavy lifting, fast paced and had a lot of plain grunt work. There were no females on the plant floor when I began my c@reer. When it became fashionable (ooops, I mean required) to employe females on the plant floor, everything changed. Not all for the bad, but the overall effect was 10 years of adjustment that was very painful to all. Men continued to do most of the grunt work while females were promoted to supervisor or found ways to get into the cafeteria work force, labs, purchasing, etc. etc.

The positives that came out of this move were that the plant became automated. Now, not only the women, but the men use assisted lifting devices and the OSHA type laws have cleaned the place up for all. It was a very "doable" thing to place females into this environment - assuming that a company has the means to change EVERYTHING about how j*bs are done. Ours did. It worked - until the highly paid American workers (both sexes) began to be replaced by OUS workers - where the plant floors were dirty, dangerous (and hired few females).

The big downside that I saw was the incredible carnage in marriages and "company morale". Too long a story to tell, but there were dozens of terminations (mostly "so-called" sexual harassment - code for failed in-plant romances) fist fights (and one knife "assault") among the men (some old friends) when tempers flared on the floor. Not a fun time.

I have no doubt that females in combat is "doable". I just don't look forward to the next 10 years as we endure the "carnage" (NOT on the battle field). I don't look forward to the news media smearing stories of female soldiers raped by captors (ala Jessica Lynch) or as likely by their "comrades" (already an issue in our military schools).

So, have at it. We'll make it work - I have no doubt. I just wouldn't want to be in the middle of it nor do I look forward to the "issues" that will confront us in the interim. Obviously, everyone is entitled to an opinion, so as usual, maybe more than usual, YMMV.
__________________
Ko'olau's Law -

Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
Koolau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:58 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ls99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,792
Not that dated Sniggle. Could have been the BAR. AKA M1918 (Browning Automatic RIfle for the non-military)
__________________
There must be moderation in everything, including moderation.
ls99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 06:07 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
I have always been a big supporter of women's rights. This topic is no exception.
__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:17 PM   #27
Full time employment: Posting here.
JakeBrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by ls99 View Post
Not that dated Sniggle. Could have been the BAR. AKA M1918 (Browning Automatic RIfle for the non-military)
Been there. Done that. The M60 is new-fangled.
__________________
JakeBrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:19 PM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,150
I think women deserve a fighting chance.
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:31 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Naples
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by obgyn65 View Post
I have always been a big supporter of women's rights. This topic is no exception.
I don't think anyone on this forum would ever say they are not for women's rights. I also support those rights. Have you really read all the post? I think the biggest problem the military faces is the mixing of males and females and the watering down of standards to accommodate women. As the saying goes, "been there-done that", except my experience was not in the military. Good thing as there were no life and death situations in my field. Someone posted, "just wait until somebodys daughter gets drafted". Should they ever reinstate the draft, that will separate the "men from the boys (er, girls)".

For the sake of the country, I hope this works.
__________________
JOHNNIE36 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:41 PM   #30
Recycles dryer sheets
TOOLMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronin View Post
What are your thoughts on this one?

I guess it was going to happen sooner or later. In theory, I'm all for equal rights. In practice, I'd imagine it will cause all sorts of problems.
I have was not in the military, but I have been to more that 40 counties, and have seen women in the military in some of them. In Israel it is very common.

I expect it will work in the USA much like it works in other countries, which follow this practice. To me people seem to be the much the same the world over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military_by_country
__________________
TOOLMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:02 PM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOOLMAN View Post
I have was not in the military, but I have been to more that 40 counties, and have seen women in the military in some of them. In Israel it is very common.
In Israel women have mandatory service; I think 3 years for men, 2 for women. However, there are very few women in infantry units. The Israelis run a hyper egalitarian society. If they have very few women in their infantry units, it is because they have decided that it is not a good idea.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:29 PM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,535
Went through and graduated Ranger School back in 1970 and I think the drop out rate was something like 75%. That said I still think a hard charging dedicated female could go through and graduate the course.
__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 09:39 PM   #33
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolau View Post
I have no doubt that females in combat is "doable". I just don't look forward to the next 10 years as we endure the "carnage" (NOT on the battle field). I don't look forward to the news media smearing stories of female soldiers raped by captors (ala Jessica Lynch) or as likely by their "comrades" (already an issue in our military schools).
The thing is, all this already happens, without women in official combat roles. Our military doesn't get to face nice tidy situations with the 'front lines' and rear echelons. A supply clerk moving a cargo, or an MP transporting a prisoner have a significant risk of encountering an improvised explosive device or a band of insurgents, just like the 'front line' combat troops. They just haven't been eligible for the training and pay.
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 12:39 AM   #34
Full time employment: Posting here.
Tyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 699
Just an observation: I'm hearing reading a lot of the same arguments (and terminology) as with gays in the military.
__________________
Yeah well, that's just, ya know, like, your opinion, man. ~ The Dude
Tyro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 12:59 AM   #35
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist: but maybe the gays in the military(as tyro references)/women in combat is just a side show to get everyone to completely forget about the monster military industrial complex.
__________________
AndrewJackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 04:52 AM   #36
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolau View Post
Men continued to do most of the grunt work while females were promoted to supervisor or found ways to get into the cafeteria work force, labs, purchasing, etc. etc.
I'm a union employee. Ratio of females is 1:100, nationwide. In my location there are 66 full-time employees, 2 are females. There are only 3 inside full-time jobs, one per shift. These jobs are coveted because they are indoors.

The 2nd shift inside job recently went up for bid and myself and the other female were the only employees to bid the job. Why? Because the men are all waiting for the 1st shift inside job to open up. But here's the kicker - the contract says that jobs will be open to employees within the same classification first (inside job), then outside the classification (outside job). Taking the less desirable 2nd shift job gives that person first dibs on the 1st shift job when it opens up.

Anyway, my female coworker got the 2nd shift inside job and with only 18yrs seniority will get the most coveted job in the building later this year when the 1st shift inside person retires and the men have still not figured this out.

There might be some value in having a female perspective in combat.
__________________
tinlizzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 06:54 AM   #37
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer12345 View Post
About damn time. Now lets change the selective service registration requirements to include 18YO women, too.
It would appear that the Selective Service System is now ripe for another 14th Amendment Equal Protection challenge in court. When this was last done, in 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the current law, at least in part on the basis that women were not allowed to serve in combat. See Rotsker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) FindLaw | Cases and Codes
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:54 AM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Lsbcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west coast, hi there!
Posts: 5,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
In Israel women have mandatory service; I think 3 years for men, 2 for women. However, there are very few women in infantry units. The Israelis run a hyper egalitarian society. If they have very few women in their infantry units, it is because they have decided that it is not a good idea.

Ha
This is a good point.

I don't imagine a female combat soldier will have any problem killing and doing the hard chores.

What happens if a female soldier becomes a prisoner of war? The abuse could be terrible and if the public hears about this it could really affect the military. Why not think ahead and make sure it cannot likely happen? Maybe that has already been done? If it has that would make me feel a lot better.
__________________
Lsbcal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 11:00 AM   #39
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyro View Post
Just an observation: I'm hearing reading a lot of the same arguments (and terminology) as with gays in the military.
The challenges are very different, just as they were different for the issue of racial integration. Maybe some people want to believe the issues are the same.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 11:45 AM   #40
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 21,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
The thing is, all this already happens, without women in official combat roles. Our military doesn't get to face nice tidy situations with the 'front lines' and rear echelons. A supply clerk moving a cargo, or an MP transporting a prisoner have a significant risk of encountering an improvised explosive device or a band of insurgents, just like the 'front line' combat troops. They just haven't been eligible for the training and pay.
... or the safety equipment.

I saw an interview with a US army woman translator working with the infantry on the front lines in Iraq. Since women are not officially in the front line they don't provide body armor as part of their equipment, so she used to borrow from her male colleagues. Once women are officially allowed in the front lines, body armor better suited to the female shape will be made available.
__________________

__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:11 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.