Army chief Lieutenant General David Morrison labels gender inequality in militaries a 'global disgra - Polidicks

PT standards for women are low. Just in pushups, male minimum for passing (42 reps) is female max. There are also a lot of accomodations we have to do for women in a field environment as well. One of the biggies is female hygiene. Women are more prone to infections, like UTI. Honestly the best course of action is to make female-only infantry units. Men and women simply have much different needs, and it would be better to have units where the full support structure that cater to those needs is in place, specifically having to do with hygiene and women's health, with specialists that deal specifically with women's issues. Strength is only one part of the equation, you have to take in the whole picture.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;45106249]PT standards for women are low. Just in pushups, male minimum for passing (42 reps) is female max.[/QUOTE] What does max for pushups mean? If you can do more, you're disqualified?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;45106276]What does max for pushups mean? If you can do more, you're disqualified?[/QUOTE] No, max is max score, being a 100. You need a 60 to pass. There is an extended scale that they take into account if you go past max on all three events though, but that's beside the point. [editline]14th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;45106296]No, you stop earning points towards your pt score when you hit max[/QUOTE] Yeah, what this guy said.

A woman shouldn't join the infantry for the same reason they shouldn't become firefighters. The facts have already been mentioned multiple times and anyone arguing despite that is just ignorant. Even if you manage to convince those in charge you'll still have the stigma from your fellow soldiers and rightly so. When you put your life at risk it shouldn't be too much to ask that the people around you are held to the same physical standards.

[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;45106362]When you put your life at risk it shouldn't be too much to ask that the people around you are held to the same physical standards.[/QUOTE] I was unaware that all men were large husks of muscle and testosterone. You know there are weak men and strong women, right? [editline]14th June 2014[/editline] If you have a choice between a fat computer technician who hasn't worked out in years, or a woman that has passed the same physical requirements as any male soldier, who would make a better soldier?

I don't get the whole "Women can't keep up with men physically" argument either We, as a species, were a nomadic hunter-gatherer society a hell of a lot longer than we've been an agrarian one

[QUOTE=Leon;45100593]stupidity doesnt escapes me[/QUOTE] fixed

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45106427]Men and woman shouldn't be denied jobs due to the shit that hangs/doesnt hang between their legs; If a woman meets the requirements she should be allowed to do what she wishes, the same as a male. The issue is when you create double standards like the ones that currently exist that allow women to be significantly worse than men and still retain their jobs.[/QUOTE] I believe California made that mistake with their firefighters a while back. They had lowered strength requirements for Women, but the requirement was so low that they simply couldn't do the job. Now the test is considerable and the dropout rate of female firefighter trainees is something like 80% compared to about 50-50 for men.

[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;45106362]A woman shouldn't join the infantry for the same reason they shouldn't become firefighters. The facts have already been mentioned multiple times and anyone arguing despite that is just ignorant. Even if you manage to convince those in charge you'll still have the stigma from your fellow soldiers and rightly so. When you put your life at risk it shouldn't be too much to ask that the people around you are held to the same physical standards.[/QUOTE] That sounds like an argument that the physical fitness standards should be the same, not that women shouldn't be in the military. [editline]14th June 2014[/editline] For front line duty that is

It makes me laugh thinking about how the USSR allowed woman fighting in World War Two, but nobody else really did.

[QUOTE=Leon;45100508]its not even how they perform in battle or anything im talking about the preserving innocent lives [editline]14th June 2014[/editline] eh im going to stop[/QUOTE] ha silly you you think woman are INNOCENT

[QUOTE=Impact1986;45104627] Do you have a source on that?[/QUOTE] actually missed periods are a normal thing during training and combat due to stress, there have been even stories of women not knowing they are pregnant while on duty and suddenly giving birth. [QUOTE]Stress can lengthen or shorten your menstrual cycle, stop it altogether, or make your periods more painful.[/QUOTE] source: [url]http://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-management/features/what-stress-does-to-body[/url]

This is so fucking dumb. An enemy combatant will not care that you got in the armed forces because you're just as strong as men, they will shoot you all the same and depending on the warring nation, do things much worse than kill you whether or not you "fought the sexist system". My house mate did four years in Afghanistan and we've had this discussion plenty of times. It's not a matter of fairness, his training taught him to worry about the guy on your left and the guy on your right would cover your ass at all times. It's a matter of he would want the guy on his right to meet all the physical health standards to be optimal for protecting his exposed ass, it's simple nature than men have testosterone and provide greater use due to exerting more physical force and greater carry capacity.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45107954]And there are women who are just as strong or stronger than men. They shouldn't be excluded just because of their genitalia. Make the criteria the same for women and men, the women who pass training are in, the women who don't, don't. Just like with a man.[/QUOTE] There are obvious exceptions but the disparity between the two genders is big enough to warrant notice. I agree though that the standard should be universal regardless of gender. If you pass, you're in, if not, you're out, simple as that.

[QUOTE=Leon;45100508]its not even how they perform in battle or anything im talking about the preserving innocent lives [editline]14th June 2014[/editline] eh im going to stop[/QUOTE] So I'm not innocent? Have you ever even been in a bloody war, lad?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45107954]And there are women who are just as strong or stronger than men.[/QUOTE] If they used me as the milepost, any woman except maybe quadriplegics could join the military.

I see no problem with women fighting, considering the standards aren't lowered or adapted for them (which would be really fucking dumb). One thing I wish changes though is how women are currently allowed to keep their hair long although tied when in the military. Long hair is not something you want to have on any battlefield and the fact women in the military can keep their hair long is idiotic.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45104895]So because the leadership of the USMC is stupid, we should permanantly ban all woman from all militaries on earth?[/QUOTE] Personally I suspect that many militaries have lower standards for women so that they continue to be a running joke in the military and thus delay equality.

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;45106982]It makes me laugh thinking about how the USSR allowed woman fighting in World War Two, but nobody else really did.[/QUOTE] Then again the USSR was in dire fucking need of soldiers and everyone else didn't really have a shortage of troops to send by any measure.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;45107648]actually missed periods are a normal thing during training and combat due to stress, there have been even stories of women not knowing they are pregnant while on duty and suddenly giving birth. source: [url]http://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-management/features/what-stress-does-to-body[/url][/QUOTE] I would have to add that if you're a woman in the military you should be on some sort of long term birth control (implants etc. It's been a while since I did sex ed so I can't say I'm an expert on the matter). Getting pregnant really does not help the woman in the military image. [editline]15th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;45108239]It's more like if the standards were even there would be fewer women, and the cries of sexism would come.[/QUOTE] I've met quite a few soldiers and they generally use it as their excuse for not allowing women in the military. [editline]15th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;45108218]I see no problem with women fighting, considering the standards aren't lowered or adapted for them (which would be really fucking dumb). One thing I wish changes though is how women are currently allowed to keep their hair long although tied when in the military. Long hair is not something you want to have on any battlefield and the fact women in the military can keep their hair long is idiotic.[/QUOTE] Yea, same hair standards too. If you have a problem with cutting you hair then clearly you don't desire to be in the military that much.

Honestly the most valid reason for not letting women in the military at the moment is that there's still a fucking boatload of assholes at all ranks that will try to take advantage of the situation. I know it's a huge issue in the French military, women are getting sexually assaulted or coerced by higher ranked men all the time and their complaints go nowhere because the army doesn't want to make people think something's wrong with it so they keep all the cases of sexual assault and similar issues as quiet as possible. In a situation like this one can wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to actually fix the rampant harmful sexism before actually letting women in, considering letting women in may not fix the issue on its own and may even aggravate it.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45108323]How do you fix sexism by being sexist? If people are being sexist and taking advantage of the situation then bring it to the legislature's attention; if the army wouldn't fix itself then let them feel the wrath of the voters.[/QUOTE] My point is, it's a better idea to fix sexism being hidden by the army first then let women fight on the frontline than the opposite.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45108336]My point is, it's a better idea to fix sexism being hidden by the army first then let women fight on the frontline than the opposite.[/QUOTE] Or you could let women fight, prove that they're capable through their actions and fix it that way.

Transgender folk in military pls [editline]15th June 2014[/editline] pageking bestking

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;45108500]Actually women gained a lot of rights under the USSR, I think they were actually more equal to men there than they were in US, Britain, etc. at the time. Ironic considering our cold war with them for "freedom."[/QUOTE] Didn't they stop having women in the military (for combat roles at least) after world war 2? Or at least cut back on it?

[QUOTE=Masterofstars;45106121]God I hope you would be.[/QUOTE] Do you look for me in every thread or something? Mods pls

[QUOTE=download;45108391]Or you could let women fight, prove that they're capable through their actions and fix it that way.[/QUOTE] Haha yeah because letting women fight on the front is totally going to fix higher ranking officers trying to sleep with them and complaints about such behavior going unheard due to the army keeping it quiet. As long as the army actively covers the back of pigs trying to abuse their status then these people are going to keep doing it, whether or not women are allowed on the front.

[QUOTE=KingGrim;45104186]I believe it was the USMC that had to lower the physical strength requirement or extend the time required to make the requirement for females temporarily because they couldn't pass it. Go off of that and tell me while looking at it objectively what happens when someone who can't pass a physical strength requirement attempts to carry around someone who is two times larger than them plus that person's equipment and their own.[/QUOTE] They had to extend it for a time, because the new standards included trainings which none of the women had to ever prepare for before. It was a fail on the side of the military as opposed to to the soldiers. That said, I do believe the US is one of oooothe militaries that has different standards for men and women, unlike many European ones which have the same.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;45108500]Actually women gained a lot of rights under the USSR, I think they were actually more equal to men there than they were in US, Britain, etc. at the time. Ironic considering our cold war with them for "freedom."[/QUOTE] Not a single person outside of the propaganda posters actually believed the cold war was for freedom.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45108977]Haha yeah because letting women fight on the front is totally going to fix higher ranking officers trying to sleep with them and complaints about such behavior going unheard due to the army keeping it quiet. As long as the army actively covers the back of pigs trying to abuse their status then these people are going to keep doing it, whether or not women are allowed on the front.[/QUOTE] How exactly do you expect that to change by refusing women the right to join the army? How are we going to stop this gender discrimination and segregation? Your answer seems to be to keep things segregated.