One giant step Backwards?

[arnisador]

Hey! Them's fightin' words!

 

[Tgace]

On the other hand, men have had to compete against other men with the current standards. Whats wrong with expecting ANYBODY who wants the job of meeting those same standards? At least until better standards are found?

And another point..dont forget that another issue with military training is "mental toughness". Much of the physically demanding training in the military is as much about seeing who will "crack" under the pressure as it is about doing the task. That road march story I told...most of the people who didnt make it didnt fail due to any lack of physical capability IMO. Most couldnt "take" the blisters, the back pain and the stress of lack of sleep/food etc. Their minds told them to quit. Most of the SF "selection" courses like the SEAL "Hell Week" is about taking as much "abuse" as possible and not quitting. Where do we separate "fair" from "stop whining and drive on..if you really want it you will make it happen". Dont we all take more pride in ourselves when we accomplish something "not just anyone could do?".

We do nobody any favors by taking it easy on recruits, espically themselves.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Ive heard that women can take more "G's" then men but that men "in general" have better spatial abilities when it comes to air combat. Once again, make some sensible, "scientific" tests and training standards and let the people fall into the jobs they are best suited for, regardless of sex.

As long as those scientific tests aren't just a smoke screen for a social experiment, then by all means, in the name of efficiency do so. However, nothing that's been said about dumbing down standards (i'm sorry, reviewing them to see if they are the best measure) will IMPROVE performance, merely that it will make advancement easier. When the hell did that become the mission of the military. I'll tell you when, when it became a laboratory for social experimentation. Nowhere did I hear how altering standards will IMPROVE the military's performance in it's real and primary function, merely that those standards prevent a barrier to advancement for some people. If that's the only reason for changing standards, then it's an extremely wronged headed and poor reason.

 

[Tgace]

Hence the problem...

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. To make a point that's obvious, it's remarkable that the same claims about performance, the degradation of military readiness, and the inadvisability of making the military run, "social experiments," last appeared--in pretty much the same forms--when.....?

2. This thread actually began when somebody brought up the fact that several conservative Republican legislators attempted to pass legislation--over the military's strong objections!--designed to deny military women the right to even try.

 

[arnisador]

However, nothing that's been said about dumbing down standards (i'm sorry, reviewing them to see if they are the best measure) will IMPROVE performance

So, these are the best possible measures? Optimality has been achieved? What the military is currently doing is incapable of improvement?

On another note, the mental toughness issue is certainly a fair standard. I'm sure I don't have all the details exactly right in the following story after all these years, but it is what happened: When I was teaching at West Point, a women's sports team (soccer?) had a van accident during a return from a road game and one or two cadets died. The remaining women were expected to take their exams the next week as usual despite the event. I was told that they'd be expecetd to keep on fighting if a comrade died in combat, and this would be considered some small amount of experience in that. Well, I'm not sure one ever becomes inured to the death of a friend, but I understood the point.

 

[Tgace]

Long the same lines...Another anecdotal story,I was in advanced training while my wife was pregnant. When I asked my drill sergeant what would happen if my wife went into early labor he told me "Well plenty of soldiers wives have had children while their soldiers were away from home." It is the military, it works under a different mindset.

 

[sgtmac_46]

So, these are the best possible measures? Optimality has been achieved? What the military is currently doing is incapable of improvement?

You've given no information or evidence about how or why standards could be improved by reducing them. In fact, the only reason you suggest altering them in the first place is so that more people can pass them. I haven't heard one single argument from you that performance will be improved by reducing standards. More people would be able to pass medical school if the tests weren't so hard, are you suggesting it would be an improvement to reduce standards there too?

 

[arnisador]

You've given no information or evidence about how or why standards could be improved by reducing them. In fact, the only reason you suggest altering them in the first place is so that more people can pass them.

You seem to have in mind what type of argument you'd like to refute, and you don't intend to see any others. Have fun arguing with yourself.

 

[Tgace]

What I think hes getting at is, for example, take my road march story. 20 mi under combat load. I stated that the females had a hard time completing it, you asked if that was an accurate "test". Well, isnt the implication that as women (at least the women in my Basic) had a difficult time completing that test that it should be changed? i.e. If its too tough change it. Meanwhile are the "easy tasks" getting a pass? I think thats his point...he will have to clarify.

 

[TonyM.]

Had a corporal in the 2/75th that escaped from communist Yugoslavia in the early seventies. He said the Russians were better trained in technical things than the U.S. The only thing he said we were better at was our physical training. Lets not mess that up.

 

[47MartialMan]

The whole thing still seems like "GI-Jane"

 

[sgtmac_46]

What I think hes getting at is, for example, take my road march story. 20 mi under combat load. I stated that the females had a hard time completing it, you asked if that was an accurate "test". Well, isnt the implication that as women (at least the women in my Basic) had a difficult time completing that test that it should be changed? i.e. If its too tough change it. Meanwhile are the "easy tasks" getting a pass? I think thats his point...he will have to clarify.

My point is that the thought process behind "It's too hard for women, so it should be changed" is not a valid argument. It does not have at it's core the requirements of the mission, but merely the illusion of fairness for fairness sake. I have not heard one valid argument as to how this will improve the end goal....achieving the mission objectives more efficiently, which is the ONLY real measure of whether or not particular requirements are useful. If a woman passes all requirements, she should be admitted. If only 1 woman out of 10,000 can measure up, that's NO reason why standards should be reduced.

The fact is that many women are serving admirably in posts they are currently stationed in, some are not. If someone is doing their job well, I DO NOT support removing them from the theater of operation. We are too understaffed as it is. However, I think the measure of what women ARE and ARE NOT allowed to do should be pragmatic, not based on what will make someone look better come promotion time. Decisions of that type need to be made based on what is best for the mission, not what is best for the person, otherwise Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen or Marines die. They have the right to expect ONLY the best in those critical roles.

If someone does not understand the mission/goal oriented mindset, then they don't possess the basic understanding needed to even have this argument. It is a prequisite to understanding the military and what it requires.
Anything else needs to be dumped as purely emotional tripe.Completing the Mission with maximum efficiency and minimum loss of personel is the first, last, and only objective.

 

[arnisador]

First Woman Gets Silver Star Since WW II


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050616/ap_on_re_us/woman_silver_star

(I wish I could keep this thing from retaining the original formatting when I cut and paste...I don't necessarily want the title to be in bold.)

 

[Tgace]

HOOORAH!

Like I said "if they can do the job let em at it"...never had an issue with women in combat. Only the politics around it.

 

[arnisador]

Yes, I think this is nice to see. If someone earns it, that's great!

:cheers:

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes, I think this is nice to see. If someone earns it, that's great!

:cheers:

Yes, if they earn it.

 

[Rick Wade]

First Woman Gets Silver Star Since WW II


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050616/ap_on_re_us/woman_silver_star

(I wish I could keep this thing from retaining the original formatting when I cut and paste...I don't necessarily want the title to be in bold.)

That is great good for her. except for that hole fire fight and all but i am glad that her Soilders can count on her to have their back.

V/R

Rick