I don't know how many of you guys heard about this in the news today, but today 4 women filed a suit against the Department of Defense over the rules that exclude women in combat. My college class discussed this issue today and of no consensus was met. Just wonder how you guys or gals feel about this issue. Should they let the ladies fight? If yes, in what capacity? Heres an article about it incase you missed it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/women-in-combat-defense-de...
No. I'm sure there are plenty of women who can do 40 pushups. I'm saying it's not an apples to apples comparison. A woman who can do 40 pushups is probably stronger and more athletic than a man who can do the same.
No women and men aren't the same, but the requirements of combat for both are the same. Everybody will have to hump their 135lb ruck into the bush for extended marches, each will have to carry their own weapon, ammo, water, rations, etc. No slackers allowed. So if the requirement for an infantry-man is 40 pushups in two minutes then the same should be required of the infantry-woman. I don't know any other way to ensure that each sex is physically capable of performing the job other than the physical test, if you know of another way then please let us hear it. To me 135 pounds is 135 pounds whether you are a man or a woman, it doesn't get any lighter for women.
Hmmm. On the one hand, body-weight standards seem more egalitarian. Me doing a push-up v. my husband seems a better test of our health than each of us trying to bench press the same weight. On the other, the different physiology still makes the relative effort different.
Perhaps in a better world, people would be tested according to what they'll actually be doing. But we can't know what they'll actually be doing, so we need abstract tests. [Or, again, we think we do. I don't see how physical strength and endurance relate to certain military assignments. Still, we hold all service members to basic physical requirements.]
I suppose you could require admin clerks to have a base minimum physical fitness standard of picking up a telephone handset 30 times in a minute. And mail clerks could be required to pick up 100, 2oz envelopes, individually, throughout the day. And pilots could be required to carry around a 10lb helmet, and climb up and down an 8ft ladder, once, without time limit.
Unfortunately body-weight standards don't equal getting to the fight with all your gear. Combat units that I've been in required unit members to carry everything they'd need for the mission. That means that the guy weighing 140lbs had to carry as much as the guy weighing 185lbs, ignoring special weapons and comm equipment. Ratio-wise the 140lb guy is stronger if he can do the same as the 185lb guy and the total effort required would be proportionally different as well. There is no egalitarianism, no feminism or male-ism, it is what it is; the ruck and equipment doesn't get, much, lighter if you're a smaller person and needing the other unit members take up your slack all the time is just wrong.
Not sure that's really a fair deal. Fair enough I suppose when she threatened JAG. But, not really fair.
The only question I have on the "deal" is if this is a standard requirement of Gunners.
If it is then fantastic.
I generally feel the same way. Some of the examples that people in my class used were that the Israelis used women in combat and the russians used women as snipers in WW2 that killed more men than their male counter parts.
Make all the guys, officers included, do the same test maybe? Don't know. Never served.
That, and, give her time to prepare. The Mk-19 is an awkward and heavy piece of gear. I have a hard time slinging it around. That it's a "crew served" weapon should be an indication that it is, crew served. Meaning more than one person handles it. Would there be occasions where an individual would need to move it on her own? Yeah, but it's not SOP.
What I mean by it not being really fair is: females don't meet male physical fitness standards, mainly because they're not held to those standards. There's nothing inherently difficult about meeting those requirements. But in order to do so, you really need to be told you're going to.
So my question is, how much time did she have to prepare? In fairness, she should have been given a full testing cycle to meet those requirements. In the Marines that's six months. Army I think it's annually.
However, it is also my opinion, that if you're going to push, you better be prepared to put out. She threatened JAG. She should have been able to perform on the spot.