PC/Equality Going too far?

[herulach]

Hard to say - but heavy armour also is not brilliant for men too - more armour to carry means less ammo and food that can be carried.

It also decreases mobility too.

A lot of current/older generation heavier body armor is several ceramic/titanium/steel plates joined together which offer decent enough ballistic protection,but there can still be gaps though(plates tend to be flat). Some have kevlar reinforcements,but kevlar has inferior protection against certain types of weaponary/damage.

There is a move towards more layered armour(using different types of materials),which is more moulded and can offer better coverage and more flexibility.

So it might be a case of better average protection but not as good specific protection for certain things.

However,as many,many testimonies from frontline female combat soldiers have indicated,current male body armour puts women at a disadvantage on the battlefield. But since this is not PC,people need to ignore this it seems! Its no point mentioning as it seems people don't actually read what is said or even listen, and once you get over the three time threshold of repeating the same thing,it is better to just leave a thread and let people say/think what they want! Have fun you all!

I've read what you've said, and I don't disagree with you (except about the groin plate which I don't think osprey has, although from an injury/psychological trauma perspective, its not like women would be any better off). My point was that poor equipment isn't a reason not to send people to war, if it were, then there'd literally have never been a war ever. I don't think its right, but getting fixated on equipment as the reason why women aren't in close combat roles when that isn't the reason is pointless. Read any of the recent articles (theres both sides of quotes from a variety of careers and sexes in this article, which is the first link on google http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27331365) not a single person has said its a bad idea on the grounds of equipment, its all about principles, gut feelings and hypotheticals.

My point about size wasn't that men and womens only difference is size, but that theres a huge degree of variation both between and within both sexes, not all women have massive boobs and hips, and not all men fit the standard size either. Or do you think something designed to fit your average man (say 5"11, about 13 st?) is going to fit a gurkha (minimum entry height 5'2 and 7st12)?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I've read what you've said, and I don't disagree with you (except about the groin plate which I don't think osprey has, although from an injury/psychological trauma perspective, its not like women would be any better off). My point was that poor equipment isn't a reason not to send people to war, if it were, then there'd literally have never been a war ever. I don't think its right, but getting fixated on equipment as the reason why women aren't in close combat roles when that isn't the reason is pointless. Read any of the recent articles (theres both sides of quotes from a variety of careers and sexes in this article, which is the first link on google http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27331365) not a single person has said its a bad idea on the grounds of equipment, its all about principles, gut feelings and hypotheticals.

My point about size wasn't that men and womens only difference is size, but that theres a huge degree of variation both between and within both sexes, not all women have massive boobs and hips, and not all men fit the standard size either. Or do you think something designed to fit your average man (say 5"11, about 13 st?) is going to fit a gurkha (minimum entry height 5'2 and 7st12)?

Which again you don't seem to understand. Look at averages and not extremes. The sexual dimorphism in humans means we are different - this is not cultural.The average women and man have different body shapes,down to the evolutionary pressures,not the last 10000 years of human civilisation. Have a good think why this is the case.

You have not read any of the articles I linked to properly - its shape not size.

FFS,look at the difference in multiple species. Some like certain parrot species have very similar proportioned male and females individuals,others animal species have the males smaller and different proportioned than the females,and vice versa. Humans are not some special god created exception to the rule. We are animals like any other. No different.

Read the articles I posted again - all the people in them are women,and those are major issues. Even the article you just linked to does not negate what I am saying at all. Heck there is even an ex-military women in your linked article arguing against women being in front line roles(which is not what I am arguing for anyway).

From two of the articles:

“Prior to the adjustments, it was very difficult for a woman who was wearing the standard-issue vest to raise her arm properly in order to properly fire a rifle,” Tsongas added.

Whenever she sat down, the vest rode up over her chin (a phenomenon female soldiers call “turtling”). When she walked, it banged against her hips, leaving them black and blue, and the “groin plate”—made with male genitalia in mind—hit her in the knees. The armholes were so far apart that she found it hard to even shoulder her weapon.

The vest was causing injury too. Thats two different articles saying male body armour is impeding the ability of women to fire their weapon properly. Even if there is no groin plate,that still is pretty awful.

Many of those soldiers were not in direct combat roles FFS.

Imagine in direct combat roles,how much of an issue that will be?? Not being able to shoot your rifle properly. That is the difference between life and death.

It is a dangerous precident that you are fixating on saying that women wearing male body armour is not causing any problems at all. In the end you are only endangering people's lives with those viewpoints. The women are going into battle with LESS protection and impaired mobility over their male compatriates. Unless you value the life of a women less,for some reason,sending people into battle underprepared on purpose to win some argument is reckless. I hope when the British army does send women into combat they do with it equipment which means they can perform to the best of their ability.

I am sorry but I will have to agree to disagree with some of you.

Women should be sent into the combat with equipment tailored to them,and not hand me downs from men,putting them at a disadvantage to their fellow male soldiers. Otherwise,what is the point then?? More body bags?? More longterm injured people?? To prove a point??

The men will be given an unfair advantage and as your BBC article says,the standards will be the same for BOTH women and men(which cleared up something I asked earlier).

That would mean,a greater likelihood of men getting accepted over women,just down to equipment impeding the women. That is just wrong.

Sorry,I have lived through one war and seen enough injured soldiers in person to realise,how important it is that soldiers go into combat with the proper equipment.

I think people here are way to desensitised to how important personal protection is in a combat situation.

Would you send your partner,mother,wife,daughter or aunt into combat with improper gear when compared to their male compatriates?? I doubt it.

Maybe there are women who will accept that is the way it will be,if they want to be in the military,but its a rubbish situation to be in,and its amazing nothing has not been done about it,especially after we saw the saga of the melting boots,etc.

Read some more articles,when female soldiers in the US tried BUYING their own armour and they could not even find companies to do custom fits for women even in 2012. It is that bad.

But then I forget everything is about instantly doing things now,instead of doing things properly.

Edit!!

Here another one:

http://www.gizmag.com/female-armor/23405/

The problem that women soldiers have with the current Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) is that they aren’t just on average shorter than men, they also generally have narrower shoulders and shorter torsos in relation to the rest of their bodies. This makes the IOTV fit women a bit like socks fit a chicken. The arm holes don’t fit properly and the bottom of the armor-plated vest hangs too low. This restricts arm movement, causes the vest to rub against the hips while walking and presses it into the thighs while sitting, cutting off blood circulation.

Another one:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/19...male-soldiers/

The 101st Airborne Division first suggested the idea of a better fitting vest for women in 2009 after female soldiers said that they often had trouble bending over, getting in and out of tight spaces like military vehicles, or positioning their rifles against their shoulders, said Maj. Joel Dillon, the Army's assistant product manager for the vests.

Dillon said the long plates inside the vests would rub against their hips and cut into their thighs when they sat down.

After a lot of testing and measurements, the Army came up with a vest that is shorter to accommodate smaller torsos and has tailoring to fit closer to women's chests. The new vest eliminates gaps between the material and the body and can be fitted with smaller side ballistic inserts for small waist sizes.

"With a vest that is too long, if they lay their rifle on the ground or drop it, it's very hard to bend over to pick it up because that plate digs into their side. Now they can bend down and touch their toes and so they are more mobile and therefore you can get additional safety because you can perform better," he said.

Its taken from 2009 until the end of 2013 for the first sets of production female specific body armour to enter service in the US army.

There have been continual updates about the programme for years in the US.

We should be instigating a crash programme to start implementing what they learnt here.

The US military made sure they were developing female specific body armour for years before making this announcement:

http://www.army.mil/article/118930/A...iers_in_April/

That is the opening of 33000 closed roles to women.

So female US soldiers,will be in frontline combat eventually with proper body armour.

What about ours then?? Or are we hoping the yanks can lend us some for now?

This is what we need to be doing first. There is a distinct lack of news here about the British army doing the same. Its depressing.

No,but OFC not. We can get more of our soldiers maimed and killed with rubbish equipment. Like we have not learnt that lesson enough bloody times. We can have more and more inquiries to see why we screwed up somewhere. Costing cutting and not preparing properly(since it cost more money) are usually the two reasons!

Again, I am sorry but I will have to agree to disagree with some of you. I am diametrically opposed to the notion of sending people unprepared into combat just to prove a point when we can easily equip them with better equipment. Everyone in the army should have the same quality of equipment so they have a fair and equal chance to protect themselves. We either increase the budget to make sure this is the case,or make the military a more sustainable size,so there is a better standard of gear. OTH,if you think human life is cheap,then I suppose it does not matter.

But this will only go in circles,so honestly I CBA arguing anymore.

We should not be bothered about tailoring any body armour for women even though male body armor negatively affects their combat ability and injures them,even in non-frontline combat roles,despite lots of data from the US army saying it does - its obviously a non-problem and a myth. Women should just put up with the ill-fitting and dangerous male body armour and it will save money especially for the British army and taxpayer,so more of you can pay less taxes(because time and spending less money are more important,right??) even though it gives men a combat advantage. Argument ended. SORTED!!

[walibe]

Sorry, but it sounds like you're falling into the trap of everyday sexism and making blanket assumptions based on someone's gender. As long as the fitness goals are the same for the same role why deal with antiquated regulations?

The only significant issues I can see relate to logistics, the need to cater for a greater range of bodyshapes when comissioning combat gear, and the distribution of some additional items for female team members (and ensuring that they then aren't appropriated for field dressings!)

Although I support woman moving into the front line roles there are few things to consider:

Woman require more personal hygiene than men when working isolated from regular support
Womans bodies do get harmed through the physical activity even now which could lead to more law suits (remember the WRAFs that sued because their marching pace was too long and caused them harm!).
Fitness standards will not be the same, woman already have a reduced fitness standard compared to men across all three services. The comparative model though is based around your max V02 which equalises this discrepancy to serve a better comparison.
With a bloke seriously injured and a woman, will a bloke make the correct decision in prioritising the one in most need and leaving one who can't be saved.

[herulach]

Which again you don't seem to understand. Look at averages and not extremes. The sexual dimorphism in humans means we are different - this is not cultural.The average women and man have different body shapes,down to the evolutionary pressures,not the last 10000 years of human civilisation. Have a good think why this is the case.

You have not read any of the articles I linked to properly - its shape not size.

FFS,look at the difference in multiple species. Some like certain parrot species have very similar proportioned male and females individuals,others animal species have the males smaller and different proportioned than the females,and vice versa. Humans are not some special god created exception to the rule. We are animals like any other. No different.

and you haven't read what I've written. go get 3 random blokes off the street, chances are it won't fit. everything you've pointed out could equally well happen to a man with too large (or too small) a vest.

We should not be bothered about tailoring any body armour for women even though male body armor negatively affects their combat ability and injures them,even in non-frontline combat roles,despite lots of data from the US army saying it does - its obviously a non-problem and a myth. Women should just put up with the ill-fitting and dangerous male body armour and it will save money especially for the British army and taxpayer,so more of you can pay less taxes(because time and spending less money are more important,right??) even though it gives men a combat advantage. Argument ended. SORTED!!

That isn't what I said and you know it. I firmly believe that we should have the best infantry equipment going rather than another typhoon, my point is that poorly fitting equipment isn't a good reason to exclude half the population from your recruiting pool, just like you wouldn't exclude left handers, people with feet too wide for the boots etc.

Whether the infantry could be better equipped is a completely different discussion (they could, definitely)

[peterb]

While the (lengthy) debate about body armour is interesting - up to a point, there are more psychological and management issues, as well as the ones walibe refers to.

There was great resentment among the men in the Royal Navy when women first went to sea. The men thought the women got preferential treatment, and the women felt they had to outdo the men at everything, and I mean everything, not just professionally, but drinking and so on. It caused some major disciplinary problems.

Some 15 years on, the situation has changed, and mixed ships are the norm - the women take their place alongside the men with few problems.

Front line infantry (or armoured) service might be different, although women have served on the front line in the Royal Corps of Signals and as medics, where theory have been exposed to similar risks to the men, but have not been called upon to engage with an enemy.

Based on the experiences of the other services, I am sure that the introduction of women to front line combat areas will be managed carefully. I am almost as certain that there will be some issues, of which body armour will be but one, but they will be overcome. How long that will take is anybody's guess, but it will happen.

[walibe]

In terms of body armour - We are due to replace it. A new system developed under project VIRTUS which consists primarily of body armour and helmet, its far more modular than the current system and should be lighter. I've only heard of the project, I've not seen any designs but there is information about including the project being signed by DE&S with a supplier.

[Galant]

I am diametrically opposed to the notion of sending people unprepared into combat just to prove a point when we can easily equip them with better equipment. Everyone in the army should have the same quality of equipment so they have a fair and equal chance to protect themselves. We either increase the budget to make sure this is the case,or make the military a more sustainable size,so there is a better standard of gear. OTH,if you think human life is cheap,then I suppose it does not matter.

I totally agree with you. Human life should not be treated cheaply and if we are going to be splitting up families and putting some of them in harm's way we should do everything we can to put the highest value on those lives, giving them the best gear we can etc. As I said, the military should be established and maintained by the rule of ensuring that nothing less than what is needed and best is provided, whilst also avoiding unnecessary waste and costs - in short, maximum efficiency. It should be about getting the job done, and valuing greatly the lives being spent to do it. If women are going to be placed on the front lines, they should, no exceptions, be given what is necessary - because soldiers are soldiers.

This, though, is one reason why choosing to open up the infantry to women is a mistake. This is part of what I meant about political agendas adding great cost to the military, and the nation, by trying to turn around the whole military machine. Putting women on the front lines requires the development of this armour. Why are we going down this road? This is cost and time that is unnecessary and any lives lost or hurt because of this armour issue were lost or hurt unnecessarily, and that is unacceptable if we say we value human lives and tax-payer money.

This isn't about being anti-woman. Not at all. I just don't believe the cost and trouble involved in making this move, which is essentially motivated by political-correctness, is proportionate to what is gained. The military should be about performance. Putting women in the infantry in unnecessary, wasteful, and potentially even harmful to overall effectiveness. The military and the nation should not be burdened by this politically correct nonsense.

[Ttaskmaster]

This very discussion is going on over at ARRSE (ARmy Rumour SErvice), if anyone's interested...

[herulach]

Its also on You & Yours tomorrow, didn't catch who is on, but the debates are _usually_ reasonably free from bias.

[TooNice]

I can buy into the armour arguments. Snowboards boots are designed differently for men and women, not just cosmetically, but also ergonomically. That's not to say that some women won't find men's boots more comfortable, on average it is preferable to stick to boots designed for your gender as there is more than just size that comes into play. So it's not surprising at all that armour are the same.

In regards to women in the front lines, I haven't really been convinced either way. Yes, the process of adapting will have some economic burden. However, I am not convinced by that there is nil long term benefits, and if there are potential benefits, then they needs to be weighted with the cons. Galant is convinced that the cons outweigh the potential pros, I wonder if there is hard evidence for that.

For a start, I am convinced that a larger pool of prospective soldiers is beneficial. The toughest women are, I expect, stronger than even above average men. That's to say that if physical tests is based on scoring above a certain percentile, you will most likely find some women go through for any recruitment of significant numbers. Will they be significant enough in numbers to warrant changing the system? I don't know, and I don't think that I can really be convinced either way. From the armour development perspective, give it enough time and it will pay itself back *if* women can prove themselves an asset in battle. To me, just because it adds to cost is not enough of a reason not to let them fight. There is also the fact that we no longer fight wars with swords, and while physical fitness is still extremely important, I would expect guns to have made the combatants' lethality less dependant on physical attributes. The psychological impact of a woman being KIA mentioned in the thread, if true, would be the biggest con in my opinion. If true, being the key here. I can think of at least one plausible workaround though it is dependant to various factors. Food for thought: is this really something part of our genetic programming, or is it because of the way our society has tuned us. In other words, would a society with greater gender equality be less prone / immune to this psychological shock?

To sum up, change will cost money, agreed. Change will also introduce complexity into the system, agreed. Where I disagree, is that the change is necessarily detrimental to the effectiveness. Lots of variables in play here, and in all likelihood no one can prove either way. The conservative view would be to say that it's not worth the risk of changing a system that, for better or worse, as taken us so far given the uncertain outcome. On the other hand, one could argue that progress doesn't come by sticking to a system that is seemingly satisfactory, and while not every attempt at change ends up with the desirable outcome, you won't know until you try. Furthermore, I can think of many instances where making a change may initially result in decreased effectiveness, but pays itself off. An example would be someone who has for years been typing with just one or two fingers on each hand (and gotten good at it) making the switch to touch typing.

[Zak33]

Wow......rightly complex discussion!

The opening post was good....how I read it was " it's bound to cost dough to change the front line role to a dual sex role" and if I'm right with that in its simplest sense then I think it's wrong to do

If however we're 90% sorted anyway through the past 15 years of change in the forces and it's just case of letting the girls try the
Same assault course as the boys against the same clock then it should crack on soonest

But I get the feeling it's NOT sorted and it WILL cost plenty money

If I'm right in that sentence then we should not be debating woman on the front line

We should be debating the best guns for the job, who will make the next radio that will actually work, what camo is best, whether we equip soldiers with suitable boots, which armoured personnel trucks to buy and why the Harrier was removed from service...why aircraft carriers aren't needed and how to provide good enough kit that our soldiers don't spend their own money on ebay buying ex US stuff

That'll be where I'd be talking

Not about whether it's a bloke or a bird beating someone to death with the but of an assault rifle that's jammed

[Galant]

The issue is coming to the surface again following the news that along with three men, three women were physically disqualified from the USMC Infantry Officer's Course after failing to keep pace on a hike in full load (100+ lbs). The fact that these three women made it through the day long physical fitness test was widely reported so all eyes were, apparently, on them. They are the latest in a total of twenty-seven women to undertake the course, with only one other women previously making it past the first day but later falling out due to injury.

This isn't just without a context, though. In the USA, following introduction in 2012 of a new policy, all branches of the military are to have integrated women into service. The deadline for this is January 2016 and failure to achieve the goal will bring about investigation as to why substantial integration hasn't occurred. That strikes me as rather foul-smelling, steaming pile of bureaucratic brown stuff. Nevertheless, it's still there, and as one might imagine, there are a lot of people motivated to avoid stepping in it. As (expected) it turns out, some branches of the military are finding it's not so easy to get a substantial integration of women into their units, at least via the rather difficult established route. So, what with the almighty power of the arbitrary deadline seemingly unable to meet its own demands, the conversation is turning more and more towards changing the established route to some more...scenic.

Is short, what we have is:

Men and Women are equal. (Peanut Gallery: Indeed!)

This means Men and Women are identical. (Peanut Gallery: No it doesn't. Not only do the two words, equal and identical, mean different things but men and women are clearly different, it's why we have two different names for the sexes. Never let the facts get in the way of the emperor's new clothing though.)

Women aren't allowed into some areas of the military. (Peanut Gallery: True enough.)

Since men and women are equal, this is wrong. (Peanut Gallery: Not if it's a limitation based on a real difference - sort of like roller-coasters and the "You must be this high to ride" sign. It's discrimination, sure, but it's based on a real distinction (height) and in place for a very good reason. You're not listening though, are you? Crusade away!)

The military must now open all doors to women as well as men. (Peanut Gallery: Only if it's happy to see some, maybe a good many, of the people to fall out of the roller-coaster to their injury or death, possibly onto other people on the roller-coaster resulting in worse overall performance of the roller-coaster. Still, better to have a Roller-Coaster of Death that everyone can ride rather than one which is safe and up and running all the time and also profitable for the owner.)

To prove that they have done this, all branches of the military must show actual women serving in places they previously couldn't. (Peanut Gallery: Ah, affirmative action. Lovely.)

All branches of the military must do this by....oh....let's say....Jan 2016. (Peanut Gallery: Why? Based on what? ... No reason? Fair enough. It's not like people's lives and bodies might be at stake. Oh wait, it is. Nevermind ... lovely outfit you're wearing my lord.)

Right...how's it all going? Oi! Marines Corps! You've got whole areas where there aren't any women yet! What's the problem?

Low Interest
100% Failure Rate

Right then! Get some more volunteers in. (Peanut Gallery: That's it, load the kiddies onto the coaster. Keep at it long enough and you'll find one or two that won't fall out. Never mind the other ones, or the other people on it.)

While you're at it, we should probably take account of the fact that the equal women are disadvantaged by not having men's unfair muscle advantage. Adjust the scores accordingly please. Come to think of it, it does seems odd that equal men and women should see one half struggle so much. Who came up with these standards? Let's revisit them and see if we can't find some new ones that everyone can meet. (Peanut Gallery: Wait? What? I thought you said equal meant identical? Sorry. I'll keep quiet, we're clearly passed that point. By the way, nice bum, m'lord.)

Wish this whole thing was fake and a send up but it's not.

In 2013, the USMC Training and
Education Command (TECOM) collected data from 409 male and 379 female volunteers
performing five "proxy" tests simulating ground combat element (GCE) tasks. Data produced
in Physical and Combat Fitness Tests (PFT and CFT), together with proxy test battery results,
confirm that gender-related disparities are most significant in events measuring upper-body
strength and endurance. These capabilities are essential for survival and mission success in
direct ground combat.
• In a Pull-up test of upper-body strength used in the PFT, women averaged 3.59 pull-ups,
compared to 15.69 for the men − more than four times as many.
• The Clean & Press event involves single lifts of progressively heavier weights from the
ground to above the head (70, 80, 95, 115 lbs.), plus 6 reps with a 65 lb. weight. In this
event 80% of the men passed the 115 lb. test, but only 8.7% of the women passed.
• In the 120 mm Tank Loading Simulation, a gunnery skills test, participants were asked
to lift a simulated round weighing 55 lb., 5 times, in 35 seconds or less. Quoting the
report, "Less than 1% of men . . . [compared to] 18.68% of the women . . . could not
complete the tank loading drill in the allotted time." The report added, "It would be very
likely that failure rates would increase in a more confined space [such as a tank]."

Link to CMR

In a June 2013 report to Congress, the Marines indicated that "gender-neutral" events in
Physical Fitness and Combat Fitness Tests (PFT and CFT) and obstacle courses would be
"gender-normed for score . . . in order to account for physiological differences."

In a June 2013 report to Congress, the Marines indicated that "gender-neutral" events in
Physical Fitness and Combat Fitness Tests (PFT and CFT) and obstacle courses would be
"gender-normed for score . . . in order to account for physiological differences."

Some researchers analyzing the new data have
suggested acceptance of lower-but-equal performance standards, with "the worst performing
decile" to calculate minimum qualifications.
• Pressures to accept "lower but equal" standards would be accelerated by political and
ideological demands for "gender-diversity metrics" (read, quotas) recommended by the
Pentagon-endorsed Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC).
• Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has suggested that if a particular standard
was found to be "so high that a woman couldn't make it," officials would ask the
services, "Does it really have to be that high?"

Defense Department data have shown for decades that military women are promoted
at rates equal to or faster than men.4 of 4
• A 2013 survey of Army women found that 92.5% of 30,000 respondents would reject
combat arms assignments if they were offered.
• As stated in 2013 congressional testimony confirming involuntary assignments should
women become eligible for the combat arms, "That's why we call them orders."
• The theoretical 3% who might qualify under minimal male standards would move from
rising career levels to lower status in ground combat units where they are physically
disadvantaged and subject to disproportionate stress and risks of debilitating injury.

A second report is here.

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of this is the increased risk of injury to the women themselves. According to the above reports:

In a 2012 briefing, a Marine official confirmed that women have 20% less aerobic capacity,
47% lower lifting strength, 26% slower road march speed, plus attrition/injury rates during
entry level training and discharge (break) rates that are two times those of males. These
findings are consistent with more than 30 years of empirical studies and reports in the U.S. and
the United Kingdom. 16
 A 2011 Navy study found that 1 in 367 female recruits were diagnosed with pelvic stress
fractures in training, versus 1 in 40,000 male recruits. The Army's experience with these kinds
of injuries is nearly three times that of the Navy. 17
 The Veterans Administration already has begun making preparations for escalating numbers
of bone, joint, and ligament injury claims from women in direct ground combat MOSs that used
to be all-male. 18
Army officials have stated that disability costs are "staggering."CMR Policy Analysis Page 5 of 10
March 2014
 A May 2013 Army Technical Bulletin analyzed intrinsic risk factors for injury during Basic
Combat Training (BCT). The strongest evidence, supported by five or more studies, indicates
that "female gender," "low aerobic fitness," and "low muscular endurance" are factors
contributing to the highest risks of injury in BCT. 19
 The same Technical Bulletin reported that women are more likely than men to be disabled, and
are about 67% more likely than a male soldier to be discharged for a musculoskeletal disorder.
Such discharges have been as high as 140 per 10,000 female soldiers per year, compared to
about 80 per 10,000 male soldiers. Congress should decide whether it is ethical to knowingly
subject women to higher, unequal risks in the name of "equality."

[yamangman]

While not relevant to frontline combat, eveidence suggests women make for far better fast-jet pilots. It's posited that physiological differences ensure they can sustain higher-g maneuvers for longer. By the OP's and others' examples, surely we should have predominantly female-piloted fast jets?

[wasabi]

While not relevant to frontline combat, eveidence suggests women make for far better fast-jet pilots. It's posited that physiological differences ensure they can sustain higher-g maneuvers for longer. By the OP's and others' examples, surely we should have predominantly female-piloted fast jets?

It should be considered if it gives us an advantage. However there are a load of other things to consider when flying jets - like spatial awareness where most scientific studies show men tend to outperform women.

All kinds of crazy comes up with uniforms - this one made me smirk. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ancements.html

[TheAnimus]

While not relevant to frontline combat, eveidence suggests women make for far better fast-jet pilots. It's posited that physiological differences ensure they can sustain higher-g maneuvers for longer. By the OP's and others' examples, surely we should have predominantly female-piloted fast jets?

Interested in reading about that, do you have a link to the report?

Generally it's accepted that spacial tasks are better done by male due to testosterone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_dif...tial_abilities

[yamangman]

No I don't have it unfortunately. The gist was that (for blackout-inducing maneuvers only) for men, short and very muscular candidates fared the best. Women on the other hand of a more archetypal build fared better than taller and/or less muscular men. I recall the length of blood vessels between brain and heart were an important factor.