Well, it appears that TRADOC is now well into the process of attempting to destroy the greatest armed force that the world has ever known. Training and Doctrine Command has launched “two major efforts in support of this full integration of women soldiers.” TRADOC has started a scientific review working with U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to assist in the development of gender-neutral physical standards for all Areas of Concentration for commissioned officers and military occupational specialties for enlisted soldiers. In addition, the “TRADOC Analysis Center is examining the institutional and cultural barriers related to integrating women soldiers into previously all-male specialties and units in order to develop strategies to overcome these barriers,” I am curious how the armed forces, particularly the US Army (and by extension the US Marines) are going to "gender norm" the physical standards. My argument is, the standards are already gender neutral... First, let's have a look at the physical standards. Take a look at the one everyone is talking so much about. For those of you following along at home, that would be: 11A Infantry officer/11B Infantry. Let's have a look at the physical requirements in summary. I know I have mentioned it here before, but let's look at the specifics. I got this from some academic reports on the Land Warrior System. The physical requirement for the infantry do not differ from those for all Army personnel. The physical demands for infantry soldiers include the following: occasionally raise and carry 160-pound persons on their back; frequently perform all other tasks while carrying a minimum of 65 pounds, evenly distributed over entire body; for miles; frequently walk, run, crawl, and climb over varying terrain for a distance of up to 25 miles (while carrying these loads) frequently give oral commands in outside area at distances up to 50 meters; able to hear oral commands in outside area at distances up to 50 meters; occasionally climb a rope a distance of up to 30 feet; frequently throw 1-pound object 40 meters; frequently visually identify vehicles, equipment, and individuals at long distances. The physical profile also refers to functional capacity to perform as determined by medical personnel in six areas: physical capacity, upper extremities, lower extremities, hearing-ears, vision-eyes, and psychiatric. These areas are always presented in the same order. A score of 1 is normal and 4 is diminished performance. The required physical profile for an entry infantry soldier is translated as follows: physical capacity (1)--good muscular development with ability to perform maximum effort for indefinite periods; upper extremities (1)--no loss of digits or limitation of motion; no demonstrable abnormality; able to do hand-to-hand fighting; lower extremities (1)--no loss of digits or limitation of motion; no demonstrable abnormality; be capable of performing long marches, standing very long periods; hearing-ears (2)--audiometer average level of six readings (three per ear) at 500, 1000, 2000 Hz or not more than 30dB, with no individual level greater than 35dB at these frequencies and level not more than 55dB at 4000Hz; or audiometer level of 30dB at 500 Hz, 25dB at 1,000 and 2000 Hz, and 35dB at 4000 Hz in better ear (poorer ear may be deaf); vision-eyes (2)--distant visual acuity correctable to 20/40-20/70, 20/30-20/100, 20/20-20/400; psychiatric (1)--no psychiatric pathology; may have history of a transient personality disorder (well duh, you did pick the Infantry--ed). As I said at the outset of this argument, the standards are normed already. There are already a large group of 18 to 24 year old males who already have the ability to "perform maximum effort for indefinite periods," the ability "to do hand-to-hand fighting," and are capable of performing "long marches" and there are some 18 to 24 year old females who are just as capable, but there are alot less who are capable of these standards. I know that I can take a group of those males and a group of those females from the general population (because that is who we recruit from) in that same group and get an 80 percent success rate on "occasionally raise and carry 160-pound persons on their back" from the men. Anyone want to hazard a guess on what the success rate would be for that same group of women? Does anyone think it would even break into the double digits? What is going to be the injury rate, percentage wise? What do you think the rate of success is going to be if the men start lifting the women? How about if the women start lifting the men? More? Less? So tell me Big Army, is the plan to have the female infantry soldiers only lift their battle buddy and carry them if they are smaller than them; only after stripping them of their 65 pounds of additional equipment? Start making plastic artillery shells? Insist that manufacturers of tanks and fighting vehicles make the component parts from plastic? Only fight wars in countries with temperate climates and low rolling hills? The base plates on mortars, Ma Deuce receivers, Mark 19 ammunition and machine gun barrels are not going to get lighter, so my guess is that Big Army's plan is to make soldiers lift them less, tote them half as far and involve twice as many soldiers to do it. Infantry squads will go from 9 to 15, gun crew size will double and it will take twice as long to get anything done that involves physical work. No matter what part of the equation you look at here, the only part you can change is the part you can't change: The averages and genetics., because ON AVERAGE (which is where the Armed Forces recruits from) the average 5'4" 150 pound female can't run faster, punch harder, run farther or lift more than the average 5'10" 180 pound male. I don't need the the wizards of smart at U.S. Army Medical Command, U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine and Army Research Institute to crunch...
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/868S7g1eDZM/the-myth-of-gender-neutrality.html
Posted
May 19 2013, 11:16 AM
by
BLACKFIVE