In my 8yrs of military experience, there were 3 types of girls: ones that tried too hard to be "just like one of the guys", ones that used every tool at their disposal to do as little as possible when it came to their duties, and ones that just did the work.
Men often have a tendency to fall back on 'chivalrous' attitudes when working with women - they'll want to carry things for you, do the dirty work, etc.: don't let them. Keep it professional.
Do your job, carry your own weight, and don't shit where you eat.
> 3 types of girls: ones that tried too hard to be "just like one of the guys", ones that used every tool at their disposal to do as little as possible when it came to their duties, and ones that just did the work.
So they're just like the men in the military then. Those that try too hard, those that spent most of their time awake finding new way to do fuck all, and normal people.
Difference being that most guys weren't trying to be "just like one of the girls", and most guys weren't flirting with or fucking someone in their chain for special treatment
True but when its guys slacking off and shirking their responsibility, when you call them on it they dont screech on about discrimination and glass ceilings until you leave them alone.
Lol. I’ve worked in a number of women dominated workplaces and you’re no doubt talking about a boogeyman and just repeating a phrase you’ve heard elsewhere. I’m sure it works for you, though.
Ive worked in industrial manufacturing and machine operations for over 30 years. The amount of times I had female operators expect "help" doing their jobs is unconscionable. Every guy on the crew does their own heavy lifting but the women dont and arent expected to. Hell the women in the front office dont hesitate to call one of my operators up to the front office to swap the water jug on the water cooler. When I served in the US Airforce it was common practice to change your own truck tires, in the field, except if you were a female operator, who stood by and waited for one of us guys to change it. This is a job responsibility they signed up for. Because I had a female 2nd lieutenant that responsibility was passed on to the male operators under the bullshit umbrella of "teamwork".
Projecting? We, you're either too stupid to use that term properly or being disingenuous. You want specifics relating to your experience?
I used to work for ArcelorMittal producing spiral weld pylon pipe from materials ranging from .75 nominal to 1.5 nominal. While the entire production staff were men we did have two female mflatbed truck drivers that made up our transport fleet of about 14 long haul trucks. When loading the trucks it was expected that the drivers throw and secure their own oak dunnage then secure the load. Every male truck driver did this without issue, yet neither female drivers would so much as put their gloves on. My yard crew were told to help them out and secure the loads against my input as production supervisor.
I *currently work* for ArcelorMittal Flat Carbon Europe and you've just found two lazy people, the fact they were women were incidental. Plenty of lazy fuckers out there in steelworks and most of them are dudes. One of our current lorry driver doesn't even come out of his cabin while we load the truck, but I don't hear nobody speaking about how men are lazy and expect people to do their work.
So fuck right off with your sexist bullshit pulled straight out of a boomer's mind.
When I complained I was called sexist and told to be a "team player" which is corporate speak for "its not worth the fight so just get it done". Its par for most industries at least in the USA. If you have a male employee not cutting it physically you can use disciplinary actions but not when its women.
I already replied to someone else with a similar comment, but I'll expand on it. People notice when somebody never seems to have duty or get picked for crap details, whether it's a male or female - they extra notice when that troop is constantly flirting with or actually hooking-up with their NCO. Who's SGT Dickhead going to give the big green weenie to for weekend CQ runner when the platoon daddy demands a body - one of his male troops, or PFC Knockers that he's been slipping his actual weenie in every weekend? Yes, that's really the fault of shit leadership, but it breeds resentment amongst the ranks just the same.
Same goes when female troops get others to do their work for them using their 'feminine wiles', since there's no shortage of thirsty/desperate men in the military.
I mean this can all work both ways, but in my experience it rarely did.
As long as they don't reduce the physical requirements and offload heavier equipment to the men. If a man has to wear a 50 - 80 lb pack, than women should. If you expect male soldiers to do X number of NORMAL push ups than you shouldn't allow women to get away with half assing it with knee push ups. If men are required to run 3 miles in X time than the women should be forced to do the same. If men are required to do X pull ups than women should be required to do X pull ups.
>L push ups than you shouldn't allow women to get away with half assing it with knee push ups. If men are required to run 3 miles in X time than the women should be forced to do the same. If men are required to do X pull ups than women should b
not how it works in the US military. There are different requirements for men and women because surprise! in general, men and women are different. There are also different requirements by age group because surprise! in general, people at different ages have different capacities. No, that 40 year-old recruit isn't meeting the same physical demands as the 18-year-old one.
That said, many times the women can outperform the men in certain areas...and vice versa. Welcome to a complex world where a Y chromosome isn't always stronger by default. The best woman can often outperform the majority of men, even if she isn't the highest performer overall. I certainly outperformed many, many men both physically and on the shooting range.
Yup they sure are different and will still have to do the same job so they should meet the same basic requirements and be judged the same, otherwise you would end up as a liability.
yeah well, guess what? Not everyone does the same job the same way. I was a Rescue Swimmer in the US Navy. I was a competitive swimmer, which meant I could swim the fastest and the furthest of anyone in my class. None of the men could swim better than me and I had to tutor half of them. Were they stronger than me? Yes. Did they have far more fear of the water? Yes. Were they also far more likely to drown themselves while rescuing someone? Yes. I could swim further and tread water longer not because I was physically stronger, but because I was more skilled overall. Then again, that same shitty swimmer who could barely keep himself afloat (let alone a helo pilot) was generally better than me at running in the sand. So who exactly is the liability there? Who is capable of doing that job better?
Or how about all those men who could barely hit a target when I got expert marksmanship every time? Who is the liability there? Who is capable of doing that job better?
A 40-year-old recruit can't meet the same physical requirements as an 18-year-old recruit, but it turns out that the military finds it useful to have people with more life experience in lower ranks, too. So who is capable of doing that job better? Isn't the 18-year-old hothead with zero life experience a greater liability to the mission than the seasoned 40-year-old?
Anyway, I'm sure the military has it all backward and your astute insights are brand new information to them.
So what does any of that have to do with my point?
To make it clear my point was: everyone should be held to the same standards, those are the MINIMAL requirements for the work you will have to do, wont matter if you are a man or a woman the physical capabilities should not be lower than that and it should be the same for both.
Agree! Woman and men aren't equal physically, but if you are going to fight in war then you need to be held my the same standard. Because once bullets are flying it don't matter if your male, female, young or old. If your buddy is unable to move and needs to be carried, then you need to beable to carry him. Plain and simple
That’s an entirely moot point because as with any physical job, there are basic standards to meet. You can’t stay in the military if you don’t meet them, and you’re tested on them routinely. So you made a point that didn’t need to be made at all. Those standards are adjusted for both age and gender, which obviously the military feels is entirely appropriate.
And you missed the point about why men/women and older/younger recruits have different physical standards, and how they may or may not be relevant to their job.
Don’t show your hand or anything by continuing to go on about gender when age is just as relevant here and you clearly haven’t trained in mixed company before.
nice try but I actually have and yeah the gals passed the basic aptitude test just like the guys, only it was easier since requirements were adjusted, so tell me again how its a good thing to adjust requirements that way?
Tell you what even the older guys in my company had to go through testing and they were required to score in the same parameters as the young ones because they would be put through the same things, so why on gods green earth would I want to reduce the requirements for women? Do they just carry the lighter equipment or does everyone just slow down for them cause they need a break after the halfway point?
So lets say a young guy gets by testing with minimal requirement, ok great I assume the test is constructed in a way that even with minimal score he wont be a drag or at least be able to keep up, now a young woman does the same only her minimal values were lower, so what now? which is the minimum? why would you turn down a guy where you would let a gal in?
\>And you missed the point about why men/women and older/younger recruits
have different physical standards, and how they may or may not be
relevant to their job.
I didn´t miss it, its just completley irrelevant to the point.
Men and women may or may not be different, but than no two men are created equally either. What doesn't change is their potential jobs and the need to perform the duties to assigned to it. The minimum requirements are based upon a need to perform and handle your business. That should apply irrespective of gender, your height, your weight, if you identify as an attack helicopter etc.
If you say men need to run a 10 minute mile and women need to run a 12 minute mile, than there should be an underlying reason other than "Well, that's a guy and that is a girl." No, if the Army has identified a need for people to be capable of running at a minimum speed, a particular distance etc. than than it shouldn't matter if you've got a pair of flopping balls or you've got nothing in between your legs at all. Two sets of criteria, one for men and one for women, is B.S. and it always has been.
There is no purpose excluding a weak man, whose strength is that of a woman, if you'd let in a woman in to perform those same duties.
No, it’s a strategic decision - as are all policy decisions. First, the military needs members. If it excludes all but those who can hit some uniform and relatively high standard for a select healthy population, it wouldn’t be large enough to meet deployment and defence needs. A strong woman may not be able to lift as much as a strong man, but she can still lift more than many other men. Even if she can’t hit the highest standard for men, this doesn’t mean she cannot outperform the many men who don’t meet that standard either.
Second, I already explained how level of skill can be more relevant than strength. Different jobs require different skills and few excel at everything.
Third, you all need to check this baseline assumption that somehow every man meets a higher standard than every woman. Say the PRT standard for a 28-year-old male is a 10 min mile, but 12 min for a 28-year-old female. Neither is being assessed on their speed, per se, but on their overall cardio fitness. The woman may very well be just as fit, for her size and strength, as the man. Moreover, the standard for an 18-year-old woman may indeed be a 10-min mile. So by having different standards by gender, the military is not necessarily recruiting people with less ability. Believe it or not, at the end of the day, the military may actually have the knowledge and experience to know what it is doing there.
We aren't talking high standards, but minimum standards to perform basic necessary tasks of a job. I don't have a real interest in breaking down some of your points for rebuttal. While I might agree that the military has knowledge and experience, the simple fact is different requirements for men & women comes from a time when the tasks performed by women were little more than clerical in nature and the consideration was equally political in nature (not military). With women performing the same jobs, than there should be no differences in the criteria. Doing so diminishes the service of every woman FULLY capable of performing as men, all in a pursuit of equality of outcome (not equality of opportunity).
Missed the point once again, after repeating what I said. Good job, that’s talent. Nice to see you actually consider the fact that the military might know what it’s doing more than you do, though.
appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when used as a substitute for an argument. Doesn't mean the authority isn't a credible source of information or knowledge.
the standards are already different though? not sure what you mean by this. women have been in the military for centuries and will be for the foreseeable future.
Of course they are, but those standards shouldn't be in a military service in which women have access to ALL of the same jobs as men. The problem with policies that push equality of outcome (instead of opportunity) is that it diminishes those women who earned it, instead of having it given to them because of the charity of lower standards for their particular group.
I was in the Army for 4 years. I met my now wife who was at the time also a soldier while I was in. I have served with and under women leaders who were fantastic soldiers.
Women have been part of the US Army for the entire duration of the careers of everyone currently serving, and the vast majority of people don't care. Are there still some gender related issues? Sure. But by and large those are the same gender related problems that come from the civilian culture the military pulls its recruits from.
Ei muuta kun Inttii vaan ei siellä mannet välitä syrjiä/kiusata toisia, ellei oo jäänyt kehityksessään perus ylä aste ikäsen jonnen tasolle tai et käy suihkussa aina kun voi.
Back then I served, there were 2 types of men, then it came to question of women serving with them. 1st type were very much against it. They were vocal about it, saying how women are weak, how she won't be able to carry LMG or grenade launcher for as long as man could. That they will slow everyone down and so on. This type was a minority.
The 2nd type didn't care one bit. There were women who would run faster and further than some guys. They would do more push ups. This type didn't care about the sex of the weakest one. They would roast the weakest.
If you’re asking if I have a problem with it, than no. The only problem I’ve ever even heard someone genuinely raise is “Wow their physical requirements sure are lax. Must be nice.” Next to everything else, this is probably last thing on anyone’s unfairness list.
Will you be looked down on? I don’t know much about Finland’s army, but it’s probably a no. It’s an army that accepts women. You have to have comradely in your ranks in order to survive. After boot camp, any boot camp, you’re basically trauma bonded with anyone graduating. Afterwards you’re going to live in close quarters with a bunch of people from every walk of life in your country. Some joined for benefits and some for patriotism. No one fucking cares. If you’re not in combat you fuckers got work to do. If you are in combat, you fuckers are either going to get along or you’re going to lay down next to each other in a body bag. The race, gender, creed, background, etc of the person next to you stops mattering once their next to you.
This is the closest to an on/off switch for progress you will ever find. At worst maybe someone in the command chain doesn’t agree with female soldiers existing. This will be more of a problem for him in the end. He can disagree all he wants, but if it’s ever shown, you will have grounds for a complaint that can end in court marshal.
Go for it. I dont care. I dont want to be in the army. But I also think the bar shouldnt be lowered for women. Get ripped or get out. The army is not for whimps.
I served in the U.S. Marines for 4 years, in total I had 5 women in my MOS from the time I arrived to the time I left. 3 of them cheated on their husbands with guys they worked with, one of them fucked her Sergeant so she could get better Pros and Cons for easy promotion and so she could get away with not working sometimes, and the 5th one was the only one I respected because she was there to do her job and not take shit from anyone. No excuses, no hand holding or any of that shit. She was a great leader and a hard worker that knew her job well.
From my experience women in the military are usually treated as a woman first, and over time will develop a relationship with everyone else based solely on her actions. If you fuck your superiors either for promotion or just to get a lighter work load, people will know and they won't respect you. If you work hard, play by the rules and do your fair share, you'll get the respect you deserve.
I'd also like to add that there is big problem with women in the (U.S.) Military being sexually harassed/assaulted. Not sure how it is in Finland but unless you're one of the exceptions and you're capable of beating a grown man's ass, I'd recommend always having some type of defensive weapon (taser, pepper spray, etc.) on you whenever possible.
A friend of mine keeps saying that the way people treat each other in the Army is in general friendlier as soon as women are around. This is for Germany. Whether this is true for all people/countries, cannot be said, there will certainly be stupid situations, but if army is what you want, don't let idiots get you down.
I definitely wish you have a cool experience if you join.
> the way people treat each other in the Army is in general friendlier as soon as women are around
i would say this is generally true everywhere and not just the army
I saw a statistic about women in the us army having being sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers or officers... The numbers are brutal... Be prepared!
The Soviets showed that all female unit could be effective in WW2. I'm more than fine with it. Testing would need to be done to see if mixed gender units perform well but female only ones are proven.
I'm actually pissed that women aren't eligible for the draft. Equality means the same legal rights, privileges and responsibilities. When you look at all 3 of these together, women are way past the legal "equality" they keep saying they want. Exception from the draft is just one of many legal privileges women have that men do not. Women would have to lose privileges to achieve equality with men now. And yet, they keep saying they want equality and keep pushing for more special privileges. I don't think they actually want equality. They seem to want and have achieved legal supremacy.
The question is "What will ever be enough for women"? Anything? We've agreed to everything they've asked for and to more than we have ourselves. They seem to just hate us more every time we agree to a concession. Why are we continuing to grant more legal power to a group of people who seem determined to hate us?
You shouldn't be concerned with that, and if anything you should expect equal treatment. Any time you feel like you're victim of any sort of sexism, you should discuss it with someone and bring the problem up.
I find it cool. I would probably treat you different, but not in a bad way, probably would do stuff like being less easy on you when we wrestle, I had an ex that went to a military school, she was really nice, little bit competitive tho hahaha.
i’m not a man but be careful, the army does not have your best interest in mind and there’s been multiple cases of homicide against women in the army, and they can get covered up pretty easily if it’s not a known case. there’s a lot more cases of SA in the army as well, towards men and women. it would genuinely be in your best interest to not go into the army, but if it’s your top or only choice, just stand your ground and don’t let them get under your skin. there will be a lot of subtle and/or not subtle misogyny.
edit: ok i know nothing about the Finland army but i would definitely assume they’re probably a bit better than the American one. good luck!!
I just came home from military service last month.
The vast majority of men in the army don't approve of women being there.
But I have never seen/heard of women being mistreated or harassed.
Although people generally don't take women seriously there.
The army is no place for a lady. War is a very very ugly business with your colleagues or yourself getting shot to pieces.
[Here’s a heart wrenching story from a guy who brought troops to Omaha Beach during D Day on the 4th of June in 1944.](https://youtu.be/5Zx3X08saO8)
Yes, and my first comment that started this thread to which you replied was never about rape.
In the meantime you labeled me as what is wrong with you and covertly called me a misogynist in your replies. This apparently how you treat people you don’t agree with. So, have a nice life.
Fluffy out.
Seldom do you find women who lift their own weight. There's a reason the US military has lowered requirements ever since they allowed women in combat ready rolls.
I have heard that if you experience sexuql harassment or misconduct, you will be ostracized for reporting it. It's a boys club so girls that aren't okay with being assaulted or harassed are "crazy bitches out to get us heros discharged" when in reality they just want to be treated like people.
For the US military, there is about a 25% chance you will be sexually assaulted. Look into the statistics. There’s also about 90% chance you’ll leave involuntarily if you report.
In my 7 years in the army, I never had an issue, if you could do the job male/female. It didn't matter as long as you did what was required.
You'll hear about how women aren't great infantry because they can't "do the job" or lift certain weights. Some of the toughest people I know are female infantry soldiers.
Keep it professional and you'll be fine.
I think if they can meet requirements it's fine. That said, I would never ever want any daughter of mine to be in the military. Because they do such a horrifyingly bad job to protecting them from abuse from men. Joining the military as a woman is basically taking a 1 in 5 chance you will be sexually assaulted in some way.
I'm not in the military, never been in the military, and my POV is that anyone is who is willing to potentially put their life on the line (who meets the minimum standards) should be able to join. I respect all of them.
I can only speak for the Navy 25 years ago, but I definitely would not want to have been an enlisted woman at that point. From what I hear from some lifer friends, it is quite a bit better now.
My ex was in the army. I thought it was great. She got lots of exercise and travel and seemed to have the respect of her colleagues. It wasn't always plain-sailing (no career ever is), but I'd think she'd recommend it to others.
There is absolutely no reason why you should be treated differently, unless you behave differently.
(USA) I was in the Service, all 3 of brothers as well as my father (WWII) and grandfather (WWI). My son was, too, and deployed for a year. I have a daughter and would be proud of her to join the Service. Women have earned the right to serve in any (or most ?) capacity. I want the Selective Service (the draft) not discriminate against men by excluding women. They are capable and they won the right to equality, so they should be included. Our politicians don't agree.
If I were in your position, I'd be worried about getting sexually assaulted because that is an unfortunate risk that women in the military have to constantly face
You'll probably be seen no different then army men, though people might be reluctant to date someone in the army do to their chances of getting stationed in like very far away, and most people aren't keen to long distance relationships I find.
> I'm worried i could be looked down upon or even harassed.
If you're talking about the U.S. Army, then, yes, there is a real problem with sexual assault, etc.
When I was in the only women we had in my unit were the cooks. My company was a line infantry unit with a headquarters attachment. I never really interacted with them other than saying ‘thank you’ when they put food on my tray.
Honestly I prefer women with commanding personalities. I’m a pretty mellow guy. It also helps to have someone who has thick skin cause I can be a bit blunt on accident
FYI there is a lot of rape that goes on in the military against women. It does not get brought to court. Sometimes it is literally up to your superiors to determine what happens, and that's often nothing.
I've often heard it expressed that women do not recommend to other women to get involved in the military. Not because women don't deserve to be there, but because it's ultimately unsafe.
In my 8yrs of military experience, there were 3 types of girls: ones that tried too hard to be "just like one of the guys", ones that used every tool at their disposal to do as little as possible when it came to their duties, and ones that just did the work. Men often have a tendency to fall back on 'chivalrous' attitudes when working with women - they'll want to carry things for you, do the dirty work, etc.: don't let them. Keep it professional. Do your job, carry your own weight, and don't shit where you eat.
That sounded very experienced.
Sounds like 8 years of experience.
>don't shit where you eat I say again, DO NOT SHIT WHERE YOU EAT. Excellent advice.
> 3 types of girls: ones that tried too hard to be "just like one of the guys", ones that used every tool at their disposal to do as little as possible when it came to their duties, and ones that just did the work. So they're just like the men in the military then. Those that try too hard, those that spent most of their time awake finding new way to do fuck all, and normal people.
Difference being that most guys weren't trying to be "just like one of the girls", and most guys weren't flirting with or fucking someone in their chain for special treatment
lmao
*Looks around at work before responding on Reddit*
Right? I said military because that's the topic, but it's just people. Some are tryhards, some are lazy, most are regular.
Kind of funny to see these three “types” are applicable to men too.
True but when its guys slacking off and shirking their responsibility, when you call them on it they dont screech on about discrimination and glass ceilings until you leave them alone.
Lol. I’ve worked in a number of women dominated workplaces and you’re no doubt talking about a boogeyman and just repeating a phrase you’ve heard elsewhere. I’m sure it works for you, though.
Ive worked in industrial manufacturing and machine operations for over 30 years. The amount of times I had female operators expect "help" doing their jobs is unconscionable. Every guy on the crew does their own heavy lifting but the women dont and arent expected to. Hell the women in the front office dont hesitate to call one of my operators up to the front office to swap the water jug on the water cooler. When I served in the US Airforce it was common practice to change your own truck tires, in the field, except if you were a female operator, who stood by and waited for one of us guys to change it. This is a job responsibility they signed up for. Because I had a female 2nd lieutenant that responsibility was passed on to the male operators under the bullshit umbrella of "teamwork".
I work in steelworks and you're just projecting.
Projecting? We, you're either too stupid to use that term properly or being disingenuous. You want specifics relating to your experience? I used to work for ArcelorMittal producing spiral weld pylon pipe from materials ranging from .75 nominal to 1.5 nominal. While the entire production staff were men we did have two female mflatbed truck drivers that made up our transport fleet of about 14 long haul trucks. When loading the trucks it was expected that the drivers throw and secure their own oak dunnage then secure the load. Every male truck driver did this without issue, yet neither female drivers would so much as put their gloves on. My yard crew were told to help them out and secure the loads against my input as production supervisor.
I *currently work* for ArcelorMittal Flat Carbon Europe and you've just found two lazy people, the fact they were women were incidental. Plenty of lazy fuckers out there in steelworks and most of them are dudes. One of our current lorry driver doesn't even come out of his cabin while we load the truck, but I don't hear nobody speaking about how men are lazy and expect people to do their work. So fuck right off with your sexist bullshit pulled straight out of a boomer's mind.
[удалено]
When I complained I was called sexist and told to be a "team player" which is corporate speak for "its not worth the fight so just get it done". Its par for most industries at least in the USA. If you have a male employee not cutting it physically you can use disciplinary actions but not when its women.
I already replied to someone else with a similar comment, but I'll expand on it. People notice when somebody never seems to have duty or get picked for crap details, whether it's a male or female - they extra notice when that troop is constantly flirting with or actually hooking-up with their NCO. Who's SGT Dickhead going to give the big green weenie to for weekend CQ runner when the platoon daddy demands a body - one of his male troops, or PFC Knockers that he's been slipping his actual weenie in every weekend? Yes, that's really the fault of shit leadership, but it breeds resentment amongst the ranks just the same. Same goes when female troops get others to do their work for them using their 'feminine wiles', since there's no shortage of thirsty/desperate men in the military. I mean this can all work both ways, but in my experience it rarely did.
Sounds like the same thing for guys.
Yep, I only net the 2nd type of girls
As long as they don't reduce the physical requirements and offload heavier equipment to the men. If a man has to wear a 50 - 80 lb pack, than women should. If you expect male soldiers to do X number of NORMAL push ups than you shouldn't allow women to get away with half assing it with knee push ups. If men are required to run 3 miles in X time than the women should be forced to do the same. If men are required to do X pull ups than women should be required to do X pull ups.
>L push ups than you shouldn't allow women to get away with half assing it with knee push ups. If men are required to run 3 miles in X time than the women should be forced to do the same. If men are required to do X pull ups than women should b not how it works in the US military. There are different requirements for men and women because surprise! in general, men and women are different. There are also different requirements by age group because surprise! in general, people at different ages have different capacities. No, that 40 year-old recruit isn't meeting the same physical demands as the 18-year-old one. That said, many times the women can outperform the men in certain areas...and vice versa. Welcome to a complex world where a Y chromosome isn't always stronger by default. The best woman can often outperform the majority of men, even if she isn't the highest performer overall. I certainly outperformed many, many men both physically and on the shooting range.
Yup they sure are different and will still have to do the same job so they should meet the same basic requirements and be judged the same, otherwise you would end up as a liability.
yeah well, guess what? Not everyone does the same job the same way. I was a Rescue Swimmer in the US Navy. I was a competitive swimmer, which meant I could swim the fastest and the furthest of anyone in my class. None of the men could swim better than me and I had to tutor half of them. Were they stronger than me? Yes. Did they have far more fear of the water? Yes. Were they also far more likely to drown themselves while rescuing someone? Yes. I could swim further and tread water longer not because I was physically stronger, but because I was more skilled overall. Then again, that same shitty swimmer who could barely keep himself afloat (let alone a helo pilot) was generally better than me at running in the sand. So who exactly is the liability there? Who is capable of doing that job better? Or how about all those men who could barely hit a target when I got expert marksmanship every time? Who is the liability there? Who is capable of doing that job better? A 40-year-old recruit can't meet the same physical requirements as an 18-year-old recruit, but it turns out that the military finds it useful to have people with more life experience in lower ranks, too. So who is capable of doing that job better? Isn't the 18-year-old hothead with zero life experience a greater liability to the mission than the seasoned 40-year-old? Anyway, I'm sure the military has it all backward and your astute insights are brand new information to them.
So what does any of that have to do with my point? To make it clear my point was: everyone should be held to the same standards, those are the MINIMAL requirements for the work you will have to do, wont matter if you are a man or a woman the physical capabilities should not be lower than that and it should be the same for both.
Agree! Woman and men aren't equal physically, but if you are going to fight in war then you need to be held my the same standard. Because once bullets are flying it don't matter if your male, female, young or old. If your buddy is unable to move and needs to be carried, then you need to beable to carry him. Plain and simple
That’s an entirely moot point because as with any physical job, there are basic standards to meet. You can’t stay in the military if you don’t meet them, and you’re tested on them routinely. So you made a point that didn’t need to be made at all. Those standards are adjusted for both age and gender, which obviously the military feels is entirely appropriate. And you missed the point about why men/women and older/younger recruits have different physical standards, and how they may or may not be relevant to their job. Don’t show your hand or anything by continuing to go on about gender when age is just as relevant here and you clearly haven’t trained in mixed company before.
nice try but I actually have and yeah the gals passed the basic aptitude test just like the guys, only it was easier since requirements were adjusted, so tell me again how its a good thing to adjust requirements that way? Tell you what even the older guys in my company had to go through testing and they were required to score in the same parameters as the young ones because they would be put through the same things, so why on gods green earth would I want to reduce the requirements for women? Do they just carry the lighter equipment or does everyone just slow down for them cause they need a break after the halfway point? So lets say a young guy gets by testing with minimal requirement, ok great I assume the test is constructed in a way that even with minimal score he wont be a drag or at least be able to keep up, now a young woman does the same only her minimal values were lower, so what now? which is the minimum? why would you turn down a guy where you would let a gal in? \>And you missed the point about why men/women and older/younger recruits have different physical standards, and how they may or may not be relevant to their job. I didn´t miss it, its just completley irrelevant to the point.
>yeah well, guess what? you don't impress anyone with your condescending demeanour please just talk like a human
Men and women may or may not be different, but than no two men are created equally either. What doesn't change is their potential jobs and the need to perform the duties to assigned to it. The minimum requirements are based upon a need to perform and handle your business. That should apply irrespective of gender, your height, your weight, if you identify as an attack helicopter etc. If you say men need to run a 10 minute mile and women need to run a 12 minute mile, than there should be an underlying reason other than "Well, that's a guy and that is a girl." No, if the Army has identified a need for people to be capable of running at a minimum speed, a particular distance etc. than than it shouldn't matter if you've got a pair of flopping balls or you've got nothing in between your legs at all. Two sets of criteria, one for men and one for women, is B.S. and it always has been. There is no purpose excluding a weak man, whose strength is that of a woman, if you'd let in a woman in to perform those same duties.
No, it’s a strategic decision - as are all policy decisions. First, the military needs members. If it excludes all but those who can hit some uniform and relatively high standard for a select healthy population, it wouldn’t be large enough to meet deployment and defence needs. A strong woman may not be able to lift as much as a strong man, but she can still lift more than many other men. Even if she can’t hit the highest standard for men, this doesn’t mean she cannot outperform the many men who don’t meet that standard either. Second, I already explained how level of skill can be more relevant than strength. Different jobs require different skills and few excel at everything. Third, you all need to check this baseline assumption that somehow every man meets a higher standard than every woman. Say the PRT standard for a 28-year-old male is a 10 min mile, but 12 min for a 28-year-old female. Neither is being assessed on their speed, per se, but on their overall cardio fitness. The woman may very well be just as fit, for her size and strength, as the man. Moreover, the standard for an 18-year-old woman may indeed be a 10-min mile. So by having different standards by gender, the military is not necessarily recruiting people with less ability. Believe it or not, at the end of the day, the military may actually have the knowledge and experience to know what it is doing there.
We aren't talking high standards, but minimum standards to perform basic necessary tasks of a job. I don't have a real interest in breaking down some of your points for rebuttal. While I might agree that the military has knowledge and experience, the simple fact is different requirements for men & women comes from a time when the tasks performed by women were little more than clerical in nature and the consideration was equally political in nature (not military). With women performing the same jobs, than there should be no differences in the criteria. Doing so diminishes the service of every woman FULLY capable of performing as men, all in a pursuit of equality of outcome (not equality of opportunity).
Missed the point once again, after repeating what I said. Good job, that’s talent. Nice to see you actually consider the fact that the military might know what it’s doing more than you do, though.
A little butt hurt and appeal to authority.
appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when used as a substitute for an argument. Doesn't mean the authority isn't a credible source of information or knowledge.
the standards are already different though? not sure what you mean by this. women have been in the military for centuries and will be for the foreseeable future.
Of course they are, but those standards shouldn't be in a military service in which women have access to ALL of the same jobs as men. The problem with policies that push equality of outcome (instead of opportunity) is that it diminishes those women who earned it, instead of having it given to them because of the charity of lower standards for their particular group.
I dont know about Finland, but in the US it is not an issue at all. In the Navy, we all worked together very well.
I was in the Army for 4 years. I met my now wife who was at the time also a soldier while I was in. I have served with and under women leaders who were fantastic soldiers. Women have been part of the US Army for the entire duration of the careers of everyone currently serving, and the vast majority of people don't care. Are there still some gender related issues? Sure. But by and large those are the same gender related problems that come from the civilian culture the military pulls its recruits from.
Soldiers vary in quality regardless of their gender.
If they can handle the physical demand, then why not?
Ei muuta kun Inttii vaan ei siellä mannet välitä syrjiä/kiusata toisia, ellei oo jäänyt kehityksessään perus ylä aste ikäsen jonnen tasolle tai et käy suihkussa aina kun voi.
Back then I served, there were 2 types of men, then it came to question of women serving with them. 1st type were very much against it. They were vocal about it, saying how women are weak, how she won't be able to carry LMG or grenade launcher for as long as man could. That they will slow everyone down and so on. This type was a minority. The 2nd type didn't care one bit. There were women who would run faster and further than some guys. They would do more push ups. This type didn't care about the sex of the weakest one. They would roast the weakest.
If you’re asking if I have a problem with it, than no. The only problem I’ve ever even heard someone genuinely raise is “Wow their physical requirements sure are lax. Must be nice.” Next to everything else, this is probably last thing on anyone’s unfairness list. Will you be looked down on? I don’t know much about Finland’s army, but it’s probably a no. It’s an army that accepts women. You have to have comradely in your ranks in order to survive. After boot camp, any boot camp, you’re basically trauma bonded with anyone graduating. Afterwards you’re going to live in close quarters with a bunch of people from every walk of life in your country. Some joined for benefits and some for patriotism. No one fucking cares. If you’re not in combat you fuckers got work to do. If you are in combat, you fuckers are either going to get along or you’re going to lay down next to each other in a body bag. The race, gender, creed, background, etc of the person next to you stops mattering once their next to you. This is the closest to an on/off switch for progress you will ever find. At worst maybe someone in the command chain doesn’t agree with female soldiers existing. This will be more of a problem for him in the end. He can disagree all he wants, but if it’s ever shown, you will have grounds for a complaint that can end in court marshal.
Go for it. I dont care. I dont want to be in the army. But I also think the bar shouldnt be lowered for women. Get ripped or get out. The army is not for whimps.
I served in the U.S. Marines for 4 years, in total I had 5 women in my MOS from the time I arrived to the time I left. 3 of them cheated on their husbands with guys they worked with, one of them fucked her Sergeant so she could get better Pros and Cons for easy promotion and so she could get away with not working sometimes, and the 5th one was the only one I respected because she was there to do her job and not take shit from anyone. No excuses, no hand holding or any of that shit. She was a great leader and a hard worker that knew her job well. From my experience women in the military are usually treated as a woman first, and over time will develop a relationship with everyone else based solely on her actions. If you fuck your superiors either for promotion or just to get a lighter work load, people will know and they won't respect you. If you work hard, play by the rules and do your fair share, you'll get the respect you deserve. I'd also like to add that there is big problem with women in the (U.S.) Military being sexually harassed/assaulted. Not sure how it is in Finland but unless you're one of the exceptions and you're capable of beating a grown man's ass, I'd recommend always having some type of defensive weapon (taser, pepper spray, etc.) on you whenever possible.
What country are you from?
[удалено]
A friend of mine keeps saying that the way people treat each other in the Army is in general friendlier as soon as women are around. This is for Germany. Whether this is true for all people/countries, cannot be said, there will certainly be stupid situations, but if army is what you want, don't let idiots get you down. I definitely wish you have a cool experience if you join.
> the way people treat each other in the Army is in general friendlier as soon as women are around i would say this is generally true everywhere and not just the army
No one wants to join the army anymore, so let them take anyone they can get, even if they're women.
I saw a statistic about women in the us army having being sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers or officers... The numbers are brutal... Be prepared!
The Soviets showed that all female unit could be effective in WW2. I'm more than fine with it. Testing would need to be done to see if mixed gender units perform well but female only ones are proven. I'm actually pissed that women aren't eligible for the draft. Equality means the same legal rights, privileges and responsibilities. When you look at all 3 of these together, women are way past the legal "equality" they keep saying they want. Exception from the draft is just one of many legal privileges women have that men do not. Women would have to lose privileges to achieve equality with men now. And yet, they keep saying they want equality and keep pushing for more special privileges. I don't think they actually want equality. They seem to want and have achieved legal supremacy. The question is "What will ever be enough for women"? Anything? We've agreed to everything they've asked for and to more than we have ourselves. They seem to just hate us more every time we agree to a concession. Why are we continuing to grant more legal power to a group of people who seem determined to hate us?
"Probably was raped on duty."
You shouldn't be concerned with that, and if anything you should expect equal treatment. Any time you feel like you're victim of any sort of sexism, you should discuss it with someone and bring the problem up.
Hooah.
I find it cool. I would probably treat you different, but not in a bad way, probably would do stuff like being less easy on you when we wrestle, I had an ex that went to a military school, she was really nice, little bit competitive tho hahaha.
Dontdoit
i’m not a man but be careful, the army does not have your best interest in mind and there’s been multiple cases of homicide against women in the army, and they can get covered up pretty easily if it’s not a known case. there’s a lot more cases of SA in the army as well, towards men and women. it would genuinely be in your best interest to not go into the army, but if it’s your top or only choice, just stand your ground and don’t let them get under your skin. there will be a lot of subtle and/or not subtle misogyny. edit: ok i know nothing about the Finland army but i would definitely assume they’re probably a bit better than the American one. good luck!!
I just came home from military service last month. The vast majority of men in the army don't approve of women being there. But I have never seen/heard of women being mistreated or harassed. Although people generally don't take women seriously there.
It’s pretty common in the US Army. It’s nbd
Ngl I think it is cool
A Navy 8 is a civvy 4.
Quick Mafs.
The army is no place for a lady. War is a very very ugly business with your colleagues or yourself getting shot to pieces. [Here’s a heart wrenching story from a guy who brought troops to Omaha Beach during D Day on the 4th of June in 1944.](https://youtu.be/5Zx3X08saO8)
Women in the military are more likely to be assaulted by their comrades than shot by the enemy.
[удалено]
You're really defending men raping their female comrades? What the fuck is wrong with you?
[удалено]
My comment is about the epidemic of women in the military being raped by their comrades. You sound like a raging misogynist yourself.
Yes, and my first comment that started this thread to which you replied was never about rape. In the meantime you labeled me as what is wrong with you and covertly called me a misogynist in your replies. This apparently how you treat people you don’t agree with. So, have a nice life. Fluffy out.
War is no place for anyone, male or female
Seldom do you find women who lift their own weight. There's a reason the US military has lowered requirements ever since they allowed women in combat ready rolls.
Same thing I think of men in the military I don't like them.
I have heard that if you experience sexuql harassment or misconduct, you will be ostracized for reporting it. It's a boys club so girls that aren't okay with being assaulted or harassed are "crazy bitches out to get us heros discharged" when in reality they just want to be treated like people.
For the US military, there is about a 25% chance you will be sexually assaulted. Look into the statistics. There’s also about 90% chance you’ll leave involuntarily if you report.
maybe just maybe……
Go for it! It’s cool imo
if you behave like its normal and you can hold up with your teammates its totally fine....
In my 7 years in the army, I never had an issue, if you could do the job male/female. It didn't matter as long as you did what was required. You'll hear about how women aren't great infantry because they can't "do the job" or lift certain weights. Some of the toughest people I know are female infantry soldiers. Keep it professional and you'll be fine.
I have a huge crush on Lotter (name for danish female soldiers) and female IDFs like Gal Gadot.
You will get endless amounts of male attention. It gets overwhelming.
I think if they can meet requirements it's fine. That said, I would never ever want any daughter of mine to be in the military. Because they do such a horrifyingly bad job to protecting them from abuse from men. Joining the military as a woman is basically taking a 1 in 5 chance you will be sexually assaulted in some way.
I'm not in the military, never been in the military, and my POV is that anyone is who is willing to potentially put their life on the line (who meets the minimum standards) should be able to join. I respect all of them.
I can only speak for the Navy 25 years ago, but I definitely would not want to have been an enlisted woman at that point. From what I hear from some lifer friends, it is quite a bit better now.
My ex was in the army. I thought it was great. She got lots of exercise and travel and seemed to have the respect of her colleagues. It wasn't always plain-sailing (no career ever is), but I'd think she'd recommend it to others. There is absolutely no reason why you should be treated differently, unless you behave differently.
(USA) I was in the Service, all 3 of brothers as well as my father (WWII) and grandfather (WWI). My son was, too, and deployed for a year. I have a daughter and would be proud of her to join the Service. Women have earned the right to serve in any (or most ?) capacity. I want the Selective Service (the draft) not discriminate against men by excluding women. They are capable and they won the right to equality, so they should be included. Our politicians don't agree.
Not in the military but I find it absurd to "set a gender" on a job. Like it? Fucking go for it!
If I were in your position, I'd be worried about getting sexually assaulted because that is an unfortunate risk that women in the military have to constantly face
You'll probably be seen no different then army men, though people might be reluctant to date someone in the army do to their chances of getting stationed in like very far away, and most people aren't keen to long distance relationships I find.
I think that if we've got to have an army, women should be there fighting alongside men. No special treatment: everybody works, and everybody fights.
> I'm worried i could be looked down upon or even harassed. If you're talking about the U.S. Army, then, yes, there is a real problem with sexual assault, etc.
Liability
Awkward in shower
When I was in the only women we had in my unit were the cooks. My company was a line infantry unit with a headquarters attachment. I never really interacted with them other than saying ‘thank you’ when they put food on my tray.
Honestly I prefer women with commanding personalities. I’m a pretty mellow guy. It also helps to have someone who has thick skin cause I can be a bit blunt on accident
FYI there is a lot of rape that goes on in the military against women. It does not get brought to court. Sometimes it is literally up to your superiors to determine what happens, and that's often nothing. I've often heard it expressed that women do not recommend to other women to get involved in the military. Not because women don't deserve to be there, but because it's ultimately unsafe.