It's time for Women on the front-line of combat

[james&olya 1,121]

That Dannologic called your bluff and you never responded.

Need a another shot?

Q: what percentage of women (would you guess) can do a single pull up?

How is that number relevant?

[^_^ 5,021]

How is that number relevant?

ha, danno wins again.

[mawilson 2,133]

I am always weirded out by that spelling of the word. There is something sinister about the a and the e together like that. Only thing more evil is gynæcology.

Or vaginæcology.

[james&olya 1,121]

ha, danno wins again.

Dannologic seems to be a contagious disease!

[Danno 1,228]

How is that number relevant?

Oh I dunno, he says all the women he knows at the gym can do hundreds... I'm just following up on his point.

I think we should use the "obama guide" in these matters.

He said all people who are willing to serve... should be allowed.

..Who can argue with that type of policy?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Danno

[The_Dude 1,142]

That Dannologic called your bluff and you never responded.

Need a another shot?

Q: what percentage of women (would you guess) can do a single pull up?

I don't really know. How would you quantify something like that? If I went purely on my experience, I would say a lot. The only time I see women attempting pull ups is either at work, or at the gym. I would assume that anyone with a BMI of 30+ would not be able to do a pull up, period. According to the CDC, 32.2% of women in the U.S. are obese, while 35.5% of men are (source). I think right off the bat, we can discount these people from being able to do a pull up. I won't assume that everyone else should be able to, that's just unrealistic. So, I guess my estimation would be 40-50%.

Edit: After reading several research papers, I found one research that seemed close to this topic. In this study, 20 college women were put through a training regiment. At the beginning of the study (no training done at this point), 2 out of 19 (10.5%) women were able to do a pullup. I suppose one dropped out. After training for 12 weeks, 6 out of the 19 (31.6%) women could do at least one, with the original 2 who were able to at the beginning raising their total from 1 and 2 respectively to 11 each. The study does state the anatomical reasons why women have less upper body strength than men. Actually quite informative.

So from my reading I guess 1/3 would be a fair estimate. I do take some solace that women can do it if they try. But that doesn't change the fact that I am wrong, and Danno, you are right. I don't know how much weight you can put into a study that has a sample size of 19 though. My own personal opinion is skewed by the fact that a vast majority of women that I know can do pull ups, many of them.

Further Edit: Here is the study that I found Source

Edited January 21, 2011 by Rob & Mel

[^_^ 5,021]

I am wrong, and Danno, you are right.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I found it odd that I found a couple of studies on it relatively easily, but was unable to find any study on the same topic regarding men, only internet polls.

[james&olya 1,121]

[Danno 1,228]

I don't really know. How would you quantify something like that? If I went purely on my experience, I would say a lot. The only time I see women attempting pull ups is either at work, or at the gym. I would assume that anyone with a BMI of 30+ would not be able to do a pull up, period. According to the CDC, 32.2% of women in the U.S. are obese, while 35.5% of men are (source). I think right off the bat, we can discount these people from being able to do a pull up. I won't assume that everyone else should be able to, that's just unrealistic. So, I guess my estimation would be 40-50%.

Edit: After reading several research papers, I found one research that seemed close to this topic. In this study, 20 college women were put through a training regiment. At the beginning of the study (no training done at this point), 2 out of 19 (10.5%) women were able to do a pullup. I suppose one dropped out. After training for 12 weeks, 6 out of the 19 (31.6%) women could do at least one, with the original 2 who were able to at the beginning raising their total from 1 and 2 respectively to 11 each. The study does state the anatomical reasons why women have less upper body strength than men. Actually quite informative.

So from my reading I guess 1/3 would be a fair estimate. I do take some solace that women can do it if they try. But that doesn't change the fact that I am wrong, and Danno, you are right. I don't know how much weight you can put into a study that has a sample size of 19 though. My own personal opinion is skewed by the fact that a vast majority of women that I know can do pull ups, many of them.

Further Edit: Here is the study that I found Source

Well, I certainly had nothing more than a guess to go on myself but I know there are a sizable number of males between the age of say 18- 30 who could not do even one Pull up so I doubted very many females could do to the lack of upper body strength.

IN the study you cited, after 3 months of training only 6 out of 19 could manage one (or more) pull ups. That says alot I think.

IN the Marines, a perfect score is -20 pull ups (which of course danno aced).

Women can certainly learn and do tactics quite well in but very few females could handle the Pack-mule aspect which is a basic part of infantry training.

It's not like trying out for the basketball team one afternoon, and if you don't make it... oh well.

People are assigned to certain MOS's in the military based upon the likelihood they will complete the costly training, The high failure rate females would experience would be a very expensive exercise ... for the sake of being "fair".

It is similar to pushing students into course study they are not prepared for.

You'll get a few that pass but even those few are often getting pity points along the way.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Well, I certainly had nothing more than a guess to go on myself but I know there are a sizable number of males between the age of say 18- 30 who could not do even one Pull up so I doubted very many females could do to the lack of upper body strength.

IN the study you cited, after 3 months of training only 6 out of 19 could manage one (or more) pull ups. That says alot I think.

IN the Marines, a perfect score is -20 pull ups (which of course danno aced).

Women can certainly learn and do tactics quite well in but very few females could handle the Pack-mule aspect which is a basic part of infantry training.

It's not like trying out for the basketball team one afternoon, and if you don't make it... oh well.

People are assigned to certain MOS's in the military based upon the likelihood they will complete the costly training, The high failure rate females would experience would be a very expensive exercise ... for the sake of being "fair".

It is similar to pushing students into course study they are not prepared for.

You'll get a few that pass but even those few are often getting pity points along the way.

Anyone who is able to complete the rigorous training and testing involved in combat units should be allowed to serve, regardless of age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. I read in other studies that the military hasn't used pull ups as a metric since the early 70's because it is not an accurate method to gauge performance. I understand that the cost of training is quite high, and a high failure rate is a waste of money. However, if you preclude an entire group of people, based on a characteristic they have no control over, then that is misogynist. It appears our definitions of misogyny differ, and herein might lie the basis of our disagreement.

My definition:

mi·sog·y·ny

   /mɪˈsɒdʒəni, maɪ-/ Show Spelled[mi-soj-uh-nee, mahy-]

–noun

hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

Your Definition

See this is your problem, you pick this lingo up and you never really examine what it even means.

misogyny |məˈsäjənē|

noun

the hatred of women by men : she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny.

Feel free to post an example of my hater for women?

What I found most telling from the study was that given the opportunity and training, women can do it.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

The study does state the anatomical reasons why women have less upper body strength than men.

also less lung capacity - which is reflected in the differences in time on the run part of the pt test.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Is that because she is your sister, or do you feel that way about all women serving? I ask because I have a cousin in the military, and I think I would feel the same way about her, but I also feel that they should be given the opportunity.

i was thinking on a personal level because i was thinking about my sister in that sitsuation. i feel the negative risks involved far outweigh her or any woman's right for the opportunity. outside of the stated reason, i see no reason why women should not be allowed to serve on the front line.

Is it any more acceptable for a man to be treated inhumanely by a captor than a woman?

Are women inherently the inferior of men and thus needing special consideration even when serving in the military?

men are far less at risk of being repeatedly gang raped by their captors. yes, i do feel that special consideration is in order here.

[james&olya 1,121]

i was thinking on a personal level because i was thinking about my sister in that sitsuation. i feel the negative risks involved far outweigh her or any woman's right for the opportunity. outside of the stated reason, i see no reason why women should not be allowed to serve on the front line.

men are far less at risk of being repeatedly gang raped by their captors. yes, i do feel that special consideration is in order here.

Yes, there is that consideration. In the past, before gwb and his disgusting cronies allowed torture, american POW's usually were treated a bit better than other nationalities. That may not be the case in the future. I think anyone who signs up for the military must realize that job carries the risk of death as well as capture and even torture. I think it an equal tragedy when that occurs regardless the gender. That the gender might entail additional risk is worth considering. It might be that for certain adversaries, women might be treated better. It may also be that certain ethnic groups might be singled out for favorable or unfavorable treatment by some enemies. Does that mean they should be deprived of the right to serve in a capacity they are qualified for?

[SMOKE 1,426]

Yes, there is that consideration. In the past, before gwb and his disgusting cronies allowed torture, american POW's usually were treated a bit better than other nationalities. That may not be the case in the future. I think anyone who signs up for the military must realize that job carries the risk of death as well as capture and even torture. I think it an equal tragedy when that occurs regardless the gender. That the gender might entail additional risk is worth considering. It might be that for certain adversaries, women might be treated better. It may also be that certain ethnic groups might be singled out for favorable or unfavorable treatment by some enemies. Does that mean they should be deprived of the right to serve in a capacity they are qualified for?

ok thanks for confirming my suspicions. our ememies had warm fuzzy feelings towards the US & our military before gwb. you do know how woman are treated in certain parts of the world 'even before bush was president' aren't you?. imo- the additional risks involved are an immediate disqualifier. they gave up their right to decide what is & isn't an appropriate level of risk the day they enlisted.

now back to blaming bush for everything.