(SPOILER) Nimue and the Royal Guard

Using 4 women to get 300 pounds of war supplies around at the front is slightly less productive than using 3 men, true. But it's a hell of a lot more productive than feeding/maintaining those 4 women in essentially nonproductive positions elsewhere. I suspect the caloric requirements would scale a bit, so you are not actually losing all that much in the entire bargain as the 4 women would eat in the range of what the 3 men would.

The question for Charis is do they want to compete against a coalition many times their size with half their population or with all of it while recognizing that half, on average, is less "productive" muscle-wise.

In the Cdn infantry, at least, females get packs which place the weight more appropriately to the female form. That makes a difference as well.

DrakBibliophile wrote:I'm talking about physical standards required for a job not behavioral standards.

If a man has to lift 100 pounds to qualify for a job, then a woman shouldn't have to lift 75 pounds to qualify for the same job.

As for your claim about behavioral standards, what's the color of the sky on your planet?

...

DrakBibliophile wrote:If a woman can meet the same standards that a man has to meet, I have no problem with her doing the job.

The problem is that sometimes "standards" are lowered for women but not for men.

I've found that in most cases it's actually the opposite, ie. the "boys will be boys" mentality vs. "she did WHAT?!".

While I was on active duty the women had one standard and the men another. When we road marched with gear and weapon the woman were at a disadvantage. ie 110lb women force to carry 50lb of gear and personal weapon for 10 to 12 miles. Add 23lb of crew serve M60, or the tripod, or extra barrel for at least a mile for each and no the women don't make it, hell some of the men don't either.

Rules that allow 12+ minutes per mile on the two mile PT run for women and then the company runs at a nine mile pace for 4 mile. It leave most woman in the dirt. When the women in my platoon failed I heard was how bad and out of shape they were, and a call for special PT for them. I wasted time and effort telling my Company and Battalion Commanders they they couldn't do it because the women had pass their PT test. So every division run by the half way point 90% of the women were long gone.

The US Army has multiple PT standards and has had them for years,(sex with female being the easiest, and age with older being easiest) the only way they can have one uniform standard this weaken the PT standards even more.

For combat related schools the standard for everyone (regardless of sex or age) is the toughest PT test ie 18 year old male test. If the applicant can not pass that test he don't go to the school. Range, SF, etc

Ft Bragg Air Borne run standard was 4 miles in a minimum of 36 minutes. In my mid thirties I could do 2 miles in 14 flat, 60+ sit up in 2 minutes, 60+ push up in two minutes and that didn't max my PT test. One Air Assault test I took was 12 miles, 45lb pack (weighed on there scale both pre and post march), weapon, full LBE, in 3 hours.

I will agree that a few women can met these standards and by pushing themselves maintain them. I how ever don't think the health problems they can have justifies them doing it. Skeleton problems due to over load, equipment poorly design for women, and drills design for male bodies. Lets face facts women bodies, center of gravity, hips, and shoulders, are different from males. Pack strap for men place loads improperly on women breast and back, throws for women must be underhand, and strength to weight difference. Women may have an advantage in some tasks. Reproductive-menstrual problems due to the decrease fat ratios and increases in testosterone from exercise. It is a known fact that a lot of women quit menstruating during basic training due to increase stress and PT.

Finally you have the problems the difference in sex. Even if you disregarded toilet and monthly problems. You still have over protection of women by males, love and hate issues, harassment both ways, and rape both friendly and enemy. Lastly she pregnant so now your squad is permanently down that member that it now has to replace and the government has lost $$$ train her and now has to train some one else.

Don't disagree with a thing you say. That said, there is also the answer to this simple question: Would Russia have stopped Hitler if the women had all been left home in the kitchen or down on the farm?

I submit probably not and certainly not as quickly.

Lowered "muscular productivity" is not zero productivity. I'm sure Zhukov had to take gender differences into account, but that doesn't mean he did not use, and use up, females. Many were used in logistics in particular, though in that case they were not directly in the military--as if that makes a difference to the KGB commissars! There was a large sniper corps as well--a specialty more suited to the female frame and perhaps frame of mind as well.

It seems true that most worked in rear areas to release men for work closer to the lines, but that is hardly a bad thing when you are fighting a coalition that outnumbers you hugely as the Charisans are doing.

Charis is not in the position of the US regular or special forces. It is not in a position to be ultra-selective. They need all the power they can get.

Finally, I'm sure that Audie Murphy would have failed these modern tests too.

added: wiki says there were half a million women serving in the official Russian forces at any one time. Scaling back their productivity 33%, that still allowed the Russians to field 2 complete additional WW2-size armies of men or even a small army group at the front. That was not an insignificant consideration for the Russians.

Chief-CWH wrote:While I was on active duty the women had one standard and the men another. When we road marched with gear and weapon the woman were at a disadvantage. ie 110lb women force to carry 50lb of gear and personal weapon for 10 to 12 miles. Add 23lb of crew serve M60, or the tripod, or extra barrel for at least a mile for each and no the women don't make it, hell some of the men don't either.

Rules that allow 12+ minutes per mile on the two mile PT run for women and then the company runs at a nine mile pace for 4 mile. It leave most woman in the dirt. When the women in my platoon failed I heard was how bad and out of shape they were, and a call for special PT for them. I wasted time and effort telling my Company and Battalion Commanders they they couldn't do it because the women had pass their PT test. So every division run by the half way point 90% of the women were long gone.

The US Army has multiple PT standards and has had them for years,(sex with female being the easiest, and age with older being easiest) the only way they can have one uniform standard this weaken the PT standards even more.

For combat related schools the standard for everyone (regardless of sex or age) is the toughest PT test ie 18 year old male test. If the applicant can not pass that test he don't go to the school. Range, SF, etc

Ft Bragg Air Borne run standard was 4 miles in a minimum of 36 minutes. In my mid thirties I could do 2 miles in 14 flat, 60+ sit up in 2 minutes, 60+ push up in two minutes and that didn't max my PT test. One Air Assault test I took was 12 miles, 45lb pack (weighed on there scale both pre and post march), weapon, full LBE, in 3 hours.

I will agree that a few women can met these standards and by pushing themselves maintain them. I how ever don't think the health problems they can have justifies them doing it. Skeleton problems due to over load, equipment poorly design for women, and drills design for male bodies. Lets face facts women bodies, center of gravity, hips, and shoulders, are different from males. Pack strap for men place loads improperly on women breast and back, throws for women must be underhand, and strength to weight difference. Women may have an advantage in some tasks. Reproductive-menstrual problems due to the decrease fat ratios and increases in testosterone from exercise. It is a known fact that a lot of women quit menstruating during basic training due to increase stress and PT.

Finally you have the problems the difference in sex. Even if you disregarded toilet and monthly problems. You still have over protection of women by males, love and hate issues, harassment both ways, and rape both friendly and enemy. Lastly she pregnant so now your squad is permanently down that member that it now has to replace and the government has lost $$$ train her and now has to train some one else.

=2014/02/20=

One of the big reasons I am so proud of my younger daughter is that she is a "Professional Engineer" where here (in Canada as well as in other places, I am sure) the "glass ceiling" exists for females.

In SPITE of this "glass ceiling" she still succeeded in getting her accreditation.

So - - - yeah - - - I am very much aware of how sexist is our industry.

R
.

MWadwell wrote:Does anyone know of how gender-biased (i.e. sexist) normal industry is?

I would have thought that it would be easier for women to penetrate normal industry (i.e. "Rosie the Riveter") before looking at women in the military.

PeterZ wrote:Women in combat might be a while, but women serving in non-combat positions will be pretty soon. I would suspect that there will be women machinists and engineering officers pretty soon. I doubt that women will serve onboard ships for some time yet. Women officers will serve on naval bases.

I disagree.

We only just have women reaching positions of authority in industry - and typically, the military lags industry by a number of years.

Consider this - in the US, women entered the workforce in large numbers during WW2, but they weren't allowed into the regular military until much later. (Of course, this is ignoring the irregular military units, such as the WASP's, WAAF's, WRNS, etc.)


So while I would expect more and more women to enter the workforce, I expect that it would be quite a bit longer before they enter the military.....

MWadwell wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Women in combat might be a while, but women serving in non-combat positions will be pretty soon. I would suspect that there will be women machinists and engineering officers pretty soon. I doubt that women will serve onboard ships for some time yet. Women officers will serve on naval bases.

I disagree.

We only just have women reaching positions of authority in industry - and typically, the military lags industry by a number of years.

Consider this - in the US, women entered the workforce in large numbers during WW2, but they weren't allowed into the regular military until much later. (Of course, this is ignoring the irregular military units, such as the WASP's, WAAF's, WRNS, etc.)


So while I would expect more and more women to enter the workforce, I expect that it would be quite a bit longer before they enter the military.....

Here is the one difference between Safehold as we read about it and the world we live in. Safehold is in a massive paradigm shift. The CoGA is being replaced on the out islands by a more regional church and more potent secular authorities. It might not appear so, but Sharley and Cayleb are trying to govern through the existing laws of their subject kingdoms. That means the the laws of the subject kingdoms have been given more credence than the coGA had given them pror to the jihad. Combined with the greater autonomy Maikel has given the local prelates to manage their archdiocese and the Empire of Charis is going through a huge , HUGE, MASSIVE even, change.

Since all that change is happening anyway, why not define standards that MUST be upheld now. That standard doesn't strictly define how differences must be treated. Instead it defines what standards must be met and ignores what is irrelevent. Perhaps not ignores so much as give some means of prioritizing values. In the military then set the physical standards soldiers must meet and ignore what doesn't detract from achieving those standards. In industry the same thing applies.

Change is at Safehold's door. If the guidelines of evaluating those changes are presented now, the manner the changes will manifest might be channeled better than was the case on Terra. Change will happen whether it is channeled or not.

kbus888 wrote:One of the big reasons I am so proud of my younger daughter is that she is a "Professional Engineer" where here (in Canada as well as in other places, I am sure) the "glass ceiling" exists for females.

For what its worth Kbus888 I work as an Engineer in an Aerospace company in the USA. Of the three levels of management above me, 2 of those 3 are women. My boss's boss is a woman, and HER boss, the VP of Engineering, is also female.

I honestly don't think its a matter of a glass ceiling as it is so many females choose not to be engineers. When I was in college at Georgia Tech, (2004-2009 so not that long ago) I had one engineering class with 200 people in it. 5 of them were female. 5.

Yea try getting a date in a class like that.

Its not that girls tried and dropped out at a higher rate then the guys, I wouldn't be shocked if the inverse was true. The problem was even as a freshman the ratio was at best 70/30 and most of the girls were in Biology or Biomed, not Engineering.

If you want a really scary group of woman try the Russian Air Force pilot known as the Night Witches

PeterZ wrote:

MWadwell wrote:"PeterZ" wrote: Women in combat might be a while, but women serving in non-combat positions will be pretty soon. I would suspect that there will be women machinists and engineering officers pretty soon. I doubt that women will serve onboard ships for some time yet. Women officers will serve on naval bases.

I disagree.

We only just have women reaching positions of authority in industry - and typically, the military lags industry by a number of years.

Consider this - in the US, women entered the workforce in large numbers during WW2, but they weren't allowed into the regular military until much later. (Of course, this is ignoring the irregular military units, such as the WASP's, WAAF's, WRNS, etc.)


So while I would expect more and more women to enter the workforce, I expect that it would be quite a bit longer before they enter the military.....

Here is the one difference between Safehold as we read about it and the world we live in. Safehold is in a massive paradigm shift. The CoGA is being replaced on the out islands by a more regional church and more potent secular authorities. It might not appear so, but Sharley and Cayleb are trying to govern through the existing laws of their subject kingdoms. That means the the laws of the subject kingdoms have been given more credence than the coGA had given them pror to the jihad. Combined with the greater autonomy Maikel has given the local prelates to manage their archdiocese and the Empire of Charis is going through a huge , HUGE, MASSIVE even, change.

Since all that change is happening anyway, why not define standards that MUST be upheld now. That standard doesn't strictly define how differences must be treated. Instead it defines what standards must be met and ignores what is irrelevent. Perhaps not ignores so much as give some means of prioritizing values. In the military then set the physical standards soldiers must meet and ignore what doesn't detract from achieving those standards. In industry the same thing applies.

Change is at Safehold's door. If the guidelines of evaluating those changes are presented now, the manner the changes will manifest might be channeled better than was the case on Terra. Change will happen whether it is channeled or not.

I agree that Sharley and Cayleb are pushing for equality - but there is a limit on how hard they can push.

You are right that this is a time of change. However, change is never comfortable, and there are going to be significant sections of the population that are already uncomfortable with the changes already underway.

To then throw even more changes on top of that, is likely to increase the risk that more people will side with the Loyalists - which is hardly beneficial when you are fighting for your survival.....


If I was Sharley and Cayleb, I would push as hard as I dared, but recognise that full equality is unlikely.....

Direwolf18 wrote:

kbus888 wrote:One of the big reasons I am so proud of my younger daughter is that she is a "Professional Engineer" where here (in Canada as well as in other places, I am sure) the "glass ceiling" exists for females.

For what its worth Kbus888 I work as an Engineer in an Aerospace company in the USA. Of the three levels of management above me, 2 of those 3 are women. My boss's boss is a woman, and HER boss, the VP of Engineering, is also female.

I honestly don't think its a matter of a glass ceiling as it is so many females choose not to be engineers. When I was in college at Georgia Tech, (2004-2009 so not that long ago) I had one engineering class with 200 people in it. 5 of them were female. 5.

Yea try getting a date in a class like that.

Its not that girls tried and dropped out at a higher rate then the guys, I wouldn't be shocked if the inverse was true. The problem was even as a freshman the ratio was at best 70/30 and most of the girls were in Biology or Biomed, not Engineering.

G'Day Direwolf18,

In my workplace, the Managing Director is male, so is his immediate subordinate (the Reactor Manager).

Of the next level down, they are (again) all male, and of the next level down, there is only a single female.

In fact, in the entire division, of approximately 100 staff, there is less then 10 females, and they are almost all in the documentation section (where a cynic would say that they are glorified secretaries).....

And this is in a government organisation, that heavily pushes equality.


Sexism is still present, it is just phrased in different terms.....

I.e. to be a Utilisation or Reactor Operator, you need a Trade qualification (i.e. fitter, plumber, sheet metal worker) - as they are "good with their hands". They are also male dominated trades. Why not cooks, artists, etc - who also use their hands (and are female dominated).....