vara bungas: NBS koķetē ar ideju palielināt sieviešu skatu BS līdz 25% no personālsastāva ” kā Kanādā”. Mani šāda armijas feminizācija šokē (maigi izsakoties), jo normāla viriešu-sieviešu proporcija regulārajā karaspēkā ar ap 1:10. Ja NBS būtu augsto tehnoloģiju piesātinātie spēku veidi kā JS, GS, REC, raķešu karaspēks vtml, tad proporcija varētu veidoties citāda, bet mūsu NBS ir izteiktsi sauszemes karaspēks vieglo kājnieku veidā, kas prasa no karavīriem VIDUSMĒRĀ augstu fizisko izturību un muskuļu spēku. Var atrast ekstrēmos gadījumus ar ļoti spēcīgām kara dāmām un izteikti vājiem kara vīriem, tomēr kopējam fiziskās varēšanas rādītājam jābūt tādam, kas vairāk atbilst vīriešu nevis sieviešu spējām. Principā vieglajiem kājniekiem, kas visu “iedzīvi” stiepj uz muguras nedrīkst būt divi atšķirīgi fizisko spēju normatīvi. Var teikt, ka dāmas var ieņemt administratīvos u.c. amatus ārpus kaujas vienībām, bet tad man ir jautājums vai mēs varam atļauties armiju, kas zaudē 15-25% personāla jau pirmajā kara minūtē? Te būs ko citi par to domā…
[..] The human species is sexually dimorphic. Men have considerably more strength than females. While it is possible for women to raise to a level of physical fitness required for combat arms duty, it typically takes women longer to get into this physical condition (meaning increased training costs). Along the way, women are far more likely to have training injuries and be unable to sustain this level of fitness for prolonged periods of time (higher level of attrition and medical costs). There is a reason why female athletes don’t compete against men in Olympic sports. This isn’t a “sexist assumption”, it is biological reality demonstrated through science.
The problem with this situation is that it is tied up with so much emotion and politics. If we were selecting between two rifles to field to the infantry, we would certainly want to pick the one with the longest service life, most accuracy, and most reliability. We wouldn’t want to mix in less affective rifles for the sake of equality. And here lies to rub. If this was only the use of equipment that would fail faster, it would only be a fiscal waste. But in this situation, we are talking about the lives of Marines and Soldiers. Do we really want to set up some of our best citizens for the possibility of permanent disability without informing them of the risk? While I am not opposed to allowing the women that are physical capable to serve in the Infantry to do so, they should be informed of their greater risk for permanent disability than their male peers. I do not wish to have any military recruiter lie to my daughter about the physical training risks of serving in the combat arms nor would I ever endorse the recruitment of women into the infantry without this disclosure. [..]
UPD1 US ir izpratuši problēmu un labojuši PF testu
[..] However, the introduction of the adjustable age and gender scoring system and lack of combat-focused events hindered the APFT from being an effective measuring tool for combat readiness. Instead, the APFT provides data on general fitness, scaled by age and gender, not the combat readiness of the whole organization to deploy and fight in an age- and gender-neutral environment. [..]The introduction of women into combat arms further emphasizes the need for a single-standard test. Thirty-five women have met the gender-neutral standards to achieve the coveted Ranger tab, and six have passed the Ranger Physical Assessment Test to serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment. [..] The outdated APFT standards have created a culture where women and older soldiers are required to do considerably less even when they have the ability to meet other age- and gender-neutral standards.[..] The ACFT transitions the Army back to a combat-focused test through standardized minimum requirements on a single scale. [..] Ensuring the entire formation meets the same standard, regardless of age and gender, is essential to preparing the force to shoulder the physical requirements necessary to fight and win on the modern battlefield.[..]