CaptainZaysh wrote...
Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...
I would like to see that study if you can dig it up somhow.
Got the summary. You can probably find the detailed report online as well (I haven't read it myself):
http://www.mod.uk/NR..._af_summary.pdf
Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...
I assume that "Close Combat Roles" they are talking about is already dipping into SpecOps resposibility as I fairly doubt that only 1% of females in the regular army trying to get into that position pass the physical requirements, otherwise if the difference in physical aptitude is that big, either those that teached me biology and by that extent some basic anatomy were horribly wrong in their lectures, or that British study had ridicously high standards and would then like to know how many males do pass the tests!
No, they define a close combat role as any one where the soldier is "required deliberately to close with and kill the enemy face-to-face". They're talking about the regular infantry.
Here's the bit about the physical disparity:
"Differences between women and men in their capacity to develop muscle strength and aerobic fitness are such that only approximately 1% of women can equal the performance of the average man. In lifting, carrying and similar tasks performed routinely by the British Army, this means that, on average, women have a lower work capacity than men and, when exposed to the same physical workload as men, have to work 50-80% harder to achieve the same results. This puts them at greater risk of injury. In load marching, another fundamental military task, and in all other simulated combat tasks, women were found to perform worse than men, and the greater the load, the greater the discrepancy. The study concluded that about 0.1% of female applicants and 1 % of trained female soldiers would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these roles."
In the British Army the tasks will basically have been fast hill running carrying 35lb backpacks for distances of 3-20 miles. I've done this and thinking about it, I think the weight requirement would be the bit that's hardest for a woman to overcome. It might be that in a sci-fi military there's no longer a need for infantry soldiers to patrol long distances or carry much weight into battle, so this could well be an antiquated entry standard by Shepard's time.
Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...
As for the aggressiveness, females as a whole are less aggressive in nature indeed, however they are on the other hand more emotionally stable than males in general. So the same time some aggression can make you live through some battles, the lack of control of such aggressiveness can just as easily let you rush into death on another day. But again, straddlers do exist in both camps and I encountered quite a few women that could put any man to shame regarding aggressiveness.
Yeah, you have to look at individuals of course (I'd rather Kara Thrace was flying on my wing than Lee Adama). But in general high levels of aggression are what win fights in close combat. All else being equal, the side more willing to get stuck in with bayonets is going to be the side left standing.
Thanks for the link, I read it and from what I saw, that data is ... slippery at best.
First and foremost, they compared the capacity to
develope muscle and fitness, not the actual strenght of individual members that partake in said forces or plan to and are taking the tests.
Naturally, males have more such capacity, but in no part did they say those capacities have to be realized to the fullest of capability. Fit women might need harder to achieve and retain said fitness, that however does not negate the fact they might have the requirements. So their findings (at least that is how it reads) are of hypothetical nature, not won of hard-empiric evidence like I would have thought.
That also makes the "only 1% of trained females" passus quite laughable, as I have seen that this restriction on active duty encompasses about every armed force that directly engages enemies as far as I can tell, so even the trained females aren't trained in an appropriate amount and way that would result in conclusive data. That's like taking a normal police-officer and comparing him to units such as SWAT, GSG9 or other elite special police forces.
And what I found most missing was a comparision between female attendants or tested ones vs male attendants. From what I read, it is not clear whether they compared their findings to a real "average" man or to the avaregae of man that already is serving in such forces, skewing off the entire presentation.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
