Commenters decrying this development (which they ignorantly choose to believe is totally new, but let's ignore that) claim that soldiers need to carry 45 pounds on their back all day, every day. Or maybe it's 60 pounds. Or 75, or 100, or 200, or the weight of all their fallen comrades at once. No evidence is ever given for these assertions, a fact which even without the mysteriously changing numbers should be your clue that people aren't acting in an honest and upfront manner.
I could just google for the number, but I'd probably get more made up information, and for all I know none of it is true at all and soldiers never have to carry anything because the government secretly has invented hovercraft while we weren't looking.
So I'm going with option b, which is to ask if anybody has any idea which of those numbers approaches accuracy. I cannot believe it is all of them.
On a side note, for those seriously lowballing the weight required, I would like to introduce them to some more hardcore baby wearers. Carrying a sick three year old and the week's groceries up a hill, which I have done, has got to total more than 45 pounds. Sure, the groceries part wasn't all day, but if I'd been sufficiently determined I would have built up my endurance.
I could just google for the number, but I'd probably get more made up information, and for all I know none of it is true at all and soldiers never have to carry anything because the government secretly has invented hovercraft while we weren't looking.
So I'm going with option b, which is to ask if anybody has any idea which of those numbers approaches accuracy. I cannot believe it is all of them.
On a side note, for those seriously lowballing the weight required, I would like to introduce them to some more hardcore baby wearers. Carrying a sick three year old and the week's groceries up a hill, which I have done, has got to total more than 45 pounds. Sure, the groceries part wasn't all day, but if I'd been sufficiently determined I would have built up my endurance.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-31 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-02-01 04:11 pm (UTC)If we go by the fallen comrade and assume it's a max weight, you're talking upwards of about 300lbs at the extreme top end, but you're also talking a full-body lift. Well-trained female atheletes can squat around 1.5x and deadlift around 2x their bodyweight, so the biggest sex-based disadvantage that women in general have is that women tend to be smaller, which requires a higher strength to weight ratio to life the same amount of weight. Not impossible, but potentially more challenging.
What I find more sad is the crap misinformation that spreads among women that discourages many of them from learning how to do any kind of heavy lifting. I think people would be more willing to "believe" that women are capable of keeping up with the guys if the women themselves weren't so damn afraid of such nonsense as "bulking up" like She-Hulk if they lift more than 5lbs.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-04 04:55 pm (UTC)Thank you for the information, btw :)
no subject
Date: 2013-01-31 11:54 pm (UTC)I don't see that carrying a 50-lb. pack all day every day would be any more difficult, and there are a whole lot of women bigger, stronger, and less-broken than me. Also, a pack full of gear doesn't kick, wiggle, or throw up in one's hair.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-01 02:57 am (UTC)"Your child is screaming on your back."
"Is she? Is she really? I hadn't noticed."