here is an interesting thought, If your under a certain height your not allowed to join the military, Is this a new thing to tack an -ism? is this heightism?
5'2", not allowed to serve in the U.S. armed forces
- Thread starter Barnabas
- Start date
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I didn't know this existed, and I personally think its a bit unfair. However I don't know the physical requirements needed for the military, as that is something that all need to adhear to no matter what job they are assigned. Thus it might actually be a well founded rule. I wouldn't feel too much of a resistance if the high limit was 4'10, it's just that 5'2 feels a tad bit high to me.
Either way, I would think the military would have reasonable rationalle behind this regulation. I don't see it as a form of discrimination.
Either way, I would think the military would have reasonable rationalle behind this regulation. I don't see it as a form of discrimination.
I would have to disagree with the thought that short height is a physical disability that would hamper a person from working effectively in a physically tiring and stressful environment. I've known people whom were under the 5'2" range who were in far better shape then people who are 8 inches taller, one guy in high school could out run anybody around him, another who could out lift guys who weighed twice his weight, physically it's just not justified.
Especially since a little person has to be 4'10" or under to be considered to have dwarfism, 5'2" is shorter then average it is by no means a defect or hampering.
Especially since a little person has to be 4'10" or under to be considered to have dwarfism, 5'2" is shorter then average it is by no means a defect or hampering.
I don't think it's discrimination. The regulation was likely put in place because of the demanding physical nature of the military. People with smaller builds are more likely to get hurt when doing such things. This makes them a liability. Though, I really only see this being an issue in the infantry and other combat positions. Though, no matter what your intended job is, you still have to be able to go through boot camp (or basic training. It's got a different name with each branch).
Huh...funny thing. Some of the scariest fighters I know are 5 feet tall. I wrestle each week with a girl whose only 4'11" and 130 pounds. I'm 6'2" and she scares me terribly. She's dislocated one of my shoulders at one point when I refused to tap out. I did learn a lesson that day which is 'never go all in against the teacher'.
I'd imagine it's a matter of the tendency of the army to make most things 'one size fits all' so they can have very modular weaponry, clothing, and vests. I believe there is likely a limit on the other side (you can't be above a certain height) or at least I would imagine there is. I don't actually know, not being a military type myself. They do want people within a certain range of body types for military service. You can, supposedly, get out of it merely by being incredibly fat or blind as a bat despite how cheaply these things can be corrected these days. The army doesn't pay for lipo or laser corrective surgery though.
I'd imagine it's a matter of the tendency of the army to make most things 'one size fits all' so they can have very modular weaponry, clothing, and vests. I believe there is likely a limit on the other side (you can't be above a certain height) or at least I would imagine there is. I don't actually know, not being a military type myself. They do want people within a certain range of body types for military service. You can, supposedly, get out of it merely by being incredibly fat or blind as a bat despite how cheaply these things can be corrected these days. The army doesn't pay for lipo or laser corrective surgery though.
I hate sparring people that are 5"2,
Why? Because I can't weave and bob under their punches/kicks and it leaves my torso as an open target (once they get past my defenses).
Little guys are some of the most scariest I've come across.
Why? Because I can't weave and bob under their punches/kicks and it leaves my torso as an open target (once they get past my defenses).
Little guys are some of the most scariest I've come across.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Well maybe when the army puts down their weapons and start wrestling the enemy this could be taken into consideration. As it is they use guns and the only reason for this rule is intimidation. Last time I checked, a big guy was far more intimidating than a small one.
Army or not, a little guy that knows how to kick your butt is far scarier than a big guy who is, well, big.
Its not its not height that scares the crap out of people, its presence, atmosphere and how a individual carry's themselves.
In the wild whats gonna scare you more, a panda bear or a wolf? or A blue whale or a tiger? Different sizes but we can already tell by those animals in comparison who's more likely to kick your butt. The bigger the gun the more we are going to crap ourselves, despite the size of the person who's holding it or in control of it.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Okay with the knowledge that both animals are out to kill you, I'd be more scared of the panda and blue whale. That's not saying I wouldn't run a mile from all 4.
I say again, it's about intimidation, and more than that, anonymous intimidation. You'd know nothing of these guys. Without previous knowledge an army of 6' vikings is far scarier than 4' pygmies.
Also, kids in Kenya have been known to chase lions as a game by holding two sticks in the air to make themselves seem bigger. We still have this instinct even though it's obviously diminished, bits of it are still there.
Just as a bigger bouncer acts as a detterant to cause trouble in the club, a bigger guy acts as a detterant to shooting him.
I'm not sure the military is all too focused on effectiveness.
I think it's pretty black and white. In order to win a war you
must be better, faster, stronger. While this isn't necessarily
always true usually the longer your limbs are the more quickly
you can move. And when it comes down to shooting some man
before he shoots you. It doesn't matter how strong you are.
But how fast you are.
This is just my interpretation.
I don't really care all that much though.
There are a few reasons for height requirements:
It is a form of discrimination, but this just goes to show that not all discrimination is bad.
Sometimes height requirements are treated as sex discrimination, because fewer women will be over a given minimum height than men. Of course, this is balanced when you also have a maximum height, provided that maximum height is about as far from the average as the minimum. But for some similar jobs, men and women have been assigned different requirements, so that hiring rates can be equal across the board.
- Fighting ability. This is a largely outdated reason, but it made plenty of sense throughout most of human history. Bigger people have more momentum when charging and can handle bigger weapons.
- Intimidation. While the relevance of physical presence is dwindling, there is still a psychological advantage to knowing that you're still in good standing if/when the more complicated weapons are unavailable. My great grandfather told me about the SS combat units in WWII: they were said to be at least 6'2" and 200 lbs., and accordingly scared the hell out of the allied units going up against them.
- Fitting in standardized accommodations. This is most important for the Navy and the Air Force, but Humvees matter for extreme cases as well. If you're too short in a fighter jet, you had too much room to be jostled, and your feet can't reach the pedals. If you're too tall on a carrier, you have to sleep diagonally on your bed, and you hit your head on the doorways. If you're too short or too tall in a vehicle, you might not be stable enough (not having your feet planted on the floor) or you might have too little room for your knees. Military transportation is made to fit a narrower range of sizes.
- Eating standardized meals. (Weight is also important here.) Generally speaking, bigger people eat more and smaller people eat less. It's inconvenient to have too broad a range of sizes, because then your calorie totals are either excessive or insufficient for the extremes.
It is a form of discrimination, but this just goes to show that not all discrimination is bad.
Sometimes height requirements are treated as sex discrimination, because fewer women will be over a given minimum height than men. Of course, this is balanced when you also have a maximum height, provided that maximum height is about as far from the average as the minimum. But for some similar jobs, men and women have been assigned different requirements, so that hiring rates can be equal across the board.
Funny sort of sidenote: I read a book/article/something or other about the Napoleonic wars, and during that time there was also a height restriction for "serving" (i.e. getting dragged into) the army, and it was also, I believe, 5'2". Maybe a little shorter, don't remember.
Anyway, during that time, there was a large statistical spike in short French men, 5'2" or under. It turns out the military is historically good at keeping detailed records, so statistiticisans (gr, number crunchers) had a lot of data to analyze, and noticed this odd anomaly during those years.
The theory is that the "recruiters" (i.e. people who drafted your ass whether you wanted to serve or not) were cutting shorter men some slack, and listing some 5'3" and 5'4" men as actually being 5'2", therefore disqualifying them from "service". So they didn't get drafted, but there was a sudden preponderance of unusually short French men.
Other theory is that there was a whole lot of slouching going on.
Anyway, during that time, there was a large statistical spike in short French men, 5'2" or under. It turns out the military is historically good at keeping detailed records, so statistiticisans (gr, number crunchers) had a lot of data to analyze, and noticed this odd anomaly during those years.
The theory is that the "recruiters" (i.e. people who drafted your ass whether you wanted to serve or not) were cutting shorter men some slack, and listing some 5'3" and 5'4" men as actually being 5'2", therefore disqualifying them from "service". So they didn't get drafted, but there was a sudden preponderance of unusually short French men.
Other theory is that there was a whole lot of slouching going on.
I'm just curious where you heard about the height requirement... because I've looked at a few different sites, and I can't find anything that says you have to be taller than 5'2"
I heard it in ROTC, in high school. I can't find a reliable source from searches though to verify it. Though I have found plausible sources such as enlisted personnel who confirmed the existence of the requirements.