Tests when european nations still had conscription and mass-armies were by necessity much easier than the ones for today's professional soldiery.
So it's no wonder she doesn't qualify, and it's very telling that she is a product of a school-system an society where you pass/fail based on a percentage of the whole.
A military, fire department, other emergency services or police cannot function on a member being 75% competent; when that gets implemented, we might as well go back to mass-conscription anyway.
Sure, mass conscription intake is, technically speaking, 'easier' than signing up anyone for a year-long (or longer) term, esp. since such training is quite expensive.
Ms. Schieder didn't qualify because she was thinking (?) condescendingly about the military, hence her premise that 'it can't be that difficult'.
I recall the US military having a bottom IQ of 81 (can't find the link); this isn't me suggesting Ms. Schieder is below that threshold but to address your point: mass conscription never took in literally everyone (and would, in all likelihood, placed Ms. Schieder in an office capacity, if needs bed).
Muddled the point a bit I did: the idea of women in the military first was implemented during conscription, which is why I think she had the notion she could hack it - her reference frame was wrong, simply put.
(Apart from military matters, conscription also gave medical research a wonderful database - health data in detail from every yearly batch of 18-year olds.)
I looked up some of the tests. ISOKAI is used. Men need a 6 and women a 3. Which is idiotic of course, your gear and task does not change weight depending on your sex.
There is far more focus on aptitude and psychological profiling than on IQ here (for police, you can get in despite failing the intelligence test if you are of the "right" race f.e.) - it explicitly states that what is of importance is loyalty and obedience. I think loyalty in german has the same double-meaning as it does in swedish? That it can mean actual freely given loyalty out of respect, but also can allude to blind obedience to authority?
One of the key issues to explore a bit further re: conscription would be the conventional combination of military service plus citizen/voting rights, which pertained to men only at first.
Now, this isn't me calling for either stripping women of voting rights or making them 'eligible' for a comparable kind of (national) service, even though I'd argue that the latter would result in a more egalitarian societal distribution.
What I am saying is that we're either not doing much more than paying lip-service to any kind of gender (by which is meant here: sex) balance in our societies or it's all a fair-weather activity (circus), as, e.g., Germany's recent proposition to also call 'trans women' (men who 'transitioned') to serve in times of war.
It might be both, though.
As regards aptitude and psychological profiling, sure, they are important, but I'd also point to positions requiring, first and foremost, physical strength, such as firefighters, first-responders, etc. 100% equality between the sexes is impossible, even though well-trained women would, in all likelihood, easily out-compete many men who are, well, not much more than couch potatoes.
I remember well when swedish feminists clamoured for equal opportunity, something they had done since the 1950s at least. They initially meant two things:
The right to try and make the grade, which is no problem - that one should be universal for any member of the people.
By having the above right, proving that there are no differences in ability, aptitude, et c between men and women.
So when they were first allowed to try for police, fireman, and military duty, fewer than2% of applicants passed, which is no wonder given the differences in physical ability. I wouldn't pass the fireman's old test either - I did pass the one for volunteer auxilliary when I was 40, which felt good (one part of it is rowing 500 meters in under 1:45, I think the world record is around 1:00).
Having been presented with unequivocable evidence that men and women indeed are very different, the feminists retreated and regrouped around the idea nowadays called equity: equality is only achieved when all outcomes are identical. I.e. the spoiled brat demanding treates despite not having done the chores, taken on as an ethos.
Therefore, all tests must be adapted so that every applicant can pass, and service/jobs/careers/professions be adapted so that anyone can do them, which is why Sweden last year dropped the rule barring people with autism, ADHD and some other mental conditions from becoming police officers.
Because an autistic with a gun is precisely what you want in a high-stress, potentially violent situation, right? "But muh rights!"...
A couple of years ago, our CiC made it clear anyone not onboard with the LGBTwhatever agenda need not apply to the military or remin in the service. This came after he was publicly critisised, by upper echelon officers too, for having troops march under the rainbow-flag. This among other things of similar nature down the years have led to a very infected debate between patriots like me, asking "What is it I'm supposed to want to defend, and against whom and decided by whom?" and regime-loyal people of all walks of life saying questioning like that equals treason.
It almost came to blows when I asked in an after-dinner drinks-and-coffee session: "Why am I supposed to be willing to volunteer as anything, when we have daily shootings, arsons, bombings, rapes, lootings and more all committed by foreigners on our soil, and nothing is done about it? Must the perpetrators of what would be called war-crimes wear a uniform and be labeled "Enemy" by the State and the party for you to be able to see them for what they are?"
As I said, loyalty is what makes or breaks your application, loyalty defined as obedience to the system- not to any kind of ideals. Nothing above the System; nothing beyond the System. I wonder if he'd be proud or horrified?
I don’t believe she would have any difficulty joining the Imperial Military here at the center of Empire. She seems to have all the required qualities. ;-)
Tests when european nations still had conscription and mass-armies were by necessity much easier than the ones for today's professional soldiery.
So it's no wonder she doesn't qualify, and it's very telling that she is a product of a school-system an society where you pass/fail based on a percentage of the whole.
A military, fire department, other emergency services or police cannot function on a member being 75% competent; when that gets implemented, we might as well go back to mass-conscription anyway.
Sure, mass conscription intake is, technically speaking, 'easier' than signing up anyone for a year-long (or longer) term, esp. since such training is quite expensive.
Ms. Schieder didn't qualify because she was thinking (?) condescendingly about the military, hence her premise that 'it can't be that difficult'.
I recall the US military having a bottom IQ of 81 (can't find the link); this isn't me suggesting Ms. Schieder is below that threshold but to address your point: mass conscription never took in literally everyone (and would, in all likelihood, placed Ms. Schieder in an office capacity, if needs bed).
Muddled the point a bit I did: the idea of women in the military first was implemented during conscription, which is why I think she had the notion she could hack it - her reference frame was wrong, simply put.
(Apart from military matters, conscription also gave medical research a wonderful database - health data in detail from every yearly batch of 18-year olds.)
I looked up some of the tests. ISOKAI is used. Men need a 6 and women a 3. Which is idiotic of course, your gear and task does not change weight depending on your sex.
There is far more focus on aptitude and psychological profiling than on IQ here (for police, you can get in despite failing the intelligence test if you are of the "right" race f.e.) - it explicitly states that what is of importance is loyalty and obedience. I think loyalty in german has the same double-meaning as it does in swedish? That it can mean actual freely given loyalty out of respect, but also can allude to blind obedience to authority?
No worries.
One of the key issues to explore a bit further re: conscription would be the conventional combination of military service plus citizen/voting rights, which pertained to men only at first.
Now, this isn't me calling for either stripping women of voting rights or making them 'eligible' for a comparable kind of (national) service, even though I'd argue that the latter would result in a more egalitarian societal distribution.
What I am saying is that we're either not doing much more than paying lip-service to any kind of gender (by which is meant here: sex) balance in our societies or it's all a fair-weather activity (circus), as, e.g., Germany's recent proposition to also call 'trans women' (men who 'transitioned') to serve in times of war.
It might be both, though.
As regards aptitude and psychological profiling, sure, they are important, but I'd also point to positions requiring, first and foremost, physical strength, such as firefighters, first-responders, etc. 100% equality between the sexes is impossible, even though well-trained women would, in all likelihood, easily out-compete many men who are, well, not much more than couch potatoes.
I remember well when swedish feminists clamoured for equal opportunity, something they had done since the 1950s at least. They initially meant two things:
The right to try and make the grade, which is no problem - that one should be universal for any member of the people.
By having the above right, proving that there are no differences in ability, aptitude, et c between men and women.
So when they were first allowed to try for police, fireman, and military duty, fewer than2% of applicants passed, which is no wonder given the differences in physical ability. I wouldn't pass the fireman's old test either - I did pass the one for volunteer auxilliary when I was 40, which felt good (one part of it is rowing 500 meters in under 1:45, I think the world record is around 1:00).
Having been presented with unequivocable evidence that men and women indeed are very different, the feminists retreated and regrouped around the idea nowadays called equity: equality is only achieved when all outcomes are identical. I.e. the spoiled brat demanding treates despite not having done the chores, taken on as an ethos.
Therefore, all tests must be adapted so that every applicant can pass, and service/jobs/careers/professions be adapted so that anyone can do them, which is why Sweden last year dropped the rule barring people with autism, ADHD and some other mental conditions from becoming police officers.
Because an autistic with a gun is precisely what you want in a high-stress, potentially violent situation, right? "But muh rights!"...
A couple of years ago, our CiC made it clear anyone not onboard with the LGBTwhatever agenda need not apply to the military or remin in the service. This came after he was publicly critisised, by upper echelon officers too, for having troops march under the rainbow-flag. This among other things of similar nature down the years have led to a very infected debate between patriots like me, asking "What is it I'm supposed to want to defend, and against whom and decided by whom?" and regime-loyal people of all walks of life saying questioning like that equals treason.
It almost came to blows when I asked in an after-dinner drinks-and-coffee session: "Why am I supposed to be willing to volunteer as anything, when we have daily shootings, arsons, bombings, rapes, lootings and more all committed by foreigners on our soil, and nothing is done about it? Must the perpetrators of what would be called war-crimes wear a uniform and be labeled "Enemy" by the State and the party for you to be able to see them for what they are?"
As I said, loyalty is what makes or breaks your application, loyalty defined as obedience to the system- not to any kind of ideals. Nothing above the System; nothing beyond the System. I wonder if he'd be proud or horrified?
I don’t believe she would have any difficulty joining the Imperial Military here at the center of Empire. She seems to have all the required qualities. ;-)
Excellent trolling.
Sadly, the Austrian (!) Army (!!) isn't completely woke-fied (yet).