Pentagon Says Women Can Now Serve In Front-Line Ground Combat Positions
Updated December 3, 20151:17 PM ET
Bill Chappell
Twitter
Pentagon chief Ash Carter is expected to announce that women can now serve in frontline combat posts. Here Carolina Ortiz moves away from a 155 mm artillery piece after loading it during a live-fire exercise at the Marine base in Twentynine Palms, Calif., earlier this year, in a a months-long study of how women might perform in ground combat jobs.
Pentagon chief Ash Carter is expected to announce that women can now serve in frontline combat posts. Here Carolina Ortiz moves away from a 155 mm artillery piece after loading it during a live-fire exercise at the Marine base in Twentynine Palms, Calif., earlier this year, in a a months-long study of how women might perform in ground combat jobs.
David Gilkey/NPR
Saying America's military must draw from "the broadest possible pool of talent," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday that women in the U.S. military – including the Army and Marines – can now serve in combat posts.
The formal process to open combat jobs to women began in January of 2013; in finishing that process, Carter acknowledged that in recent years, U.S. women have fought — and sometimes given their lives — in combat posts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Carter made the announcement at noon Thursday; the event was not attended by Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, whose branch of the service was the only one to request the ability to make exceptions to the new rule. Dunford is now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"There will be no exceptions," Carter said today.
We're updating this post with news from the event.
Update at 12:46 p.m. ET: No 'Absolute Choice'
Carter says the new rule means women in the military who are deemed fit for combat can be assigned to those roles, rather than relying on their own initiative to seek roles in combat. The lack of "absolute choice" for posts and assignments is part of being in the military, he says.
Earlier in the briefing, Carter said women can now vie for spots on Navy SEALS teams and other elite units.
Update at 12:36 p.m. ET: Selective Service Registration For Women?
"That is a matter of legal dispute right now," Carter says, adding that the outcome of that process won't affect his decision.
Update at 12:26 p.m. ET: Marines' Resistance
Answering a question about Joint Chiefs chairman Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford's resistance to the idea of full integration of women in combat roles, Carter says he "strongly agreed" with Dunford's idea that the way implementation is handled is the key to the new policy's success.
He adds that there's "a great value" to implementing the process on a joint basis, with all branches of the service included.
Carter did not directly respond to what flaws he found in Dunford's analysis.
In September, the Marine Corps released results of a study that found all-male units perform better in combat than do mixed units.
As reporters at the briefing note, Dunford is not attending today's announcement.
Update at 12:26 p.m. ET: Guidelines For Implementation
Listing details about how the new rules would take effect, Carter says no quotas will be imposed on women's numbers in the military. He adds that the military will also have to dispel the idea — held by some men and women in the military, he said — that women might be included in a unit for any reason other than their qualifications.
Carter said that women's qualifications and the ability to perform combat roles will be main priorities as the new rules are implemented.
The process of integrating women into combat roles must begin in the next 30 days, he said.
Update at 12:18 p.m. ET: Carter Makes It Official
Secretary Carter says the Pentagon can't afford to omit half of America's population from consideration.
He then added that since the 1970s, women have been able to attend U.S. service academies, and that in the early 1990s their military roles were expanded, with some exceptions allowed to exclude the.
"There will be no exceptions," Carter says of today's change in the rules.
Our original post continues:
Women are being cleared to play a greater role in combat — and vie for thousands of jobs — after the military conducted an internal review of how they might perform in artillery, armor, and infantry roles.
From NPR's Tom Bowman and our national security desk:
"Some Pentagon officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, have said they worry about the ability of Marine infantry units to be as effective with both male and female troops. Carter is expected to say he'll take Dunford's concerns into consideration in opening the military jobs.
"The Pentagon has been opening up jobs to women throughout the Obama administration, admitting women to Navy submarines and to the Army's elite Ranger School."
The formal announcement comes as more female servicemembers have been training for roles on the front lines. In August, two female soldiers graduated from the U.S. Army's Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga. Currently, women make up less than 10 percent of Marine Corps personnel.
The announcement comes more than 20 years after women were officially excluded from serving in small ground combat units back in 1994. It also comes three years after a group of servicewomen sued the Pentagon and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012. Two months after that suit was filed, Panetta announced that women would be gradually allowed to serve combat roles.
I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?
I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.
I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.
Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.
It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.
Putting less able fighters in the front line seems like a good idea.
...and get away with that SJW stuff. There's enough studies proving that women are worse at the same job than their male counterparts are. It's a biological disadvantage and even with hard training, you cannot best the physical aspect.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?
I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.
I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.
Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.
It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.
So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters? What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?
And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?
Great! If they want to and they pass all the tests that the military deem a soldier must pass to be allowed to serve, then there is no reason to keep them out.
If they finally are putting women to the same standards men are judged by for combat worthiness? Fine, good for them.
If they're still using different standards that are easier, then no, this is a terrible idea and it needs to be shot down NOW.
I'm all for gender equality and all that, but equality is a two way street. If a woman is going into combat, she should be held to the same standards as her male comrades. Not for some SJW bullcrap, but for the safety of herself and others.
Because if the recent studies are anything to go by, no, most women are not cut out for frontline infantry combat just for physical standards. Sure, they can make great pilots, tankers, etc. But front line grunts really aren't their best place.
And yeah, I know I'm gonna get heat for this, but I don't exactly see how "equality" means men have a drastically different standard going into combat than women do, and how putting both sexes at risk by allowing lower standards for women is good in any way, shape, or form.
It's okay for those African cultures to do things differently. I'm not one to tell them they're wrong. Did their women have larger bone structure and more heavily muscled bodies? Did the men primarily care for children?
If not, then I simply question the physical advantage they saw as to why it was the women doing the fighting, as I am now.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: It's okay for those African cultures to do things differently. I'm not one to tell them they're wrong. Did their women have larger bone structure and more heavily muscled bodies? Did the men primarily care for children?
If not, then I simply question the physical advantage they saw as to why it was the women doing the fighting, as I am now.
Cause they saw women as better fighters, more aggressive and more protective than men.
Really this idea that women are better than men at somethings, and mean vice versa is an idea that needs to die.
No, men and women are no different in mind, maybe in body, but our culture has created the idea of the fragile women who cant do the same stuff.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?
I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.
I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.
Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.
It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.
So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters? What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?
And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?
For your first statement: got a source? It sounds interesting.
Second statement: Biological hard-wiring. Females in any species are more important to the success of the species (or population) than males are. I believe the figure is 10% males minimum. Below that you start suffering from the genetic bottleneck, but above it your reproductive ability is not affected. In contrast, reducing the number of females reduces rate of reproduction immediately. Let's say you have a three 200-strong tribes. They start a war, and all suffer 50% casualties. One tribe loses 90% of their men and 10% of their women. Another loses 50% of both sexes. Third loses 90% of their women, 10% of their men. Let's see who recovers faster:
Tribe 1: 90 babies per year
Tribe 2: 50 babies per year
Tribe 3: 10 babies per year
As you may imagine, tribe 1 is going to recover better.
1. Your comparison of African societies is lame. African societies got the crap kicked out of them by everyone. They are literally the wimpiest place on earth vs. anyone else. Its a continent dominated by cats, what do you expect?
2. Logistics requires brains. Active front line units require braun too. You can't just FEELZ that away any more than I can use the power of FEELZ to have babies.
To me, equality means respect and opportunity. It doesn't mean they should be seen as exactly the same as men.. otherwise we close our eyes to reality for the sake of political correctness. The two forms are flat out different, sexual dimorphism exists.
Are women not better than men at a variety of things? I certainly think so?
Also, I guess I just don't see being a front line soldier as "opportunity". I don't see it benefitting the individual as of late, wars seem to be done for the sake of private interests.
If a draft came out tomorrow, and they took my wife and left me here... i wouldn't understand. Ever.
Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.
It was socially constructed because women do have a different body construction, which lends to them being worse overall at fighting. Less upper body strength, smaller bone structure, less muscle mass overall.
The difference is relatively minor, and certain women can achieve similar or greater feats than certain men. But the average is lower overall. This doesn't mean its acceptable to disqualify women from serving of course.
Everyone needs to pass the same test though. I am 100% ok with women fighting so long as they pass the same standards as the men. Yes, this means women will pass less often than men do. Thats ok. We cannot lower the standards to appease the SJW crowd and put all our troops in danger because we let substandard soldiers in the army.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?
I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.
I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.
Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.
It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.
So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters? What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?
And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?
For your first statement: got a source? It sounds interesting.
Second statement: Biological hard-wiring. Females in any species are more important to the success of the species (or population) than males are. I believe the figure is 10% males minimum. Below that you start suffering from the genetic bottleneck, but above it your reproductive ability is not affected. In contrast, reducing the number of females reduces rate of reproduction immediately. Let's say you have a three 200-strong tribes. They start a war, and all suffer 50% casualties. One tribe loses 90% of their men and 10% of their women. Another loses 50% of both sexes. Third loses 90% of their women, 10% of their men. Let's see who recovers faster:.
That is less of a problem in modern day though. How much of a percentage does our military take up?
As to the fist
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dahomeys-women-warriors-88286072/?no-ist Several others aswell. This isnt a tribe I was talking about though. I read the book so long ago I just internalized it. but, there is precedent
Women are different in mind. Explain the increased organizational skills and the ability to perceive more colour variation than men in any other way. There's lots of studies that show men and women work differently mentally in some ways. There are also some that show there isn't a difference in many other areas.
I understand that the differences are probably perceived as bigger than they are, and the human mind has problems looking at all data at once, but they are not the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: About the study I mentioned in my first post, I don't have a link but there was a thread on here about it months ago.
Frazzled wrote: 1. Your comparison of African societies is lame. African societies got the crap kicked out of them by everyone. They are literally the wimpiest place on earth vs. anyone else.
2. Logistics requires brains. Active front line units require braun too. You can't just FEELZ that away any more than I can use the power of FEELZ to have babies.
1: Well, when all they have is pre-bronze age weapons, and their conquerors have armor, guns and disease it isnt a fair idea to say that the reason they got their butt kicked was because their warriors where women.
2: So, if women are better in logistics, and thay requires brains, does that mean men have less brains then women?
Frazzled wrote: 1. Your comparison of African societies is lame. African societies got the crap kicked out of them by everyone. They are literally the wimpiest place on earth vs. anyone else.
2. Logistics requires brains. Active front line units require braun too. You can't just FEELZ that away any more than I can use the power of FEELZ to have babies.
1: Well, when all they have is pre-bronze age weapons, and their conquerors have armor, guns and disease it isnt a fair idea to say that the reason they got their butt kicked was because their warriors where women.
Fair point. Egypt vs. the Sea Peoples, Hittites, Persians, Romans, Turks...
2: So, if women are better in logistics, and thay requires brains, does that mean men have less brains then women?
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?
I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.
I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.
Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.
It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.
So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters? What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?
And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?
For your first statement: got a source? It sounds interesting.
Second statement: Biological hard-wiring. Females in any species are more important to the success of the species (or population) than males are. I believe the figure is 10% males minimum. Below that you start suffering from the genetic bottleneck, but above it your reproductive ability is not affected. In contrast, reducing the number of females reduces rate of reproduction immediately. Let's say you have a three 200-strong tribes. They start a war, and all suffer 50% casualties. One tribe loses 90% of their men and 10% of their women. Another loses 50% of both sexes. Third loses 90% of their women, 10% of their men. Let's see who recovers faster:.
That is less of a problem in modern day though. How much of a percentage does our military take up?
As to the fist
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dahomeys-women-warriors-88286072/?no-ist Several others aswell. This isnt a tribe I was talking about though. I read the book so long ago I just internalized it. but, there is precedent
While modern society may be less concerned about the population-level effects of women dying in combat, it does explain why there is an instinctive reluctance to let women fight.
As for the African tribe, in the article it suggests that the female regiment was formed in part due to the tribe being badly outnumbered. So it may have been something that was initially born out of necessity, rather than preference. From what I remember of Norse Shield-maiden legends it's a similar thin- the last line of defence, once the men had all been killed.
The only real issue here is the one the Marines studied. Women met the minimum requirements in that study, but the minimums are actually pretty low. Most male Marines far, far exceeded the minimums, and therefore are better fighters. The simple fix for this is to up the minimums until it starts impacting the total number of needed recruits. Most women wash out under that system, leaving only the few who would actually be decent fighters.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?
I read that link and all that is really going on there is a phenomenon that you do see pop up in various historical accounts. Societies that are desperate and fighting for their survival will recruit women to fight. There are women fighting with the Kurdish forces in Iraq right now. The article also talks about how most of the population was women and many of the fighters where the kings "third class" wives.
Across cultures though under "normal" circumstances the armed forces of nations tend to be overwhelmingly male or exclusively male.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No, men and women are no different in mind, maybe in body, but our culture has created the idea of the fragile women who cant do the same stuff.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.
You keep taking isolated historical cases and then saying that meant lots.
IN scandinavia women were the land holders for the precise reason that the men were going raiding. There were a few female raider leaders, just like there were in china, but there is a big difference between being a pirate and standing in a shieldwall.
Our culture has created the idea of fragile femininity? Nah man the majority of cultures saw that men were better at shooting things, throwing things and lugging armour about.
THese ideas still stand firm today due to men having better depth perception , now the caveat of that is we have a lower field of vision ( can't remember the term).
Men and women are different.
I am now waiting for you to bring up something like fragile masculinity.
This is awesome it's like having Tumblrinaction on dakka
The egalitarian part of my brain says it wouldn't be fair to do anything other than this.
The pragmatic part of my brain says this is a boondoggle. We aren't short men for combat roles, there are as far as I know no studies that have shown increased performance among integrated units, and the cost is probably not going to be worth it both in money and in numbers of women who would have had fine military careers who are now going to suffer career ending injuries when their reach exceeds their grasp.
The pessimistic part of my brain says standards are going to be relaxed all over, degrading the efficiency of our forces and people are going to die so some politicians can get platitudes heaped upon them. I am also predicting some serious sexual misconduct issues.
But whatever, I'm already out so it won't personally effect me.
The only real issue here is the one the Marines studied. Women met the minimum requirements in that study, but the minimums are actually pretty low. Most male Marines far, far exceeded the minimums, and therefore are better fighters. The simple fix for this is to up the minimums until it starts impacting the total number of needed recruits. Most women wash out under that system, leaving only the few who would actually be decent fighters.
Which is what is needed.
The article doesn't really debunk men and women's brains being different it just debunks that they are binary. In that it tends to be more of a spectrum.
To quote the article:
"[B]rains with features that are consistently at one end of the “maleness-femaleness” continuum are rare," the scientists wrote in the study. "Rather, most brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males."
Men have better focused vision at the expense of having bad peripheral vision.
You know how you always wondered how your mom had "eyes on the back of her head"? Well she just has really good peripheral vision and can see you sneaking that cookie out of the jar by barely turning her head.
Its also why a guy checking out a cute girl tends to be very obvious, he can't just use the corner of his vision to do it.
The physical differences between men and women are fascinating. For example (and this is speaking in general terms) men have greater muscle density, while women have greater pain tolerance. It's a very interesting subject.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No, men and women are no different in mind, maybe in body, but our culture has created the idea of the fragile women who cant do the same stuff. Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
False, In most (I want to say all but can't) cultures women are used defensively. This is true for medieval japan, Scandinavians, modern day nations losing wars and practically all evidence of females in warfare. There were female African Soldiers in the 1800s but they weren't very effective and were not common. Women are almost never sent to the fight (waste of time, your nation needs children to recover after the war) and if the fight comes to them yes they often bear up arms. But even then women are often used AFTER the old and the young men.
It's just a simple fact of life that men are expendable in this manner.
In the next huge conflict once the death tolls start coming in it will go back to women in the factories, men on the front lines as that is what is practical. If a nation wishes to do well in warfare they always do what is practical.
As for your odd claims about masses of ancient female warriors you find very few sources confirming what you say, with many going against it and many more with evidence contrary to what you believe. Remember children are the future, war kills off whole generations of men. If we lose whole generations of women it's far more devastating for obvious reasons. Practicality always wins.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The physical differences between men and women are fascinating. For example (and this is speaking in general terms) men have greater muscle density, while women have greater pain tolerance. It's a very interesting subject.
That pain tolerance thing isn't actually conclusively proven. Estrogen can help deaden pain receptors, but women cycle through estrogen levels throughout the month. Studies on pain are hard to pull off though because it's basically all self reported.
Yeah. That article does nothing to debunk the science done in the past by many different neuroscientists.
Simple fact is, female brains and male brains are different. That article is only saying that individual brains are different also, within those spectrums that also differentiate men and women.
It's the same thing as saying not all men are stronger than all women.
The site also has a link to an article entitled "new study finds that your gaydar is terrible." It isn't buying any credibility from me with that link in the text of the article. It's also not worded the best and offers quite a small amount of real information.
I still think men and women's brains are different in general.
Grey Templar wrote: Most Men probably couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth.
They could if their bodies flooded themselves with the same hormones and stuff that women's bodies do. Most women couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth without that either.
Grey Templar wrote: Most Men probably couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth.
They could if their bodies flooded themselves with the same hormones and stuff that women's bodies do. Most women couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth without that either.
So you are saying a Man could stand the pain if he was a Women? In which case he's not a man, but a women.
Throughout history women have been involved in direct combat. That is not in dispute. That said, what is the objective with opening all combat MOS’s to females?
To increase the number of combat ready soldiers? i.e. with women making up approximately half of the population, it would instantly double the number of potential soldiers. This of course assuming there was a legitimate need to increase the pool of soldiers eligible for combat MOS’s.
To improve combat effectiveness? e.g. improved marksmanship, physical endurance, resistance to psychological impairment, operational awareness, etc.
To add critical skills or capabilities not possessed by males? Would be curious to know what females bring to the force that males were not already capable of if this is indeed a reason.
Regardless of which of the above is a possible objective, I would expect there would be critical mass of evidence that supports these reasons given the stakes involved and the potential impact on combat effectiveness and by consequence the lives of both male and female members of the military.
If the objective is just to diversify the gender makeup of the force at all levels or promote gender equality commensurate with perceived popular notion then I have to disagree with the decision as this is not the purpose of a country’s military, the purpose being to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic using lethal force in the most effective way that preserves to the utmost the lives of that nation’s soldiers and civilians.
I would hope that the Sec. Def. made this decision based on the consensus the military officers (male and female), because sometimes a decision is best left to the experts. BTW, this is not a blanket criticism of civilian control of the military, only that there are cases where the input of the military leaders needs to take precedence.
As a personal ante dote, when I was in the military I served in a combat support MOS that by mission was designated to operate as close to and sometime in front of combat units and thus we needed to be prepared to defend ourselves in direct combat and were equipped and trained accordingly. Females were allowed to serve and in the units I served in made up about 1/3 of the soldiers. Having a co-ed unit created logistical challenges, all of which were addressed to some degree, but did create additional operational overhead. Also, whether intentional or as a natural by-product, the male soldiers performed the vast majority of tasks where there was a high degree of physically intensive labor where strength and endurance was a critical component. If there wasn’t enough male soldiers free to complete the task, invariably it would always seem that the task took longer to complete or required more female soldiers then male soldiers. In all, female soldiers from my perspective did not maintain the level of efficiency of the unit, much less improve the effectiveness. The other thing that I noticed was that as many as 1 in 4 female soldiers I served with would at some point become pregnant resulting in they being placed on restricted duty (i.e. garrison, headquarters) for the duration plus maternity leave which of course created a need a re-allocation of assignments (often to male soldiers) to make up for the shortfall that the pregnant female’s effective absence created. We were not given a replacement since technically the spot was still filled by the pregnant female solider who was technically still on active duty. We would only be authorized a replacement if we deployed.
Conversely, I understand that females make excellent pilots due to various physical factors inherent to females and if there was a 1 for 1 ratio of male to female pilots, statistically females would likely make up the majority of the top combat performers.
Ultimately this should not be about proving whether the ladies can fight (they can when they have too). But in this age of an all-volunteer force, should they and does it help the force?
To increase the number of combat ready soldiers? i.e. with women making up approximately half of the population, it would instantly double the number of potential soldiers. This of course assuming there was a legitimate need to increase the pool of soldiers eligible for combat MOS’s.
Except that you don't "instantly double" the number of potential soldiers, because all they are doing is opening combat MOSs to women. There is nothing about altering Selective Services in any way. Opening SS to women would instantly double the number of potential military people though.
To increase the number of combat ready soldiers? i.e. with women making up approximately half of the population, it would instantly double the number of potential soldiers. This of course assuming there was a legitimate need to increase the pool of soldiers eligible for combat MOS’s.
Except that you don't "instantly double" the number of potential soldiers, because all they are doing is opening combat MOSs to women. There is nothing about altering Selective Services in any way. Opening SS to women would instantly double the number of potential military people though.
And thus possibly proving the argument that increasing the number of individuals for combat cannot be argued as the objective. It also begs the question why not a parallel initiative to change the SS law to require females to register. Why the discrimination?
Men and women should be equal participants in a "civilized" society.
Logistics may have to adjust a bit for some biological differences but that is about it.
I am rather surprised this was not further along than it is.
Grey Templar wrote: Most Men probably couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth.
They could if their bodies flooded themselves with the same hormones and stuff that women's bodies do. Most women couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth without that either.
So you are saying a Man could stand the pain if he was a Women? In which case he's not a man, but a women.
No. What he's pointing out is it's pants on head silly to separate the pain of birth from the natural processes the bodies that go through that pain use to manage it. It's like saying women wouldn't be able to handle having testicles because they'd drag on the ground all the time because we're only giving them hypothetical testicles and not a hypothetical scrotum to keep them in.
Birth is a complex physiological process, I mean where is this dude even going to be feeling this birth pain? He doesn't have a vagina to feel it in. The entire line of thinking is just stupid.
Grey Templar wrote: Men have better focused vision at the expense of having bad peripheral vision.
You know how you always wondered how your mom had "eyes on the back of her head"? Well she just has really good peripheral vision and can see you sneaking that cookie out of the jar by barely turning her head.
Its also why a guy checking out a cute girl tends to be very obvious, he can't just use the corner of his vision to do it.
Interesting. Predators have been depth perception/focused vision. Herbivores have better peripheral vision.
Grey Templar wrote: Men have better focused vision at the expense of having bad peripheral vision.
You know how you always wondered how your mom had "eyes on the back of her head"? Well she just has really good peripheral vision and can see you sneaking that cookie out of the jar by barely turning her head.
Its also why a guy checking out a cute girl tends to be very obvious, he can't just use the corner of his vision to do it.
Interesting. Predators have been depth perception/focused vision. Herbivores have better peripheral vision.
Should have happened a long timae ago IMO. If a woman wants to serve in a combat role, and can pass all the training required to do so, then there's no good reason I can think of why she shouldn't be able to.
Talizvar wrote: Men and women should be equal participants in a "civilized" society.
Because all is equal in love and war, right? And war is of course the epitome of "civilized" society....oh wait, isn't war the epitome of when there is a catastrophic breakdown of "civilized" society? Of course we have the laws of war that keep war civilized....
Talizvar wrote: Logistics may have to adjust a bit for some biological differences but that is about it.
From my experience you are understating the impact just a little bit. As an example, properly locating field latrines was always challenging as the environment didn't always lend itself to having obvious "boys" and "girls" rooms. Managing showers and personal hygiene activities was also more complicated. You would be surprised at the things you take for granted all of a sudden requiring a considerable amount of extra stuff and work to make a co-ed unit functional in the field, especially if you were trying to maintain consistency with the standards of "civilized" society
Talizvar wrote: I am rather surprised this was not further along than it is.
I am rather surprised your surprised given this wasn't something that would have been contemplated even more than 30 years ago. It's not like the feminist's of the 60's and 70's were burning their bras for the chance to be drafted for the Vietnam War. In fact, has there ever been a noteworthy size protest or gathering to advocate opening Combat MOS's to women? The lack of any significant movement either smacks of a prime example of social apathy or this is a solution in search of a problem.
Sorry if I come across as flippant, but your comments come across as someone who is willfully ignoring the complexities and deliberately attempting to over simplify and degenerate the debate.
Lord of Deeds wrote: Throughout history women have been involved in direct combat. That is not in dispute. That said, what is the objective with opening all combat MOS’s to females?
This is less about the Military, and more about a broader social context. This is done, not to make the military more effective, (as it is presumed that it wont affect effectiveness either way), but to ensure that there remains nowhere left in society where the toxic idea that person be judged; not upon their deeds or capabilities, but upon the junk between their legs, is allowed to fester.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No, men and women are no different in mind, maybe in body, but our culture has created the idea of the fragile women who cant do the same stuff.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.
You keep taking isolated historical cases and then saying that meant lots.
IN scandinavia women were the land holders for the precise reason that the men were going raiding. There were a few female raider leaders, just like there were in china, but there is a big difference between being a pirate and standing in a shieldwall.
Our culture has created the idea of fragile femininity? Nah man the majority of cultures saw that men were better at shooting things, throwing things and lugging armour about.
THese ideas still stand firm today due to men having better depth perception , now the caveat of that is we have a lower field of vision ( can't remember the term).
Men and women are different.
I am now waiting for you to bring up something like fragile masculinity.
This is awesome it's like having Tumblrinaction on dakka
Tumblr has ruined any chance as of late of having an intelligent conversation about inequality. Effing tumblr.
Talizvar wrote: Men and women should be equal participants in a "civilized" society.
Because all is equal in love and war, right? And war is of course the epitome of "civilized" society....oh wait, isn't war the epitome of when there is a catastrophic breakdown of "civilized" society? Of course we have the laws of war that keep war civilized....
I think this one missed the "civilized" in quotes but sure I will bite...
Yep, war is a breakdown but the armed forces are also those fine people who put themselves in harms way to deal with other brutes who want what you have whether it has merit or not.
A larger scale policing does happen and I think we were in a proclaimed actual war back in WW2, so if you want to go all dramatic and claim I am condoning war feel free.
Talizvar wrote: Logistics may have to adjust a bit for some biological differences but that is about it.
From my experience you are understating the impact just a little bit. As an example, properly locating field latrines was always challenging as the environment didn't always lend itself to having obvious "boys" and "girls" rooms. Managing showers and personal hygiene activities was also more complicated. You would be surprised at the things you take for granted all of a sudden requiring a considerable amount of extra stuff and work to make a co-ed unit functional in the field, especially if you were trying to maintain consistency with the standards of "civilized" society
Yep, just going camping with the wife and two boys can make that pretty clear real quick. Spend some time with the aircadets, they usually have a well mixed gender group, protocol got established pretty well.
Talizvar wrote: I am rather surprised this was not further along than it is.
I am rather surprised your surprised given this wasn't something that would have been contemplated even more than 30 years ago. It's not like the feminist's of the 60's and 70's were burning their bras for the chance to be drafted for the Vietnam War. In fact, has there ever been a noteworthy size protest or gathering to advocate opening Combat MOS's to women? The lack of any significant movement either smacks of a prime example of social apathy or this is a solution in search of a problem.
This would be a similar matter as joining the police force.
There is some historical resistance, possibly even some "boy's club" elements but the arguments against inclusion of women increasingly lose relevance due to advances in training and technology.
Hand-held weapons of any kind have been a great equalizer.
Sorry if I come across as flippant, but your comments come across as someone who is willfully ignoring the complexities and deliberately attempting to over simplify and degenerate the debate.
I also willfully treat women as a person like any other human being I come across.
This "simple" method has earned me friends who happen to be women (gasp!) and I do not see any limitations to what they choose to do.
I am not willing to acknowledge small obstacles as barriers or "complexities" spoken in general terms.
My now wife took an interest in me when we first met because I treated her the same as the rest of the guys in a fairly physical job.
I had said to her "I will help you if you need it, but I will not do it for you."
Respect is earned, anyone willing to join the armed forces has my respect because it is not an easy path to take.
Yeah, once again, that article isn't talking about what I am. It was talking about how we're more alike than different. Duh. We're humans. I'm sure the brains of elephant seals are more alike than different too, regardless of their gross sexual dimorphism. I don't dispute that claim.
The fact still remains men and women are different. One article does not override hundreds of peer reviewed studies.
The fact that you boil down these notions to "the junk between their legs" is strange... there are more things at work than genitals here, yes? Can we at least agree that genitals are not the only difference between men and women?
If we can't agree on that then I just don't know what to say. Did you read the Wikipedia article I linked? Those differences just don't exist, in your opinion, and that article you posted convinces you of that?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I feel the need to reiterate that I don't think either gender is inferior to the other at all. That's not my argument. I'm saying the genders are different and the difference breeds proficiency at different tasks.
So, until today, there wasn't any woman who fight for the US ???
I'm a bit surprised.
But, it seems very odd, just after this study which proves they are worse fighters...
Oh, and, even if it is our culture which make them "vulnerable", the women who serve in the US Army, belong to our culture...
(disclamer: I don't see women as vulnerable or worse than men, I was just speaking about the study and answering to previous messages).
Lord of Deeds wrote: It also begs the question why not a parallel initiative to change the SS law to require females to register. Why the discrimination?
Because the law is irrelevant. The draft will never be used in the foreseeable future, so it doesn't matter who registers or doesn't register. And why waste effort on changing an obsolete law for symbolic reasons when there are practical things to be done?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: In the next huge conflict once the death tolls start coming in it will go back to women in the factories, men on the front lines as that is what is practical. If a nation wishes to do well in warfare they always do what is practical.
In the next huge conflict we will go back to struggling to survive. After the first few hours there will be no time to fight, or factories to work in. Starvation will be the enemy, not some other distant survivors locked in their own desperate struggle to survive. Planning for that hypothetical future is a waste of time.
Swastakowey wrote: In the next huge conflict once the death tolls start coming in it will go back to women in the factories, men on the front lines as that is what is practical. If a nation wishes to do well in warfare they always do what is practical.
In the next huge conflict we will go back to struggling to survive. After the first few hours there will be no time to fight, or factories to work in. Starvation will be the enemy, not some other distant survivors locked in their own desperate struggle to survive. Planning for that hypothetical future is a waste of time.
Assuming the weapons of mass destruction gets used. Reminds me of the huge gas attack scares during the second world war.
But sure, lets pretend history has shown us nothing.
godardc wrote: So, until today, there wasn't any woman who fight for the US ???
I'm a bit surprised.
But, it seems very odd, just after this study which proves they are worse fighters...
Oh, and, even if it is our culture which make them "vulnerable", the women who serve in the US Army, belong to our culture...
(disclamer: I don't see women as vulnerable or worse than men, I was just speaking about the study and answering to previous messages).
Women did not serve in combat roles. Many women have seen combat, but there were no women in career fields such as Infantry, and Special Ops.
My opinion on this... we don't need it. The military isn't a social justice breeding ground. Are there women who can handle combat roles as well as men. Yes, I'll never say there aren't. Are they the majority of women, even those who currently serve in the military though? No, not at all. The military has not been facing a shortage of men to fill combat roles. There was no need to open it up for women to serve, in order to meet our ability to wage war as our government sees fit.
Anecdotally, A friend of mine who works in the 160th recently had two women join his unit, due to this program. Within two weeks there were already UCMJ issues taking place that would never have existed had they not been there. I'm not going to go over details, due to the nature of the incidents.
I can raise a number if issues regarding this, but I'll just bring up one.
Pregnancy. Lets face it, it is a thing that can only happen to women, and given the nature of it, it has a HUGE impact on the woman's role in the military. The moment a woman becomes pregnant, we're looking at up to 18 months of combat ineffectiveness. Any man who goes through that, they'll be shown the door. Hell, I have a non-combat job, and I suffered an injury that prevented me from running for just a year, and I was almost removed from the military because of it. Now though we will be required to take women into these combat jobs, spend all of this money training them, get them tied into these units, and at any point in time, they can just end up being unable to do their job for 12+ months. The military can't kick you out for getting pregnant, so whats going to happen? Pregnant infantry soldiers getting shoved into Staff positions all the time in order to find work for them to do. It creates dead weight, and at face value, its unfair to the men who won't get the same shake.
Swastakowey wrote: Assuming the weapons of mass destruction gets used. Reminds me of the huge gas attack scares during the second world war.
But sure, lets pretend history has shown us nothing.
Of course they will get used, in a large-scale war. If you aren't planning to use nuclear weapons then what good are they as a deterrent? And even if you can't guarantee that they will be used the chance is still there and nobody is going to start the war in the first place. The future is more proxy wars and "fighting terrorism", not long large-scale wars like WWII where all of society is committed to the war for years at a time.
That same website you quoted, the American psychological association, contains several articles also speaking about the differences between men and women, including one which states that women outnumber men 3 to 1 in the psychological workforce...
Sometimes, you only find the articles you look for. I for one enjoy objective scientific evidence.
I think if the Wikipedia page was wrong, it would have been caught and edited, especially considering the controversy of the subject.
If one looks at the style of the articles posted in response to the Wikipedia page citation, they are designed to plant an idea. They don't give you a large amount of real information about the brain, or really anything.
Nothing has disproven the inherent differences in men and women's brains. But anyways, I'll stop now. This all started because someone who isn't replying said women and men are the exact same in mind. I think our differences compliment each other and that they exist because it was more evolutionary advantageous to have two forms, specializing in certain things. I think the differences between men and women are a good thing for humanity in general.
Better to have a diverse array of skills complimenting each other than one set endlessly replicated and placed on top of itself.
Swastakowey wrote: Assuming the weapons of mass destruction gets used. Reminds me of the huge gas attack scares during the second world war.
But sure, lets pretend history has shown us nothing.
Of course they will get used, in a large-scale war. If you aren't planning to use nuclear weapons then what good are they as a deterrent? And even if you can't guarantee that they will be used the chance is still there and nobody is going to start the war in the first place. The future is more proxy wars and "fighting terrorism", not long large-scale wars like WWII where all of society is committed to the war for years at a time.
They likely wont get used. Just like the huge stock piles of gas weapons did not get used 75 years ago. Fear of retaliation is always there.
War may not be fought like ww2, but I doubt the next "large conflict" will be like the conflicts of now. Usually the people that assume the conflicts of now are here to stay are wrong.
From as far back as we have recorded one thing remains, it is mostly men who leave for war while most of their wives and children stay behind. Sure this MIGHT change in the future, but it is safe to assume this trend will continue. The nature of their jobs have changed in both groups sure, but this does not change the trend. Sure you can assume radical ideas like humanity destroying itself in the next large conflict (uhuh sure) but it's safe to assume that most of the fundamentals do not radically change.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Yeah, once again, that article isn't talking about what I am. It was talking about how we're more alike than different. Duh. We're humans. I'm sure the brains of elephant seals are more alike than different too, regardless of their gross sexual dimorphism. I don't dispute that claim.
As far as I can tell; your assertion is that the neurological differences 'between men & women' (I'll come back to this) are significant, and the psychological effects of this difference are also significant. The article I posted disputes the 'significant' part.
One Article from the US Psychological Association (I don't know, are they an authority on anything?); that cites an...
...analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century...
I'd also love to see your 'hundreds of studies', because while I'll happily believe there have been hundreds of studies into the matter, I'd be surprised if they all supported your assertion.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: The fact that you boil down these notions to "the junk between their legs" is strange... there are more things at work than genitals here, yes? Can we at least agree that genitals are not the only difference between men and women?
When dealing with any individual man or woman, it's the only difference you can be absolutely sure of. You can warble all day about women being better at multi-tasking, but there is no guarantee that if you were to randomly select any one man and any one woman that the woman would always be better at multitasking.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Did you read the Wikipedia article I linked? Those differences just don't exist, in your opinion, and that article you posted convinces you of that?
I did, did you? Because:
1 - It's a wiki article, it offers no analysis of it's own, and draws none of it's own conclusions. All it does is offer an overview of the subject.
2 - It opens with:
This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources.
3 - Some of the individual studies it cites talk of significant differences, other dispute that, and alot make no comment on the significance of the differences, just on the processes and mechanics of it.
4 - it cites 37 studies; if there were 'hundreds' supporting your assertion, I'm surprised they aren't there.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I feel the need to reiterate that I don't think either gender is inferior to the other at all. That's not my argument. I'm saying the genders are different and the difference breeds proficiency at different tasks.
Inferiority is not the matter here. The matter is that people, men and women, are individuals first. How we judge them, what we chose to allow them to do, or not do, should be dictated by their individual abilities and achievements, their words and deeds, not by which part of a binary classification they fit into. (A classification you can only be totally sure of by checking down their pants.)
Whew, well done Dakka, you don't normally get this much out of me at once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AncientSkarbrand wrote: This all started because someone who isn't replying said women and men are the exact same in mind.
djones520 wrote: Pregnant infantry soldiers getting shoved into Staff positions all the time in order to find work for them to do. It creates dead weight, and at face value, its unfair to the men who won't get the same shake.
Especially when you consider that in the army, as you move up the ranks, having both staff and "command" time on your ratings is a huge boost for moving up. A pregnant soldier taking up a staff slot automatically means that someone else will be hindered at some point along the way
And there was a time in the army (I don't know current policies) that a female soldier who becomes pregnant, upon finding out is given the choice to be "medically" chaptered out, or to stay in.
I no longer personally care whether females are able to join the infantry... I just hope that today's thing was an "announcement" that it will happen, and that the entire military is going to have time to plan and prepare for the whole host of changes that will necessarily need to be made.
Oh no, I wasn't referring to you when I meant the person wasn't replying. You'll have to excuse my ignorance of the quote function.
Hundreds was a word I threw out there. I haven't tallied or reviewed them all, I haven't done really extensive research, I ship grain for a living and don't have that much time. I'm sorry. I'm just a normal guy on the Internet.
I agree wholeheartedly that the significance of the differences are debatable and vary based on the individuals compared. My initial point of contention was that the first person I started talking about this with asserted they weren't there, and that everyone should proceed with their lives as if there was absolutely no differences. I guess I automatically assumed you were defending that exact assertion , and that's my bad. If the woman wants to serve and shows an equal proficiency to that of the men, then I also agree that it should be her right to serve.
What I have a complete inability to understand is the apparent necessity and importance placed on the implementation of this. I don't see why the desire exists, I don't see how it will increase the effectiveness of the front line troops, I can't understand why people want to ignore the differences between men and women rather than embrace them and view them as the strengths they are. War is a terribly unpleasant thing. I feel it should be viewed as an incredibly unsavoury but perhaps necessary task.
I admit I have a somewhat old-fashioned sense of being a man and being tasked with the protection of the least expendable members of society. I feel instinctively protective of women and children, that if someone is going to hurt people it's my job to be the first line of defence, not theirs. My body is simply more suited for the task, more expendable, and my mind feels I have a higher success rate for allowing at least one of us to survive if I fight. Natural selection has equipped us this way, I might as well use it as it has been used for millenia to ensure survival. As a man, I feel guilt as if I should take their places on the front line, because their lives are more important than mine in a survival sense. There is an instinctive feeling to be a shield to violence that could be done to them.
I would pose the argument that if the differences weren't significant, they wouldn't exist. The human form exists as two genders with differences because it's more suited for life on earth than being the same. They aren't an accident.
But yeah, I'll conclude by agreeing that everyone should only be judged on their individual capabilities and skills and if they prove to be genuinely proficient at something they should be allowed to do it and leave it at that. Everyone should be judged by the same objective standards when being evaluated for completing a task.
djones520 wrote: Pregnant infantry soldiers getting shoved into Staff positions all the time in order to find work for them to do. It creates dead weight, and at face value, its unfair to the men who won't get the same shake.
Especially when you consider that in the army, as you move up the ranks, having both staff and "command" time on your ratings is a huge boost for moving up. A pregnant soldier taking up a staff slot automatically means that someone else will be hindered at some point along the way
And there was a time in the army (I don't know current policies) that a female soldier who becomes pregnant, upon finding out is given the choice to be "medically" chaptered out, or to stay in.
I no longer personally care whether females are able to join the infantry... I just hope that today's thing was an "announcement" that it will happen, and that the entire military is going to have time to plan and prepare for the whole host of changes that will necessarily need to be made.
No, they are required to be ready by 2016. As I mentioned, 160th SOAR is already taking women.
Anecdotally, A friend of mine who works in the 160th recently had two women join his unit, due to this program. Within two weeks there were already UCMJ issues taking place that would never have existed had they not been there. I'm not going to go over details, due to the nature of the incidents.
.
Such? what problems?
Also, women get pregnant, it sucks, but it isnt something that has started happening, the military can adjust.
Remember when we used to say black people used to be unable to be in the army or command because of the same silly scientific reason
Also, women get pregnant, it sucks, but it isnt something that has started happening, the military can adjust.
Remember when we used to say black people used to be unable to be in the army or command because of the same silly scientific reason
Not a lot of redundancy in a 9 man infantry squad or a 4 man tank crew when you lose someone.
Pendix wrote: Inferiority is not the matter here. The matter is that people, men and women, are individuals first. How we judge them, what we chose to allow them to do, or not do, should be dictated by their individual abilities and achievements, their words and deeds, not by which part of a binary classification they fit into. (A classification you can only be totally sure of by checking down their pants.)
This topic came up a few months ago, and I ended up reading extensively on it. I agree in principle that people should be judged on their own merits and not sweeping generalizations. However, after reading many of the studies, I would say I had my mind changed about women in combat roles. The issue for me is one of numbers. The number of women who would be physically up to the task is very small compared to men, and women who are best suited tend to be ones who are most like men. So actually, differentiating between males and females is quite an accurate way of sorting the suitable from the unsuitable, it isn't just baseless sexism.
Another issue is peak physical fitness. The studies showed that there was some crossover between the top 10th percentile of women, and the bottom 50th percentile of men in physical tests. So for a woman to be on a par with an average male, she needs to already be at peak physical fitness. The problem then is that she has no headroom to improve. While an average male can improve and head towards peak male fitness, a woman trying to keep up would just be heading towards an injury. There were quite a lot of factors that made women more susceptible to various types of injury. The short of it was: the best way to not pick up these injuries is to be shaped like a man.
I'm not really against women in combat roles, there probably are some women out there who are shaped enough like men to do the job, but I don't think there are enough for it to be something I'm staunchly in favour of either, it seems kind of a non-issue.
Also, women get pregnant, it sucks, but it isnt something that has started happening, the military can adjust.
Remember when we used to say black people used to be unable to be in the army or command because of the same silly scientific reason
Not a lot of redundancy in a 9 man infantry squad or a 4 man tank crew when you lose someone.
So your saying the military doesnt have policies in place if you end up down a member?
Also, women get pregnant, it sucks, but it isnt something that has started happening, the military can adjust.
Remember when we used to say black people used to be unable to be in the army or command because of the same silly scientific reason
Not a lot of redundancy in a 9 man infantry squad or a 4 man tank crew when you lose someone.
So your saying the military doesnt have policies in place if you end up down a member?
*sighs* Have you seen Fury? Notice how well that 4 man tank crew took to the new guy? You think that was just artistic license? Pregnancy is going to be a HUGE issue for these units.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Couldn't they, you know, not allow them to feth without protection during deployment. I find it weird that people would be doing that anyway.
Who said anything about screwing on a deployment?
A pregnancy makes a soldier non-deployable period. What happens when a unit is ramping up to go downrange, and a woman in it finds out she's pregnant? Now she can't go. What happens if she finds out two weeks after she got there that she's pregnant?
djones520 wrote: A pregnancy makes a soldier non-deployable period. What happens when a unit is ramping up to go downrange, and a woman in it finds out she's pregnant? Now she can't go. What happens if she finds out two weeks after she got there that she's pregnant?
I don't think that's a serious argument. A man could also injure his balls and end up non-deployable. My dad saw a guy slide (sack first) into the leg of a bunk, when he was in the air-force (probably messing about), and the guy was very seriously injured. gak happens.
djones520 wrote: A pregnancy makes a soldier non-deployable period. What happens when a unit is ramping up to go downrange, and a woman in it finds out she's pregnant? Now she can't go. What happens if she finds out two weeks after she got there that she's pregnant?
I don't think that's a serious argument. A man could also injure his balls and end up non-deployable. My dad saw a guy slide sack first into the leg of a bunk when he was in the air-force (probably messing about), and the guy was very seriously injured. gak happens.
The problem is that it's a factor that was never an issue before, and now will become one, solely for the sake of social justice.
Again, I reiterate that the US military had no need for women to serve in combat roles. This is a purely political decision, nothing more.
Look at the bright side. One way or another, we'll finally have a definitive answer on this issue
Either it'll work out and everyone gets the feth over their privilege (check it! ), or we'll learn that it really doesn't work out and it really was a bad idea (damn SJWs ruining things).
The answer is coming people. Grab your chairs and pop your corn!
Think the biggest problem with this is the killing people aspect. I seen this study a while ago where they where showing a link to testies and apathycompasion. Something to do with testos making men get over death and feelings faster then females. i would hate to see them pass this then get thousands of ptsd victims or mass rape by officers. Lets Just say what the enemy does to females they like is grounds for abuse here. So I cant imagine how it would fair for captives.
I was watching cpcac a while ago about this girl kidnapped in africa and she was raped apperantly nearly none stop by she said atleast 30 guys she noticed for weeks until the canadian forces found her. I fear for their saftey death is death but thats just sick.
I am celtic and our women always fought and gave one hell of a temper. But the rule of thumb is men go to fight women stay and fight. If we get hit our women fight but we do not send them to die.
P.s. I think the only reasonthey are pasing this is because recruit numbers are down and people are too fat. Seen it on cnn so it is only natural they will change their standards soon the sick then the young. As long as it is not the rich peoples kids.
LordofHats wrote: Look at the bright side. One way or another, we'll finally have a definitive answer on this issue
Either it'll work out and everyone gets the feth over their privilege (check it! ), or we'll learn that it really doesn't work out and it really was a bad idea (damn SJWs ruining things).
The answer is coming people. Grab your chairs and pop your corn!
Im allergic to popcorn, you intolerant donkey cave
Co'tor Shas wrote: Couldn't they, you know, not allow them to feth without protection during deployment. I find it weird that people would be doing that anyway.
Look up the stat for 'sent home due to pregnancy'.
I'm sure you'll be amazed.
Here is one study:
Of 47 female soldiers receiving MEDEVAC 35 (74%) were for pregnancy-related issues.
Also, women get pregnant, it sucks, but it isnt something that has started happening, the military can adjust.
Remember when we used to say black people used to be unable to be in the army or command because of the same silly scientific reason
Not a lot of redundancy in a 9 man infantry squad or a 4 man tank crew when you lose someone.
So your saying the military doesnt have policies in place if you end up down a member?
*sighs* Have you seen Fury? Notice how well that 4 man tank crew took to the new guy? You think that was just artistic license? Pregnancy is going to be a HUGE issue for these units.
So you are saying it never happens due to illness, injury, awol, reassignment,alien abduction or the new star wars movie, a tank crew is down a number?
Also, women get pregnant, it sucks, but it isnt something that has started happening, the military can adjust.
Remember when we used to say black people used to be unable to be in the army or command because of the same silly scientific reason
Not a lot of redundancy in a 9 man infantry squad or a 4 man tank crew when you lose someone.
So your saying the military doesnt have policies in place if you end up down a member?
*sighs* Have you seen Fury? Notice how well that 4 man tank crew took to the new guy? You think that was just artistic license? Pregnancy is going to be a HUGE issue for these units.
So you are saying it never happens due to illness, injury, awol, reassignment,alien abduction or the new star wars movie, a tank crew is down a number?
If you're not going to bother reading anything else I've posted, I'm not going to bother responding anymore.
LordofHats wrote: Look at the bright side. One way or another, we'll finally have a definitive answer on this issue
Either it'll work out and everyone gets the feth over their privilege (check it! ), or we'll learn that it really doesn't work out and it really was a bad idea (damn SJWs ruining things).
The answer is coming people. Grab your chairs and pop your corn!
Im allergic to popcorn, you intolerant donkey cave
So now I have to check my privilege to eat popcorn? What has science wrought!?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I have read your posts, I just know that pregnancies wipl not be the first time a team is down a member
A pregnancy takes you off the track/out of the squad for over a year....
Not many injuries I've seen took guys out for nearly that long. My PSG broke an ankle and was off his track for 3 weeks.
Look at the studies I posted above. The quick take away is without being in infantry and armor units, women had a higher evac rate then men (including those who WERE in those units).
But I'm sure you know more about than I do. And more than the folks who collected the data.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Oh no, I wasn't referring to you when I meant the person wasn't replying. You'll have to excuse my ignorance of the quote function.
...
Didn't mean any disrespect, Pendix.
None taken.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: But yeah, I'll conclude by agreeing that everyone should only be judged on their individual capabilities and skills and if they prove to be genuinely proficient at something they should be allowed to do it and leave it at that. Everyone should be judged by the same objective standards when being evaluated for completing a task.
At the end of the day that's what is really important. If it turned out tomorrow that most of the stuff I've read was completely wrong, and men and women are radically special sub-species, the basic principal of equality would still hold; treat a person as an individual, not a label.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I again ask, SO? Other jobs have to deal with it, why not the military.
You're absolutely right. There is clearly zero difference between a deployed infantry unit and say a WalMart.
Just as long as folks admit there are differences in injury rates and deployability between male and female troops, if as a nation we say 'SO?' then so be it. feth it, who cares about silly things like those differences anyway, right?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I again ask, SO? Other jobs have to deal with it, why not the military.
You're absolutely right. There is clearly zero difference between a deployed infantry unit and say a WalMart.
Just as long as folks admit there are differences in injury rates and deployability between male and female troops, if as a nation we say 'SO?' then so be it. feth it, who cares about silly things like those differences anyway, right?
You clearly haven't seen Walmart on Black Friday. I still have the flashbacks
Ouze wrote: If they can meet the requirements, they should be able to serve.
While I agree with that principal, I think that in practical terms "the requirement" might end up being just a ban by a different name. It's like the requirement to be over 9 feet tall, hypothetically, someone could meet that requirement, just not any living person, so it becomes moot.
Smacks wrote: While I agree with that principal, I think that in practical terms "the requirement" might end up being just a ban by a different name. It's like the requirement to be over 9 feet tall, hypothetically, someone could meet that requirement, just not any living person, so it becomes moot.
That hasn't happened in practice. After 2 women passed Ranger school, they wound up dropping a requirement that women attend RTAC first, and now just recommend it for both women and men. There have been allegations - no evidence for and denied - that the standards actually were relaxed.
Not very many women will qualify; but that's OK. The standards should reflect the realities of actual ground combat requirements, and the goal is to be equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.
It would be cool if a country that constantly bragged about how exceptional it is could get to where Israel was 15 years ago.
If women are allowed in then it removes all the heart from infantry singing "This is my rifle, this is my gun". Sure the girls can still sing along but it loses something.
Historically women were kept out of service to protect a nations ability to repopulate, 1 man can impregnate 100's of women if needed so you can have lots of men die off without impacting the population rate as harshly. You start losing your women in large numbers the population will decline very quickly.
Also in ages past battlefields and the campaigns on the road were hardly a clean or hygienic venture, those conditions can lead to several types of infections that don't occur quite as easily in men. (particularly in the ages before tampons and monthly bleeding wasn't easily controlled) Not a lot of women like being in the great outdoors due to a lack of facilities, they are more agreeable when it's at a dedicated park or somewhere with at least minimal access to toilets and washing facilities, but most have absolutely zero interest in truly "roughing it" and combat deployment in many parts of the world can require enduring some pretty nasty hygiene levels at times.
I don't see the problem with women joining the military. They will have to prevent any sexual misbehavior from both men and women during service, though.
(As for combat performances, I don't know. If women pass the same tests as men and qualify, that's fine.)
Also, women get pregnant, it sucks, but it isnt something that has started happening, the military can adjust.
Unless you mistyped that, you are so seriously wrong here....
My wife is still in the army, and has been pregnant while in the army.... twice.
So, then, pregnancy has already been a thing in the military? Shock, and are you sure the military hasnt fallen apart like other posters said it would?
H.B.M.C. wrote: As long as they meet the same recruitment and training standards, why stop them?
The problem is that they don't currently have the same training standards. I see no reason to limit them from taking on those roles should they pass all of the exact same fitness and training standards as men, not weighted scores based on gender. If they are given a lower standard then it puts lives at risk and that is not acceptable.
H.B.M.C. wrote: As long as they meet the same recruitment and training standards, why stop them?
The problem is that they don't currently have the same training standards. I see no reason to limit them from taking on those roles should they pass all of the exact same fitness and training standards as men, not weighted scores based on gender. If they are given a lower standard then it puts lives at risk and that is not acceptable.
Then that's a huge problem that needs to be addressed.
There should be a bar set for serving in front line combat, and anyone who fails to reach that bar (man or woman) should not be allowed to serve in a front line combat detail.
So I can assume you folks are against things like separate APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test) standards for males and females, right?
Do you think the male standard is too high or the female too low? Where should the new standard be?
Of note, currently a 17-21 year old female would have to max her push ups to meet the minimum passing score for a male.
I suspect if you decide to go with 'use the current male standard' the number of females in the military would drop. Drastically. But that would be fair, right?
CptJake wrote: I suspect if you decide to go with 'use the current male standard' the number of females in the military would drop. Drastically. But that would be fair, right?
If the number of push-ups currently required for men realistically matches the level of physical fitness required in a combat role, then yes, it would be fair; even if it meant only a small number of women were able to meet that standard. Mind blown, right?
AncientSkarbrand wrote: It's okay for those African cultures to do things differently. I'm not one to tell them they're wrong. Did their women have larger bone structure and more heavily muscled bodies? Did the men primarily care for children?
If not, then I simply question the physical advantage they saw as to why it was the women doing the fighting, as I am now.
Cause they saw women as better fighters, more aggressive and more protective than men.
Really this idea that women are better than men at somethings, and mean vice versa is an idea that needs to die.
I'm better at pissing out a fire than any woman I've challenged.
It seems the people who were against it before are still against it and that those who were for it are still for it. Of course it doesn't matter who is for or against it as it now exists regardless.
I thought soldiers would adapt to the change such as when they integrated the military, allowed women in in the first place, ect ect. Yet maybe vaginas in combat is a step to far for them. Adapting to something so radical may be beyond them? I wouldn't think so yet here we are.
Ahtman wrote: I thought soldiers would adapt to the change such as when they integrated the military, allowed women in in the first place, ect ect. Yet maybe vaginas in combat is a step to far for them. Adapting to something so radical may be beyond them? I wouldn't think so yet here we are.
The unit is not an instrument of social change, but they'll get over it.
Its not a matter of adapting. This will seriously impact the infantry's ability to effectively do its mission. In every single country this has been tried, it ha been a failure. In the long term test the marines did, even stacking the teams in favor of the women, it was a failure.
Physical:
- women are 6x more likely to sustain injury just from normal activities, running, rucking, maneuvers etc.
-A 160 pound woman(not going to pretend they will be sci-fi trope petite little girls) carrying 70 pounds of her own gear and weapon is not going to be able to carry and run with a 220 pound guy with his 70 pounds of gear. That's a standard activity by the way, we used to do this for relay races at PT.
-Will that same woman with 70 pounds of gear and a 100 pound rucksack be able to walk right into a firefight after a 12-25 mile march? What about carrying a 240 and its belts of ammo?
-Will she be able to go a month without taking a shower and not having hygiene issues impacting her performance?
-Pregnancy- Infantry squads train nonstop, we were at a range usually once a week when we weren't in the field a minimum of three weeks every two months(sometimes more) and this is during peacetime at base. A squad requires to work together over and over to build muscle memory, rehearse where who goes where, to the point its instinctive as to what the rest of the team is doing. We hated just getting new guys or losing an old guy to PCS(changing stations) because we would have to start all over again. So now we have a pregnant woman, who will be out all the time, will be dragging the squad down, will miss what 2 months for popping the kid out? Whats this going to do with vehicle crews like in a tank company where they don't have spare people just sitting around to take the woman's spot? Be interesting to see a woman in a tank company, there is nothing light weight on an M1 and she will be expected to pull her weight like a man.
-Social- Now you have the social aspects. Working close with a woman, no matter how much you claim discipline, self control or outright rules against it, relationships will happen. It will as the marines clearly showed impact the mission.
This subject has been studied to death, the results are clearly obvious. Even countries that have female infantry has them segregated in lighter duty assignments. Can a woman hold and shoot a fixed position? Of course. But that is not US combat doctrine, we move and shoot, non-stop.
This is a prime example how the SJBs and the ilk that support them are destroying our country. San bernandino is an example of how SJBs and their mission to destroy the fabric of this country have gotten innocent people killed. This newest case will get US soldiers killed, all for the alter of deviant political correctness.
This is a prime example how the SJBs and the ilk that support them are destroying our country. San bernandino is an example of how SJBs and their mission to destroy the fabric of this country have gotten innocent people killed. This newest case will get US soldiers killed, all for the alter of deviant political correctness.
I laughed pretty hard.
Maybe you're going too far linking a presumed terrorist attack and the admission of women in infantry corps ?
Col. Dash wrote: Its not a matter of adapting. This will seriously impact the infantry's ability to effectively do its mission. In every single country this has been tried, it ha been a failure. In the long term test the marines did, even stacking the teams in favor of the women, it was a failure.
Physical:
- women are 6x more likely to sustain injury just from normal activities, running, rucking, maneuvers etc.
-A 160 pound woman(not going to pretend they will be sci-fi trope petite little girls) carrying 70 pounds of her own gear and weapon is not going to be able to carry and run with a 220 pound guy with his 70 pounds of gear. That's a standard activity by the way, we used to do this for relay races at PT.
-Will that same woman with 70 pounds of gear and a 100 pound rucksack be able to walk right into a firefight after a 12-25 mile march? What about carrying a 240 and its belts of ammo?
-Will she be able to go a month without taking a shower and not having hygiene issues impacting her performance?
-Pregnancy- Infantry squads train nonstop, we were at a range usually once a week when we weren't in the field a minimum of three weeks every two months(sometimes more) and this is during peacetime at base. A squad requires to work together over and over to build muscle memory, rehearse where who goes where, to the point its instinctive as to what the rest of the team is doing. We hated just getting new guys or losing an old guy to PCS(changing stations) because we would have to start all over again. So now we have a pregnant woman, who will be out all the time, will be dragging the squad down, will miss what 2 months for popping the kid out? Whats this going to do with vehicle crews like in a tank company where they don't have spare people just sitting around to take the woman's spot? Be interesting to see a woman in a tank company, there is nothing light weight on an M1 and she will be expected to pull her weight like a man.
-Social- Now you have the social aspects. Working close with a woman, no matter how much you claim discipline, self control or outright rules against it, relationships will happen. It will as the marines clearly showed impact the mission.
This subject has been studied to death, the results are clearly obvious. Even countries that have female infantry has them segregated in lighter duty assignments. Can a woman hold and shoot a fixed position? Of course. But that is not US combat doctrine, we move and shoot, non-stop.
This is a prime example how the SJBs and the ilk that support them are destroying our country. San bernandino is an example of how SJBs and their mission to destroy the fabric of this country have gotten innocent people killed. This newest case will get US soldiers killed, all for the alter of deviant political correctness.
I am going to assume that in your pregnancy argument, you are saying that she will be out 2 months for popping a kid, 1 month before and 1 month after? Can you name one doctor in the world that would let a pregnant woman run military drills/be active duty in a combat zone? That is ridiculous man. Come on, think for a second. She would be replaced as soon as the pregnancy test came back.
As for the San Bernadino comment, it just amazes me that you can somehow blame that on "SJBs"
Col. Dash wrote: IThis is a prime example how the SJBs and the ilk that support them are destroying our country. San bernandino is an example of how SJBs and their mission to destroy the fabric of this country have gotten innocent people killed. This newest case will get US soldiers killed, all for the alter of deviant political correctness.
I think you're reposting an argument from the 1940s, when arguments about how blacks would destroy unit morale and cohesion were all the rage. Those SJB's, they just don't stop.
edit: gak, HBMC beat me to it with that great video I didn't watch until now :(
I am going to assume that in your pregnancy argument, you are saying that she will be out 2 months for popping a kid, 1 month before and 1 month after? Can you name one doctor in the world that would let a pregnant woman run military drills/be active duty in a combat zone? That is ridiculous man. Come on, think for a second. She would be replaced as soon as the pregnancy test came back.
Actually, no, she would not be replaced in most cases. She would be pulled from the position (and if deployed, evaced back to the states), but the unit would just end up being short handed until she could return to duty. You lose her effectively for about a year. She could work in other positions in the unit (orderly room clerk) in garrison, but not deployed. There is not pool of replacements like we had in WW2. And as long as the position is 'filled', even with a person who cannot perform the duties, you can't get another body in. You are only authorized a certain number of folks (and those are by MOS and grade). Unless you actually drop her from the unit manning document and reassign her somewhere else, she still fills a slot on your roster.
Exactly as Capt Jake said. I was counting the two months of maternity leave after the fact. But she isn't going to be much use the month or two leading up to birth either as body armor probably doesn't fit and she wont be training in the field. Meaning you have an empty spot which is filled by a name. Like I said even worse for the tankers, they have no spare people sitting around to fill the spot where every spot HAS to be filled in order to use the tank. Like I said, efficiency goes down as lack of training, manpower, or both is degraded.
And yes pregnancy in the military is fairly common. I used to see it all the time since its paid for by the military. In the past, and I don't know if it has changed, but women who popped out a kid had the option of staying in or getting out. Those that get out are further wasting not only money, but massive amounts of hours of training time and time spent building unit cohesion.
As for the San bernadino thing, it was another reference to where the SJB agenda has taken human life, just like this one will cause life to be lost. A neighbor noted suspicious activity from the killers, but it had been so drilled into his head by the SJB scum that he was just being racist, he never reported it. This military SJB agenda will also take US soldier's lives, make no doubt about it.
Col. Dash wrote: As for the San bernadino thing, it was another reference to where the SJB agenda has taken human life, just like this one will cause life to be lost. A neighbor noted suspicious activity from the killers, but it had been so drilled into his head by the SJB scum that he was just being racist, he never reported it. This military SJB agenda...
I gotta be honest, at this point I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling but either way I'm kind of laughing my ass off.
I am going to assume that in your pregnancy argument, you are saying that she will be out 2 months for popping a kid, 1 month before and 1 month after? Can you name one doctor in the world that would let a pregnant woman run military drills/be active duty in a combat zone? That is ridiculous man. Come on, think for a second. She would be replaced as soon as the pregnancy test came back.
Actually, no, she would not be replaced in most cases. She would be pulled from the position (and if deployed, evaced back to the states), but the unit would just end up being short handed until she could return to duty. You lose her effectively for about a year. She could work in other positions in the unit (orderly room clerk) in garrison, but not deployed. There is not pool of replacements like we had in WW2. And as long as the position is 'filled', even with a person who cannot perform the duties, you can't get another body in. You are only authorized a certain number of folks (and those are by MOS and grade). Unless you actually drop her from the unit manning document and reassign her somewhere else, she still fills a slot on your roster.
She is having a child, she is likely not to return to active combat duty unless she has a significant other in a position to take care of the child and since his argument is that she gets pregnant while deployed, I am going to assume that the person she is having the child with is also currently deployed.
The odds of her coming back are slim to none. So I mean, her position would not be 'filled' as she would be out for the better part of a year and after that, she would have a dependent with no way of caring for it while deployed. She is gone man. She is gone.
So, then, pregnancy has already been a thing in the military? Shock, and are you sure the military hasnt fallen apart like other posters said it would?
No one has said it would fall apart.....
What DOES happen though, is that quite often time, because of the nature of cut-backs and structuring, a unit is designed with little to no reduncancies. As in, if there's a job whose sole purpose from 9-1700 is to shred paper, there will only be one person doing it. Even in a larger office, say, the Personnel Office (the infamous S-1), the office itself will have 4-6 people who are all of the same MOS, but each has a different job. If one becomes pregnant, in that setting not much changes, it's an office. At least until the birth and 6 weeks of maternity leave. But during that six weeks, one or more people have to increase their work load to cover that one person's job.
Now, if we change that office setting to say, Iraq or Afghanistan, that woman who becomes pregnant must be sent home on pretty much the first flight outta dodge. If we go with the higher op-tempo time period, units deploy for a year, 12 months. If the unit deploys in January, and a woman becomes pregnant in February, that means that those in her office/workspace must increase their workload for 10+ months. If we change this office setting to an infantry squad where there's 8-10 people in the squad, suddenly having 7-9 people makes a huge difference on patrols and in a fire fight. If she is a tanker, an Abrams tank runs with 4 people... a Pregnant woman makes 3 people and a combat ineffective vehicle.
All of that affects unit readiness and ability to fight. As was evidenced by my second deployment, most units have "barely" enough people to cover their deployment from the get-go, so to lose anyone is actually kind of a big deal as human resources must be diverted and rerouted.
She is having a child, she is likely not to return to active combat duty unless she has a significant other in a position to take care of the child and since his argument is that she gets pregnant while deployed, I am going to assume that the person she is having the child with is also currently deployed.
The odds of her coming back are slim to none. So I mean, her position would not be 'filled' as she would be out for the better part of a year and after that, she would have a dependent with no way of caring for it while deployed. She is gone man. She is gone.
To be fair, that is not 100% accurate. Any single parent (male or female) or dual military families must have a 'family care plan' which is a pretty extensive set of documents from POAs to proof of direct deposits and so on to prove the troop(s) can be deployed because they have a plan for the kid to be taken care. Failure to have an executable family care plan is grounds for being chaptered. Plenty of dual military families have deployed as have single parents. I know a young lady who deployed about 4 months after giving birth, her mom was the mainstay of her family care plan.
There are SOME troops who use the 'I can't come up with a family care plan' as an excuse to get put off active duty, and others who at the LAST damned minute before deployment figure out their plan is not actually executable and become non-deployable (and generally chaptered out). And there are plenty of good troopers who deploy while someone else cares for their kids...
These arguments sound suspiciously like ones against my wife in her work.
She took about 3 months off and I took the parental leave.
Shocked the hell out of the guys who thought they were free and clear to jockey for her position.
There is a fairly short recovery time physically for birth other than the topic of breast feeding which I dearly do not want to get embroiled in.
For at least the "planned" form of pregnancy it is doable and does require some degree of stepping up for the other parent.
Now for in-the-field pregnancies, it requires the discipline of adults to prevent this new (at least for the military) form of "infection".
Use your gosh-darn preventatives! STD's have always been a concern this is just one more good reason.
I now really want to look up some numbers of STD diagnosis rates of military personnel.
It would be a good measure of sexual activity and the degree of care given of infection prevention.
Call me simple, but I am not seeing anything new here other than the life and death seriousness of this occupation that also requires on occasion long periods in the field without logistics support.
Why do I feel like there should be a new squad formations with pairing of male/females as partners within them.
Even before my wife and I became a couple, we got the business done whatever it was.
Talizvar wrote: These arguments sound suspiciously like ones against my wife in her work.
She took about 3 months off and I took the parental leave.
Could your wife do her job while pregnant?
In the Army, if you are pregnant you are non-deployable. That significantly extends the period the trooper's 'job' isn't being done by that trooper. Would your wife's boss accepted losing her for a year and holding her job for her, slot unfilled?
There MAY just be a tiny bit of difference you are glossing over....
Use your gosh-darn preventatives! STD's have always been a concern this is just one more good reason.
My wife and I were deployed together (for a good while we were dual-military)... birth control doesn't work 100% as evidenced by my oldest child. (long story short, she was conceived in Iraq, and the medics were fething morons.... or the medics were playing morons to prevent shenanigans with flights home)
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Source on that? I know that the women were trained to fight to protect their households, when the men were away on raids, and I know that they would accompany the men on an exploration or a colonization voyage, but this the first I've heard of them being actual warriors. Especially a lot of them.
Some of you are still missing one important factor, efficiency. I believe a woman could be trained up to fight as good as a man with a rifle. But that is not all that is involved. Further, there is massive amounts of training she will miss if she gets pregnant. She is still taking up that slot. Every day she isn't in armor in the field practicing with the rest of the squad is lost efficiency with the squad. A good squad works well because they have trained with each other constantly for many many days evolving to the point of being a well oiled machine. And then she has an oops. Now the team is missing a member for who knows how long with no hope of a replacement as long as she still holds the slot.
I was mech so we didn't have women but I remember something, are pregnant women even allowed to be around JP8 fuel? If that's the case would that mean they couldn't be around a tank or Bradley the entire time they are pregnant? How does that work in the non-combat fields that have heavy vehicles?
Col. Dash wrote: Some of you are still missing one important factor, efficiency. I believe a woman could be trained up to fight as good as a man with a rifle. But that is not all that is involved. Further, there is massive amounts of training she will miss if she gets pregnant. She is still taking up that slot. Every day she isn't in armor in the field practicing with the rest of the squad is lost efficiency with the squad. A good squad works well because they have trained with each other constantly for many many days evolving to the point of being a well oiled machine. And then she has an oops. Now the team is missing a member for who knows how long with no hope of a replacement as long as she still holds the slot.
I was mech so we didn't have women but I remember something, are pregnant women even allowed to be around JP8 fuel? If that's the case would that mean they couldn't be around a tank or Bradley the entire time they are pregnant? How does that work in the non-combat fields that have heavy vehicles?
Well, women are not obligated to get pregnant. Y'know, birth control is a thing.
Col. Dash wrote: Bully. They do not deserve the honor of being called warrior.
I think warrior is generally meant to be dripping with sarcasm, given that it is generally regarded as a pejorative. That being said, "bully" would generally be appropriate as well.
I kind of feel the same way about that as I do abortion, gun control, or anything else: Believe whatever the hell you want to. Believe your god wants you to do whatever feels good. Be as crazy, religious or otherwise, as you feel like. The moment you extend that philosophy to other people though is the moment you become a fascist.
Col. Dash wrote: Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.
I feel like the pregnancy angle is a non-starter. Men can also have an oops and catch VD. They're way more likely to visit places like brothels, which can also result in some down time, depending on the severity of the condition. Men are also more vulnerable to being kicked in the balls, more likely to become involved in altercations, have a weaker immune system, tend to drive more recklessly, and are less likely to visit the doctor etc... Which are all things that might compromise their health. They also might just need to take time off to look after their children.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Honor to be called a warrior? That is the stupiedest gak I have ever heard, what is so special about the term "Warrior"
It denotes a soldier with great skill and courage, who is dedicated to combat. Its a cultural thing. Several ancient cultures held warriors in high esteem, and such a reverence survived. Japan is one such example, with the bushido thing. The Greeks are another.
Col. Dash wrote: Bully. They do not deserve the honor of being called warrior.
I think warrior is generally meant to be dripping with sarcasm, given that it is generally regarded as a pejorative. That being said, "bully" would generally be appropriate as well.
I kind of feel the same way about that as I do abortion, gun control, or anything else: Believe whatever the hell you want to. Believe your god wants you to do whatever feels good. Be as crazy, religious or otherwise, as you feel like. The moment you extend that philosophy to other people though is the moment you become a fascist.
Its derived from Keyboard Warrior. Which is indeed a sarcastic term.
Col. Dash wrote: Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.
I posted a link above where one BCT had several evaced due to pregnancy, and another study with more info showing female soldiers were evaced for non-combat injuries (including pregnancy) at a much higher rate than male soldiers.
But the prevailing opinion seems to 'SO!'.
Not a big deal. There clearly are differences and as a nation we clearly have decided those differences do not merit exclusion from combat arms (infantry, armor, and SF) positions.
At this point I'm annoyed at folks who can't won't admit there are real differences. Admitting there are and deciding they are not significant enough to keep the policy from changing is one thing. To say there are no differences seems to indicate decisions/opinions based on ignorance.
I do feel the wrong decision has been made, but do trust our troops to implement the new policy. In another thread on this I did post links to several studies explaining why I held my opinion. My opinion was based for the most part on very real differences in anatomy which result in higher injury rates and more severe injuries, and the fact that we are not currently having any problems filling combat arms slots so there was no need for a wider pool of applicants. Again, clearly those differences are not enough to way SECDEF.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Absolutely nothing. ISIS are warriors, as are US army personal, UK army, ect. It's not a term filled with reverence.
Only if you don't read both definitions.
1. a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier.
2. a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics.
The latter is something to be revered, no? Though what that person is showing vigor towards should still be taken into consideration. Is there such thing as a Warhammer Warrior ?
Col. Dash wrote: Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.
I feel like the pregnancy angle is a non-starter. Men can also have an oops and catch VD. They're way more likely to visit places like brothels, which can also result in some down time, depending on the severity of the condition. Men are also more vulnerable to being kicked in the balls, more likely to become involved in altercations, have a weaker immune system, tend to drive more recklessly, and are less likely to visit the doctor etc... Which are all things that might compromise their health. They also might just need to take time off to look after their children.
STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.
Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.
The moment you openly admit to denying a proven biological difference is where you lose any credibility. We're talking averages, of course, but women /have/ weaker bodies than men. Deal with it.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Not true at all. Viking women were trained fighters and some even went to raids, but the largest part of them stayed home. Women were far too valuable to lose in a war. Women actually were highly respected and had a lot of rights, basically they said what would happen at home. Their men fought at distant shores, but at homen, it was the woman who decided on what was up and men had little say into it. Nevertheless, women were adept fighters and quite a few actual sources from Christians report of Viking women at "towering" size, fighting bare-breasted and shouting in tongues.
CptJake wrote: STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.
Well I didn't say they were the same, did I? I'm just pointing out that an argument built around a hypothetical pregnancy disrupting a hypothetical unit, "therefore woman can't ever be combat troops" is asinine stupid. Many women sacrifice family for their careers, and not all women are even able to have children. A hypothetical person with a medical condition that a real person can actively avoid, does not a compelling argument make.
Col. Dash wrote: Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.
I feel like the pregnancy angle is a non-starter. Men can also have an oops and catch VD. They're way more likely to visit places like brothels, which can also result in some down time, depending on the severity of the condition. Men are also more vulnerable to being kicked in the balls, more likely to become involved in altercations, have a weaker immune system, tend to drive more recklessly, and are less likely to visit the doctor etc... Which are all things that might compromise their health. They also might just need to take time off to look after their children.
STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.
People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.
I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there. Your claims that the impacts it will bring to combat arms will not be that serious are simply laughable.
We thought we were pretty average. Usually scores were in the upper 70s-mid 80s on each part of the PT test, nothing too special. Just like in every other aspect of life you had your exceptional guys and your low end guys. Every now and then a failure which was brutally corrected. Note that on the current PT score system, low end guys are still scoring in the extremely high end of female scores across all age ranges.
edit- actually DJones, the military should be the ones with the final say in the matter, not the useless politicians who are simply appeasing a vocal minority to show how much they care. Its the military and the guys and girls(eventually)on the line who are going to get boned by these moronic decisions.
Col. Dash wrote: Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.
I feel like the pregnancy angle is a non-starter. Men can also have an oops and catch VD. They're way more likely to visit places like brothels, which can also result in some down time, depending on the severity of the condition. Men are also more vulnerable to being kicked in the balls, more likely to become involved in altercations, have a weaker immune system, tend to drive more recklessly, and are less likely to visit the doctor etc... Which are all things that might compromise their health. They also might just need to take time off to look after their children.
STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.
People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.
I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there. Your claims that the impacts it will bring to combat arms will not be that serious are simply laughable.
No, the claim is that, just like every other job, the military will adjust. Police, Firfighters, I think EMTs? have to deal with it. Its time for the army to grow up, let women in their club and get over it.
Have you ever been shot at moron? Ever had to carry your buddy under fire in full battle rattle? This is a major point of what it comes down to. A woman is going to have a very hard time doing this. It is going to directly impact efficiency and the ability to complete missions. It is going to cause a spike in physical injuries which will then cause a spike in cost to the taxpayer. Why? What fragging purpose does this serve? None. As been proven over and over. People's lives are not a social experiment. SJBs can keep their foolish good intentions on the college campuses and in their ivory towers, they do not belong in the field. If you haven't served in the military in combat arms, they really shouldn't get a say in the matter since they have ZERO flipping clue what they are talking about.
Please keep in mind that Rule One is Be Polite. Thanks! ~ Manchu
djones520 wrote: People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.
I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there.
That would be true in almost every profession, and if you follow it to its conclusion you end up with: "women shouldn't have jobs", which is absurd.
Your claims that the impacts it will bring to combat arms will not be that serious are simply laughable.
I never claimed that. You need to understand that I personally don't think women should be combat troops (or at least I don't think more than about 10 women are really affected by this, so I don't care), so if anything I am on your side. But the pregnancy angle doesn't really go anywhere and it isn't the most important issue. If "women can get pregnant" was the only argument against women being in combat rolls, then there would be no argument. Women being at greater risk of injury, and not being able to cope physically with the job is the only issue that should really matter IMO.
Col. Dash wrote: Have you ever been shot at moron? Ever had to carry your buddy under fire in full battle rattle? This is a major point of what it comes down to. A woman is going to have a very hard time doing this. It is going to directly impact efficiency and the ability to complete missions. It is going to cause a spike in physical injuries which will then cause a spike in cost to the taxpayer. Why? What fragging purpose does this serve? None. As been proven over and over. People's lives are not a social experiment. SJBs can keep their foolish good intentions on the college campuses and in their ivory towers, they do not belong in the field. If you haven't served in the military in combat arms, they really shouldn't get a say in the matter since they have ZERO flipping clue what they are talking about.
It took 6 pages, but someone finally said that if you aren't in the military, you shouldnt ever comment on it. That isnt a good argument dude and you know it. And the fact that your keep bringing up SJB and that they are trying to ruin things for you, brings up just how childish this whole argument its. Let me tell you this. Women can do they same things men can. No IFS ANDS OR BUTS.
CptJake wrote: STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.
Well I didn't say they were the same, did I? I'm just pointing out that an argument built around a hypothetical pregnancy disrupting a hypothetical unit, "therefore woman can't ever be combat troops" is asinine stupid. Many women sacrifice family for their careers, and not all women are even able to have children. A hypothetical person with a medical condition that a real person can actively avoid, does not a compelling argument make.
And yet the studies I linked to show the reality of the 'hypothetical'. Many of us have dealt with it and 'hypothetical' is not how we describe what we actually have experience with.
Col. Dash wrote: Have you ever been shot at moron? Ever had to carry your buddy under fire in full battle rattle? This is a major point of what it comes down to. A woman is going to have a very hard time doing this. It is going to directly impact efficiency and the ability to complete missions. It is going to cause a spike in physical injuries which will then cause a spike in cost to the taxpayer. Why? What fragging purpose does this serve? None. As been proven over and over. People's lives are not a social experiment. SJBs can keep their foolish good intentions on the college campuses and in their ivory towers, they do not belong in the field. If you haven't served in the military in combat arms, they really shouldn't get a say in the matter since they have ZERO flipping clue what they are talking about.
It took 6 pages, but someone finally said that if you aren't in the military, you shouldnt ever comment on it.
That isnt a good argument dude and you know it. And the fact that your keep bringing up SJB and that they are trying to ruin things for you, brings up just how childish this whole argument its.
Let me tell you this.
Women can do they same things men can. No IFS ANDS OR BUTS.
Didn't we just talk about how each gender is different in their own way? Women struggle to do somethings men can do and men struggle at somethings women can do.
Smacks wrote: I never claimed that. You need to understand that I personally don't think women should be combat troops (or at least I don't think more than about 10 women are really affected by this, so I don't care), so if anything I am on your side. But the pregnancy angle doesn't really go anywhere and it isn't the most important issue. If "women can get pregnant" was the only argument against women being in combat rolls, then there would be no argument. Women being at greater risk of injury, and not being able to cope physically with the job is the only issue that should really matter IMO.
You may not have specifically claimed it, but it sure seems to have been implied several times in this topic.
I agree the primary factor should be the physical differences. And again, I've shown a ton of studies on which I've based my opinion (along with personal experience obviously).
It appears the thing that will settle this debate is seeing what actually happens in the field. For myself, I think we'll be seeing more body bags and units with lower efficiency.
If I get proven wrong, feel free to wave this post in my face.
Are we expecting the average person, male or female, to be in a front line combat MOS?
Typically? Yes.
Really? My experience hasn't been that people that go into front line MOS's and are able to stay there aren't what I would call average. Not all were the brightest bulb in the box, but physically they were well above average.
Are we expecting the average person, male or female, to be in a front line combat MOS?
Typically? Yes.
Really? My experience hasn't been that people that go into front line MOS's and are able to stay there aren't what I would call average. Not all were the brightest bulb in the box, but physically they were well above average.
If we're going off personal antecdotes to give validity to our positions, it appears those who served are in the majority against having women on the front lines based off what they saw and experienced.
djones520 wrote:[I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it.
There are several problems with making an appeal to authority. The big problem with this specific appeal to authority is that if we accept that you are in the military and therefore know best, we're going to have to follow that chain to it's natural conclusion and assume that the Secretary of Defense might know more about the military needs and challenges of the entire nation (rather than at a squad or unit level) then, say, a weatherman. While some things are self-evident to a layman - you don't have to be an auto mechanic to know you can't put diesel into a regular car - I posit to you that this might not be one of those times.
I think I would be very safe in saying the SoD knew more about the military than a weatherman, unless the weatherman had some additional qualifications.
Relapse wrote: If we're going off personal antecdotes to give validity to our positions, it appears those who served are in the majority against having women on the front lines based off what they saw and experienced.
If we are qualifying them as personal anecdotes, as I did, and not as some overall fact I don't see what the problem is. I never told djones520 he was wrong, just that my experience was different in this regard. It also helps that the standards are above average for front line MOS's. Of course the NFL is also physically above average as well.
The majority of people were also against integration and women getting to vote, so saying 'the majority of X' doesn't really mean that much honestly.
Really looking forward to hearing leaks from the first BUD/S class to allow women in. Log PT's gonna be a source of all sorts of fun, "Well, do we really need this? When's the last time SEALs hauled their boat over land?" discussion from the left.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Source on that?
I know that the women were trained to fight to protect their households, when the men were away on raids, and I know that they would accompany the men on an exploration or a colonization voyage, but this the first I've heard of them being actual warriors. Especially a lot of them.
I'll have to see if I can't dig up some of the recent articles... But basically, based on new archaeological digs, evidence is showing in mass warrior graves near known battle sites that "a lot" of the warriors were women. Some of the initial articles that I saw said around half, but after further examination and testing on the bones, the researchers have amended that to say "up to" half of the warriors were women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I think I would be very safe in saying the SoD knew more about the military than a weatherman, unless the weatherman had some additional qualifications.
While true, what we can safely assume, is that SecDef gets pressure from a number of sources to enact certain measures. If he/she is doing his/her job correctly, then SecDef will go to the Joint Chiefs and other GSO types to gather their feedback.
Women cannot do the same thing as men and this has been proven. The marines did a whole long term study and even stacked the odds in favor of the women. They did much worse in almost every aspect including getting injured more in normal activities. It has been proven. They are not the same as men, not as strong, and their bodies cannot endure the same physical hardship over long term. Again proven. No degree in womans studies is going to be able to argue with the facts.
The thing is, in support roles and even civilian lives, women can be targets (just like men). If they're going to have their lives at risk one way or another, surely they should be able to be proactive in their defense and that means being able to serve in frontline positions if they want to? I'd be looking at the implementation of this - okay, so an average woman might have trouble dragging an average man out of the way. What about all-female units then? Guns have changed a fair bit about how war works since medieval days - accuracy, reflexes, etc as opposed to the brute strength needed to plow through someone's armour. Otherwise i just see it as going down the 'women need to be protected and discouraged from doing things' path, which i see as wrong. Equal right to die should mean equal right to fight.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Source on that?
I know that the women were trained to fight to protect their households, when the men were away on raids, and I know that they would accompany the men on an exploration or a colonization voyage, but this the first I've heard of them being actual warriors. Especially a lot of them.
I'll have to see if I can't dig up some of the recent articles... But basically, based on new archaeological digs, evidence is showing in mass warrior graves near known battle sites that "a lot" of the warriors were women. Some of the initial articles that I saw said around half, but after further examination and testing on the bones, the researchers have amended that to say "up to" half of the warriors were women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I think I would be very safe in saying the SoD knew more about the military than a weatherman, unless the weatherman had some additional qualifications.
While true, what we can safely assume, is that SecDef gets pressure from a number of sources to enact certain measures. If he/she is doing his/her job correctly, then SecDef will go to the Joint Chiefs and other GSO types to gather their feedback.
If the Viking article was the one I saw, I think half of all Viking Warriors were geriatrics...
So we're down to just shouting back and forth about this one about now?
There are, and are going to be significant logistical and personnel issues with this. Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves or woefully uneducated on the subject.
The argument isn't or at least shouldn't be whether or not this is true, because a simple perusal of basically all of the evidence so far gathered shows this.
The argument really ought to be on whether the juice is worth the squeeze. As I said waaay back when, from a purely egalitarian standpoint this is the only logical way to move forward. But people are going to die because of this that would have otherwise lived. Many people who would not have had career ending injuries, will. It is going to happen. All the equivocating and good feels in the world won't stop that.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Source on that?
I know that the women were trained to fight to protect their households, when the men were away on raids, and I know that they would accompany the men on an exploration or a colonization voyage, but this the first I've heard of them being actual warriors. Especially a lot of them.
I'll have to see if I can't dig up some of the recent articles... But basically, based on new archaeological digs, evidence is showing in mass warrior graves near known battle sites that "a lot" of the warriors were women. Some of the initial articles that I saw said around half, but after further examination and testing on the bones, the researchers have amended that to say "up to" half of the warriors were women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I think I would be very safe in saying the SoD knew more about the military than a weatherman, unless the weatherman had some additional qualifications.
While true, what we can safely assume, is that SecDef gets pressure from a number of sources to enact certain measures. If he/she is doing his/her job correctly, then SecDef will go to the Joint Chiefs and other GSO types to gather their feedback.
If the Viking article was the one I saw, I think half of all Viking Warriors were geriatrics...
If I recall correctly woman and children often worked the training end of the battle, finishing off the wounded. The skilled ones could kill a man with a single axe blow. Lief Eriksons wife also put down a mutiny with her axe after a dispute over who should be calling the shots after his death.
Back to the original topic. The very first army aircraft to cross into Iraq in Desert Storm had one or two female crew members. Shocked the army at the time, almost 25 years ago.
I don't know much about actual real world military or political stuff in general, nevermind things in another country but... Reading this I've got to ask the question of...
If you accept that, general things being equal, a female soldier is less capable than a male soldier in the typical 'front line combat' roles. - I'm not saying I'm agreeing with this or whatever, I am very clearly stating I have no opinion on it.
But anyhows... How is military recruitment in America? Is it in such a state where the country can consciously choose not to utilise a hypothetical 55 percent of the potential population in these roles?
Bromsy wrote: So we're down to just shouting back and forth about this one about now?
There are, and are going to be significant logistical and personnel issues with this. Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves or woefully uneducated on the subject.
The argument isn't or at least shouldn't be whether or not this is true, because a simple perusal of basically all of the evidence so far gathered shows this.
The argument really ought to be on whether the juice is worth the squeeze. As I said waaay back when, from a purely egalitarian standpoint this is the only logical way to move forward. But people are going to die because of this that would have otherwise lived. Many people who would not have had career ending injuries, will. It is going to happen. All the equivocating and good feels in the world won't stop that.
Bullpucky
For all you know people may live who would otherwise have died. It is all supposition at this point. People believed the military would collapse every time an integration step has been taken.
But anyhows... How is military recruitment in America? Is it in such a state where the country can consciously choose not to utilise a hypothetical 55 percent of the potential population in these roles?
If it came to a draft, yes.
However, the current recruitment situation is generally such that the Army always has enough tankers, scouts, artillery and infantry desiring men, that it doesn't really "need" to change approaches.
Also, as we've seen with both Iraq and Afghanistan, there are some fairly heroic women who earned high awards for their exploits, and there's Jessica Lynch. In between those two, you have everyday type women doing their jobs as medics, supply specialists and the like, many of whom were hit by IEDs and suffered many of the same type of permanently life-altering injuries that men in combat arms jobs did. Personally, for the direction that modern warfare is heading, it makes some sense to open things up to women, but it needs to be done the right way, and that's the problem I have with the announcement of this decision: it feels rushed and like the top brass is giving in to special interest groups without proper thought and planning for anything and everything that can happen when the makeup of a unit is significantly altered.
But anyhows... How is military recruitment in America? Is it in such a state where the country can consciously choose not to utilise a hypothetical 55 percent of the potential population in these roles?
The US armed forces, including Reserves, currently number around 2.2 million people. The US has an estimated population of 322 million.
They account for only 0.7% of the total population. We would have to have exponential growth in the needed number of soldiers for an all male military to run into recruitment issues, assuming we were drafting people.
Bromsy wrote: So we're down to just shouting back and forth about this one about now?
There are, and are going to be significant logistical and personnel issues with this. Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves or woefully uneducated on the subject.
The argument isn't or at least shouldn't be whether or not this is true, because a simple perusal of basically all of the evidence so far gathered shows this.
The argument really ought to be on whether the juice is worth the squeeze. As I said waaay back when, from a purely egalitarian standpoint this is the only logical way to move forward. But people are going to die because of this that would have otherwise lived. Many people who would not have had career ending injuries, will. It is going to happen. All the equivocating and good feels in the world won't stop that.
Bullpucky
For all you know people may live who would otherwise have died. It is all supposition at this point. People believed the military would collapse every time an integration step has been taken.
Just stop.
That is an idiotic comparison, because there were no studies done to prove that black guys are worse than white guys at soldiering. There are studies that show that women are worse at the majority of tasks required by an infantry soldier. This isn't up for debate by anyone who isn't deluding themselves.
Even if, in your theoretical world where more people somehow live because of the inclusion of elements that degrade overall efficiency somehow, is it worth having a woman injured to the point where she cannot continue serving in the military for every single woman who serves in a combat arms job (and that is probably being generous)?
I'm more referring to a pseudo-mathematical point of view.
If you were to go to a business and said, "hey, if I had an idea about you could more than double the size of you're potential hiring pool for very little effort, would you be interested?" They would probably bite the persons hand off.
Compel wrote: I wasn't really referring to a draft as such.
I'm more referring to a pseudo-mathematical point of view.
If you were to go to a business and said, "hey, if I had an idea about you could more than double the size of you're potential hiring pool for very little effort, would you be interested?" They would probably bite the persons hand off.
It won't be anything like a doubling. For a number of reasons women volunteer for the military in vastly smaller numbers. Women physically capable of passing male minimum pt standards - which I would hope would be the very lowest acceptable standard will be only a small percentage of those who already volunteered.
As I said, the military is currently only 0.7% of the total US population. Only 7 out of every 1000 people are in the armed forces.
Lets assume the US population is only 1000. 500 men and 500 women. Lets also assume the US military is exclusively men. We'll assume an even age distribution among the population. 5 blocks of 20% of the population each. 20% are under the age of 18 and are not eligible to serve(we'll ignore the being 17 with parental permission option). 20% are between the ages of 18 and 30. 20% are between the age of 30 and 50. 20% are between the ages of 50 and 70. 20% are 70+.
If the military only accepted people between the age of 18 and 20, that gives them 100 potential recruits. Now if we add some physical fitness requirements, if we assume even distributions of fitness and that the standards can be passed by 60% of individuals that gives us 60 potential recruits.
In this situation, the US military only numbers 7 people. Out of 60 who would meet all the requirements.
The military could grow 8.5 times larger before you ran out of men who met these requirements. If you aren't going to make your army larger there is no reason to have lax standards, you could actually increase your standards before you actually ran into issues.
I'll probably go into this more in the morning when I'm more coherent and sounding somewhat less like a blithering idiot.
I'm in the UK and I work in the STEM fields (Science/Technology/Engineering/Maths), which are having pretty majorly massive recruitment problems right now and I see some potential parallels between that and this topic.
Compel wrote: That's why I said potential hiring pool.
I'll probably go into this more in the morning when I'm more coherent and sounding somewhat less like a blithering idiot.
I'm in the UK and I work in the STEM fields (Science/Technology/Engineering/Maths), which are having pretty majorly massive recruitment problems right now and I see some potential parallels between that and this topic.
There is a fairly hard cap on how many new STEM majors an individual countries university system can crank out each year and it is lower than the demand for those individuals. Unlike the army where the potential recruit pool is very large and the demand relatively small and consistent.
Not going to state an opinion one way or the other because I don't want to get involved.
I do wish to clarify some things. There aren't just physiological differences between men and women, there are huge ones. Testosterone production, VO2 Max differences. Women have patella tracking problems because of their bone structure. The list goes on and on.
To answer some of the recruiting questions, I was a recruiter in the Marine Corps for my B-Billet. Not sure how them nasty hooahs do it (relax guys I love you like the brother and sisters you are, it's a joke) but in the Marines the standards are adjusted per the needs of the Corps. When I recruited the qouta was one per recruiter. However the standards were high as heck, you had to find the needle in the haystack. If you were male you had better be in highschool. Females we would have taken grad or no grad. No waivers were allowed period. Now talking to some of the career recruiters they'll tell you that during the build up and height of the ol War on Terror you could have a felony and if it wasn't to bad you were in. Oh and if you could play an instrument and pass the test to make it into the Marine Corps band you'd have netted me a promotion male or female.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I again ask, SO? Other jobs have to deal with it, why not the military.
You're absolutely right. There is clearly zero difference between a deployed infantry unit and say a WalMart.
Just as long as folks admit there are differences in injury rates and deployability between male and female troops, if as a nation we say 'SO?' then so be it. feth it, who cares about silly things like those differences anyway, right?
I honestly would'nt want a woman fighting in my hole. War is no joke.
But most here hav'nt "seen the show", as we say. Stupid even talking about combat to a bunch of people who think war is like 40k.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I again ask, SO? Other jobs have to deal with it, why not the military.
You're absolutely right. There is clearly zero difference between a deployed infantry unit and say a WalMart.
Just as long as folks admit there are differences in injury rates and deployability between male and female troops, if as a nation we say 'SO?' then so be it. feth it, who cares about silly things like those differences anyway, right?
I honestly would'nt want a woman fighting in my hole. War is no joke.
But most here hav'nt "seen the show", as we say. Stupid even talking about combat to a bunch of people who think war is like 40k.
This thread should be deleted.
I am sure the women that are willing to go to war are not joking about it. Get out of here with that crap. You really think we think war is moving plastic toys across a board?
Nope. Just a humble First sergent with 16 months in country, much of which was spent in Zabul Province(said to be home of the "toughest" fighters in afghanistan, LOL).
Good enough?
bound for glory wrote: Nope. Just a humble First sergent with 16 months in country, much of which was spent in Zabul Province(said to be home of the "toughest" fighters in afghanistan, LOL).
Good enough?
Reads like an opinion piece about their mental capacity, not a study about physical ability... It also mentions how they will be held to the same standards as their white counterparts something we do not see today. It seems as black men clearly passed the qualifications as written out in part 4 and as a result their continued allowance to fight etc.
Then you didn't actually read it because it sites numerous studies done on the effectiveness on blacks in combat. It even references it's self as a "study" numerous times (because it is).
Then you didn't actually read it because it sites numerous studies done on the effectiveness on blacks in combat. It even references it's self as a "study" numerous times (because it is).
Yea I just re read it a few times. Ignore my previous comment. My internet only loaded the first 3 pages, when I went back on it loaded all of them.
Compel wrote: I don't know much about actual real world military or political stuff in general, nevermind things in another country but... Reading this I've got to ask the question of...
If you accept that, general things being equal, a female soldier is less capable than a male soldier in the typical 'front line combat' roles. - I'm not saying I'm agreeing with this or whatever, I am very clearly stating I have no opinion on it.
But anyhows... How is military recruitment in America? Is it in such a state where the country can consciously choose not to utilise a hypothetical 55 percent of the potential population in these roles?
Military is downsizing. None of the services have any trouble meeting recruiting goals. Bonuses are down and waivers are VERY rare because they are not needed. There are actually waiting time for entry for many recruits because we've cut down on initial training because we need less folks.
So yes, we can consciously choose 'not to utilize a hypothetical 55 percent of the potential population in these roles' because there are (I guess now were) plenty of roles they COULD go into previously (actually the VAST majority of positions across all the services were open).
Ashiraya wrote: Nothing. There is no more 'honor' or 'glory' in being a soldier than working at McDonalds or being a street cleaner.
I will respect you based on your behaviour, and you could be John Rambo for all I care otherwise.
There's nothing wrong with working at McDonald's or being a street cleaner. That said, soldiers willingly put themselves into harms way for the benefit of others. If you believe in the concept of honor at all, claiming that there is no honor in service and claiming that there is no honor in risking life and limb so others don't have to is a pretty difficult one to make. And if you don't believe in honor then why even mention it?
SilverMK2 wrote: Not all soldiers sign up for or serve in roles where they will ever even be deployed, let alone put themselves in harms way.
If you sign up at all you are making yourself a target for your enemies, and there is always a chance you will be deployed. Uncertainty is part of the sacrifice. Soldiers don't have the luxury of choosing the time or place of their service, or of what conflict they may end up taking part in.
True, but ignoring the fact that the majority of those serving in armed forces around the world encounter about as much danger in their day to day job as pretty much anyone else.
Less if your government doesn't enjoy sending your colleages out to exciting and exotic places with oil.
SilverMK2 wrote: True, but ignoring the fact that the majority of those serving in armed forces around the world encounter about as much danger in their day to day job as pretty much anyone else.
Less if your government doesn't enjoy sending your colleages out to exciting and exotic places with oil.
They're still the ones on the hook if something needs done though. McDonald's employees and street sweepers aren't going to be the ones getting the call. They are still putting the needs of their fellow countrymen before that of their own safety and their own desires.
Ashiraya wrote: Nothing. There is no more 'honor' or 'glory' in being a soldier than working at McDonalds or being a street cleaner.
I will respect you based on your behaviour, and you could be John Rambo for all I care otherwise.
There's nothing wrong with working at McDonald's or being a street cleaner. That said, soldiers willingly put themselves into harms way for the benefit of others. If you believe in the concept of honor at all, claiming that there is no honor in service and claiming that there is no honor in risking life and limb so others don't have to is a pretty difficult one to make. And if you don't believe in honor then why even mention it?
Alternatively, they sign up for the money, or because they enjoy killing, or because they think ME people deserve to die and this is a legal way to getv started. You can't know someone's intentions just because they're a soldier. There is nothing difficult at all about it.
To quote a wise person, 'the position alone is not inherently worthy of respect, given how many horrible things soldiers have done in the past.' War is risky, that's true. Being a window cleaner on very tall buildings is risky as well. You know the risks when you take the job. And you get paid for your trouble.
Ashiraya wrote: Nothing. There is no more 'honor' or 'glory' in being a soldier than working at McDonalds or being a street cleaner.
I will respect you based on your behaviour, and you could be John Rambo for all I care otherwise.
There's nothing wrong with working at McDonald's or being a street cleaner. That said, soldiers willingly put themselves into harms way for the benefit of others. If you believe in the concept of honor at all, claiming that there is no honor in service and claiming that there is no honor in risking life and limb so others don't have to is a pretty difficult one to make. And if you don't believe in honor then why even mention it?
Alternatively, they sign up for the money, or because they enjoy killing, or because they think ME people deserve to die and this is a legal way to start. You can't know someone's intentions just because they're a soldier.
To quote a wise person, 'the position alone is not inherently worthy of respect, given how many horrible things soldiers have done in the past.' War is risky, that's true. Being a window cleaner on very tall buildings is risky as well. You know the risks when you take the job. And you get paid for your trouble.
It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.
It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.
It is all about the intentions. If someone is going to give you a gift, but they drop it and it breaks right before they can give it to you, most people would be grateful for the intention even if there was no result.
Hordini wrote: It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.
So a sadistic murderer who joins the military because they get to kill people legally deserves credit for "honor"?
It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.
It is all about the intentions. If someone is going to give you a gift, but they drop it and it breaks right before they can give it to you, most people would be grateful for the intention even if there was no result.
Actions matter more than intentions, and to argue otherwise is completely spurious. All throughout history, there are countless examples of how people who actually do things are taken more seriously and given more credence than people who intended to do things. I'm not saying good intentions are bad, and in the case that you have provided I would certainly be appreciative - but it's because they actually got a gift. A better example might be, if someone kept saying they intended to do something and never did.
Hordini wrote: It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.
So a sadistic murderer who joins the military because they get to kill people legally deserves credit for "honor"?
Sadistic murderers don't tend to make it far in the military, if they can even get in at all. If they do successfully gain entry and proceed to commit sadistic murders and get caught, they go to prison.
It's interesting that the "sadistic murderer" angle keeps getting brought up by people who seem to think that there is no honor in service for others.
Hordini wrote: Actions matter more than intentions, and to argue otherwise is completely spurious.
There is nothing at all spurious about it. Actions is what you do now, but intentions reflect what happens in the future, and it tells us far more about the person who we are supposed to respect or not.
I'm sure soldiers will be devastated with this news...
What are you talking about?
I was making the suggestion that men might enjoy having women around.
It wasn't a super serious comment.
Isn't that why the Emperor needed a Whoremaster? To see to the comfort of his Marine legions?
That being said, I think this conversation is interesting in how, to my view, the opinions seem to be formed along conservative and liberal lines as I perceive the various posters. Both sides intelligent, but opposed.
I've always had mixed feelings about respecting soldiers just cause they saw action or respecting a person just because they were in the military. Just to clarify I was in the military and I saw action(although I don't discuss it with anyone, nit even my father who was in Vietnam). But I didn't do it to get respect or be called a hero. I mentioned earlier in this thread that people who choose to respect vets should do so irregardless if they saw combat or not.
I used to say "respect is earned not given". I knew plenty of lame asses in the military. From all branches. I also met the best people I've ever known in the military. I also determine a person's worthiness of respect by their actions, Not their job.
Hordini wrote: Sadistic murderers don't tend to make it far in the military, if they can even get in at all. If they do successfully gain entry and proceed to commit sadistic murders and get caught, they go to prison.
I don't mean someone who murders illegally once the military gives them a gun, I mean someone who joins the military because they want to blow stuff up and kill people. There's no "getting caught" because they're killing the enemy in battle within the laws of war and the military. They're just doing it because they want to kill people, not because they're sacrificing their own safety to protect others. Should this person really be given credit for their "service"? Or should we recognize that they're just a horrible person who found a clever loophole to let them kill people legally?
It's interesting that the "sadistic murderer" angle keeps getting brought up by people who seem to think that there is no honor in service for others.
That's a nice straw man, but it isn't true. I never disagreed with the idea that there is (or at least can be) honor in service to others, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of claiming that we shouldn't care about intent. If someone joins the military for dishonorable reasons then they shouldn't be given "honor" credit just because they're wearing a uniform.
I dunno, my cousin joined up as he clearly likes blowing things up (chemistry degree and heading for bomb disposal, was the last I heard), so honour is what you make of it I suppose.
Also the thing about one standard being set and equal opportunity not equal outcome needs to be repeated several times if necessary.
Hordini wrote: Sadistic murderers don't tend to make it far in the military, if they can even get in at all. If they do successfully gain entry and proceed to commit sadistic murders and get caught, they go to prison.
I don't mean someone who murders illegally once the military gives them a gun, I mean someone who joins the military because they want to blow stuff up and kill people. There's no "getting caught" because they're killing the enemy in battle within the laws of war and the military. They're just doing it because they want to kill people, not because they're sacrificing their own safety to protect others. Should this person really be given credit for their "service"? Or should we recognize that they're just a horrible person who found a clever loophole to let them kill people legally?
It's interesting that the "sadistic murderer" angle keeps getting brought up by people who seem to think that there is no honor in service for others.
That's a nice straw man, but it isn't true. I never disagreed with the idea that there is (or at least can be) honor in service to others, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of claiming that we shouldn't care about intent. If someone joins the military for dishonorable reasons then they shouldn't be given "honor" credit just because they're wearing a uniform.
It's not a straw man, it's just something that I noticed that actually happened in this thread. I assumed (wrongly) that you were arguing in support of an argument that appeared to be being made by another poster. My bad on that. I suppose I'm being a bit too radical in claiming that intent doesn't matter at all, and on further reflection I don't think I really believe that. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase it as I think that intent matters, but I think that in general, actual actions matter more.
I think I was a bit riled by the statement that being a soldier is no more honorable profession than working at McDonald's or being a street sweeper. And again, while there is nothing wrong with either of those jobs, I still think that, in general, being a soldier is an honorable profession, due to the fact that regardless of one's reasons for joining, that person is willingly putting their own well-being and security behind that of others, so that others don't have to. If someone has murderous intentions, then no, that is not honorable and they shouldn't be honored for those murderous intentions. But that someone is still potentially putting themselves in harms way in order to protect others. I also think those people are in the minority and that doesn't detract from the profession as a whole. Just as if someone who works at McDonald's because they want to spit in people's food doesn't make working at McDonald's a bad thing. The difference with the military is that it requires its members to give up their own safety and security to ensure the security and safety of others. To me, that's honorable. If an individual soldier or groups of soldiers do bad things, which has obviously happened, that is a horrible thing and should be (and is) widely condemned. That doesn't mean that the ideal that soldiers should strive for, that of service to others above themselves, isn't honorable.
Relapse wrote: Isn't that why the Emperor needed a Whoremaster? To see to the comfort of his Marine legions?
Whoreus Loosercu... [REDACTED BY THE ORDO ABSTAINICUS]
Exalted. Now run along with those nice gents in silver armor to get rewarded for your knowledge.
Not even to go into, "Moral Officer" Duties in the Emperor's Children.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yellowfever wrote: I've always had mixed feelings about respecting soldiers just cause they saw action or respecting a person just because they were in the military. Just to clarify I was in the military and I saw action(although I don't discuss it with anyone, nit even my father who was in Vietnam). But I didn't do it to get respect or be called a hero. I mentioned earlier in this thread that people who choose to respect vets should do so irregardless if they saw combat or not.
I used to say "respect is earned not given". I knew plenty of lame asses in the military. From all branches. I also met the best people I've ever known in the military. I also determine a person's worthiness of respect by their actions, Not their job.
This nails it. A friend of mine who was in Desert Storm told me of a guy in his unit no one could stand because he was a total gak bird. He ended up getting drunk, twisting his knee and getting sent home. He was kitted out with the, at the time new desert camouflage BDUs, and was hailed as a hero getting off the plane, even being put in the newspapers flashing the "V" sign. I was told when his unit heard about it and saw the paper with him in it, there was much disgust.
Hordini wrote: I still think that, in general, being a soldier is an honorable profession, due to the fact that regardless of one's reasons for joining, that person is willingly putting their own well-being and security behind that of others, so that others don't have to.
The issue with that sentence is that you cancelled out the middle of it (reasons for joining) by overriding it with a better, more honorable reason at the end - sacrificing their own safety and security so that others don't have to.
I definitely know at least one person who joined the military because they wanted to, in a nebulous way, protect America. However, out of all the people I personally know that were in the military, my friends and family, that is not the majority reason. Most of the people that I know that have joined the military did it because they wanted to benefits, to get away from a bad situation, or because they had no other good options. And you know what? That's OK. Those are good reasons. However, it doesn't make you a hero, either.
The problem with the fetishism surrounding the military, with everyone being a hero, is that you can't then look at that organization with an honest appraisal. A guy shoots up a village or beats a detainee? How can he be wrong, when he's a hero, and they're the "bad guys"? On larger level, you can't honestly ask if our military adventures are making us safer as a nation, if the incredible amounts of blood and money we have dumping into getting pretty much nothing accomplished over a decade, were worth it, or if we need to change course. Why aren't you supporting the troops?
Not every person who joined the military is a hero, and not everything they do is heroic, any more than anyone else doing a dangerous, dirty, low-paying job that is nonetheless vital.
Hordini wrote: I still think that, in general, being a soldier is an honorable profession, due to the fact that regardless of one's reasons for joining, that person is willingly putting their own well-being and security behind that of others, so that others don't have to.
The issue with that sentence is that you cancelled out the middle of it (reasons for joining) by overriding it with a better, more honorable reason at the end - sacrificing their own safety and security so that others don't have to.
I definitely know at least one person who joined the military because they wanted to, in a nebulous way, protect America. However, out of all the people I personally know that were in the military, my friends and family, that is not the majority reason. Most of the people that I know that have joined the military did it because they wanted to benefits, to get away from a bad situation, or because they had no other good options. And you know what? That's OK. Those are good reasons. However, it doesn't make you a hero, either.
The problem with the fetishism surrounding the military, with everyone being a hero, is that you can't then look at that organization with an honest appraisal. A guy shoots up a village or beats a detainee? How can he be wrong, when he's a hero, and they're the "bad guys"? On larger level, you can't honestly ask if our military adventures are making us safer as a nation, if the incredible amounts of blood and money we have dumping into getting pretty much nothing accomplished over a decade, were worth it, or if we need to change course. Why aren't you supporting the troops?
Not every person who joined the military is a hero, and not everything they do is heroic, any more than anyone else doing a dangerous, dirty, low-paying job that is nonetheless vital.
I never said anything about people in the military being heroes, nor did I imply such. Something being an honorable profession, and someone taking part in an honorable profession doesn't make someone a hero. I also don't think that claiming something is an honorable profession because it is based on service to others is fetishism. I do see the problems in the issues that you are discussing, but that's not what I'm putting forth by claiming that the military profession is an honorable one. I also don't think that the military is the only profession that is honorable.
And to be clear, someone who shoots up a village or beats a detainee is in no way a hero. Just as a teacher who abuses a student isn't a hero, or a police officer who abuses their authority isn't a hero. If there is really some kind of cognitive dissonance going on there about how being part of an honorable profession is an excuse for abuse (it isn't), it's probably because whoever is experiencing that cognitive dissonance isn't considering the topic very deeply to begin with.
Hordini, I think the problem here is that you're considering the profession honorable rather than the person in that profession. When you give credit to the profession as a whole you have to make those awkward "but not this person" exceptions when someone in the profession clearly isn't honorable. Instead of trying to make broad rules with a bunch of exceptions it's much easier to just say that some individual soldiers are honorable and give them credit for their service, without making any statement about the profession as a whole.
But then, the difference in mindset is rather significant. Soldiers being put on a pedestal is not really a thing here.
I don't think that recognizing that being in the military entails more sacrifice in order to provide something that is necessary for a free society, and that such service is more honorable than working at McDonald's is the same as putting soldiers on a pedestal. Do you truly not see any difference whatsoever?
What Peregrine said. When you are applying nebulous 'honor' to an entire profession rather than individual people you encounter who deserve such praise, then yes, you are putting it on a pedestal, and I see absolutely no reason to do that.
Peregrine wrote: Hordini, I think the problem here is that you're considering the profession honorable rather than the person in that profession. When you give credit to the profession as a whole you have to make those awkward "but not this person" exceptions when someone in the profession clearly isn't honorable. Instead of trying to make broad rules with a bunch of exceptions it's much easier to just say that some individual soldiers are honorable and give them credit for their service, without making any statement about the profession as a whole.
Perhaps it would be better to say that I think the profession is grounded in honorable ideals and I see that as a positive thing, but I recognize that there also exist those within the profession who don't live up to those ideals. I suppose it's a bit like saying there is always someone who feths it up for everyone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: What Peregrine said. When you are applying nebulous 'honor' to an entire profession rather than individual people you encounter who deserve such praise, then yes, you are putting it on a pedestal, and I see absolutely no reason to do that.
And Medium of Death, please can you not.
But just because a profession is honorable doesn't mean that there aren't those within it who aren't worthy of that honor. I certainly do (or don't, as the case may be) apply honor to individual people.
Hordini wrote: Perhaps it would be better to say that I think the profession is grounded in honorable ideals and I see that as a positive thing, but I recognize that there also exist those within the profession who don't live up to those ideals. I suppose it's a bit like saying there is always someone who feths it up for everyone else.
It's grounded in honorable ideals, but it's also grounded in dishonorable ideals. Soldiers have been honorable defenders, but they've just as often been aggressive conquerors and that's just as much a part of the history of the profession as the good parts. That's why it's so important, IMO, to consider the honor or dishonor of the individual soldier instead of trying to decide whether the profession as a whole is good or bad.
There's nothing wrong with working at McDonald's or being a street cleaner. That said, soldiers willingly put themselves into harms way for the benefit of others.
Spoken like someone who's never been posted at the fry cooker. I still wake up in a cold sweat from that 10+ years later. You don't know, man, you weren't there.
There's nothing wrong with working at McDonald's or being a street cleaner. That said, soldiers willingly put themselves into harms way for the benefit of others.
Spoken like someone who's never been posted at the fry cooker. I still wake up in a cold sweat from that 10+ years later. You don't know, man, you weren't there.
It's funny you say that. I actually was a fry cook for quite a while, and I know exactly what you mean.
Note that I've been quite adamant this whole time that there is nothing wrong with those sorts of jobs.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Also the thing about one standard being set and equal opportunity not equal outcome needs to be repeated several times if necessary.
It does need to be repeated, but it's not going to matter. This is a political decision, and the military has seen how those go when it comes to integrating women. If there aren't "enough" women in combat MOSes within a few years, somebody (and my money's on Warren) is going to start raising hell about it. And just like when special interests decided the Navy needed female F-14 pilots, people are going to die when standards get waived in the name of producing an acceptable result.
That's the reality. There are going to be a very small number of women suited for things like your standard issue infantry, and even fewer - perhaps none - with the capability to make it past intense special operations selection courses. And it's all so self-defeating, because it ultimately hurts women more than it helps. None of the first crop of female naval aviators from the '90s stuck around; even the ones who weren't getting their carrier quals fudged were iced out by their peers in the ready room, and the same thing's going to happen in infantry units.
However, in 20 years when the culture has changed, you will see a much more natural progression of women into these roles. Much like you saw with black soldiers and pilots, women in business, science, engineering and other professions.
It is all about leading an initial shock and awe assault, then settling in for the long occupation until things can govern themselves along the lines you wanted.
Now... where have I heard something like that before?
SilverMK2 wrote: However, in 20 years when the culture has changed, you will see a much more natural progression of women into these roles. Much like you saw with black soldiers and pilots, women in business, science, engineering and other professions.
I don't know how cultural transition changes skeletal structure and muscle distribution differences.
SilverMK2 wrote: However, in 20 years when the culture has changed, you will see a much more natural progression of women into these roles. Much like you saw with black soldiers and pilots, women in business, science, engineering and other professions.
I don't know how cultural transition changes skeletal structure and muscle distribution differences.
It would take time, but it is definitely possible. That's called evolution.
Hordini wrote: being in the military entails more sacrifice in order to provide something that is necessary for a free society...
I think this is the part I object to, and what is at the heart of soldier worship. The idea that soldiers are fighting for my freedom, so I should be grateful. I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and more often than not I think military intervention makes situations worse. The latest example being "bomb Syria", which even Bashar al-Assad said is generating more rebels.
Also my "freedom" is highly overrated. Freedom to be owned by global corporations? Freedom to pay tax "or else"? If someone wants to fight for my freedom, go and fight the corrupt "political donations" system, which is just a moniker for bribery. Go and fight to not have the quality of our food, our health, and our environment dictated by someone's bottom line. Then I'll thank you for your service.
Shipping overseas to drive around in the dessert and achieve very little, so that shares in Halliburton and arms manufacturing can enjoy a few extra points, does nothing for my freedom. And, may actually have stirred up a wasps nest of global terrorism, which has led to my freedoms being eroded. Now the world is more dangerous than ever, and new "counter terrorism" laws mean that just about anyone can be arrested, held indefinitely without charge, and possibly tortured... Fan-fething-tastic!
So while I appreciate that soldiers do get shot at, and might even mistakenly believe they're doing it for a good cause. I don't personally owe you anything.
SilverMK2 wrote: However, in 20 years when the culture has changed, you will see a much more natural progression of women into these roles. Much like you saw with black soldiers and pilots, women in business, science, engineering and other professions.
I don't know how cultural transition changes skeletal structure and muscle distribution differences.
It would take time, but it is definitely possible. That's called evolution.
Or a breeding program like they did with slaves. You could make above average humans by mixing a few select genes together
Hordini wrote: being in the military entails more sacrifice in order to provide something that is necessary for a free society...
I think this is the part I object to, and what is at the heart of soldier worship. The idea that soldiers are fighting for my freedom, so I should be grateful. I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and more often than not I think military intervention makes situations worse. The latest example being "bomb Syria", which even Bashar al-Assad said is generating more rebels.
Also my "freedom" is highly overrated. Freedom to be owned by global corporations? Freedom to pay tax "or else"? If someone wants to fight for my freedom, go and fight the corrupt "political donations" system, which is just a moniker for bribery. Go and fight to not have the quality of our food, our health, and our environment dictated by someone's bottom line. Then I'll thank you for your service.
Shipping overseas to drive around in the dessert and achieve very little, so that shares in Halliburton and arms manufacturing can enjoy a few extra points, does nothing for my freedom. And, may actually have stirred up a wasps nest of global terrorism, which has led to my freedoms being eroded. Now the world is more dangerous than ever, and new "counter terrorism" laws mean that just about anyone can be arrested, held indefinitely without charge, and possibly tortured... Fan-fething-tastic!
So while I appreciate that soldiers do get shot at, and might even mistakenly believe they're doing it for a good cause. I don't personally owe you anything.
You have the freedom to go online and make this complaint, because be damn sure without any kind of military, those same corps you refer to will happy erode ALL of your rights. Or another military power will do so to keep you under control, the threat of a military uprising is enough to keep even our goverment under a modicum of control, so yes, indirectly you do owe the military and every uniformed service respect, your thanks are not required nor wanted, your respect is.
Formosa wrote: You have the freedom to go online and make this complaint, because be damn sure without any kind of military, those same corps you refer to will happy erode ALL of your rights. Or another military power will do so to keep you under control, the threat of a military uprising is enough to keep even our goverment under a modicum of control, so yes, indirectly you do owe the military and every uniformed service respect, your thanks are not required nor wanted, your respect is.
The military is an instrument of the government, and governments are rapidly becoming the instruments of corporations.They are in no way protecting me. Most of my freedoms are probably owed to political movements and things like union action.
Also controlling people with guns is old news, the new weapon to enslave a population is economics, and it's going strong. Uniformed servicemen, however well meaning, are actually part of the problem, giving their lives to further the agenda of global powers that couldn't care less about them or me. At risk of repeating myself, I don't owe them anything.
While I'm generally more on the 'friend to the armed forces' side of the fence, I will say that there's often something I tend to find... creepy... about the way, particularly America, but I've seen some situations elsewhere, about the reverence that soldiers are treated. It can feel quite unsettling.
Sigvatr wrote: Putting less able fighters in the front line seems like a good idea.
LOL, its similar to US idea of mediocrity and No Child Left Behind. So they lower combat standards so women can see combat duty, because its wrong and sexist to think they can't.
As long as they could pass the current (or is it old now) standards I'd wouldn't care. I've seen some tough ass women in the military and they would've been able to get the job done for sure, but they were rare. Most unfortunately were not combat able. Is this view sexist? meh. truth is truth.
djones520 wrote: People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.
I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there.
That would be true in almost every profession, and if you follow it to its conclusion you end up with: "women shouldn't have jobs", which is absurd.
That is not true of every profession. You only get a few months leave where I work (and most corporate places). Not 15 months. Not 15 months down one tank driver or muzzle loader (is that a thing?) or communications whatever (Is that a thing?). The rest of the deployed unit sucks it up for 15 months.
Compel wrote: While I'm generally more on the 'friend to the armed forces' side of the fence, I will say that there's often something I tend to find... creepy... about the way, particularly America, but I've seen some situations elsewhere, about the reverence that soldiers are treated. It can feel quite unsettling.
In the U.S. Part of the issue is from trying to make up for how vets returning from Vietnam were treated. I was even called a baby killer in the 1980's while in uniform, freaking hippies
djones520 wrote: People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.
I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there.
That would be true in almost every profession, and if you follow it to its conclusion you end up with: "women shouldn't have jobs", which is absurd.
That is not true of every profession. You only get a few months leave where I work (and most corporate places). Not 15 months. Not 15 months down one tank driver or muzzle loader (is that a thing?) or communications whatever (Is that a thing?). The rest of the deployed unit sucks it up for 15 months.
As a proud former communications whatever, I can with great sincerity say that that is indeed a thing.
kronk wrote: That is not true of every profession. You only get a few months leave where I work (and most corporate places). Not 15 months. Not 15 months down one tank driver or muzzle loader (is that a thing?) or communications whatever (Is that a thing?). The rest of the deployed unit sucks it up for 15 months.
Sorry, what I was trying to say is that women potentially taking time off because of pregnancy is an argument that can be made against women in almost any profession. I had a teacher at high-school who basically went from pregnancy to pregnancy. During the five years I was there I only remember her being present for a few sparse months. I'm sure it was very disruptive for the children she taught, her tutor group, and her colleagues. To be honest, as kids, we felt that she was working some kind of scam. However, that does not mean women shouldn't be teachers. The vast majority of my teachers have been women, and they were at work the whole time.
Admittedly, there will be some differences between professions (more physical jobs will necessitate more time off, as you point out), but the pregnancy argument against women in the work place is essentially the same. Unless someone is willing to argue that women shouldn't do any job where absence might be disruptive, then the pregnancy angle is just special pleading.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?
I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.
I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.
Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.
It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.
Yeah but feminism is finally cutting both ways!
What about in Sweden where female firefighters get another 30 seconds to chop down a door? If I'm dying I can't say to the fire 'hold on inferno its a female firefighter don't burn me yet'.
At least their wounded bodies will be easier to carry? #alwayslookonthebrightsideoflife#
I had a job once where a 90-100 lbs. (40-45Kg) girl was on the work crew. Me and another crew member had to carry extra equipment constantly because she was physically unable to. How should this be handled? What was even better during slack time (weekly), she did office work while we repaired equipment and monkey wrenched vehicles.
I think she should have never been hired, minimum requirements dictated she need to be able to lift and carry 50lbs for extended periods. 30-35 lbs. (14-16Kg) backpack along with shovels/post-hole digger/axes in hand.
What about in Sweden where female firefighters get another 30 seconds to chop down a door?
Did you know that we also eat our babies and have to sing patriotic hymns to the great Fatherbörk, aren't allowed to eat anything other than Börk on Wednesdays and that börk börk börk börk?
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: I had a job once where a 90-100 lbs. (40-45Kg) girl was on the work crew. Me and another crew member had to carry extra equipment constantly because she was physically unable to.
When I moved house, I strategically packed all my boxes to be around 25Kg. I think it's silly to have one feather light box of clothes and then another back breaking box full of books. I was really quite particular about it, I'm not puny by any means, and I thought 25Kg was a comfortable weight for a person to carry (especially when we had to move them up and down stairs). When the removal guys turned up, I explained that I'd measured the boxes so none of them were too heavy. They then proceeded to stack one box on top of another and carry them out two at a time.
Moral of the story: you don't have to be a girl to meet people who can carry a lot more than you.
What about in Sweden where female firefighters get another 30 seconds to chop down a door?
Did you know that we also eat our babies and have to sing patriotic hymns to the great Fatherbörk, aren't allowed to eat anything other than Börk on Wednesdays and that börk börk börk börk?
Equal rights for firemen constitutes a public hazard
Ingrid Carlqvist
Feb. 22, 2013
Female firefighters in Lund need eleven minutes to force a security door – no one will be left alive
If your apartment catches fire, firemen need to get in there fast to save you. A common apartment door can be forced open in 10 to 20 seconds; a security-enforced door takes 45 to 60 seconds.
Now information has leaked that female firefighters take more than 10 minutes to break through a secured door.
“If this is true, it is deeply serious. After that amount of time, there will be no life left to save on the other side,” says Henrik Persson, fire chief in Höganäs.
After the article in Dispatch International on January 26th [not in English!] on how the diversity agitation within the Emergency Services South endangers public safety, the editors have received several hints about how bad things are in Swedish fire brigades. The situation seems to be worst in the city of Lund, whose fire brigade has been highlighted as “exemplary” due to an almost perfectly equal gender balance.
Some time ago the firefighters were practicing forcing open security doors while wearing full protective clothing. When two female firefighters were put to the task, it reportedly took them eleven minutes.
“That is quite remarkable. We will have to look at this, says Peter Bergh,” a spokesman for the National Union of Firefighters.
Peter Bergh says that the union, which represents around 9,000 of the 15,000 Swedish firefighters, has been watching with increasing concern how the emergency services in recent years have focused more and more on diversity, and accordingly less on professional skills.
“In 2011, in cooperation with Centrum för Rättvisa (’Center for Justice’), we brought a case to court concerning a Swedish firefighter who, in spite of two years of education, was refused employment at Södertörns Brandförsvar. While at the same time a number of women with poorer or irrelevant skills were hired as firefighters,” recalls Peter Bergh.
“As the case was settled out of court and Södertörns Brandförsvar was forced to pay Skr 100,000 (€11,600) in compensation (a large figure by Swedish standards), we thought that the emergency services would reconsider the matters,” says Peter Bergh.
But that does not seem to be the case. When Räddningstjänsten Sydoes hired ten new workers in Malmö, the ones with the best skills and longest experience were turned down. Five positions went to women with very superficial professional skills.
And at the “exemplary brigade” in Lund, exercises show that some female firefighters are not able to enter a burning apartment with a secured front door. Henrik Persson, who for many years worked in Malmö as both a firefighter and a group leader, and now employed as fire chief in Höganäs, is gravely concerned.
“The conditions when saving lives in buildings keep getting tougher. It is more common now that that we encounter security doors of various classifications when we need to enter an apartment,” says Henrik Persson.
“Forcing oneself through a security door requires strenuous muscle-effort and teamwork, under intense time pressure. And although I do not know of the specific exercise in Lund, where women took eleven minute to force the security door open, I am aware that competence is falling in several areas, simply because the demands for physical strength have been lowered.”
Can people survive eleven minutes in a burning apartment?
“No, after eleven minutes there is, in theory, no life left to save on the other side of the door,” replies Henrik Persson.
Henrik Persson as well as Peter Bergh confirm that such results have been hushed up and pushed aside. No one will acknowledge that over the last decade, the competence of firemen has deteriorated severely.
“As a logical consequence, this is a risk for the general public. In order to fix these problems, we must have the courage to talk about them; the demands must be in line with what the job requires,” says Henrik Persson.
The change started at the end of the 1990′s. Previously most of those who went on to become firefighters had been carpenters, electricians or plumbers, people with solid physical ability. The personnel consisted of people capable of practical work under heavy physical and psychological strain.
“This is actually what the operative side of the trade is about. A hundred percent,” says Henrik Persson.
“Then suddenly we got the idea that it was vitally important that the force consisted not only of big, strong Swedish men, and they worked eagerly to recruit women, and not least men of immigrant background.”
In order to motivate this, a problem was constructed, Henrik Persson believes. It was claimed that the jargon among firefighters was offensive and condescending, a macho culture, and that had to be countered, no matter the cost. This later spread like wildfire through all of Sweden.
“But that was not my impression. Yes, there were some who openly and loudly argued that women do not make good firefighters, and certainly the jargon could be rude, but it has always been cordial. As frequently is the case in workplaces handling matters of life and death, says Henrik Persson.
According to Persson, firefighters are actually the most broadminded and tolerant profession towards various beliefs, sexual orientation and other issues that could be perceived as dissenting or in the minority. Taking care of people is a part of the job.
“And has one ever heard of the jargon being such a problem in other single-gender professions, such as garbage truck drivers, nannies or nurses? A problem so worrisome that it justified a lowering of professional standards?”
But this is exactly what is happening within the emergency services. The normal tests for physical skills were scrapped, enabling a much wider range of people to become firefighters.
“But the fact remains that even the best woman cannot physically match the best man, this is simply the truth. What makes it so emotionally loaded to acknowledge this? That does not mean that the physical tests are to be the single determining factor. I have worked with female colleagues myself, and know that there are both competent and skillful women in the force,” says Henrik Persson.
In Höganäs, the fire brigade is in the midst of an organizational reform, while at the same time several have retired due to age.
“We have a series of operative special tasks here, such as advance rescues with ropes, a large lifeboat requiring good boatmanship, tracked vehicles and traditional firefighting tasks. We are a small force which places large demands on individual skills. Furthermore, we must make sure that some have the potential to become leaders in the future. We cannot recruit staff based on gender or ethnicity – if we did so, we would not be able to deliver the required operative capabilities.
“First and foremost, we need to hire the best candidate – regardless of gender or origin of the given person, that is my firm conviction.”
Henrik Persson is dead scared of getting into a situation like those that occurred during his time in Malmö. When he had to call the supreme fire chief to report that on that day, they did not have the required competence.
“That was due to the lack of required education and capability among the personnel. That has happened several times in recent years, much more frequently than people in general dare to believe. At times, when the alarm went, we would have to go to the scene, merely to await reinforcement in order to handle some types of operations, for example stopping a simple water leak.”
The spokesman for the National Union of Firefighters, Peter Bergh, takes the news very seriously that it took firefighters in Lund more than 10 minutes to force open a security door, and intends to take action on it.
“If there ever is a time in life where people expect value for their tax money, it is when their lives are at risk. In that situation, they must have the best possible help,” says Peter Bergh.
“Pluralism is great, and there can be good reasons for the force to reflect society at large, not least when we have to respond to inhabitants in areas like Rosengård, where the fire brigades are not liked. But one fact remains – one cannot talk away a fire.”
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: I had a job once where a 90-100 lbs. (40-45Kg) girl was on the work crew. Me and another crew member had to carry extra equipment constantly because she was physically unable to.
When I moved house, I strategically packed all my boxes to be around 25Kg. I think it's silly to have one feather light box of clothes and then another back breaking box full of books. I was really quite particular about it, I'm not puny by any means, and I thought 25Kg was a comfortable weight for a person to carry (especially when we had to move them up and down stairs). When the removal guys turned up, I explained that I'd measured the boxes so none of them were too heavy. They then proceeded to stack one box on top of another and carry them out two at a time.
Moral of the story: you don't have to be a girl to meet people who can carry a lot more than you.
But was it right for her to accept a job that she couldn't fully accomplish and had to burden other works with her share of the work? These were 4 day hiking expeditions in the Rocky Mountains to fix fence lines. Axes to cut small trees to be used as posts (chainsaws weight more and you'd need to carry a lot of gas, so no chainsaws)...post-hole diggers, shovels and picks to dig holes. Fencing tolls and extra wire to repair fences etc.
Guess who barely touched a shovel too help dig and couldn't swig a 10 lbs (4.5 Kg) sledge-axe to save their life?
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: But was it right for her to accept a job that she couldn't fully accomplish and had to burden other works with her share of the work?
No, probably not. But there are also men who couldn't do that job. The problem is you're taking one woman from your anecdote, and then trying to make a general statement about all women based on that. That kind of inductive reasoning has been criticized since the time of Aristotle for being illogical.
You might be right that there are plenty of women who can't do the job, but there are also men who can't, and there might be a few women who can do the job. My argument would be that people should be judged based on whether they can do the job, not whether they are male or female. Doesn't that seem sensible?
On this topic, it does seem like the SECDEF is allowing each branch to establish physical fitness standards, as such we should see "equality" amongst the sexes in physical requirements.
Not like us male desk jockeys who have to be able to do more push ups then female desk jockeys for some reason.
MrDwhitey wrote: I would say that people from either sex who could actually do that job would be fine.
If she couldn't do it, she should not have been hired/should be fired.
Pretty much this. Have the exact requirements for everyone. You can't fulfill them? You're fired. It's /that/ simple.
You guys don't seem to get that this simply isn't how it works once somebody like Carter gets it in his head that there will be X number of women in Y job by Z date.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: But was it right for her to accept a job that she couldn't fully accomplish and had to burden other works with her share of the work?
No, probably not. But there are also men who couldn't do that job. The problem is you're taking one woman from your anecdote, and then trying to make a general statement about all women based on that. That kind of inductive reasoning has been criticized since the time of Aristotle for being illogical.
You might be right that there are plenty of women who can't do the job, but there are also men who can't, and there might be a few women who can do the job. My argument would be that people should be judged based on whether they can do the job, not whether they are male or female. Doesn't that seem sensible?
Here is the rub the guy who couldn't do the job would have never went for the job knowing he would have never got it. She applied based equality and special accommodations. I would never say all women nor did I imply all. I specifically gave you a physical description that re-laid the impossibility to hike through mountains with 50%+ of her body weight for 4 days. 135 lbs. woman with the right physique sure its doable, 90-100 lbs. woman, no way not for a 10-14 hour hike/work day.
Then there was the no share of office work, we were "guys" and knew how to sharpen saws, axes and fix stuff. How could we know how to write a report better than a woman. I would have loved one day to sit in AC and write the report.
By the way this was a paid scientific internship, the guys had every right to gain the office experience, we even tried to talk to the supervisor, that's when we got the special accommodations BS.
its a related subject, mostly applicable to the thread.
Should women be deployed under "special accommodations" how is that right and fair to male counterparts?
Seaward wrote: You guys don't seem to get that this simply isn't how it works once somebody like Carter gets it in his head that there will be X number of women in Y job by Z date.
Well then, perhaps the problem is target based performance reviews. It's a lazy system that almost always degenerates into corner-cutting, and falsely inflating the figures.
My issue is setting a target for the number of X in Y jobs by Z date.
You should be looking at the underlying reasons X isn't applying for Y and addressing them to increase the number applying, not setting an arbitrary goal.
Also, if there are requirements for said job that are actually well researched and sensible, keep to them.
Read an article this morning that the marines might be forced to lower their standards for Infantry Officer School to allow female officers to pass. So far they have only had 4 out of 29 make it through the first day and none the full course. Infantry combat doesn't change. We actually carried less gear when we were storming the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima than we do now. Its incredibly physical, unlike in the AF where non-pilot officers are mostly desk jockeys that rarely see their troops, in the actual combat arms they are required to function as well or better than the men they are fighting with.
An line infantry officer needs to be very strong to set the example, there's a good number of men who do not pass the course. I know when I was in, all direct leadership officers needed to be in the top 95% of their units. One of mine was hit severely in his OER for only getting a score that placed him just below that mark. If you look at the PT scoring system, you can see how hard this is going to be to accomplish. In the youngest category, but it stays roughly the same for every age bracket, a bottom level male barely passing the test with 60s in each category, with the exact same numbers would be almost max(within a couple points) on the female scale. Running, upper body strength, and core strength are very important, not sure how they are going to reconcile this major flaw in the system. The scoring system is posted a few pages back.
OK, now I just thought of another issue, we have been thinking in terms of women in line squads,"Our SAW gunner is gone due to being pregnant, Tom, you get her weapon". "But Sgt I am already carrying Julie's 240." What about women in leadership positions? You cant have a female infantry or tanker platoon leader unable to go to the field for 11 months because she is pregnant and again, now she is tying up that slot so no one else can take it and those are valuable slots. Now granted, we are grown adults and we know where babies come from, and generally on deployment there is a no sex rule in effect(that everyone and their mother breaks, the USS Enterprise wasn't nicknamed the "Love Boat" for nothing.) but accidents happen, especially when bored in a forward operating base.
It will be interesting to see where all this leads. Will we as a military be willing to accept lower standards and lower efficiency for the sake of being PC.
OK, now I just thought of another issue, we have been thinking in terms of women in line squads,"Our SAW gunner is gone due to being pregnant, Tom, you get her weapon". "But Sgt I am already carrying Julie's 240." What about women in leadership positions? You cant have a female infantry or tanker platoon leader unable to go to the field for 11 months because she is pregnant and again, now she is tying up that slot so no one else can take it and those are valuable slots.
I suspect any female in that position, like any male PL who gets injured bad enough, loses the PL slot (I've seen it with males). Depending on how the OER gets written and wether or not she is able to get another PL slot when she recovers it will likely have much less than a good effect on her career. Right or wrong, it may well look like a choice was made to get pregnant rather than be a platoon leader.
OK, now I just thought of another issue, we have been thinking in terms of women in line squads,"Our SAW gunner is gone due to being pregnant, Tom, you get her weapon". "But Sgt I am already carrying Julie's 240." What about women in leadership positions? You cant have a female infantry or tanker platoon leader unable to go to the field for 11 months because she is pregnant and again, now she is tying up that slot so no one else can take it and those are valuable slots.
I suspect any female in that position, like any male PL who gets injured bad enough, loses the PL slot (I've seen it with males). Depending on how the OER gets written and wether or not she is able to get another PL slot when she recovers it will likely have much less than a good effect on her career. Right or wrong, it may well look like a choice was made to get pregnant rather than be a platoon leader.
And then we're dealing with "gender discrimination"...
Compel wrote: A lot of this reads like. "Some people will be jerks when doing something, so ban all people from everything."
No. It reads as "We don't need this for our military to continue to be successful. Since it is being forced on us though, here are the issues that we are going to face, for no need at all."
Col. Dash wrote: Read an article this morning that the marines might be forced to lower their standards for Infantry Officer School to allow female officers to pass. So far they have only had 4 out of 29 make it through the first day and none the full course. Infantry combat doesn't change. We actually carried less gear when we were storming the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima than we do now. Its incredibly physical, unlike in the AF where non-pilot officers are mostly desk jockeys that rarely see their troops, in the actual combat arms they are required to function as well or better than the men they are fighting with.
An line infantry officer needs to be very strong to set the example, there's a good number of men who do not pass the course. I know when I was in, all direct leadership officers needed to be in the top 95% of their units. One of mine was hit severely in his OER for only getting a score that placed him just below that mark. If you look at the PT scoring system, you can see how hard this is going to be to accomplish. In the youngest category, but it stays roughly the same for every age bracket, a bottom level male barely passing the test with 60s in each category, with the exact same numbers would be almost max(within a couple points) on the female scale. Running, upper body strength, and core strength are very important, not sure how they are going to reconcile this major flaw in the system. The scoring system is posted a few pages back.
OK, now I just thought of another issue, we have been thinking in terms of women in line squads,"Our SAW gunner is gone due to being pregnant, Tom, you get her weapon". "But Sgt I am already carrying Julie's 240." What about women in leadership positions? You cant have a female infantry or tanker platoon leader unable to go to the field for 11 months because she is pregnant and again, now she is tying up that slot so no one else can take it and those are valuable slots. Now granted, we are grown adults and we know where babies come from, and generally on deployment there is a no sex rule in effect(that everyone and their mother breaks, the USS Enterprise wasn't nicknamed the "Love Boat" for nothing.) but accidents happen, especially when bored in a forward operating base.
It will be interesting to see where all this leads. Will we as a military be willing to accept lower standards and lower efficiency for the sake of being PC.
c
Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
What about in Sweden where female firefighters get another 30 seconds to chop down a door?
Did you know that we also eat our babies and have to sing patriotic hymns to the great Fatherbörk, aren't allowed to eat anything other than Börk on Wednesdays and that börk börk börk börk?
Equal rights for firemen constitutes a public hazard
Ingrid Carlqvist
Feb. 22, 2013
Female firefighters in Lund need eleven minutes to force a security door – no one will be left alive
If your apartment catches fire, firemen need to get in there fast to save you. A common apartment door can be forced open in 10 to 20 seconds; a security-enforced door takes 45 to 60 seconds.
Now information has leaked that female firefighters take more than 10 minutes to break through a secured door.
“If this is true, it is deeply serious. After that amount of time, there will be no life left to save on the other side,” says Henrik Persson, fire chief in Höganäs.
After the article in Dispatch International on January 26th [not in English!] on how the diversity agitation within the Emergency Services South endangers public safety, the editors have received several hints about how bad things are in Swedish fire brigades. The situation seems to be worst in the city of Lund, whose fire brigade has been highlighted as “exemplary” due to an almost perfectly equal gender balance.
Some time ago the firefighters were practicing forcing open security doors while wearing full protective clothing. When two female firefighters were put to the task, it reportedly took them eleven minutes.
“That is quite remarkable. We will have to look at this, says Peter Bergh,” a spokesman for the National Union of Firefighters.
Peter Bergh says that the union, which represents around 9,000 of the 15,000 Swedish firefighters, has been watching with increasing concern how the emergency services in recent years have focused more and more on diversity, and accordingly less on professional skills.
“In 2011, in cooperation with Centrum för Rättvisa (’Center for Justice’), we brought a case to court concerning a Swedish firefighter who, in spite of two years of education, was refused employment at Södertörns Brandförsvar. While at the same time a number of women with poorer or irrelevant skills were hired as firefighters,” recalls Peter Bergh.
“As the case was settled out of court and Södertörns Brandförsvar was forced to pay Skr 100,000 (€11,600) in compensation (a large figure by Swedish standards), we thought that the emergency services would reconsider the matters,” says Peter Bergh.
But that does not seem to be the case. When Räddningstjänsten Sydoes hired ten new workers in Malmö, the ones with the best skills and longest experience were turned down. Five positions went to women with very superficial professional skills.
And at the “exemplary brigade” in Lund, exercises show that some female firefighters are not able to enter a burning apartment with a secured front door. Henrik Persson, who for many years worked in Malmö as both a firefighter and a group leader, and now employed as fire chief in Höganäs, is gravely concerned.
“The conditions when saving lives in buildings keep getting tougher. It is more common now that that we encounter security doors of various classifications when we need to enter an apartment,” says Henrik Persson.
“Forcing oneself through a security door requires strenuous muscle-effort and teamwork, under intense time pressure. And although I do not know of the specific exercise in Lund, where women took eleven minute to force the security door open, I am aware that competence is falling in several areas, simply because the demands for physical strength have been lowered.”
Can people survive eleven minutes in a burning apartment?
“No, after eleven minutes there is, in theory, no life left to save on the other side of the door,” replies Henrik Persson.
Henrik Persson as well as Peter Bergh confirm that such results have been hushed up and pushed aside. No one will acknowledge that over the last decade, the competence of firemen has deteriorated severely.
“As a logical consequence, this is a risk for the general public. In order to fix these problems, we must have the courage to talk about them; the demands must be in line with what the job requires,” says Henrik Persson.
The change started at the end of the 1990′s. Previously most of those who went on to become firefighters had been carpenters, electricians or plumbers, people with solid physical ability. The personnel consisted of people capable of practical work under heavy physical and psychological strain.
“This is actually what the operative side of the trade is about. A hundred percent,” says Henrik Persson.
“Then suddenly we got the idea that it was vitally important that the force consisted not only of big, strong Swedish men, and they worked eagerly to recruit women, and not least men of immigrant background.”
In order to motivate this, a problem was constructed, Henrik Persson believes. It was claimed that the jargon among firefighters was offensive and condescending, a macho culture, and that had to be countered, no matter the cost. This later spread like wildfire through all of Sweden.
“But that was not my impression. Yes, there were some who openly and loudly argued that women do not make good firefighters, and certainly the jargon could be rude, but it has always been cordial. As frequently is the case in workplaces handling matters of life and death, says Henrik Persson.
According to Persson, firefighters are actually the most broadminded and tolerant profession towards various beliefs, sexual orientation and other issues that could be perceived as dissenting or in the minority. Taking care of people is a part of the job.
“And has one ever heard of the jargon being such a problem in other single-gender professions, such as garbage truck drivers, nannies or nurses? A problem so worrisome that it justified a lowering of professional standards?”
But this is exactly what is happening within the emergency services. The normal tests for physical skills were scrapped, enabling a much wider range of people to become firefighters.
“But the fact remains that even the best woman cannot physically match the best man, this is simply the truth. What makes it so emotionally loaded to acknowledge this? That does not mean that the physical tests are to be the single determining factor. I have worked with female colleagues myself, and know that there are both competent and skillful women in the force,” says Henrik Persson.
In Höganäs, the fire brigade is in the midst of an organizational reform, while at the same time several have retired due to age.
“We have a series of operative special tasks here, such as advance rescues with ropes, a large lifeboat requiring good boatmanship, tracked vehicles and traditional firefighting tasks. We are a small force which places large demands on individual skills. Furthermore, we must make sure that some have the potential to become leaders in the future. We cannot recruit staff based on gender or ethnicity – if we did so, we would not be able to deliver the required operative capabilities.
“First and foremost, we need to hire the best candidate – regardless of gender or origin of the given person, that is my firm conviction.”
Henrik Persson is dead scared of getting into a situation like those that occurred during his time in Malmö. When he had to call the supreme fire chief to report that on that day, they did not have the required competence.
“That was due to the lack of required education and capability among the personnel. That has happened several times in recent years, much more frequently than people in general dare to believe. At times, when the alarm went, we would have to go to the scene, merely to await reinforcement in order to handle some types of operations, for example stopping a simple water leak.”
The spokesman for the National Union of Firefighters, Peter Bergh, takes the news very seriously that it took firefighters in Lund more than 10 minutes to force open a security door, and intends to take action on it.
“If there ever is a time in life where people expect value for their tax money, it is when their lives are at risk. In that situation, they must have the best possible help,” says Peter Bergh.
“Pluralism is great, and there can be good reasons for the force to reflect society at large, not least when we have to respond to inhabitants in areas like Rosengård, where the fire brigades are not liked. But one fact remains – one cannot talk away a fire.”
The link you gave doesn't link to an article that matches the translation.
EDIT: I'd also highly question the use of Dispatch International as sole source. Considering they're consistently ranting against the evil "mainstream media" and propping themselves up as a "real newspaper" (as opposed to "mainstream media") the tinfoil indicator is starting to overload.
Relapse wrote: Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
It would be, wouldn't it? Which is why we'll never get one. This isn't the first rodeo with this kind of nonsense.
My personal favorite is the Marines and pull ups. They've been saying for years now that female Marines have to hit the minimum male pull up standard. They've delayed that requirement to "next year" every year since because if they didn't, they'd have to separate over half of all female Marines. I anticipate it being quietly dropped sometime in the next two years.
Relapse wrote: Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
It would be, wouldn't it? Which is why we'll never get one. This isn't the first rodeo with this kind of nonsense.
My personal favorite is the Marines and pull ups. They've been saying for years now that female Marines have to hit the minimum male pull up standard. They've delayed that requirement to "next year" every year since because if they didn't, they'd have to separate over half of all female Marines. I anticipate it being quietly dropped sometime in the next two years.
I think the pull-up will quickly become a requirement if they are forced to put women in combat units where they'll have to hump a gak load of gear for twenty to thirty miles up hills and down.
Relapse wrote: Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
It would be, wouldn't it? Which is why we'll never get one. This isn't the first rodeo with this kind of nonsense.
My personal favorite is the Marines and pull ups. They've been saying for years now that female Marines have to hit the minimum male pull up standard. They've delayed that requirement to "next year" every year since because if they didn't, they'd have to separate over half of all female Marines. I anticipate it being quietly dropped sometime in the next two years.
I think the pull-up will quickly become a requirement if they are forced to put women in combat units where they'll have to hump a gak load of gear for twenty to thirty miles up hills and down.
A more likely scenario is pull-ups become mandatory for certain MOS.
Just as the Army is VERY unlikely to not score by sex on the APFT. Doing so, if you kept the male standard as the minimum, would see close to 90% of females get chaptered out. If the USMC decides to make the three pull-ups the minimum (it is 3, right?) as mentioned they lose too many. Congress/DACOWITS would gak themselves. So, in effect the services are probably going to come up with 'initial entry' standards which will mirror standards for non-combat arms, and combat arms standards. There may well be variation (tankers will have different standards than cav scouts and infantry for example).
When I went through Airborne School in the fall of '91 females did not have to do pull-ups but males did. Anyone know if that is still the case? The reason for pull ups to ensure you had the upper body strength to pull your weight on the risers to dump air/steer your chute. It never made sense to have different standards, it was like the Army said 'females are less valuable, we don't care if they can safely control their chute' just so they could get them through the school.
The entire physical fitness program is screwed for that reason Capt. PT standards should be based on MOS/AFSC, not just a standard for the whole service.
I refuse to believe that because I am a male, my time sitting at my desk requires me to do more push-ups then a female who sits at the desk next to me.
Hordini wrote: being in the military entails more sacrifice in order to provide something that is necessary for a free society...
I think this is the part I object to, and what is at the heart of soldier worship. The idea that soldiers are fighting for my freedom, so I should be grateful. I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and more often than not I think military intervention makes situations worse. The latest example being "bomb Syria", which even Bashar al-Assad said is generating more rebels.
Also my "freedom" is highly overrated. Freedom to be owned by global corporations? Freedom to pay tax "or else"? If someone wants to fight for my freedom, go and fight the corrupt "political donations" system, which is just a moniker for bribery. Go and fight to not have the quality of our food, our health, and our environment dictated by someone's bottom line. Then I'll thank you for your service.
Shipping overseas to drive around in the dessert and achieve very little, so that shares in Halliburton and arms manufacturing can enjoy a few extra points, does nothing for my freedom. And, may actually have stirred up a wasps nest of global terrorism, which has led to my freedoms being eroded. Now the world is more dangerous than ever, and new "counter terrorism" laws mean that just about anyone can be arrested, held indefinitely without charge, and possibly tortured... Fan-fething-tastic!
So while I appreciate that soldiers do get shot at, and might even mistakenly believe they're doing it for a good cause. I don't personally owe you anything.
If you don't value your freedom, it's your loss, quite frankly. The bottom line is, soldiers will step into harms way to defend you, and deploy to hazardous areas so you don't have to. If you don't feel that that is worthy of a modicum of your respect, then good for you I suppose.
Did you know that we also eat our babies and have to sing patriotic hymns to the great Fatherbörk, aren't allowed to eat anything other than Börk on Wednesdays and that börk börk börk börk?
On a more serious note, "citation needed".
Way off topic but can you tell me more of this Börk?
For on topic, the thing about one standard being set and equal opportunity not equal outcome needs to be repeated several times if necessary. Which is basically the answer to this in military terms, but as I'm sure people in large bureaucratic organisations know, upper management are not the brightest people (probably all those management courses they go on ).
Compel wrote: While I'm generally more on the 'friend to the armed forces' side of the fence, I will say that there's often something I tend to find... creepy... about the way, particularly America, but I've seen some situations elsewhere, about the reverence that soldiers are treated. It can feel quite unsettling.
Sometimes it gets a little overboard in the US, I agree. But I prefer that to the way soldiers are treated in many European countries: with suspicion at best, to little better than criminals at worst.
And the fact that I'm suggesting that soldiering is an honorable profession in general, or that soldiers who behave honorably are worthy of respect is pretty far from reverence. I think it's pretty reasonably, quite honestly. Nobody would claim that someone was guilty of "teacher worship" for claiming that teaching is an honorable profession and that good teachers are worthy of respect.
djones520 wrote: The entire physical fitness program is screwed for that reason Capt. PT standards should be based on MOS/AFSC, not just a standard for the whole service.
I refuse to believe that because I am a male, my time sitting at my desk requires me to do more push-ups then a female who sits at the desk next to me.
The problem is there SHOULD be a minimum standard for the whole service. It should not be different by sex.
At least in the Army and the USMC, every trooper, regardless of MOS is supposed to be able to perform certain Infantry tasks. So, regardless of MOS, there should be a standard.
Relapse wrote: Do you have a source for that article? It seems those for women getting these positions all say if a woman can meet the standard, let her. If we have an article from a reputable source saying standards are being lowered, that would be huge.
It would be, wouldn't it? Which is why we'll never get one. This isn't the first rodeo with this kind of nonsense.
My personal favorite is the Marines and pull ups. They've been saying for years now that female Marines have to hit the minimum male pull up standard. They've delayed that requirement to "next year" every year since because if they didn't, they'd have to separate over half of all female Marines. I anticipate it being quietly dropped sometime in the next two years.
I think the pull-up will quickly become a requirement if they are forced to put women in combat units where they'll have to hump a gak load of gear for twenty to thirty miles up hills and down.
A more likely scenario is pull-ups become mandatory for certain MOS.
Just as the Army is VERY unlikely to not score by sex on the APFT. Doing so, if you kept the male standard as the minimum, would see close to 90% of females get chaptered out. If the USMC decides to make the three pull-ups the minimum (it is 3, right?) as mentioned they lose too many. Congress/DACOWITS would gak themselves. So, in effect the services are probably going to come up with 'initial entry' standards which will mirror standards for non-combat arms, and combat arms standards. There may well be variation (tankers will have different standards than cav scouts and infantry for example).
When I went through Airborne School in the fall of '91 females did not have to do pull-ups but males did. Anyone know if that is still the case? The reason for pull ups to ensure you had the upper body strength to pull your weight on the risers to dump air/steer your chute. It never made sense to have different standards, it was like the Army said 'females are less valuable, we don't care if they can safely control their chute' just so they could get them through the school.
In the Marines, though, the concept is every man is a rifleman. I'm surprised to read about two sets of standards for Airborne. It puts a huge hole in the narrative that on average, women can be as physically tough as men in a combat role.
Great concept. Not every Marine has to pass the Infantry course though, so in practice what it means is every Marine needs to be able to perform some basic infantry tasks, just as every soldier does, and just as I mentioned a couple of posts ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just checked, the standards for Airborne school no longer include pull-ups for anyone. Instead there is a 20 second Flex Arm Hang every student must be able to perform.
Each student also has to pass the APFT for the lowest age bracket (17-21 year olds) but that is still graded according to sex.
CptJake wrote: Great concept. Not every Marine has to pass the Infantry course though, so in practice what it means is every Marine needs to be able to perform some basic infantry tasks, just as every soldier does, and just as I mentioned a couple of posts ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just checked, the standards for Airborne school no longer include pull-ups for anyone. Instead there is a 20 second Flex Arm Hang every student must be able to perform.
Each student also has to pass the APFT for the lowest age bracket (17-21 year olds) but that is still graded according to sex.
CptJake wrote: Great concept. Not every Marine has to pass the Infantry course though, so in practice what it means is every Marine needs to be able to perform some basic infantry tasks, just as every soldier does, and just as I mentioned a couple of posts ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just checked, the standards for Airborne school no longer include pull-ups for anyone. Instead there is a 20 second Flex Arm Hang every student must be able to perform.
Each student also has to pass the APFT for the lowest age bracket (17-21 year olds) but that is still graded according to sex.
So I do get to say 'Back in MY day it was harder!'
It makes me wonder if they lowered the standard so women wouldn't stand out as weaker, making their requirements a joke.
I don't know. I bet some smart guy realized that the pull up was being used as an indicator of capability to pull and hold a slip. If the flex arm hang does the same thing, I guess it is okay... It does look like the student has to start from a dead hang and pull up. Of course the link also says you can re-test it and even be given a waiver if you can't make it. I have no idea how often waivers are granted/not granted but I hope they are pretty damned rare.
Hordini wrote: The bottom line is, soldiers will step into harms way to defend you, and deploy to hazardous areas so you don't have to. If you don't feel that that is worthy of a modicum of your respect, then good for you I suppose.
I didn't ask anyone to fight for me, and I certainly didn't ask them to lose. And why on Earth would I ever have to deploy in hazardous areas? Do you think if soldiers didn't exist, I'd be in Afghanistan chasing goats around? No, I'd be here minding my own business like normal.
In the Marines, though, the concept is every man is a rifleman. I'm surprised to read about two sets of standards for Airborne. It puts a huge hole in the narrative that on average, women can be as physically tough as men in a combat role.
Not sure how it is now, but when I was in military out of all the women there only about 2-3 in every 10 would have qualified for combat duty. Earlier I stated I meet a few really tough women in the military and they could easily out do 80% of the men, again they were few. I welcome them to defend the nation as ground combat troops IF they can meet the same standards as the male recruits. It's often not talked about but a small portion male recruits washout of basic training, they are not able to complete the physical training and receive medical discharge. Women in my time had different and lower standards but still had a washout rate. I'm betting if they had to meet the same standards more would washout.
but in FREEDOMLand our ladies aren't as physically built as the men are, on average.
