Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the physical requirements for the Infantry are often exaggerated. I've met some tough SoBs that were 0311s, but I also have a friends that made it through SOI that are significantly weaker than me and have inferior endurance. Meeting the physical minimums is important, but I don't think they're so high as to be unattainable to properly prepared women.

I hear a lot about the standard 100lb+ load of kit, but I just don't find that believable. That reminds me of the bravado in boot when people claimed to be carrying 160lb loads.

According to http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf a M240 Machine Gunner carries an 81lb combat load. I don't know how 240s are deployed (weapons platoon?), but that's one of the heaviest combat loads for any billet. It's a good chunk of weight and it will slow you down a good bit, but it's not that much weight.

I think a big part of the problem is that nearly everyone outside of certain sports only trains the endurance aspect of their legs and does little to strengthen their back and legs which is critical for managing those loads.

mattyrm wrote:
See, if she passed everything than Its ridiculous not to admit her, she earned it.

My driver once said, when I asked why leave the military, just because you earned a medal doesn't mean that some donkey-cave officer can't claim it for himself somehow.

@Amaya

Jihadin wrote:
http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h350/Jihadin/?action=view¤t=armor003.jpg

http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h350/Jihadin/?action=view¤t=armor001.jpg

Vest alone with plates and additional attachment...groin, kidney neck piece and detoids (I wear a LRG) is 35 lbs

Loaded M4 is 7 lbs

UBL is supposedly is 7 mags. I carry 15 30 round mags so additional 15 lbs

9mm Baretta is 2.5 lbs loaded

I carry three additional mags...figure 1 lbs

Camelback filled with water 4 lbs

The advance CLS bag is 11 LBS

IFAK under a pound

Emergency Extraction Tool 7 LBS (Its a axe to shatter bullet resistant window

ACH helmet over 3 LBS

PRC commo device under a pound

so far 65 lbs

Bipod on the M4

ACOG

Now this is where it gets way different. Depends on the unit that out the wire

Extra belt of ammo for either the M249 of M240B

Frags
Smoke grenade
Flashbang
Foldable stretcher
SINGAR Radio plus spare battery
2 additional Medic bag (not just one)
Spare barrel for the SAW
Spare 204 rounds
Marker panel
Additional water
AT4/Javelin
NVG's
Assualt Bag (things like 100 mph tape, zipcuffs, sandbags. MRE, more water, and pogey bait)
So your averaging out 90-110 lbs so far

We haven't brought in the crew serve tripod (we never took them)

So far it really doesn't look a lot but soldier out the wire is not going to take minimum stuff. You double up on whatever you think you need to CYA and your buddy.

Even Etools were brought

Two different environment. Training and combat operation


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also a M240 and M249 are assigned to squads...so figure one SAW per Squad and one M240B per two squads

Sorry, I don't understand what you are attempting to imply. I thought you were referring to this bit:

(4) On or after 18 September 2001:
(a) Medical personnel assigned or attached to or under operational control of any ground Combat Arms units (not to include members assigned or attached to Aviation units) of brigade or smaller size, who satisfactorily perform medical duties while the unit is engaged in active ground combat, provided they are personally present and under fire.

I like the patch. The way it's loaded though, it's not a ton of weight. Some weak fat body with no training couldn't handle it, but I think nearly anyone could handle the load (barring preexisting medical issues). I think a bigger issue is mental strength.

Aviation is considered combat support. Also aviation has medivac units. A medic can be a assigned to a crew of a blackhawk in a regular assualt unit or assigned to a crew of an actual medivac Blackhawk. Either one will entitle him to the CMB once the aircraft lands to pick up wounded in a "hot" landing zone (pick up area under enemy fire) or while in flight since Blackhawks fly at 100 ft above ground

Medics are preassigned to a Chinook in case of a mass causulties incident will also be eligible for the CMB if they start taking fire either on ground or in flight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Amaya. Thats the joy of IOTV is that it can spread the load evenly over the body. Also it has a drawcord in it that seperates the front and back of the vest from the body so you don't drown in it to and for quick access to a trumatic wound to the upper body. I am also a firm believer of the groin protecter being that one of mine was hit in the balls from a richochet (sp)

The IBA that was being used back in 2008 would actually piss you off to no end because of the way it was designed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually the velco pisses me off

Alright, read the whole thread....

My $0.02: It's a bad idea, but it doesn't surprise me. Most of the thread has been about physical standards and capabilities and I don't consider that the biggest hurdle. Ernst Junger wrote in "Storm of Steel" (one of my favorite books) that a big brawny guy who cowered at every shell burst wasn't worth even half as much as a small scrappy dude who could plug a dagger in a Frenchie's throat without a second thought (my paraphrasing).

IMO, the impact on unit cohesion caused by introducing individual or small numbers of females into an all-male unit is generally negative. More often than not, males look at them not as comrades in arms but as WOMEN who may or may not be available for sex.

There's been some posts about how the current perspective on females mirrors the previous one on African Americans. The key difference is that men from different backgrounds can relate to each other far more easily than men and women can. If you put a black dude from the projects in Chicago, a Mexican immigrant from Cali, a middle class white guy from Massachusetts, and another white guy farmer from Kansas in a fire team....eventually they'll all get along. Because when bored a group of dudes sitting in a fighting position together will inevitably talk about getting drunk and banging cute girls. This builds male bonding, and, by extension, unit cohesion. This doesn't happen anywhere near as effectively with male/female teams either because they can't relate to each other or the men are willing to backstab each other to even get a chance to poke the one warm wet hole within 5km.

All this talk about equality should be totally irrelevant. Yes the military has been used as a petri dish for social experiments in the past and it has turned out okay. Still, I don't think it is a habit that we should get into. Unlike most science labs, failed experiments in this realm mean PEOPLE DIE.

At the end of the day, the military exists to fight and win wars. The questions that SHOULD be asked are "Does the inclusion of females in combat arms MOS's quantifiably enhance the organization's ability to fight and win?" and "Is such an inclusion an efficient use of our increasingly-limited national resources?"

I suspect that the answer lies buried deep in a Soviet archive somewhere: contrary to popular belief, the Soviets were masters of Military Science, and had the research and numbers to validate almost any hypothesis that could impact a total war. They also accumulated more combat man-hours -- and woman-hours -- than probably any other organization in human history. Their rapid elimination of female combat arms units/personnel should not be solely attributed to male misogyny and dismissed out of hand.

Likewise with Israel. You could argue that they have faced a continual existential threat to the nation since it's formation, which alone would justify the continued use of female infantrymen. The Caracal battalion is 70% female but, having not been used during the Lebanon conflict in 2006, has yet to be stress-tested in a major combat operation. So we are left to rely on their reports from 1948-56. I haven't read such primary sources myself, but numerous Internet (hah!) conversations indicate that the psychological impact on male soldiers from seeing female soldiers maimed/killed was magnitudes worse than usual with male casualties. This is a subject worth researching to get the real answer, and I'd consider it far more relevant to the discussion than pictures of chicks in bikinis with M4's slung on their backs.


If someone actually bothers to collect all the data and say "See, it does work" then fine, let 'em in. If they are that eager to get their limbs blown off then be my guest. It won't affect me. I believe our empire is in terminal decline, largely because of gender-normalizing feminist bullsh-- such as this issue. I'm doing what any sane man should do and voting with my feet, and my capital assets. I'm planning to not return to the United States after I get out of the Marine Corps, and will be constantly evaluating the benefits of retaining my US citizenship.

Oh, and a summary of my curriculum vitae for added legitimacy:

active US Army POG (gender-mixed unit, 1yr Korea @ an Air Force base)
Florida National Guard infantryman (2 females @ Bn)
USMC The Basic School (infantry-centric gender-mixed training, 6 months)
USMC Infantry Officers Course (all male, finished 90% of the 3 months, boarded for marginal performance, opted to reclassify instead of recycle)
USMC Aircraft Command & Control (gender-mixed, been here in Okinawa a year so far)

Other than missing that great big checkmark of "time in the sandbox" I think I've got a decently wide spread of experience across two branches of service, active and reserve, combat arms and not, enlisted and officer.

Jihadin wrote:Aviation is considered combat support. Also aviation has medivac units. A medic can be a assigned to a crew of a blackhawk in a regular assualt unit or assigned to a crew of an actual medivac Blackhawk. Either one will entitle him to the CMB once the aircraft lands to pick up wounded in a "hot" landing zone (pick up area under enemy fire) or while in flight since Blackhawks fly at 100 ft above ground

Yes, well, according to this, Aviation = no CMB.
You either have to be assigned/attached directly to the infantry unit, or attached to or under operational control of any ground Combat Arms units - unless you were assigned to an Aviation unit, in which case you're SOL and won't get the badge.

I thought it was this controversy which would have led people to believe that the CMB is harder to get than it may actually be (see the article). Provided you do actually think that this medic being awarded the CMB was nothing special and perfectly in line with existing regs. Your post ("look up XYZ") wasn't very informative concerning what you wanted to express.

Jihadin wrote:
Two different environment. Training and combat operation

Really? Who'd a thunk?

Next revelation: spalling hurts when someone has to dig it out of your shoulder.

My point still stands. If they've got the chops, saying 'No, you have no penis' is a stupid way to loose good soldiers.

Well you know the old joke about contradictions in terms like "military intelligence"...

Amaya wrote:I

I hear a lot about the standard 100lb+ load of kit, but I just don't find that believable. That reminds me of the bravado in boot when people claimed to be carrying 160lb loads.

While at The Basic School I had friends that would weigh their ILBE's before we went to the field. They were consistently 80-95lbs. This was the typical load that we humped for our 9-mile and 12-mile hikes. Combine that with Jihadin's combat load and your at 140-150lbs. We were rained on for two days straight before we did the 9-mile to return from the field exercise, turning everyone's previously-conditioned hike feet into soft mush. So many people fell out on the side of the road with injuries and ended up at medical that there was a command investigation into why our instructors were breaking Lieutenants on what should have been a normal conditioning hike. I didn't find out about the investigation until a friend who became a Legal officer told me later. Our company had a married couple in it, and at Mess Night they called out the husband, pretty much calling him a b-tch in front of the whole company, because he fell out of the 9-mile while his wife didn't. Our 12-mile in dry conditions was nowhere near as casualty-producing.

While at the Infantry Officers Course we regularly moved through the treeline with the above loads. For the last exercise I did, our loads were worse. IOC is an understrength infantry company (2 rifle platoons, about 80 hard chargers) but we carried our own MGs, mortars, SMAWs, and engineering equipment (including numerous rolls of concertina wire) like a full-sized unit. I carried a mortar baseplate in one hand and the optics box in the other and just let my M4 hang across my chest. Other guys had MG tripod bags thrown over one shoulder (like a rifle at left-shoulder arms), or SMAW launchers strapped to the sides of their ILBE's with a pick-axe on the other side. IMO you can't even think straight when trying to move encumbered like that.

Do units conduct combat patrols with 150lbs of gear? I doubt it.
Do units conduct foot movements in theater with 150lbs of gear? Possibly.
Do TRAINING CENTERS put people through initial entry training with 150lbs of gear? Clearly.
Is it stupid to do so? Absolutely. Light infantry my ass.

The medic assigned to the aero-medivac company of the aviation support battalion of the combat aviation
brigade is not eligible for award of the CMB. The medic assigned to the combat aviation brigade headquarters is eligible for award of the CMB,
provided he/she performs medical duties under fire while the unit is engaged in active ground combat.

KK thanks for pointing that out. You are correct in them not recieving the CMB while in flight. On ground waiting to load while taking fire was the key. That pretty much involve the overwatch of Apache's from the BDE that engages the enemy. Thats explains more clearly then how our medics got theirs way back in the days. DA form 638 is used for Recommendation for Awards. Trick is how to key the words to fit the criteria


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Noble. I'm looking at 90-120 max. The only other thing I can think to go over to 140-160 is taking the heavy weaponry IE mortars, 50 cal, etc etc. Only thing that would require all that is establishing a COP (Company Outpost) but then thats moving it off the aircraft to the ground. Example be the platoon from 173rd establishing KOP which took a good chunk of aviation asset

Noble713 wrote:Because when bored a group of dudes sitting in a fighting position together will inevitably talk about getting drunk and banging cute girls. This builds male bonding, and, by extension, unit cohesion. This doesn't happen anywhere near as effectively with male/female teams either because they can't relate to each other or the men are willing to backstab each other to even get a chance to poke the one warm wet hole within 5km.

I'd like to point out in my own experience that this part is not universal. I've seen male and female crews work just as well together as with all one gender or the other. Granted, we all seemed to talk about food, what we were going to do with our pay, a nice bath, and some ideas for improvements to Náströnd and Alice's Revenge if/when we got back to someplace with a decent machine shop. (Granted, some of these were not only impractical, but very silly, on reflection. It also shows that gearheads come with and without male parts.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Noble713 wrote:
Do units conduct combat patrols with 150lbs of gear? I doubt it.
Do units conduct foot movements in theater with 150lbs of gear? Possibly.
Do TRAINING CENTERS put people through initial entry training with 150lbs of gear? Clearly.
Is it stupid to do so? Absolutely. Light infantry my ass.

Agreed. I'm a big fan of 'strap it to the outside and drive there'.

What they ought to do before they even bring it into the combat theater. Is test it out at Camp Greaves, South Korea. All male post (infantry company) but its Army

Jihadin wrote:What they ought to do before they even bring it into the combat theater. Is test it out at Camp Greaves, South Korea. All male post (infantry company) but its Army

An aside: Fort Benning might also be a worthwhile spot to test the idea for non-footsloggers.

Noble713 wrote:There's been some posts about how the current perspective on females mirrors the previous one on African Americans. The key difference is that men from different backgrounds can relate to each other far more easily than men and women can. If you put a black dude from the projects in Chicago, a Mexican immigrant from Cali, a middle class white guy from Massachusetts, and another white guy farmer from Kansas in a fire team....eventually they'll all get along.

Not if you'd have done that "back then", obviously.
I'm fairly sure that in ~1925, many white men could more easily relate to white women than black men.

Noble713 wrote:Because when bored a group of dudes sitting in a fighting position together will inevitably talk about getting drunk and banging cute girls. This builds male bonding, and, by extension, unit cohesion. This doesn't happen anywhere near as effectively with male/female teams either because they can't relate to each other or the men are willing to backstab each other to even get a chance to poke the one warm wet hole within 5km.

Have you ever actually served in a unit that consisted of both male and female soldiers or are these just your assumptions?

RAND report on effects of female soldiers on military units

Noble713 wrote:I suspect that the answer lies buried deep in a Soviet archive somewhere: contrary to popular belief, the Soviets were masters of Military Science, and had the research and numbers to validate almost any hypothesis that could impact a total war. They also accumulated more combat man-hours -- and woman-hours -- than probably any other organization in human history. Their rapid elimination of female combat arms units/personnel should not be solely attributed to male misogyny and dismissed out of hand.

Actually, this "elimination" - which was by no means rapid nor total - was due to declining birthrates in the 50s and the realization that the Soviets' universal draft (targeting girls the age of 19-25) affected the very same women that would otherwise become mothers (fertility rates amongst Russian women at that time having been the greatest at ages 20-29).

Nowadays, there are even thoughts about (re-)introducing conscription for women into Russia's army. Currently, female soldiers make up about 10% of Russia's armed forces, including frontline combat units such as infantry and airborne. Just a few years back, on direct order of the President, a new elite boarding school was opened in Moscow, training young girls age 11 and up as cadets for the police, the military and the security service.

Noble713 wrote:I believe our empire is in terminal decline, largely because of gender-normalizing feminist bullsh-- such as this issue.

And here we've come to the crux of the problem.

But perhaps your "empire" is in decline because it has become so slow to adopt certain social changes, compared to the rest of the world?

Another "good" example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003415.html

Lynata wrote:

But perhaps your "empire" is in decline because it has become so slow to adopt certain social changes, compared to the rest of the world?

Another "good" example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003415.html

Or, you know. Because the rest of the world figured out how to do capitalism.

Testify wrote:Or, you know. Because the rest of the world figured out how to do capitalism.

*looks at the EU*

... naaaah. Not really.

Lynata wrote:

Testify wrote:Or, you know. Because the rest of the world figured out how to do capitalism.

*looks at the EU*

... naaaah. Not really.

The world outside of the west, I mean.
Also "the EU" is pretty misleading. You could point at Awkensaw and West Virginia and say that the US economy is worthless, no different than pointing at Greece or Portugal.

Lynata wrote:*looks at the EU*
... naaaah. Not really.

I love Europe. It's great. I'd love to have the money to buy a Leopard II.

While at the Infantry Officers Course

That tells me he's an officer. Not in his advance course yet so 01-02 maybe a 03.

Noble made a very good point in camaderie. Its essential in team building. Yes the RAND report is correct in military unit readiness but remember he (I agree) by first hand knowledge know what can of idiotic behavoir some young troops will have (including junior and senior NCO's and officers). The first issue will be sexual harassement and sexual assualt. That does indeed screws up a unit since depending on who...say a senior NCO the integerty of the NCO is compromised be it a true or false accusation till the investigation is done. Another thing about the RAND investigation what units were interviewed?

While 91 percent of all Navy positions are open to women, current plans call for about 13 percent of the shipboard bunks to be for female berthing. Thus, the number of positions that could simultaneously be filled by women is less than 91 percent.

Pretty much tells me it was conducted in the Navy

The perception of double standards was held most widely by men and tended to revolve around such things as different physical standards and a perceived unwillingness of male leaders to demand as much of women as they do of men. Finally, dating and sexual relationships, even those not forbidden by the regulations, can create morale problems within a unit.

Perception is a mofo. CoC credibility is lowered due to actions that might be viewed as favoritism

Yes we get daily classes on EO but you will always have some chuklehead that will think they get away with it.

Yes I have served in units with males and females. I'm also a EOA for my unit. (Equal Oppurtunity Advisor)

edit

love Europe. It's great. I'd love to have the money to buy a Leopard II.

Baron I know why you want that tank.....make sure you have enough cash left over to get prime real estate to drive amok in

EFFECTS ON UNITS

Using multiple methods (i.e., interviews, surveys, focus groups) to assess effects on units, this study found that gender integration has had a relatively small effect on readiness, cohesion, and morale. This is not to say that it has no effect; it does. However, other influences, such as leadership, are perceived by those interviewed and surveyed as being far more influential.

Readiness

When compared with the effects of training, operational tempo, leadership, and materiel, gender is not perceived as affecting readiness. Pregnancy can affect the deployability of a unit when the unit has a disproportionate number of women or is understaffed. In terms of the quality of women, the majority of officers and experienced enlisted personnel surveyed asserted that women perform about as well as men do.

Cohesion

Any divisions caused by gender were minimal or invisible in units with high cohesion. Gender was reported as a secondary issue in units that had conflicting groups, and then it took a back seat to divisions along work group or rank lines. When it was perceived as having a negative effect, it was generally because gender is one way that people break into categories when conflict surfaces, because structures or organizational behavior highlight gender differences, or because dating occurs within a unit. Not all gender effects are negative. The presence of women was also cited as raising the level of professional standards.

Morale

Gender did not figure prominently into issues that respondents cited as affecting morale. Leadership was regarded as the overwhelming influence. Insofar as gender was an issue, it surfaced in two areas: sexual harassment and double standards. In contrast to some highly publicized recent incidents, most of those surveyed reported that sexual harassment is not occurring in their units. Of the women who have been harassed (and considerable confusion exists about what constitutes sexual harassment), most do not report it. Typically, they regard such incidents as minor and handle them on their own. Less frequently cited reasons for not reporting include a fear of overreaction by the institution, resulting in severe punishment of the offender; a fear of backlash from coworkers; a belief that such reports weaken the case for women in the military; and a belief that nothing will happen to the offender. The perception of double standards was held most widely by men and tended to revolve around such things as different physical standards and a perceived unwillingness of male leaders to demand as much of women as they do of men. Finally, dating and sexual relationships, even those not forbidden by the regulations, can create morale problems within a unit.

Other Gender Effects

The study also provided insight into other gender issues currently prominent in the public debate. The majority of the men and women who participated in the study favor integrated basic training. However, some do prefer segregated training (25 and 39 percent, respectively, for women and men). While a small percentage (14 and 18 percent, respectively, for men and women) favored concentrating women in fewer units, the rest were split between assigning women across all units or having a gender-blind assignment process. When it comes to reporting harassment, most participants do not care whether they report to a man or a woman. But 22-35 percent do have a preference, most often preferring to report to someone of the same sex. More than half the enlisted men favor some relaxation of the combat exclusion rule, but only one third of the male officers support such a change. More than 80 percent of the women support a change, but they differ over whether service in combat positions should be voluntary.

Interesting.

Jihadin wrote:
Baron I know why you want that tank.....make sure you have enough cash left over to get prime real estate to drive amok in

The PSO variant's close in surveillance system gives the commander a near 360 of the tank without having to open a hatch. I hear nothing but good things about it from my Canadian contacts.

And then there's this:




All I have to say is that has got to be hard on the road wheels.


Beats the gak out of the ol' 13/105 (I keep hoping the Peruvians do some of those upgrades so a few can be lost in shipping )

Noble713 wrote:If you put a black dude from the projects in Chicago, a Mexican immigrant from Cali, a middle class white guy from Massachusetts, and another white guy farmer from Kansas in a fire team....eventually they'll all get along.

I find it much easier to relate to women with a background similar to mine than I do to men from very different backgrounds. There's a reason all my high school friends that work blue collar jobs are no longer friends, we simply have no basis for a relationship.

The reason the men in your example get along isn't because they're men, its because of esprit de corps and common experience.

Noble713 wrote:
Because when bored a group of dudes sitting in a fighting position together will inevitably talk about getting drunk and banging cute girls. This builds male bonding, and, by extension, unit cohesion. This doesn't happen anywhere near as effectively with male/female teams either because they can't relate to each other or the men are willing to backstab each other to even get a chance to poke the one warm wet hole within 5km.

Why can't they relate? My best friend is female, and we used to brag to each other about sexual escapades and getting drunk all the time. We're both straight, though she dabbled on the other side in the way college girls often do, but the major points of relationship were a common educational experience and a similar take on social interaction.

Most women like drinking and sex just as much as most men. Or, to use a colloquialism, "Girls talk."

Noble713 wrote:
Yes the military has been used as a petri dish for social experiments in the past and it has turned out okay.

How is this a social experiment? Women either serve in combat, or they don't. This isn't like having coed dormitories, its a unique situation involving a unique institutional culture.

Noble713 wrote:
At the end of the day, the military exists to fight and win wars. The questions that SHOULD be asked are "Does the inclusion of females in combat arms MOS's quantifiably enhance the organization's ability to fight and win?" and "Is such an inclusion an efficient use of our increasingly-limited national resources?"

You're partially correct. Its not a matter of enhancement, its a matter of detraction. If including women in combat units negatively impacts the ability of the unit to function in a significant manner, then it shouldn't be done. Any positive effect is incidental.

There's also issues of political will which, while I'm sure you would dismiss them, are relevant because the military is subservient to the civilian population (theoretically).

Jihadin wrote:Perception is a mofo. CoC credibility is lowered due to actions that might be viewed as favoritism

Absolutely, but
#1 you don't need women for that
#2 once people adapt to the idea of seeing women as equals, there should be little change to the current conditions

I do realize that it may be troublesome for some units, in that (depending on their esprit du corps and discipline) they might face difficulties adapting to this new situation - but these difficulties result solely out of currently cultivated societal values, such as "women don't belong in the infantry". Just like back then people thought "Blacks don't belong in the military". And look what happened.
I'm sure that women will - and have! remember that you already have female soldiers, just not everywhere - face the very same issues as black servicemen back then, but eventually society will adapt once people get their heads wrapped around the idea that a soldier is a soldier is a soldier, regardless of gender, skin colour, or sexual preferences. Because that's exactly what happened in Germany.

That story with the medic who received the Silver Star for bravery in combat is rather troublesome. To think that whoever she was helping would have died if she wouldn't have been there just because policies forbid it. Remember, that infantry unit only took her with them because there was no-one else available. I can't wrap my head around the idea that soldiers would have to die because women who'd be capable of doing so aren't allowed to step up.

Testify wrote:The world outside of the west, I mean.
Also "the EU" is pretty misleading. You could point at Awkensaw and West Virginia and say that the US economy is worthless, no different than pointing at Greece or Portugal.

Good point. It's also not as bad. Could be better, though.
Generally, I don't see capitalism working out all that great in general though. From what I understand, most of today's economies are built upon steady expansion, and I think the theory of infinite growth is BS. And as soon as you have someone starting to hoard the money, the cycle breaks down because people's budgets have a negative effect on demand.

Oh well, we'll see where we go from here, I guess.

BaronIveagh wrote:I love Europe. It's great. I'd love to have the money to buy a Leopard II.

They're fun. I had the opportunity to sit in one as they took it out for a test drive after maintenance in the German Army's Combat Training Centre in Saxony-Anhalt. I've been working there for two years for a civilian contractor - one of the most adventurous jobs I had so far. The army was training for just about everything there, from tank battles to CQC to riot control, some units even trained stuff they weren't officially allowed to. Here's a cool vid.

dogma wrote:Why can't they relate? My best friend is female, and we used to brag to each other about sexual escapades and getting drunk all the time. We're both straight, though she dabbled on the other side in the way college girls often do, but the major points of relationship were a common educational experience and a similar take on social interaction.
Most women like drinking and sex just as much as most men. Or, to use a colloquialism, "Girls talk."

I think some people aren't aware that these days, the behavorial differences between men and women - originally the product of upbringing and cultural indoctrination - aren't as big as they used to be.
"Gasp! Women playing FPS instead of knitting and dancing?!"

I can't wrap my head around the idea that soldiers would have to die because women who'd be capable of doing so aren't allowed to step up.

BUT SHE HAVE A VAGOO AND DOES NOT HAz A PANEZ!

SHE MUST BE tEH EVULz!

Jokes aside, that's the same way I feel about DADT-- so many good soldiers lost because of a bunch of bigots, to the detriment of the military as a whole.

Lynata wrote:Not if you'd have done that "back then", obviously.
I'm fairly sure that in ~1925, many white men could more easily relate to white women than black men.

Back when the life experience of most women rarely extended beyond cooking, cleaning, and maybe fashion? In the absence of racial/gender/etc. bias it would be even more difficult to relate back then compared to now. The hobbies/interests of men and women overlap far more now than in 1925 (gamer chicks, anyone?).

Lynata wrote:Have you ever actually served in a unit that consisted of both male and female soldiers or are these just your assumptions?

I covered that in a previous post, but to reiterate: I've served in 4 operational units: 2 mixed-gender active Army while enlisted, 1 all-male National Guard while enlisted, and currently 1 mixed-gender active Marine Corps as an officer.

Nowadays, there are even thoughts about (re-)introducing conscription for women into Russia's army. Currently, female soldiers make up about 10% of Russia's armed forces, including frontline combat units such as infantry and airborne. Just a few years back, on direct order of the President, a new elite boarding school was opened in Moscow, training young girls age 11 and up as cadets for the police, the military and the security service.

I Google searched for "female Russian military casualties Chechnya" with negligible results. Which of these female-heavy infantry/airborne units have actually conducted extensive combat operations? Signs point to "none". In the process, though, I found this article:
http://www.opencanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/SD-01-Thompson.pdf
He talks about Yugoslavia in the present tense so it's clearly and older article, but here's some choice quotes:

"Women appeared to perform well as individuals; where social cohesion is a requirement their performance suffered."

"Women soon became a liability in combat units. Men were anxious to avoid situations where women might be captured. In integrated units Israeli soldiers -- some of them hardened survivors of concentration camps -- temporarily lost some of their effectiveness when females were killed or maimed. An all female unit that took very heavy casualties in a failed assault saw neighboring male units take more casualties while dragging injured or dead women off the battlefield than would have been the case for dead and injured males."

"It would appear that the presence of women has an adverse effect on the social cohesion required for units on the battlefield. "

"It can be inferred that their prior experience has led them to the conclusion that single gender units and mixed gender units represent too dangerous a loss in battlefield efficiency to be continued."

Wow, imagine that. Some guy I've never even heard of already made my argument 20+ years ago.

Lynata wrote:
But perhaps your "empire" is in decline because it has become so slow to adopt certain social changes, compared to the rest of the world?

If anything our empire is in decline because it was *fast* to adopt certain social changes. It'll probably take another 20-40 years to compare to more paternal, socially conservative yet technologically progressive and innovative industrialized nation states and say "Yup, that's where we went wrong." But I think the writing is on the wall. I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole right now but in a nutshell:
1. Much of America's success as an industrial power can be attributed to STEM-educated males pushing technological innovation.
2. The increase of women in college dumped a bunch of non-STEM educated employees into the workforce who are not engines of technical innovation but still expect comparable compensation. "Deadweight loss" isn't really the term I'm looking for but "economic inefficiency" is close enough.
3. Working women also atrophied the social support network of housewives that working men need to operate stable and successful families, leading to a decline in the quality of upbringing for follow-on generations.
4. Many of said women are now educating our youth, and surprise surprise, American competitiveness in science and math is abysmal. America's brain drain on the rest of the world is largely what keeps us afloat and compensates for the general retardation of the native population.

And it's not like women *can't* do STEM, or haven't "had the opportunity" either (the usual excuse for poor performance, typically used by my fellow minorities in an economic context). I know because my mother graduated with a Math degree around 1970, and has been a computer programmer/software architect ever since. She is the exception rather than the norm, though, as I'd say that's pretty unusual for a black woman even 40 years later. I would argue that chicks don't do STEM because they don't have a genetic/biological disposition to it. There is nothing *wrong* with this state of affairs, because men and women are different. The fundamental problem is that at some point in time some idiot decided that "equal" means "of exactly equal proportions and representation in all fields". Odd that I never see women complaining about the dearth of female coal miners, or garbage truck drivers. Seems they only want the prestigious stuff, like corporate CEO and war hero, and ignore all the other gak jobs that the *rest* of the male population does so that at least some of us can do cool stuff.

Noble713 wrote:
2. The increase of women in college dumped a bunch of non-STEM educated employees into the workforce who are not engines of technical innovation but still expect comparable compensation. "Deadweight loss" isn't really the term I'm looking for but "economic inefficiency" is close enough.

Right around 50% of all STEM degrees (BA, MA, PhD) go to women, at least if you use the NELS definition. The gap is in the hiring process, not education.

Possible that women are to enter ranger school in 2013. Now thats going to be interesting. If they maintain the same standards or lower it. Will "Peered Out" still be in effect or not. Will the instructor have justify his dismissal of a female unit to a higher chain of command. 60+ days left before verdict on how this pandora box is going to go.

Lynata wrote:I think some people aren't aware that these days, the behavorial differences between men and women - originally the product of upbringing and cultural indoctrination - aren't as big as they used to be.

That's what the feminists have brainwashed into the past 2-3 generations of Westerners. It's wrong. Male and female psychology is still radically different, and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. I spent 27 years believing the same crap before I took the red pill and had my eyes opened. More importantly, I've personally applied specific tactics, techniques, and procedures to maximize my personal benefit from the irrational reproductive urges of females, and done so with quantifiable results.

If all this feminism is such a success, with women possessing increased economic freedom, sexual freedom, education, etc.....why are women so unhappy?
http://tinyurl.com/7pwvs8u

Why are divorce rates (>50% in the US), which are initiated by women ~70% of the time, so high?

Society, and women in particular, have been sold a false bill of goods. They got what they *thought* they wanted, but it sure as hell wasn't what they needed. Here's a concise blog post from 5 years ago on the subject:
http://modernizationimperative.blogspot.jp/2006/08/loneliness-of-highly-educated-high.html