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.

 Peregrine wrote:


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.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
The fact still remains men and women are different.

On average, in general, and to a degree that's significance is arguable.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
One article does not override hundreds of peer reviewed studies.

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.

Yeash, I'll type quicker next time.

 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.

Didn't mean any disrespect, Pendix.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

 djones520 wrote:

No, they are required to be ready by 2016. As I mentioned, 160th SOAR is already taking women.

Incredibly short sighted and stupid implementation, IMO.

 djones520 wrote:

I'm a bit surprised.


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

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


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.

 CptJake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


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?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


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.

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.

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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!

 LordofHats wrote:
Look at the bright side. One way or another, we'll finally have a definitive answer on this issue

Most likely at the cost of lives. Not something I find all that amusing.

 djones520 wrote:
Not something I find all that amusing.

I tend to find life is little more than a divine comedy and we're all the butt ends of the joke.

Might as well enjoy it

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20684449

But yeah, I'm sure it won't be an issue...

Another study found

women were medically evacuated from Afghanistan at a rate 22% higher than their male comrades.

http://nation.time.com/2013/07/09/female-troops-medevaced-from-afghanistan-at-higher-rate-than-male-comrades/

Actual study PDF: https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/2013-06-msmr-afghan-medevacs.pdf

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


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?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


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.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 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!?

I have read your posts, I just know that pregnancies wipl not be the first time a team is down a member

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have read your posts, I just know that pregnancies wipl not be the first time a team is down a member

Love triangles are more of a problem, and marriage issues.