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.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The women USED to have a much bigger combat role in Russia than they do now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#Land_forces

It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.

Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.

That's also when you get the Soviets and Germans making use of child soldiers, right?

Seaward wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The women USED to have a much bigger combat role in Russia than they do now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#Land_forces

It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.

Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.

That's also when you get the Soviets and Germans making use of child soldiers, right?

This is not a valid line of argument.

 Chongara wrote:
This is not a valid line of argument.

Why not? If the initial argument is, "Well, when things get serious, we put women in the field!" the counter-argument of, "Yes, but we also put 13 year-olds in the field along with them," is perfectly valid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Guess it is a moot point.

SECNAV Mabus wrote:"Nobody's asking for an exemption in the Navy," Mabus said Monday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. "...The SEALs aren't asking for an exemption ... I've been pretty clear, and I've been pretty clear about this for a while: I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines."

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/15/mabus-m-not-asking-women--combat-exemptions/72306514/

No gak NSW isn't asking for an exemption, Mabus. They know they don't have to, because women are simply not going to make it through log PT.

Man, I hate that guy.

Seaward wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
This is not a valid line of argument.

Why not? If the initial argument is, "Well, when things get serious, we put women in the field!" the counter-argument of, "Yes, but we also put 13 year-olds in the field along with them," is perfectly valid.

It really isn't. This argument is on par with

"Wow, I'd really like some sweets right now. When you get serious about sweets, you get Ice Cream"
"You know who else like Ice Cream, HITLER! That means you're a nazi, and your ideas are nazi ideas.".


The fact that you were doing A, B & C under conditions X, where thing C is bad does not have any implications about the validity of things A or B unless A or B are explicitly reliant on C. That is to say if there are some conditions for which female soldiers worked and also child soldiers were used,child soldiers being a bad idea says nothing about the use of women.

Your argument doesn't even have the faintest glimmer of logical validity. It's wholly and entirely flim-flam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy


EDIT Just to be clear, borrowing the diagram from wikipedia

A: The set of conditions under which to use child soldiers were being used in the conflict.
C: The set of all bad ideas.
B: The set of conditions under which to use female soldiers in combat.

 Chongara wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
This is not a valid line of argument.

Why not? If the initial argument is, "Well, when things get serious, we put women in the field!" the counter-argument of, "Yes, but we also put 13 year-olds in the field along with them," is perfectly valid.

It really isn't. This argument is on par with

"Wow, I'd really like some sweets right now. When you get serious about sweets, you get Ice Cream"
"You know who else like Ice Cream, HITLER! That means you're a nazi, and your ideas are nazi ideas.".


The fact that you were doing A, B & C under conditions X, where thing C is bad does not have any implications about the validity of things A or B unless A or B are explicitly reliant on C. That is to say if there are some conditions for which female soldiers worked and also child soldiers were used,child soldiers being a bad idea says nothing about the use of women.

Your argument doesn't even have the faintest glimmer of logical validity. It's wholly and entirely flim-flam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy


EDIT Just to be clear, borrowing the diagram from wikipedia

A: The set of conditions under which to use child soldiers were being used in the conflict.
C: The set of all bad ideas.
B: The set of conditions under which to use female soldiers in combat.

it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.

Seaward wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The women USED to have a much bigger combat role in Russia than they do now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#Land_forces

It appears great need means there's less time over for sexism in the army.

Seriously, take a look at the article. It is very interesting to see what happens when the threat actually becomes serious and there no longer is time for dogma.

That's also when you get the Soviets and Germans making use of child soldiers, right?

I did not know the child soldiers made excellent snipers.

The more you know.

 Ghazkuul wrote:


it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.

You can't counter someone pointing out that an argument uses bad reasoning by buckling down and typing even sillier non-arguments but now with CAPS.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.

You can't counter someone pointing out that an argument uses bad reasoning by buckling down and typing even sillier non-arguments but now with CAPS.

well the argument was that "woman served on the Russian front and did well" and then he replied with children did the same thing. So if the argument for letting woman into the infantry is that they served well in WWII as snipers in static positions and without having to do actual soldiering then it makes complete sense to say that Children who also served well in WWII on the Russian front should be afforded the same opportunity.

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.

You can't counter someone pointing out that an argument uses bad reasoning by buckling down and typing even sillier non-arguments but now with CAPS.

Chongra, you have nothing that really backs your position. You throw out blanket statements then put out warm feel goods about something that is being forced on the military that will make it less effective and more than likely get people killed or captured.
Just to be clear on my position, I am not altogether against women in the military in combat positions. Just in areas that require physical strength and endurance, such as combat infantry or artillery.

Relapse wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


it actually makes complete sense. Since a more diverse field makes everyone better and since one of the arguments here is that when things get serious we need to utilize ALL our resources then it would follow that it makes complete sense for us to start allowing children to enlist, because diversity makes our military stronger.

You can't counter someone pointing out that an argument uses bad reasoning by buckling down and typing even sillier non-arguments but now with CAPS.

Chongra, you have nothing that really backs your position. You throw out blanket statements then put out warm feel goods about something that is being forced on the military that will make it less effective and more than likely get people killed or captured.
Just to be clear on my position, I am not altogether against women in the military in combat positions. Just in areas that require physical strength and endurance, such as combat infantry or artillery.

What is my position that has no backing exactly? In my last posts I've pointing how Seaward & Ghazkull are using arguments don't follow, they're posting so much noise. Seawards post was poor reasoning which was easy to show
Earlier my postion was as follows:

I an expressed an opinion that can be summed as: When the government makes or holds policies they should avoid any that restrict anyone on the basis of class, save where said policy can be conclusively shown to have no viable non-restricting alternatives.

I do not need to back this up really, as it's an opinion. A subjective statement that reflects my values.

I then went on to assert that a single study with a few hundred people did not constitute sufficiently rigorous proof that there are no viable non-restricting alternatives to a policy of "No women in combat infantry".

This is also true. The standard proof I set was quite high, the study we were questioning didn't meet it, as was better dicussed by posters after me. If you held a lower standard of proof the study may be sufficient but that has little to do with my position.

Really I've taken no hard line stance here. However I might point out that the quality of my argument previously has no bearing on the quality of the posts we've been discussing recently. Like I could have posted nonsense about how we should do it because the gorillas in the sky say we should, that doesn't make the child soldiers argument any less bunk.

How can you say that positions that restrict class are bad when you, yourself made a blanket statement condemning rich, old white men?
Where does your position really lay?

There have been other studies put forward besides just the one test that back the points made by those who are against women in combat along the lines of physical ability to withstand the stresses of particular roles.

Relapse wrote:
How can you say that positions that restrict class are bad when you, yourself made a blanket statement condemning rich, old white men?

I didn't. I said that is the position of many if not most of those would self identify as "Social Justice Warriors", and that therefore Ghazkuuls positioning of Mabus as the "President of "SJW"s is an inflammatory abuse of the term. I don't identify as a SJW, and don't have anything against rich old white guys. Are you even reading my posts?

Simply describing a position that some people hold, does not mean it is my position. I could tell you all about the positions of Stalin, and how someone might be misusing the term "Stalinist". That doesn't meant I want to move anybody to the gulag, man.

There have been other studies put forward besides just the one test that back the points made by those who are against women in combat along the lines of physical ability to withstand the stresses of particular roles.

Right and I've not addressed those either way, as they entered the thread after I had taken my position on the originally cited study. Other posters are addressing them and I don't feel the need to pile on at this point in time, when there are far, far more egregious abuses of the discussion taking place.

EDIT: To be clear, this is not a comparison or equivalence of SJWs to Stalin. In case anyone wanted to follow that line of non-reasoning next.

What other posters have addressed all the studies I posted links to? I must have missed that.

 CptJake wrote:
What other posters have addressed all the studies I posted links to? I must have missed that.

Dogma and Ashiraya have been engaging you with regards to your links. NuggzTheNinja has also been engaging from a position that supports yours. If you mean your most recent post there is by my count 7 links in that post, all lengthy, some of which seem to behind paywalls. Considering the volume of studies in that post, the difficulties in accessing all the information none of the cited posters have had sufficient activity in this thread after your post for me to think they've had sufficient time to absorb, consider and respond to them as a collective.

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
What other posters have addressed all the studies I posted links to? I must have missed that.

Dogma and Ashiraya have been engaging you with regards to your links. NuggzTheNinja has also been engaging from a position that supports yours. If you mean your most recent post there is by my count 7 links in that post, all lengthy, some of which seem to behind paywalls. Considering the volume of studies in that post, the difficulties in accessing all the information none of the cited posters have had sufficient activity in this thread after your post for me to think they've had sufficient time to absorb, consider and respond to them as a collective.

Ashiraya has not given a halfway decent fact or data based analysis, and has posted feelings and links to Wiki showing other nations have female soldiers, but then dodged the questions about those nations and their soldiers. She has not commented on any of the studies I linked to the last couple of days that I have seen. Dogma picked at the main study and my comments on it, and his picking was based on feelings and anecdotal evidence about his experience training/working with trainers.

 Chongara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
How can you say that positions that restrict class are bad when you, yourself made a blanket statement condemning rich, old white men?

I didn't. I said that is the position of many if not most of those would self identify as "Social Justice Warriors", and that therefore Ghazkuuls positioning of Mabus as the "President of "SJW"s is an inflammatory abuse of the term. I don't identify as a SJW, and don't have anything against rich old white guys. Are you even reading my posts?

Simply describing a position that some people hold, does not mean it is my position. I could tell you all about the positions of Stalin, and how someone might be misusing the term "Stalinist". That doesn't meant I want to move anybody to the gulag, man.

There have been other studies put forward besides just the one test that back the points made by those who are against women in combat along the lines of physical ability to withstand the stresses of particular roles.

Right and I've not addressed those either way, as they entered the thread after I had taken my position on the originally cited study. Other posters are addressing them and I don't feel the need to pile on at this point in time, when there are far, far more egregious abuses of the discussion taking place.

EDIT: To be clear, this is not a comparison or equivalence of SJWs to Stalin. In case anyone wanted to follow that line of non-reasoning next.

Your blanket statement about rich old white guys in positions of power:

"You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too"."

Which tells me that, in your world, rich old guys of another color in positions of power get a free pass.

You seem pretty dismissive of experiences other militaristic have had in which they match the person's ability to the job. You are also disregarding the ROE in finding those few women that could possibly hack it in a front line infantry unit, diverting crucial funds away from more productive investments in a time when military cut backs are happening so the warm fuzzies can be had.

Relapse wrote:


Your blanket statement about rich old white guys in positions of power:

"You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior". He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy. I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term. It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too"."

OK. We're going to have break this down line by line for you, because obviously something about the langauge I used isn't clicking for you. Sorry about that.

EDIT: SJW in the context of this post and the one we're discussing here is "People who would openly self-Identify as a Social Justice Warrior"


"You get that rich old white guys in positions of power almost by definition are in opposition to anyone that would self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior".

This line describes a fact about him "rich old white, in power" and makes the claim that SJWs by definition oppose people with that set of traits. This strictly on SJWs. It's a claim about why they would see him as objectionable. I don't say anything about my opinion of him, I just lay out why others wouldn't think of him as their president.

He's a living collection of everything they think is unfair and unjust, he's literally an embodiment of the patriarchy.

Here I'm really just clarifying the previous line, I'll admit with a bit of dramatic flair. It's describing why SJWs would find rich, old white guys objectionable: He embodies what they define as "The patriarchy". Now the SJW definition of the "The Patriarchy" is this ponderously huge thing, sometimes inconsistent thing and we don't need to get into it here. However again I'm not expressing opinions about the man or his class I'm outlining that others (SJWS) do hold such opinions.


I mean the validity his choices, his motivations for making them and everything else aside can you just stop abusing that term.

Here I'm saying that this post isn't meant to address the issue itself, I'm putting Mabus' positions aside for the moment to address the way Ghazkuul is framing things. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, and I'm not saying anything about his motivations. It's simply a request to stop using the term "SJW".

It's not catch all for "People that do things I don't like because of beliefs more liberal than mine", it's a pretty specific way of approaching things and set of attitudes which are all waaaaaaaaaaay past "Women get to be in combat infantry too"

Here, I'm making an assertion on what "SJW" doesn't meant. I'm describing how I perceive Ghazkuul has being using it, as basically anyone disagree with him. I then go on to say the term applies to people that hold certain beliefs, and they're mostly more radical than the ones Mabus is endorsing.

You can see I'm not making any blanket statements about old white dudes.

Interesting back peddling..

Relapse wrote:
Interesting back peddling..

How was that backpedaling? Backpedaling would be if I had changed my position and/or the content of the post. I'm quoting the exact text you cited unmodified and describing what it means because you insist on misinterpreting it. This is clarification, clarification is not backpedaling.

Let's just agree to disagree, leave it and get back to conversation about the military.
How would you justify the low ROE trying to find the very few women to fit a front line infantry role in a time of huge cutbacks? Marines are always left sucking the hind tit with allotments and in many cases are left using old equipment because they can't afford better.

Relapse wrote:
Let's just agree to disagree, leave it and get back to conversation about the military.
How would you justify the low ROE trying to find the very few women to fit a front line infantry role in a time of huge cutbacks? Marines are always left sucking the hind tit with allotments and in many cases are left using old equipment because they can't afford better.

How do the marines currently screen recruits? I've seen it pop up a couple of times that there is a surplus of applicants for the military, so what sort of process do they go through, in order to be selected? (Specifically, before they go through the months of training)

 -Shrike- wrote:

How do the marines currently screen recruits? I've seen it pop up a couple of times that there is a surplus of applicants for the military, so what sort of process do they go through, in order to be selected? (Specifically, before they go through the months of training)

The Marines, and all the services, have a set of requirements you must meet to enlist.

You need to score above X on an aptitude test. http://www.marines.com/eligibility/prep-test

You need to meet certain hight weight/body fat standards

You need to be able to pass a physical and an initial strength test (I don't think all services have a formal IST equivalent, but know at least Army recruiters will not send you to the MEPS unless you meet some basic standards) http://www.marines.com/becoming-a-marine/how-to-prepare (note how the requirements are based on gender...)

You need to prove you are a permanent resident or citizen

And other requirements (basic background check and so on) http://www.marines.com/eligibility/requirements

 -Shrike- wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Let's just agree to disagree, leave it and get back to conversation about the military.
How would you justify the low ROE trying to find the very few women to fit a front line infantry role in a time of huge cutbacks? Marines are always left sucking the hind tit with allotments and in many cases are left using old equipment because they can't afford better.

How do the marines currently screen recruits? I've seen it pop up a couple of times that there is a surplus of applicants for the military, so what sort of process do they go through, in order to be selected? (Specifically, before they go through the months of training)

I was just a reservist in the Marines, but what I went through back in the day involved what every Marine goes through. I started by taking a written aptitude test, followed by a physical screening to make sure I wasn't going to die anytime soon. Once I got to boot camp, I spent a week in a receiving barracks taking more written tests which helped determine which MOS I qualified for(I was already going to an infantry unit, so it didn't really affect me, but a guy in my training platoon who signed a contract for aviation electronics didn't do so well and got field radioman instead).
Boot camp itself was physically a breeze, because I did heavy labor most of my life. I packed sheet rock for 9 months to just before my enlistment, running up and down stairs hauling 4 eight foot sheets at a time, getting some insane leg muscles, along with carrying ability and balance.
Physically, along with getting pitted, we had what was called "The Daily Dozen", which included pull ups, crunches, running, and other exerisises. The part that got a lot of recruits was at the rifle range where we were pitted daily, and we also had those with problems during the field week.
By the time boot camp was over, my platoon had lost, either by people being let go or set back in training, about 25%. Infantry school saw about another 5% gone.

 CptJake wrote:
And again, in previous threads about this topic, I linked to other studies, not all done by the US, that show the same thing. This is why this study is not a surprise. Heck, these types of injuries affected the ladies who tried out for Ranger school and the handful that made it in. It has also been noted at USMC and Army basic training. This is not a new thing.

I just want to thank CptJake for those links; there is some really interesting stuff in there. In particular, they really do some of the heavy lifting (no pun intended) in talking about why the different rates occur, and controlling (to a degree) for capability (my primary complaint with the study in the OP).

The way several of them talk in their conclusion about target training, streaming and testing, does remind me that if we can isolate certain problems specifically to gender, then simply 'bannin the wimins' is not the only option available or worth exploring.

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
What other posters have addressed all the studies I posted links to? I must have missed that.

Dogma and Ashiraya have been engaging you with regards to your links. NuggzTheNinja has also been engaging from a position that supports yours. If you mean your most recent post there is by my count 7 links in that post, all lengthy, some of which seem to behind paywalls. Considering the volume of studies in that post, the difficulties in accessing all the information none of the cited posters have had sufficient activity in this thread after your post for me to think they've had sufficient time to absorb, consider and respond to them as a collective.

Ashiraya has not given a halfway decent fact or data based analysis, and has posted feelings and links to Wiki showing other nations have female soldiers, but then dodged the questions about those nations and their soldiers. She has not commented on any of the studies I linked to the last couple of days that I have seen.

I did not check your link the first time/s because my browser gave me a server error there. I assumed it to be temporary and waited, but it didn't let up. Either way it's irrelevant now.

When you posted the big chunk of quotes later on, I saw no need to comment, as there were really no news there. Women get injuried more on average than men in harder tasks. This has not been disputed, to my knowledge. The question is whether they should be permitted despite the risks - which is something I continue to believe that they should, but of course is neither your decision nor mine.

Hell, if you're so worried that women failing in battle is going to get men killed, then let the women be segregated into their own units/companies/whateverisdeemedsuitable for all I care, so all they get killed is each other. It's still better than a blanket ban.

feelings

So, what are those alleged 'feelings' I have posted?

The 'dodged questions' was because I could find no more good data either way on these topics, and I wouldn't want to continue on describing them without it. It doesn't really matter though, as I was only seeking to give examples of them being used, not to exactly which extent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pendix wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And again, in previous threads about this topic, I linked to other studies, not all done by the US, that show the same thing. This is why this study is not a surprise. Heck, these types of injuries affected the ladies who tried out for Ranger school and the handful that made it in. It has also been noted at USMC and Army basic training. This is not a new thing.

I just want to thank CptJake for those links; there is some really interesting stuff in there. In particular, they really do some of the heavy lifting (no pun intended) in talking about why the different rates occur, and controlling (to a degree) for capability (my primary complaint with the study in the OP).

The way several of them talk in their conclusion about target training, streaming and testing, does remind me that if we can isolate certain problems specifically to gender, then simply 'bannin the wimins' is not the only option available or worth exploring.

Oh yeah, definitely agree with this. The links work for me now and the data is interesting.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
What other posters have addressed all the studies I posted links to? I must have missed that.

Dogma and Ashiraya have been engaging you with regards to your links. NuggzTheNinja has also been engaging from a position that supports yours. If you mean your most recent post there is by my count 7 links in that post, all lengthy, some of which seem to behind paywalls. Considering the volume of studies in that post, the difficulties in accessing all the information none of the cited posters have had sufficient activity in this thread after your post for me to think they've had sufficient time to absorb, consider and respond to them as a collective.

Ashiraya has not given a halfway decent fact or data based analysis, and has posted feelings and links to Wiki showing other nations have female soldiers, but then dodged the questions about those nations and their soldiers. She has not commented on any of the studies I linked to the last couple of days that I have seen.

I did not check your link the first time/s because my browser gave me a server error there. I assumed it to be temporary and waited, but it didn't let up. Either way it's irrelevant now.

When you posted the big chunk of quotes later on, I saw no need to comment, as there were really no news there. Women get injuried more on average than men in harder tasks. This has not been disputed, to my knowledge. The question is whether they should be permitted despite the risks - which is something I continue to believe that they should, but of course is neither your decision nor mine.

Hell, if you're so worried that women failing in battle is going to get men killed, then let the women be segregated into their own units/companies/whateverisdeemedsuitable for all I care, so all they get killed is each other. It's still better than a blanket ban.

feelings

So, what are those alleged 'feelings' I have posted?

The 'dodged questions' was because I could find no more good data either way on these topics, and I wouldn't want to continue on describing them without it. It doesn't really matter though, as I was only seeking to give examples of them being used, not to exactly which extent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pendix wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And again, in previous threads about this topic, I linked to other studies, not all done by the US, that show the same thing. This is why this study is not a surprise. Heck, these types of injuries affected the ladies who tried out for Ranger school and the handful that made it in. It has also been noted at USMC and Army basic training. This is not a new thing.

I just want to thank CptJake for those links; there is some really interesting stuff in there. In particular, they really do some of the heavy lifting (no pun intended) in talking about why the different rates occur, and controlling (to a degree) for capability (my primary complaint with the study in the OP).

The way several of them talk in their conclusion about target training, streaming and testing, does remind me that if we can isolate certain problems specifically to gender, then simply 'bannin the wimins' is not the only option available or worth exploring.

Oh yeah, definitely agree with this. The links work for me now and the data is interesting.

Because ash, if they created a unit of just females then it would be significantly less effective then a Male unit which would mean that they could not be trusted to do the job assigned to them and would have to either send more female marines/soldiers then males would have to send or they would simply have to be escorted. Either way it ties up more resources then needed if they just allowed men.

Israel has a predominantly Female infantry unit and as stated above, they are a mounted unit that guards the border with Egypt which is considered the safest of Israel's borders now. And from what was also posted it sounds like its the official SLL unit for the IDF. (SLL = Sick, Lame, Lazy).

Im just curious though why you think its worth it for females to get hurt at a higher rate when they don't have to. You realize that all injuries sustained while active duty have to be paid for by the government right? For instance, im about to get more surgery on my ankle to get it fixed again and the VA is paying for all of it. Im also going to be rated at around 60% disabled which means I'll get a nice check every month from the VA because the Marines Fethed up my ankle, back and some other issues. Factor in how many more females would be hurt compared to males and your increasing the costs of the VA by a significant amount. (females are injured 6 times as often as males) Furthermore factor in those injuries being HIP injuries which are incredibly hard to get over completely.

Ghaz, shouldn't you be commending them on their courage if they wish to fight on the front despite being so much more likely to suffer great injury than men are?

Hell, that may be a fairly significant factor in why so many choose not to, rather than any natural disposition.

How effective the female soldier and/or unit would be largely depends on what it does. I could see them working well as snipers, as data from Israel suggests women often display superior marksmanship.

Whether it is 'worth it' as you say, or not, is something that I think should be up to them.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Ghaz, shouldn't you be commending them on their courage if they wish to fight on the front despite being so much more likely to suffer great injury than men are?

Hell, that may be a fairly significant factor in why so many choose not to, rather than any natural disposition.

How effective the female soldier and/or unit would be largely depends on what it does. I could see them working well as snipers, as data from Israel suggests women often display superior marksmanship.

Whether it is 'worth it' as you say, or not, is something that I think should be up to them.

Is it really worth it , though, Ash, if it results in unnecessary casualties, failed missions, and resources that could be more efficiently used being wasted? I agree their courage should be honored, but if they would be of far better use in a combat support position, it is also an honor.
It's not as simple as it being just up to them, because they don't operate in a vacuum, but are part of a team that stands or falls depending on skill and ability. If the ability to stand up to intense physical demands isn't there on the level of their male counterparts, the team suffers, not just them.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Ghaz, shouldn't you be commending them on their courage if they wish to fight on the front despite being so much more likely to suffer great injury than men are?

Hell, that may be a fairly significant factor in why so many choose not to, rather than any natural disposition.

How effective the female soldier and/or unit would be largely depends on what it does. I could see them working well as snipers, as data from Israel suggests women often display superior marksmanship.

Whether it is 'worth it' as you say, or not, is something that I think should be up to them.

Do you have any idea how little marksmanship factors into being a sniper? Most of the skills are stalking and field craft. Anyone can be taught to shoot accurately enough to be a sniper

Standard marine pack averages 90-135 pounds.http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20080122/NEWS/801220310/Downside-full-combat-load-examined

I couldn't find any reliable information on a Marine Scout Sniper standard weight loadout- anybody know how it compares?

I did find the recommended Army Ranger PFT-
12 pull ups, 80 sit ups and push ups in 2 minutes, 5 miles in under 35 minute, etc.
http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-special-operations/army-ranger-pft

And the Scout Sniper perfect score PFT- 3 miles in under 18, 20 deadhang pull ups, 100 sit ups in under 2 minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Scout_Sniper

At a glance, it would appear that it is more physically demanding to become a sniper than it is to become a Ranger.
Thus, I suspect that very, very few individuals would be able to qualify, and I seriously doubt the Marines will drop those requirements in order to get less physically capable snipers that are out of action 6 times as much from injury- regardless of their courage or skill.

It just doesn't stand up to logic. There are many ways to serve the country, and the whole goal of the military is for it to use you in the way that you will most benefit it- not the way that will make you feel the best about it.