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.

Maybe they are developing exo-skeletons finally to go along with this. Physical strength doesn't matter as much when its multiplied by machines.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?

I also recall a study to that effect.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

As to the fist
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dahomeys-women-warriors-88286072/?no-ist
Several others aswell. This isnt a tribe I was talking about though. I read the book so long ago I just internalized it. but, there is precedent

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, men and women are no different in mind, maybe in body, but our culture has created the idea of the fragile women who cant do the same stuff.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.

You keep taking isolated historical cases and then saying that meant lots.
IN scandinavia women were the land holders for the precise reason that the men were going raiding. There were a few female raider leaders, just like there were in china, but there is a big difference between being a pirate and standing in a shieldwall.
Our culture has created the idea of fragile femininity? Nah man the majority of cultures saw that men were better at shooting things, throwing things and lugging armour about.

THese ideas still stand firm today due to men having better depth perception , now the caveat of that is we have a lower field of vision ( can't remember the term).
Men and women are different.

I am now waiting for you to bring up something like fragile masculinity.

This is awesome it's like having Tumblrinaction on dakka

The egalitarian part of my brain says it wouldn't be fair to do anything other than this.

The pragmatic part of my brain says this is a boondoggle. We aren't short men for combat roles, there are as far as I know no studies that have shown increased performance among integrated units, and the cost is probably not going to be worth it both in money and in numbers of women who would have had fine military careers who are now going to suffer career ending injuries when their reach exceeds their grasp.

The pessimistic part of my brain says standards are going to be relaxed all over, degrading the efficiency of our forces and people are going to die so some politicians can get platitudes heaped upon them. I am also predicting some serious sexual misconduct issues.

But whatever, I'm already out so it won't personally effect me.

 JimOnMars wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
For evidence women and men have differing brain structure and function: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

Just debunked:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/12/01/brains-arent-actually-male-or-female-new-study-suggests/

The only real issue here is the one the Marines studied. Women met the minimum requirements in that study, but the minimums are actually pretty low. Most male Marines far, far exceeded the minimums, and therefore are better fighters. The simple fix for this is to up the minimums until it starts impacting the total number of needed recruits. Most women wash out under that system, leaving only the few who would actually be decent fighters.

Which is what is needed.

The article doesn't really debunk men and women's brains being different it just debunks that they are binary. In that it tends to be more of a spectrum.

To quote the article:
"[B]rains with features that are consistently at one end of the “maleness-femaleness” continuum are rare," the scientists wrote in the study. "Rather, most brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males."

Men have better focused vision at the expense of having bad peripheral vision.

You know how you always wondered how your mom had "eyes on the back of her head"? Well she just has really good peripheral vision and can see you sneaking that cookie out of the jar by barely turning her head.

Its also why a guy checking out a cute girl tends to be very obvious, he can't just use the corner of his vision to do it.

The physical differences between men and women are fascinating. For example (and this is speaking in general terms) men have greater muscle density, while women have greater pain tolerance. It's a very interesting subject.

Most Men probably couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, men and women are no different in mind, maybe in body, but our culture has created the idea of the fragile women who cant do the same stuff.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.

False,
In most (I want to say all but can't) cultures women are used defensively. This is true for medieval japan, Scandinavians, modern day nations losing wars and practically all evidence of females in warfare. There were female African Soldiers in the 1800s but they weren't very effective and were not common. Women are almost never sent to the fight (waste of time, your nation needs children to recover after the war) and if the fight comes to them yes they often bear up arms. But even then women are often used AFTER the old and the young men.

It's just a simple fact of life that men are expendable in this manner.

In the next huge conflict once the death tolls start coming in it will go back to women in the factories, men on the front lines as that is what is practical. If a nation wishes to do well in warfare they always do what is practical.

As for your odd claims about masses of ancient female warriors you find very few sources confirming what you say, with many going against it and many more with evidence contrary to what you believe. Remember children are the future, war kills off whole generations of men. If we lose whole generations of women it's far more devastating for obvious reasons. Practicality always wins.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The physical differences between men and women are fascinating. For example (and this is speaking in general terms) men have greater muscle density, while women have greater pain tolerance. It's a very interesting subject.

That pain tolerance thing isn't actually conclusively proven. Estrogen can help deaden pain receptors, but women cycle through estrogen levels throughout the month. Studies on pain are hard to pull off though because it's basically all self reported.

Yeah. That article does nothing to debunk the science done in the past by many different neuroscientists.

Simple fact is, female brains and male brains are different. That article is only saying that individual brains are different also, within those spectrums that also differentiate men and women.

It's the same thing as saying not all men are stronger than all women.

The site also has a link to an article entitled "new study finds that your gaydar is terrible." It isn't buying any credibility from me with that link in the text of the article. It's also not worded the best and offers quite a small amount of real information.

I still think men and women's brains are different in general.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most Men probably couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth.

They could if their bodies flooded themselves with the same hormones and stuff that women's bodies do. Most women couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth without that either.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most Men probably couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth.

They could if their bodies flooded themselves with the same hormones and stuff that women's bodies do. Most women couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth without that either.

So you are saying a Man could stand the pain if he was a Women? In which case he's not a man, but a women.

Apologies in advance for the long post.

Throughout history women have been involved in direct combat. That is not in dispute. That said, what is the objective with opening all combat MOS’s to females?

To increase the number of combat ready soldiers? i.e. with women making up approximately half of the population, it would instantly double the number of potential soldiers. This of course assuming there was a legitimate need to increase the pool of soldiers eligible for combat MOS’s.

To improve combat effectiveness? e.g. improved marksmanship, physical endurance, resistance to psychological impairment, operational awareness, etc.

To add critical skills or capabilities not possessed by males? Would be curious to know what females bring to the force that males were not already capable of if this is indeed a reason.

Regardless of which of the above is a possible objective, I would expect there would be critical mass of evidence that supports these reasons given the stakes involved and the potential impact on combat effectiveness and by consequence the lives of both male and female members of the military.

If the objective is just to diversify the gender makeup of the force at all levels or promote gender equality commensurate with perceived popular notion then I have to disagree with the decision as this is not the purpose of a country’s military, the purpose being to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic using lethal force in the most effective way that preserves to the utmost the lives of that nation’s soldiers and civilians.

I would hope that the Sec. Def. made this decision based on the consensus the military officers (male and female), because sometimes a decision is best left to the experts. BTW, this is not a blanket criticism of civilian control of the military, only that there are cases where the input of the military leaders needs to take precedence.

As a personal ante dote, when I was in the military I served in a combat support MOS that by mission was designated to operate as close to and sometime in front of combat units and thus we needed to be prepared to defend ourselves in direct combat and were equipped and trained accordingly. Females were allowed to serve and in the units I served in made up about 1/3 of the soldiers. Having a co-ed unit created logistical challenges, all of which were addressed to some degree, but did create additional operational overhead. Also, whether intentional or as a natural by-product, the male soldiers performed the vast majority of tasks where there was a high degree of physically intensive labor where strength and endurance was a critical component. If there wasn’t enough male soldiers free to complete the task, invariably it would always seem that the task took longer to complete or required more female soldiers then male soldiers. In all, female soldiers from my perspective did not maintain the level of efficiency of the unit, much less improve the effectiveness. The other thing that I noticed was that as many as 1 in 4 female soldiers I served with would at some point become pregnant resulting in they being placed on restricted duty (i.e. garrison, headquarters) for the duration plus maternity leave which of course created a need a re-allocation of assignments (often to male soldiers) to make up for the shortfall that the pregnant female’s effective absence created. We were not given a replacement since technically the spot was still filled by the pregnant female solider who was technically still on active duty. We would only be authorized a replacement if we deployed.

Conversely, I understand that females make excellent pilots due to various physical factors inherent to females and if there was a 1 for 1 ratio of male to female pilots, statistically females would likely make up the majority of the top combat performers.

Ultimately this should not be about proving whether the ladies can fight (they can when they have too). But in this age of an all-volunteer force, should they and does it help the force?

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

To increase the number of combat ready soldiers? i.e. with women making up approximately half of the population, it would instantly double the number of potential soldiers. This of course assuming there was a legitimate need to increase the pool of soldiers eligible for combat MOS’s.

Except that you don't "instantly double" the number of potential soldiers, because all they are doing is opening combat MOSs to women. There is nothing about altering Selective Services in any way. Opening SS to women would instantly double the number of potential military people though.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

To increase the number of combat ready soldiers? i.e. with women making up approximately half of the population, it would instantly double the number of potential soldiers. This of course assuming there was a legitimate need to increase the pool of soldiers eligible for combat MOS’s.

Except that you don't "instantly double" the number of potential soldiers, because all they are doing is opening combat MOSs to women. There is nothing about altering Selective Services in any way. Opening SS to women would instantly double the number of potential military people though.

And thus possibly proving the argument that increasing the number of individuals for combat cannot be argued as the objective. It also begs the question why not a parallel initiative to change the SS law to require females to register. Why the discrimination?

Men and women should be equal participants in a "civilized" society.
Logistics may have to adjust a bit for some biological differences but that is about it.

I am rather surprised this was not further along than it is.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most Men probably couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth.

They could if their bodies flooded themselves with the same hormones and stuff that women's bodies do. Most women couldn't tolerate the pain of giving birth without that either.

So you are saying a Man could stand the pain if he was a Women? In which case he's not a man, but a women.

No. What he's pointing out is it's pants on head silly to separate the pain of birth from the natural processes the bodies that go through that pain use to manage it. It's like saying women wouldn't be able to handle having testicles because they'd drag on the ground all the time because we're only giving them hypothetical testicles and not a hypothetical scrotum to keep them in.

Birth is a complex physiological process, I mean where is this dude even going to be feeling this birth pain? He doesn't have a vagina to feel it in. The entire line of thinking is just stupid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Men have better focused vision at the expense of having bad peripheral vision.

You know how you always wondered how your mom had "eyes on the back of her head"? Well she just has really good peripheral vision and can see you sneaking that cookie out of the jar by barely turning her head.

Its also why a guy checking out a cute girl tends to be very obvious, he can't just use the corner of his vision to do it.

Interesting. Predators have been depth perception/focused vision. Herbivores have better peripheral vision.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Men have better focused vision at the expense of having bad peripheral vision.

You know how you always wondered how your mom had "eyes on the back of her head"? Well she just has really good peripheral vision and can see you sneaking that cookie out of the jar by barely turning her head.

Its also why a guy checking out a cute girl tends to be very obvious, he can't just use the corner of his vision to do it.

Interesting. Predators have been depth perception/focused vision. Herbivores have better peripheral vision.

This

Should have happened a long timae ago IMO. If a woman wants to serve in a combat role, and can pass all the training required to do so, then there's no good reason I can think of why she shouldn't be able to.

 Talizvar wrote:
Men and women should be equal participants in a "civilized" society.

Because all is equal in love and war, right? And war is of course the epitome of "civilized" society....oh wait, isn't war the epitome of when there is a catastrophic breakdown of "civilized" society? Of course we have the laws of war that keep war civilized....

 Talizvar wrote:
Logistics may have to adjust a bit for some biological differences but that is about it.

From my experience you are understating the impact just a little bit. As an example, properly locating field latrines was always challenging as the environment didn't always lend itself to having obvious "boys" and "girls" rooms. Managing showers and personal hygiene activities was also more complicated. You would be surprised at the things you take for granted all of a sudden requiring a considerable amount of extra stuff and work to make a co-ed unit functional in the field, especially if you were trying to maintain consistency with the standards of "civilized" society

 Talizvar wrote:
I am rather surprised this was not further along than it is.

I am rather surprised your surprised given this wasn't something that would have been contemplated even more than 30 years ago. It's not like the feminist's of the 60's and 70's were burning their bras for the chance to be drafted for the Vietnam War. In fact, has there ever been a noteworthy size protest or gathering to advocate opening Combat MOS's to women? The lack of any significant movement either smacks of a prime example of social apathy or this is a solution in search of a problem.

Sorry if I come across as flippant, but your comments come across as someone who is willfully ignoring the complexities and deliberately attempting to over simplify and degenerate the debate.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I still think men and women's brains are different in general.

And Yet . . . http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Throughout history women have been involved in direct combat. That is not in dispute. That said, what is the objective with opening all combat MOS’s to females?

This is less about the Military, and more about a broader social context. This is done, not to make the military more effective, (as it is presumed that it wont affect effectiveness either way), but to ensure that there remains nowhere left in society where the toxic idea that person be judged; not upon their deeds or capabilities, but upon the junk between their legs, is allowed to fester.

 Bullockist wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, men and women are no different in mind, maybe in body, but our culture has created the idea of the fragile women who cant do the same stuff.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.

You keep taking isolated historical cases and then saying that meant lots.
IN scandinavia women were the land holders for the precise reason that the men were going raiding. There were a few female raider leaders, just like there were in china, but there is a big difference between being a pirate and standing in a shieldwall.
Our culture has created the idea of fragile femininity? Nah man the majority of cultures saw that men were better at shooting things, throwing things and lugging armour about.

THese ideas still stand firm today due to men having better depth perception , now the caveat of that is we have a lower field of vision ( can't remember the term).
Men and women are different.

I am now waiting for you to bring up something like fragile masculinity.

This is awesome it's like having Tumblrinaction on dakka

Tumblr has ruined any chance as of late of having an intelligent conversation about inequality. Effing tumblr.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Men and women should be equal participants in a "civilized" society.

Because all is equal in love and war, right? And war is of course the epitome of "civilized" society....oh wait, isn't war the epitome of when there is a catastrophic breakdown of "civilized" society? Of course we have the laws of war that keep war civilized....

I think this one missed the "civilized" in quotes but sure I will bite...
Yep, war is a breakdown but the armed forces are also those fine people who put themselves in harms way to deal with other brutes who want what you have whether it has merit or not.
A larger scale policing does happen and I think we were in a proclaimed actual war back in WW2, so if you want to go all dramatic and claim I am condoning war feel free.

 Talizvar wrote:
Logistics may have to adjust a bit for some biological differences but that is about it.

From my experience you are understating the impact just a little bit. As an example, properly locating field latrines was always challenging as the environment didn't always lend itself to having obvious "boys" and "girls" rooms. Managing showers and personal hygiene activities was also more complicated. You would be surprised at the things you take for granted all of a sudden requiring a considerable amount of extra stuff and work to make a co-ed unit functional in the field, especially if you were trying to maintain consistency with the standards of "civilized" society

Yep, just going camping with the wife and two boys can make that pretty clear real quick.
Spend some time with the aircadets, they usually have a well mixed gender group, protocol got established pretty well.

 Talizvar wrote:
I am rather surprised this was not further along than it is.

I am rather surprised your surprised given this wasn't something that would have been contemplated even more than 30 years ago. It's not like the feminist's of the 60's and 70's were burning their bras for the chance to be drafted for the Vietnam War. In fact, has there ever been a noteworthy size protest or gathering to advocate opening Combat MOS's to women? The lack of any significant movement either smacks of a prime example of social apathy or this is a solution in search of a problem.

This would be a similar matter as joining the police force.
There is some historical resistance, possibly even some "boy's club" elements but the arguments against inclusion of women increasingly lose relevance due to advances in training and technology.
Hand-held weapons of any kind have been a great equalizer.

Sorry if I come across as flippant, but your comments come across as someone who is willfully ignoring the complexities and deliberately attempting to over simplify and degenerate the debate.

I also willfully treat women as a person like any other human being I come across.
This "simple" method has earned me friends who happen to be women (gasp!) and I do not see any limitations to what they choose to do.
I am not willing to acknowledge small obstacles as barriers or "complexities" spoken in general terms.

My now wife took an interest in me when we first met because I treated her the same as the rest of the guys in a fairly physical job.
I had said to her "I will help you if you need it, but I will not do it for you."

Respect is earned, anyone willing to join the armed forces has my respect because it is not an easy path to take.

Yeah, once again, that article isn't talking about what I am. It was talking about how we're more alike than different. Duh. We're humans. I'm sure the brains of elephant seals are more alike than different too, regardless of their gross sexual dimorphism. I don't dispute that claim.

The fact still remains men and women are different. One article does not override hundreds of peer reviewed studies.

The fact that you boil down these notions to "the junk between their legs" is strange... there are more things at work than genitals here, yes? Can we at least agree that genitals are not the only difference between men and women?

If we can't agree on that then I just don't know what to say. Did you read the Wikipedia article I linked? Those differences just don't exist, in your opinion, and that article you posted convinces you of that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I feel the need to reiterate that I don't think either gender is inferior to the other at all. That's not my argument. I'm saying the genders are different and the difference breeds proficiency at different tasks.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Good. Give everyone who wants to serve their chance.

You are aware that they have been already been serving for decades, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So when do the Olympics quit having separate events for men and women and combine it all?

So, until today, there wasn't any woman who fight for the US ???
I'm a bit surprised.
But, it seems very odd, just after this study which proves they are worse fighters...
Oh, and, even if it is our culture which make them "vulnerable", the women who serve in the US Army, belong to our culture...
(disclamer: I don't see women as vulnerable or worse than men, I was just speaking about the study and answering to previous messages).

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
It also begs the question why not a parallel initiative to change the SS law to require females to register. Why the discrimination?

Because the law is irrelevant. The draft will never be used in the foreseeable future, so it doesn't matter who registers or doesn't register. And why waste effort on changing an obsolete law for symbolic reasons when there are practical things to be done?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
In the next huge conflict once the death tolls start coming in it will go back to women in the factories, men on the front lines as that is what is practical. If a nation wishes to do well in warfare they always do what is practical.

In the next huge conflict we will go back to struggling to survive. After the first few hours there will be no time to fight, or factories to work in. Starvation will be the enemy, not some other distant survivors locked in their own desperate struggle to survive. Planning for that hypothetical future is a waste of time.