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.

Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.

The moment you openly admit to denying a proven biological difference is where you lose any credibility. We're talking averages, of course, but women /have/ weaker bodies than men. Deal with it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.

Not true at all. Viking women were trained fighters and some even went to raids, but the largest part of them stayed home. Women were far too valuable to lose in a war. Women actually were highly respected and had a lot of rights, basically they said what would happen at home. Their men fought at distant shores, but at homen, it was the woman who decided on what was up and men had little say into it. Nevertheless, women were adept fighters and quite a few actual sources from Christians report of Viking women at "towering" size, fighting bare-breasted and shouting in tongues.

I am not sure why you are saying that to hotsauceman, sigvatr.

He said a lot of them were, you said most were not. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 Sigvatr wrote:
We're talking averages, of course

Are we expecting the average person, male or female, to be in a front line combat MOS?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
We're talking averages, of course

Are we expecting the average person, male or female, to be in a front line combat MOS?

Wouldn't the front line be the new average?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
We're talking averages, of course

Are we expecting the average person, male or female, to be in a front line combat MOS?

Typically? Yes.

 CptJake wrote:
STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.

Well I didn't say they were the same, did I? I'm just pointing out that an argument built around a hypothetical pregnancy disrupting a hypothetical unit, "therefore woman can't ever be combat troops" is asinine stupid. Many women sacrifice family for their careers, and not all women are even able to have children. A hypothetical person with a medical condition that a real person can actively avoid, does not a compelling argument make.

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.

I feel like the pregnancy angle is a non-starter. Men can also have an oops and catch VD. They're way more likely to visit places like brothels, which can also result in some down time, depending on the severity of the condition. Men are also more vulnerable to being kicked in the balls, more likely to become involved in altercations, have a weaker immune system, tend to drive more recklessly, and are less likely to visit the doctor etc... Which are all things that might compromise their health. They also might just need to take time off to look after their children.

STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.

People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.

I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there. Your claims that the impacts it will bring to combat arms will not be that serious are simply laughable.

We thought we were pretty average. Usually scores were in the upper 70s-mid 80s on each part of the PT test, nothing too special. Just like in every other aspect of life you had your exceptional guys and your low end guys. Every now and then a failure which was brutally corrected. Note that on the current PT score system, low end guys are still scoring in the extremely high end of female scores across all age ranges.

edit- actually DJones, the military should be the ones with the final say in the matter, not the useless politicians who are simply appeasing a vocal minority to show how much they care. Its the military and the guys and girls(eventually)on the line who are going to get boned by these moronic decisions.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
Agreed but it happens quite a bit in the military. And in field conditions despite bans, ooops happen even more often.

I feel like the pregnancy angle is a non-starter. Men can also have an oops and catch VD. They're way more likely to visit places like brothels, which can also result in some down time, depending on the severity of the condition. Men are also more vulnerable to being kicked in the balls, more likely to become involved in altercations, have a weaker immune system, tend to drive more recklessly, and are less likely to visit the doctor etc... Which are all things that might compromise their health. They also might just need to take time off to look after their children.

STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.

People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.

I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there. Your claims that the impacts it will bring to combat arms will not be that serious are simply laughable.

No, the claim is that, just like every other job, the military will adjust. Police, Firfighters, I think EMTs? have to deal with it. Its time for the army to grow up, let women in their club and get over it.

Have you ever been shot at moron? Ever had to carry your buddy under fire in full battle rattle? This is a major point of what it comes down to. A woman is going to have a very hard time doing this. It is going to directly impact efficiency and the ability to complete missions. It is going to cause a spike in physical injuries which will then cause a spike in cost to the taxpayer. Why? What fragging purpose does this serve? None. As been proven over and over. People's lives are not a social experiment. SJBs can keep their foolish good intentions on the college campuses and in their ivory towers, they do not belong in the field. If you haven't served in the military in combat arms, they really shouldn't get a say in the matter since they have ZERO flipping clue what they are talking about.

Please keep in mind that Rule One is Be Polite. Thanks! ~ Manchu

 djones520 wrote:
People keep glancing over the time frame involved with the issue. That is the problem. Most VD's, you'll go get a shot, and you'll be back at the job. Pregnancy is not that way at all. 15 months, minimum, non-combat effective. 15 months a Soldier is not doing the job that they enlisted/commissioned to do.

I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it. I've supervised pregnant Airmen, I know exactly how it already impacts non-combat jobs, and the massive restrictions it already brings there.

That would be true in almost every profession, and if you follow it to its conclusion you end up with: "women shouldn't have jobs", which is absurd.

Your claims that the impacts it will bring to combat arms will not be that serious are simply laughable.

I never claimed that. You need to understand that I personally don't think women should be combat troops (or at least I don't think more than about 10 women are really affected by this, so I don't care), so if anything I am on your side. But the pregnancy angle doesn't really go anywhere and it isn't the most important issue. If "women can get pregnant" was the only argument against women being in combat rolls, then there would be no argument. Women being at greater risk of injury, and not being able to cope physically with the job is the only issue that should really matter IMO.

Col. Dash wrote:
Have you ever been shot at moron? Ever had to carry your buddy under fire in full battle rattle? This is a major point of what it comes down to. A woman is going to have a very hard time doing this. It is going to directly impact efficiency and the ability to complete missions. It is going to cause a spike in physical injuries which will then cause a spike in cost to the taxpayer. Why? What fragging purpose does this serve? None. As been proven over and over. People's lives are not a social experiment. SJBs can keep their foolish good intentions on the college campuses and in their ivory towers, they do not belong in the field. If you haven't served in the military in combat arms, they really shouldn't get a say in the matter since they have ZERO flipping clue what they are talking about.

It took 6 pages, but someone finally said that if you aren't in the military, you shouldnt ever comment on it.
That isnt a good argument dude and you know it. And the fact that your keep bringing up SJB and that they are trying to ruin things for you, brings up just how childish this whole argument its.
Let me tell you this.
Women can do they same things men can. No IFS ANDS OR BUTS.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
STDS don't make you non-deployable for a year, nor in most cases will they get you evaced from theater. But yeah, they are the same.

Well I didn't say they were the same, did I? I'm just pointing out that an argument built around a hypothetical pregnancy disrupting a hypothetical unit, "therefore woman can't ever be combat troops" is asinine stupid. Many women sacrifice family for their careers, and not all women are even able to have children. A hypothetical person with a medical condition that a real person can actively avoid, does not a compelling argument make.

And yet the studies I linked to show the reality of the 'hypothetical'. Many of us have dealt with it and 'hypothetical' is not how we describe what we actually have experience with.

Sorry...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
Have you ever been shot at moron? Ever had to carry your buddy under fire in full battle rattle? This is a major point of what it comes down to. A woman is going to have a very hard time doing this. It is going to directly impact efficiency and the ability to complete missions. It is going to cause a spike in physical injuries which will then cause a spike in cost to the taxpayer. Why? What fragging purpose does this serve? None. As been proven over and over. People's lives are not a social experiment. SJBs can keep their foolish good intentions on the college campuses and in their ivory towers, they do not belong in the field. If you haven't served in the military in combat arms, they really shouldn't get a say in the matter since they have ZERO flipping clue what they are talking about.

It took 6 pages, but someone finally said that if you aren't in the military, you shouldnt ever comment on it.
That isnt a good argument dude and you know it. And the fact that your keep bringing up SJB and that they are trying to ruin things for you, brings up just how childish this whole argument its.
Let me tell you this.
Women can do they same things men can. No IFS ANDS OR BUTS.

Didn't we just talk about how each gender is different in their own way? Women struggle to do somethings men can do and men struggle at somethings women can do.

except, as said, most of those are cultural induced differences.

There are physical differences to be sure.

What impact they will have in actual practice, that we shall see.

 Smacks wrote:
I never claimed that. You need to understand that I personally don't think women should be combat troops (or at least I don't think more than about 10 women are really affected by this, so I don't care), so if anything I am on your side. But the pregnancy angle doesn't really go anywhere and it isn't the most important issue. If "women can get pregnant" was the only argument against women being in combat rolls, then there would be no argument. Women being at greater risk of injury, and not being able to cope physically with the job is the only issue that should really matter IMO.

You may not have specifically claimed it, but it sure seems to have been implied several times in this topic.

I agree the primary factor should be the physical differences. And again, I've shown a ton of studies on which I've based my opinion (along with personal experience obviously).

It appears the thing that will settle this debate is seeing what actually happens in the field. For myself, I think we'll be seeing more body bags and units with lower efficiency.

If I get proven wrong, feel free to wave this post in my face.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
We're talking averages, of course

Are we expecting the average person, male or female, to be in a front line combat MOS?

Typically? Yes.

Really? My experience hasn't been that people that go into front line MOS's and are able to stay there aren't what I would call average. Not all were the brightest bulb in the box, but physically they were well above average.

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
We're talking averages, of course

Are we expecting the average person, male or female, to be in a front line combat MOS?

Typically? Yes.

Really? My experience hasn't been that people that go into front line MOS's and are able to stay there aren't what I would call average. Not all were the brightest bulb in the box, but physically they were well above average.

If we're going off personal antecdotes to give validity to our positions, it appears those who served are in the majority against having women on the front lines based off what they saw and experienced.

djones520 wrote:[I get the whole "military is not the only one who should have say" in this, but seriously, every single veteran in this thread is pointing at how this is going to be a significant issue, and every non-Joe keeps saying it won't be. Excuse me guys, but we see it.

There are several problems with making an appeal to authority. The big problem with this specific appeal to authority is that if we accept that you are in the military and therefore know best, we're going to have to follow that chain to it's natural conclusion and assume that the Secretary of Defense might know more about the military needs and challenges of the entire nation (rather than at a squad or unit level) then, say, a weatherman. While some things are self-evident to a layman - you don't have to be an auto mechanic to know you can't put diesel into a regular car - I posit to you that this might not be one of those times.

I think I would be very safe in saying the SoD knew more about the military than a weatherman, unless the weatherman had some additional qualifications.

Relapse wrote:
If we're going off personal antecdotes to give validity to our positions, it appears those who served are in the majority against having women on the front lines based off what they saw and experienced.

If we are qualifying them as personal anecdotes, as I did, and not as some overall fact I don't see what the problem is. I never told djones520 he was wrong, just that my experience was different in this regard. It also helps that the standards are above average for front line MOS's. Of course the NFL is also physically above average as well.

The majority of people were also against integration and women getting to vote, so saying 'the majority of X' doesn't really mean that much honestly.

Really looking forward to hearing leaks from the first BUD/S class to allow women in. Log PT's gonna be a source of all sorts of fun, "Well, do we really need this? When's the last time SEALs hauled their boat over land?" discussion from the left.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.

Source on that?
I know that the women were trained to fight to protect their households, when the men were away on raids, and I know that they would accompany the men on an exploration or a colonization voyage, but this the first I've heard of them being actual warriors. Especially a lot of them.

I'll have to see if I can't dig up some of the recent articles... But basically, based on new archaeological digs, evidence is showing in mass warrior graves near known battle sites that "a lot" of the warriors were women. Some of the initial articles that I saw said around half, but after further examination and testing on the bones, the researchers have amended that to say "up to" half of the warriors were women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think I would be very safe in saying the SoD knew more about the military than a weatherman, unless the weatherman had some additional qualifications.

While true, what we can safely assume, is that SecDef gets pressure from a number of sources to enact certain measures. If he/she is doing his/her job correctly, then SecDef will go to the Joint Chiefs and other GSO types to gather their feedback.

If we keep this up people might start to think women are people with some better at some things and others worse at them and we can't have that.

I don't have to worry about those stuck in the left/right false dichotomy thinking it seems, so I got that going for me.

I'm also starting to think the military is an arm of the government and people, not the other way around.

 Ahtman wrote:
If we keep this up people might start to think women are people.

Wait, what ?! They are ?





(Joke, of course)

Women cannot do the same thing as men and this has been proven. The marines did a whole long term study and even stacked the odds in favor of the women. They did much worse in almost every aspect including getting injured more in normal activities. It has been proven. They are not the same as men, not as strong, and their bodies cannot endure the same physical hardship over long term. Again proven. No degree in womans studies is going to be able to argue with the facts.

The thing is, in support roles and even civilian lives, women can be targets (just like men). If they're going to have their lives at risk one way or another, surely they should be able to be proactive in their defense and that means being able to serve in frontline positions if they want to? I'd be looking at the implementation of this - okay, so an average woman might have trouble dragging an average man out of the way. What about all-female units then? Guns have changed a fair bit about how war works since medieval days - accuracy, reflexes, etc as opposed to the brute strength needed to plow through someone's armour. Otherwise i just see it as going down the 'women need to be protected and discouraged from doing things' path, which i see as wrong. Equal right to die should mean equal right to fight.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.

Source on that?
I know that the women were trained to fight to protect their households, when the men were away on raids, and I know that they would accompany the men on an exploration or a colonization voyage, but this the first I've heard of them being actual warriors. Especially a lot of them.

I'll have to see if I can't dig up some of the recent articles... But basically, based on new archaeological digs, evidence is showing in mass warrior graves near known battle sites that "a lot" of the warriors were women. Some of the initial articles that I saw said around half, but after further examination and testing on the bones, the researchers have amended that to say "up to" half of the warriors were women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think I would be very safe in saying the SoD knew more about the military than a weatherman, unless the weatherman had some additional qualifications.

While true, what we can safely assume, is that SecDef gets pressure from a number of sources to enact certain measures. If he/she is doing his/her job correctly, then SecDef will go to the Joint Chiefs and other GSO types to gather their feedback.

If the Viking article was the one I saw, I think half of all Viking Warriors were geriatrics...