Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 52 of 52

Thread: USA gives bigger guns to women

  1. #31

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Humans adjust remarkably. Male soldiers will learn to think of female soldiers the same as themselves, and the female soldiers will quickly find ways to adjust to the military world. We're having harassment issues, and we're having morale issues when something wrong happens to a woman during combat. It's because having large numbers of women in combat is new for the US military. If we just prevent women from taking combat roles, then we'll never fix the issues that we have in the mililtary. The harassment trials that went on are parts of a process to improve the problem. The reason that the US abolished segregation in the South was because there were people who were willing to take action against it instead of hiding from it. Yes, you'll embarrass and hurt some feelings, but many other things have been accomplished through hardship. Refusing to go through that hardship has stagnated progress.
    Last edited by Shaka_Khan; 12-13-2015 at 05:57.
    Wooooo!!!

  2. #32
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan View Post
    Humans adjust remarkably. Male soldiers will learn to think of female soldiers the same as themselves, and the female soldiers will quickly find ways to adjust to the military world. We're having harassment issues, and we're having morale issues when something wrong happens to a woman during combat. It's because having large numbers of women in combat is new for the US military. If we just prevent women from taking combat roles, then we'll never fix the issues that we have in the mililtary. The harassment trials that went on are parts of a process to improve the problem. The reason that the US abolished segregation in the South was because there were people who were willing to take action against it instead of hiding from it. Yes, you'll embarrass and hurt some feelings, but many other things have been accomplished through hardship. Refusing to go through that hardship has stagnated progress.
    Very enlightened of you but it is still a stupid idea. It is not from lack of trying. It has all been done before. If it worked you would have seen it a thousand years ago. We were not born yesterday.

    Humans may be remarkably adaptable but you can never remove the sexual dynamic. Not by regulation or superimposed restrictions. It is a prime driving force of human nature. This is the dynamic people have been trying to absent from organised armies since humans began to organise. It is not a matter of equal rights. It is a matter of efficiency and cohesion.

    In fighting units, segregation has been the only means to avoid it.

    Women can be just as savage and aggressive as men. That has never been the problem. It is that in close combat women can not be relied on to overcome opponents by physical force alone.
    Combat is not equal and it is not fair.

    a couple of links:

    https://www.funker530.com/sergeant-m...men-in-combat/

    http://warfighternews.com/2015/01/12...men-in-combat/

    This is in most part due to our on arrogance. We may have more knowledge than any before but we are far less wise. Must we repeat every failed proposition expecting a new result.

    Those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  3. #33
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,315

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    That is all anecdotal evidence.

    But, even if we accept it as true, that women are somewhat less effective than men in combat situations, they're not totally ineffective.

    A raw recruit with 30 days of training is not effective as a veteran soldier, and the difference in effectiveness between them is probably greater than between a trained man and a trained women, and countries many times in the past had to resort to sending untrained men or men with little training into combat.

    It seems illogical to write off 50% of your manpower just like that.

    Then again, I'm a pacifist and don't know a thing about the army.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Beskar 


  4. #34
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    That is all anecdotal evidence.

    But, even if we accept it as true, that women are somewhat less effective than men in combat situations, they're not totally ineffective.

    A raw recruit with 30 days of training is not effective as a veteran soldier, and the difference in effectiveness between them is probably greater than between a trained man and a trained women, and countries many times in the past had to resort to sending untrained men or men with little training into combat.

    It seems illogical to write off 50% of your manpower just like that.

    Then again, I'm a pacifist and don't know a thing about the army.
    War has changed a lot, some people are stuck in the mindset of the stone ages where people hit eachother over the head with clubs as brute strength. Where is this strength difference when it comes to piloting a drone? Where is it when flying an F-22 ? Where is it in the communication tower?

    You're right that difference between experienced soldiers and raw is a lot bigger factor than sex by miles, a female officer could take down a rookie with eyes closed. The issue is that people refuse to see women in combat roles due to pariarchal believes of the role of women should be in the kitchen, after all, isn't this what she should learn from history, how males suppressed women in society? Why not change a good thing.

    Thing is, women in the past played a lot bigger role in society and armies did not. This is because there was no professional structure as such as the lords used to round up all the men to ship them off as they were disposable whilst the women had to do all the labour and work at home. Now with professional armies, women have no need to 'stay at home', and those who choose to join the army now can be like the Norse Shield Maidens, fighting women known for their skill and ability.
    Last edited by Beskar; 12-13-2015 at 13:47.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  5. #35
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    4,010

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post

    But, even if we accept it as true, that women are somewhat less effective than men in combat situations, they're not totally ineffective.

    A raw recruit with 30 days of training is not effective as a veteran soldier, and the difference in effectiveness between them is probably greater than between a trained man and a trained women, and countries many times in the past had to resort to sending untrained men or men with little training into combat.

    It seems illogical to write off 50% of your manpower just like that.

    Then again, I'm a pacifist and don't know a thing about the army.
    The bold totally disqualifies written above it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  6. #36

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    If it worked you would have seen it a thousand years ago. We were not born yesterday.
    But in the abstract this is inherently a weak and risky argument - surely you see that. It is a matter of efficiency, and in most past cases it was more efficient to maintain women in separate roles at home. But the mechanics of combat, as well as those of the larger society and economy change, and what is efficient in the immediate may not be so later on or in the long-term.

    What I will grant you is that it is not strictly necessary or greatly advantageous to have a general inclusion of female recruits except in a case of mass conscription, in which case it is thereby possible to enhance the allocation of the population base between combat roles, logistical roles, and civilian roles in the home front and regular society. Indeed, as pointed out, a number of states saw the utility of supplementing male combat troops with talented female ones (though "penalty battalions" are never an efficient allocation of manpower). On the other hand, the most important takeaway from pro-integration perspectives is that there is no firm argument that more inclusion of women will over the long term (e.g. in the next generation or two) dilute unit cohesion or fighting power in itself. The firmest potential argument is the one you pointed out regarding a "sexual dynamic", but it's is also the easiest to pick apart. It only stands up if you predict:

    1. Mandates for totally even sex distribution everywhere, without regard to individual capacities or specific requirements. This is nowhere near the table.
    2. Lowering of standards across the board combined with "grandfathering" in the event of a reversal. You never seemed to take this as a risk.
    3. What goes through smoothly in recruitment and training will fall apart under sustained combat conditions. IMO this is the most interesting take, and I mentioned it earlier, but you don't seem to be interested in pursuing this line of thought.

    Those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.
    To learn from past "mistakes" would be precisely the point! Rather than reflexively saying 'it can't be done and it's not worth it', we work to find what can be done and how it can be accomplished and refined. It probably won't result in a glut of women in the armed forces, and it probably won't produce a dramatic boost in fighting power - that's usually reliant on the engineering, doctrinal, and procurement ends - but neither will it degrade the institution in any real way.

    All-in-all, it's a pretty straightforward move that needs neither drama nor hype to accompany it, and will quickly fade out of public consciousness as the proper equilibrium is attained.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  7. #37
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Gentlemen, follow the links and read.

    Women have been integrated into all but a hand full of specialties in the military. Woman are in combat.
    They are in every field except armor and infantry.


    The Marine Corps study was far from anecdotal. Just the same, if manpower is the issue, you are 100% correct. You should never limit your self in cases of dire need.

    The military has been open to women for quite a long time. More and more jobs have been open to them. This is only the last hurdle. However, it is a high one. The combat forces of the US military constitute a very small part of its overall strength. The last data I saw was under 10%. It is actually only tank crews and infantrymen which further reduces the numbers.

    In these units there is no room for accommodation or compromise. Those only meeting minimal standards will be harassed and driving to improve or driven out. There is no privacy and no niceties. Just blood, sweat, and the elements. It is still the essence of the stone age. Brute against brute.

    I am sure there are women that could do this but very few. It would also be setting up most of those who could to the bottom of their peer group. Why would we waist enormous amounts of time, money, and resources. Run risks of creating dysfunctional units and other disadvantages to find a few exceptional individuals when their talents could be better used in some other military field where they might truly be able to excel.

    This is strictly a political goal to no good military purpose.

    When technology provides a solution, making strength and endurance equal by mechanical means. Chemically removing sex drive without injury to aggressive sprit. Then is the time to discuss preferences and ambition.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  8. #38

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    am sure there are women that could do this but very few. It would also be setting up most of those who could to the bottom of their peer group. Why would we waist enormous amounts of time, money, and resources. Run risks of creating dysfunctional units and other disadvantages to find a few exceptional individuals when their talents could be better used in some other military field where they might truly be able to excel.
    In the end, that's probably the best complaint one can lodge, though we may disagree about the extent of the costs.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  9. #39
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    There is no privacy and no niceties. Just blood, sweat, and the elements. It is still the essence of the stone age. Brute against brute.

    I am sure there are women that could do this but very few. It would also be setting up most of those who could to the bottom of their peer group. Why would we waist enormous amounts of time, money, and resources. Run risks of creating dysfunctional units and other disadvantages to find a few exceptional individuals when their talents could be better used in some other military field where they might truly be able to excel.

    This is strictly a political goal to no good military purpose.

    When technology provides a solution, making strength and endurance equal by mechanical means. Chemically removing sex drive without injury to aggressive sprit. Then is the time to discuss preferences and ambition.
    Eh, for someone who complains about a supposedly inevitable future change that has not nearly been announced yet, you sound very dramatic. The only thing I saw so far was that they have to meet the same standards, then you said they will inevitably lower them and now you even talk about removing sex drives....


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  10. #40

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    This is strictly a political goal to no good military purpose.

    When technology provides a solution, making strength and endurance equal by mechanical means. Chemically removing sex drive without injury to aggressive sprit. Then is the time to discuss preferences and ambition.
    War is a political goal.

    For an organization that can get sane human beings to enter an active war zone with a high probability of death and killing, how hard can the sex drive be?

  11. #41
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    War and the military are political tools. The military is not a place for political consideration or experiment.

    Sex drive comes in with SK’s bit on ending sexual harassment.

    Think of military age. All you need do is remould human nature to suit and all problems are solved.

    If there is one of you who has ever served in a combat unit RL and knows the interpersonal dynamics involved, you certainly are doing a good job of concealing it.
    It is not exactly your typical office or classroom environment.

    It is a 24/7 job where everyone is keenly aware of everything everyone does, likes, and even thinks. It magnifies everything. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
    You eat together, sleep together, bathe together, and everyone pees standing up in plain view.

    The UNIT is the friendly World. Everyone else is an outsider. All outsiders cause you problems and some want to kill you. Those who want to kill you, you can respect. It is usually those who are supposed to be on your side that will get you killed.

    Introducing a sexual dynamic into the situation creates a whole new set of obstacles where everything was already hard. Obstacles proposed by well meaning but unfathomably stupid and ignorant people who think they can remould human nature.

    It can perhaps be done but authority figures won't like it. It would not be PC and there would be a lot of sexual harassment.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  12. #42

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Though one thing to keep in mind that there has already been a sexual dynamic in modern military service.

    Male-on-male sexual victimization is a very real and expansive problem.

    It is a 24/7 job where everyone is keenly aware of everything everyone does, likes, and even thinks. It magnifies everything. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
    You eat together, sleep together, bathe together, and everyone pees standing up in plain view.
    Interestingly, this factor both enables such misconduct and makes it difficult to address - but in concept it should also provide the solution.

    The military is thus just the place to perform social experiments; it's pretty much a giant government-owned human laboratory.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  13. #43
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Though one thing to keep in mind that there has already been a sexual dynamic in modern military service.

    Male-on-male sexual victimization is a very real and expansive problem.



    Interestingly, this factor both enables such misconduct and makes it difficult to address - but in concept it should also provide the solution.

    The military is thus just the place to perform social experiments; it's pretty much a giant government-owned human laboratory.
    The military contains many types of units. The dynamics of those unit types all vary. A naval combat vessel doesn’t have the same dynamics as an air wing nor a maintenance battalion. All of these in one form or another have a single mission, to support the boots on the ground.
    Front line ground combat units, with the most intense and unforgiving mission of all.

    These people serve voluntarily. To use them experimentally is not only unethical, it is highly immoral. They have given much of their liberties in order to protect the nation doing a job most won’t do.

    Man has worked for centuries to hone military forces to their most efficient and productive. For the last 30ish years we have seen it disrupted and used for social experiment. Making a difficult job near impossible. Because the people involved have no say in the matter. Just a slave population used for the political will.

    To be further treated as lab rats in an environment that can cost them there lives is not just wrong. It is evil. Those who condone it are as bad as those who suggest it. It is slavery.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  14. #44

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    To be further treated as lab rats in an environment that can cost them there lives is not just wrong. It is evil. Those who condone it are as bad as those who suggest it. It is slavery.
    But then why distinguish between that slavery and the slavery of "theirs is not to question why, theirs is but to do and die" of pretty-much any combat mission? Because life-threatening combat is the most obvious component of service?

    When voluntary service members "sign up", they are signing themselves into what really is indentured servitude by another name.

    When military psychologists look at combat reports, interviews, and the like, they are part of the experiment. The experiment can go in many places with such a large amount of people, but primarily the experiment is about discerning when, how, and why soldiers fight, and how to increase their effectiveness. In the past, we just called it the 'leadership instinct' of the great captain, who knew how his men moved and how to move them, but since the 20th century all military endeavour has been a huge experiment of social psychology. That's how it is.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  15. #45
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Documentation is not experimentation. Quoting poetry does not change that.

    They sign up for the task of defending the ungrateful too self absorbed to be bothered and are compensated at less than your average burger flipper, when hours are added up.

    The public would be outraged if convicted felons were experimented on without their full knowledge and consent yet we feel it is perfectly acceptable to experiment on those who place their lives on the line to protect the country.

    It is sick and indefensible.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  16. #46

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Documentation is not experimentation.
    Let's set up some reference points, then.

    Is "documenting" the effects of long-term radiation exposure to enlisted men an unacceptable experiment? That's pretty common knowledge; I'll assume you consider it unacceptable. Conditions for volunteers testing new systems and technologies have frequently been needlessly unsafe or reckless, but aside from that kind of negligence you consider I assume you consider it an acceptable and acknowledged risk.

    Now let's mix it up. What do you call it when whole units are equipped with new/trial systems and technologies, or even regular 'upgrades', and sent into intense combat to produce data for evaluation? Regardless of what the tech or weapon being tested is, regardless of how otherwise well-equipped or valued the unit is, this is clearly direct experimentation with the lives of soldiers. In modern militaries, it has occurred continuously, and it's not difficult to see why. Is this unacceptable? Is it only acceptable if it turns out to reduce casualties in the near and long-term?
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  17. #47
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    4,010

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post

    They sign up for the task of defending the ungrateful too self absorbed to be bothered and are compensated at less than your average burger flipper, when hours are added up.
    You sound like the military don't realize how disadvantageous their occupation is. But they chose it themselves, no one forced them into taking up the task of defending the ungrateful. This is their job and they can quit it if they don't like it. Otherwise it will sound like: "I have wanted to become a student, but when I did I realized one has to LEARN stuff. How gross! Pity the poor students who are so unfairly treated! Just to think that ungrateful janitors don't have to do any studying!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  18. #48
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    You're all really nice, enlightened, guys.

    Your average infantryman or tanker is neither nice nor enlightened.

    Think of a platoon of 20-30 with one woman in it.

    What's going to happen?

    Best case - all the horny teenagers get themselves beat up/killed trying to impress her.

    Worst case - she gets raped.

    Just look at what happens when a woman enters the Backroom.

    50% of the guys try to hump her digital leg, the other 50% proclaim themselves white knights who will protect her from the leg humpers and she promptly (and wisely) leaves.

    The army is about 100% worse, I would say.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  19. #49
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    50% of the guys try to hump her digital leg, the other 50% proclaim themselves white knights who will protect her from the leg humpers and she promptly (and wisely) leaves.
    I disagree.
    45%* will try to hump her digital leg, 73%* will be white knights, 17%* will be misogynistic. These terms are not mutually exclusive.


    *numbers generated by random.org, point was about them not being mutually exclusive.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  20. #50
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Was this something that happened before I joined? Because I don't remember any of those three happening when froggbeastegg or cute wolf* showed up. I mean we've had racists aplenty but I hadnt noticed any woman hating.

    *though i am not entirely sure if it is a she on that count.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 12-15-2015 at 01:16.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  21. #51
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Was this something that happened before I joined? Because I don't remember any of those three happening when froggbeastegg or cute wolf showed up. I mean we've had racists aplenty but I hadnt noticed any woman hating.
    Cute Wolf is a he, though he does have a twin-sister apparently. He did say he can confuse people by doing good impressions of her, unsure of intentions or actions which resulted in him making such statements.

    Been a few females tough, like Diana Abola, Scienter, Proletariat, Renata, and so on.

    Some early posts by females in the Backroom have been greeted remarks such as when a members wife posted in here, another person did a mention (@name) saying "Why did you let your wife out of the kitchen?", said person nor his wife was amused by the statement.
    Last edited by Beskar; 12-15-2015 at 01:36.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  22. #52
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    4,010

    Default Re: USA gives bigger guns to women

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post

    Best case - all the horny teenagers get themselves beat up/killed trying to impress her.

    Worst case - she gets raped.
    Not sure which is the best and which is the worst outcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO