USA gives bigger guns to women

That's right, women can now also drive tanks in the US military and have been granted access to all combat roles if they fulfill the requirements like everyone else.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/po...ons/index.html

Quote:

---

"This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They'll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat," Carter said at a news conference Thursday.

His move comes despite the objections of Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had advocated keeping some roles limited to men.

---

Apparently the move came in spite of evil reactionists with outdated ideas who want to keep women below a glass ceiling and pay them 70 cents on the dollar, but I think it's only fair after the gays were officially allowed all of these positions first. The next move shall be openly allowing radical islamists, who are still not getting the recognition they deserve in our society.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you try to make sense of the last statement, it's your own fault, I'm just heating the flames of discusssion. :wizard:

I'm sure we'll hear a bunch of doomsaying from social regressives about how this will destroy unit cohesion, just like with letting gays serve openly, or integrating negroes. In the end nothing will happen just like the latter two cases and the regressives will go on saying America and all of its institutions are on the brink of collapse because of liberals as they have been for the last 200 years straight.

Hopefully the regressives will let the military sort out its problems with doctrine and procurement at some point...

As long as they can meet the same physical standards as males then most people in the military Ive talked to dont care. If they cant, then they have no business being in combat positions. It goes beyond equality or unit cohesion or whatever, its about saving lives. If a woman can drag a 200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear then that is great, power to her and she will make a great combat soldier. But if she cant, what is she going to do when she has to do it in combat and lives depend on her?

That actually ties in with my off-hand comment in a subtle way.

Doctrine and procurement: oriented today toward special ops, "shock and awe", long-range confrontation with missiles, drones, and aircraft, and conventional ground forces as an afterthought.

Speaking abstractly, there should be some differences in standards for various roles depending on the war scenario and the dynamic value of particular roles. Just as an example, what differences in standards could or should there be for a protracted conflict with conventional frontlines, in which presumably artillery, armor, and heavy infantry are overall a more important factor than cavalry and light recon insertions 0 relative to the past generation? Would they be reduced for the sake of mass mobilization or even conscription? Would they be reduced because close contact between opposing infantry squads is expected to be even rarer - or the opposite? What impact might sweeping campaign-specific changes in equipment loadout have on the standards at home?

This is a very broad question; make clear what assumptions you impute to it, or yourself bring to bear.

There actually has been some discussion on relaxing some standards for some jobs, especially when it comes to cyber warfare. The military wont be able to attract the best people when the best people are not going to want to put up with all the annoyances of military life, not to mention the intense physical activity and low pay. Why go to the army, have to wake up at the crack of dawn every weekday to do physical exercise and get barely over $20k for it when you can get three times that in the private sector? So what ends up happening is that the military has to hire outside contractors who are very expensive to do the work.

Also all of this makes me wonder if women will now have to register for the draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

As long as they can meet the same physical standards as males then most people in the military Ive talked to dont care. If they cant, then they have no business being in combat positions. It goes beyond equality or unit cohesion or whatever, its about saving lives. If a woman can drag a 200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear then that is great, power to her and she will make a great combat soldier. But if she cant, what is she going to do when she has to do it in combat and lives depend on her?

---

I am not sure what Monty is aiming at but the part I quoted starts by saying they have to fulfill all the standards and qualify, so I'm not sure why this would be a concern?

There is a big concern that standards will be lowered to ensure that women passed. For example the USMC has tried to put a number of women through their male-only courses and they all failed for various reasons, so they have a valid concern that they will be forced to lower standards in order to comply with the new ruling.

That's pretty tangential to my question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

There is a big concern that standards will be lowered to ensure that women passed. For example the USMC has tried to put a number of women through their male-only courses and they all failed for various reasons, so they have a valid concern that they will be forced to lower standards in order to comply with the new ruling.

---

Which tests?

http://ciceromagazine.com/features/i...-combat-roles/

Quote:

---

First, they began by doing research on a set of proxy tests that would be used to screen for combat fitness. The proxy tests, 6 largely upper-body, strength-based tests, were used to evaluate the performance of 409 male and 379 female Marines. Although the link between these 6 events and the “knowledge, skills, and abilities needed” for various combat jobs is not clear the research yielded some interesting results. In the “good performers” category 66% were male Marines while 34% were female Marines. In the highest performing category 92% were male while 8% were female. Clearly, there are a percentage of women that can compete in both categories. Despite these results the Marines seem to have dropped the use of proxy tests to screen for combat jobs.

[...]

Later in 2013, the Marines decided to expand the infantry training research to enlisted women. Similarly, they invited enlisted women to volunteer for the enlisted infantry course and were more successful. Out of more than 240 volunteers more than 98 have graduated. When enlisted women began graduating from the infantry course the Marines decided that perhaps initial entry training was not a good test of whether women could perform in infantry units. Instead, they said that collective tasks that Marines perform out in the fleet are harder and would provide the true litmus test of women’s combat potential.

---

To me this sounds like they had some women succeed and then always went "yeah, but..." because they didn't like the result.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...fficer-course/

In this case they all failed, but 29 is also not necessarily a representative sample. And if you look at the first link, you may see why the IOC test with women is a huge failure (and even less representative):

Quote:

---

Instead they pursued other research efforts. The first and most controversial has been their research at the infantry officer course (IOC). They invited women officers, on a voluntary and trial basis, to attempt to complete IOC. While they sought to evaluate 92 volunteers over three years they have not been able to recruit anywhere near that number and none of those who has volunteered has graduated. Critics cite a lack of any possible incentive for women officers to volunteer coupled with a disclosure form that volunteers must sign that states that, “If a volunteer is unable to successfully complete the program of instruction, it is unlikely they will be recycled due to impact on delaying attendance at their PMOS school, possible negative impact on fitness reporting cycles, potential harm to the volunteer’s career path, and complication with equitable career designations.” In short, a woman failing on her first attempt would likely not be offered a recycle opportunity, generally expected of men, due to negative career impacts—a rather large disincentive.

---

Also: http://www.theonion.com/article/us-m...tral-kil-31015

"If a woman can drag a 200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear then that is great" Isn't it the job description of a field medic? Women are field medic for year... And women is other armies did quite a good job, (even it was denied later) i.e. Roza Shanina
Attachment 17055

I could do the same for tank crew, pilots, air crew etc.

It's really a non-issue anyway if you just have all male and all female units. Given the terrible treatment of women in the military, it is probably best to separate the sexes anyway as a transitioning period until the old conservatives have retired.

Bad idea. Retaining some segregated units would be a good study, but pulling back on the whole institution? And given the complaints most bandied about, segregation would solve nothing unless you either maximize segregation (i.e. women can only be pilots, artillery crew, MPs, orderlies...) or segregate the battlefield on an operational and strategic level such that, for example, one all-female army covers a given area, while an all-male army covers another, largely independent of each other.

It really makes no sense to propose it.

You are missing the human aspect. Women in the military already suffer from sexual harassment and rape, which the military tries to cover up. Fact is, many male soldiers are not heroic men for simply signing up. Until the head brass pushes for a full on cultural change, an increasingly coed status will ultimately do more harm than good. Hence, wait it out until the old guard dies.

But they go hand-in-hand, you see. The military is an institution that draws recruits from the wider American society, so there is far less compartmentalization than you seem to assume.

Also, how do you segregate without creating such absurdities as I pointed out?

Hum, just more social engineering to degrade the military.

I see nothing wrong with women serving in the military. Even in combat if they choose it and can qualify.

This doesn’t do that. If they want to do it, it requires some serious reengineering of existing weapons systems and a total revamp of standards and doctrine. This is the cart before the horse.

Just an example, with tanks as that is what the thread alludes to.

Every member of a crew had to know the job of every other member and be able to perform it. Nothing on a tank is light. It takes a deal of physical strength to perform both crew duties and to maintain the vehicle. The lowest ranking member of the crew is the loader. Tank 120mm main gun rounds weigh from 20.1kg up to about 25kg. These have to be safely loaded on board and the loader has to be able to load the gun on the move in about 4 sec. and continue to do so as long as necessary. The breech operating handle of the gun has around 30kg resistance. The commander’s charging handle for the M-2hb has about the same. These are light work compared to track maintenance.

As this was strictly a political decision, crew standards will be sacrificed to achieve a political goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkYrH7_MmAo

Pay attention to what happens at about 2:50 into the video.

But just taking an MBT crew as a fixed (for our purposes) example, then why would we expect a de facto lowering of standards with females in tank crews?

Aren't tank crew are trained and evaluated based on performance in maintenance and various combat-relevant tasks? What would the difference be with female applicants included in the mix, unless you make the specific prediction that female tankers will be more likely to 'burn out' in a sustained combat environment (or other such things that might be more difficult to catch in training)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

But just taking an MBT crew as a fixed (for our purposes) example, then why would we expect a de facto lowering of standards with females in tank crews?

Aren't tank crew are trained and evaluated based on performance in maintenance and various combat-relevant tasks? What would the difference be with female applicants included in the mix, unless you make the specific prediction that female tankers will be more likely to 'burn out' in a sustained combat environment (or other such things that might be more difficult to catch in training)?

---

I spoke of it as an engineering problem. You can not expect the average young woman to be up to the physical strength and endurance necessary to perform to current standards. Either tanks get reengineered or standards fall. In a tank crew you cannot exclude crew duties based on physical strength. Everyone has to be able to do every job but the loader’s job is the basic entry point.

In most jobs, via federal regulation workers aren’t permitted to lift over 40lbs. As a tank crewman, it is a basic requirement.

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...05&oe=56F5C277

But they're not going to be vetting "the average young woman", right? Given current standards, very few female applicants would be able to qualify as tankers - and so the standards don't change, unless you posit a hidden or long-term deficiency in even the qualifying female tankers. If your complaint is that they will inevitably lower standards so as to include more women, then that would be more understandable, though I don't see that happening outside the context of a mass-draft war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

But they're not going to be vetting "the average young woman", right? Given current standards, very few female applicants would be able to qualify as tankers - and so the standards don't change, unless you posit a hidden or long-term deficiency in even the qualifying female tankers. If your complaint is that they will inevitably lower standards so as to include more women, then that would be more understandable, though I don't see that happening outside the context of a mass-draft war.

---

To assume they will not lower standards is to ignore all which has gone before.

Standards were altered or ignored with regard to the recent female ranger graduates. It occurred in most every field they have been brought into. To assume that standards won’t be altered for political reasons is to ignore the history of women in the military.

I am not saying that ALL standards need to be maintained or that there are not other solutions. All I am saying is that the groundwork to implement women in combat has not received more than political declarations that they should.

Lowering Standards? Military did it yet, because the boys are too fat and lack strength and will, so I was told, due to a change of habitat and food habits.
As other mentioned, selection for weapons and units is based on capacities... I was quite short, so APC were for me, when taller ones were for mortars or foot soldiers. Your tank-man will be crap as divers (muscles don't float), and as recon, hmmm...
As tanks matter, a pilot is short, and the fact is the crew has to work together for the maintenance. Perhaps a muscular one will help to pull the caterpillar out, but the small and slim one will do to go under the tank to help in breaking it (for repair). And all soldiers are far to be as strong and big than what images seems to induce...
The fact is the image of militaries of themselves will suffer more than the Armed Forces themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Lowering Standards? Military did it yet, because the boys are too fat and lack strength and will, so I was told, due to a change of habitat and food habits.
As other mentioned, selection for weapons and units is based on capacities... I was quite short, so APC were for me, when taller ones were for mortars or foot soldiers. Your tank-man will be crap as divers (muscles don't float), and as recon, hmmm...
As tanks matter, a pilot is short, and the fact is the crew has to work together for the maintenance. Perhaps a muscular one will help to pull the caterpillar out, but the small and slim one will do to go under the tank to help in breaking it (for repair). And all soldiers are far to be as strong and big than what images seems to induce...
The fact is the image of militaries of themselves will suffer more than the Armed Forces themselves.

---

All those weight and strength issues were addressed in the 1970s. Todays US Army and Marine Corps could be termed as fitness obsessed.

As for making accommodations for strength of females, that is very unrealistic in a combat situation. You can’t assume that a whole crew may not be female and that men will be there to take up the slack. Isn’t that rather sexist of you?

People tasked with a job have to be able to do the job, without reservation. No caveats.

That is why I said it is an Engineering Problem. You want women to do a job, you engineer it so they can. Not socially but mechanically.

"As for making accommodations for strength of females, that is very unrealistic in a combat situation. You can’t assume that a whole crew may not be female and that men will be there to take up the slack. Isn’t that rather sexist of you?" :laugh4: Men are not all with the same strength... It doesn't mean the weakest can't be in a tank crew. So, when choices are made at the recruitment center, if the recruiter knows his/her job, women able to "man" a tank will be directed to the Tank school, whatever the name, and others will be directed to others arms... It is how it works... Well, in France at least, following your tests results, and then the physical one, then the training itself which made my platoon going from 36 to 17... And all the "failures" were men, and some much stronger or fitter than I was.
The French Army thinks it is matter of will/motivation... And I tend to agree...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Oktyabrskaya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

Have a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
for the Air Forces

True enough, after the War, Stalin, being a XIX century man, denied and in fact diminished the women's role to the more "conventional" fields of nursing, compassion and other "soft" duties.
The reality is women are as deadly and aggressive than men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"As for making accommodations for strength of females, that is very unrealistic in a combat situation. You can’t assume that a whole crew may not be female and that men will be there to take up the slack. Isn’t that rather sexist of you?" :laugh4: Men are not all with the same strength... It doesn't mean the weakest can't be in a tank crew. So, when choices are made at the recruitment center, if the recruiter knows his/her job, women able to "man" a tank will be directed to the Tank school, whatever the name, and others will be directed to others arms... It is how it works... Well, in France at least, following your tests results, and then the physical one, then the training itself which made my platoon going from 36 to 17... And all the "failures" were men, and some much stronger or fitter than I was.
The French Army thinks it is matter of will/motivation... And I tend to agree...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Oktyabrskaya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko

Have a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
for the Air Forces

True enough, after the War, Stalin, being a XIX century man, denied and in fact diminished the women's role to the more "conventional" fields of nursing, compassion and other "soft" duties.
The reality is women are as deadly and aggressive than men.

---

As far as women’s competency in combat, you are preaching to the choir.

It is what I said in my first post on the topic. I think you must have missed that.

My objection to the current move by Secretary Carter is that it is intended to be disruptive. It is only designed to further lower moral and not to give women a chance to succeed in their chosen roles.

In the US military, candidates can choose anything they wish based on their aptitude scores. Recruiters have little to do with it.

There are however, more involved debates taking place in the military by a seriously hampered and politicised officer corps. Some, if you knew, you would say are insane. And you would be right.
The decision to include women in all fields at this time, without reservation leads me to believe it is an act of political sabotage.

It is not women that I question. Its the political motive behind it. Is that clear?

"It is not women that I question. Its the political motive behind it. Is that clear?" Err, no. Sorry.
To open in all fields might be political, so was to free the slaves, shop the king's head off and allowed women to vote and drive. These choices were not bad choices, so political choices are not an issue, depending what you want to achieve.
You speak of moral disruption, when, in fact, all evidences I gathered tend to show you are wrong on this aspect.
Yes, some adjustment in behaviours would have to be made, but, coming from a rural backgrounds, I never heard of a woman failing in farming duty under "female" problem. My grand-mother killed her first chicken at 4, and sold her first cow at 7... As an adult, she raised her children and participated to the fight against Nazism with the same weapon and determination than my grand-father. Due to history, my mother was one the first woman to get a driving licence (my father being in Algeria, he insisted on this point) so she was the one driving the tractor during harvesting...
To put women in fights, other than as field medic (I wonder why it is ok for a woman to be a medic, but not a machine gunner: she will not be raped but the machine gunner would?) will brake some males' views and machismo, I give you this. I know the feeling. Some women dare to run faster and longer than me... I survived and adjusted. Some are more qualified, brighter, and have positions I will never reach. Well, yeah, hurts a bit, but again, my problem not theirs...
As part of engineering, I never saw material adapted to specific needs. And if some women (as some men) will not be able to fulfill the requirements of a job, they will quite. When some men couldn't cross the finish line of the last training, well, they didn't get the badge nor the job. It will be the same for women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"If a woman can drag a 200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear then that is great" Isn't it the job description of a field medic? Women are field medic for year... And women is other armies did quite a good job, (even it was denied later) i.e. Roza Shanina
Attachment 17055

I could do the same for tank crew, pilots, air crew etc.

---

Yes and no. Just because one is a medic doesnt mean one will be in the infantry units fighting in the streets. They can also be in the field hospitals and things like that.

Not saying that there arent women who can meet or even exceed the capabilities of men. There certainly are are that is a great thing. But most people are merely worried that the standards, which exist for a reason, will be lowered to meet a political goal. That is it.

"Not saying that there arent women who can meet or even exceed the capabilities of men." I agree. What I challenged is the assumption that in order to have women in fighting posts/position, it will be a need to lower the standards. I knew a lot of soldiers who couldn't drag a "200 pound teammate who has another 50 pounds of body armor and gear". But because they were draftees, they were still soldiers. And I saw them be faster and more efficient than a platoon of Foreign Legionnaires on obstacles courses. My best sniper was probably as light in weight than young women I met during my life, but he could put a bullet where he wanted, wind (whatever direction), rain or fog didn't really mattered. However, he didn't match the "dragging a teammate of 200 pounds" etc. But the fittest and strongest enemy would have some trouble with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"It is not women that I question. Its the political motive behind it. Is that clear?" Err, no. Sorry...
When some men couldn't cross the finish line of the last training, well, they didn't get the badge nor the job. It will be the same for women.

---

I must simply assume you ignorant of the US military and its political correctness and internal politics or the politics of the current administration.

It is not the women that will reduce moral and readiness per say but dysfunctional units where everyone can not do their jobs properly and some receive preferred treatment.

Woman have been in artillery units for quite some time. However in gun units you don’t often find them on gun crews. They are in the FDC and with FIST. Positions they fill not form merit or experience but for lack of physical abilities. This also tends to tie up promotable slots. It results in stagnating promotions for men serving on gun crews and accelerated promotions for less qualified woman serving in those slots.
In rocket artillery units it is not so much the case. Loading is done by mechanical means and women are as capable as anyone else.

This situation is not the fault of the women, nor the men. It is not even the fault of unit leadership. It is an ad hoc arrangement to make the best of a situation foisted on them directly from the highest levels of the military and the executive. But that does not lessen the resentment and disfunction of people in those organisations.

I see some of your overall point FK, but given the development over time of militaries and the American military in particular, it seems par-for-the-course. You push the envelope in the short-term, and deal with any resulting dysfunctions, as part of a learning process.

And if one of the biggest problems in the American military is politicization and administrative weight (which it has been in some form since the Civil War, at least), then introducing women into the larger mix doesn't change the situation one way or another. You will still see stagnation and erratic 'hotfixes' in unique deployments until a high-intensity conflict comes around that calls for a large-scale professional overhaul of the military in many aspects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I see some of your overall point FK, but given the development over time of militaries and the American military in particular, it seems par-for-the-course. You push the envelope in the short-term, and deal with any resulting dysfunctions, as part of a learning process.

And if one of the biggest problems in the American military is politicization and administrative weight (which it has been in some form since the Civil War, at least), then introducing women into the larger mix doesn't change the situation one way or another. You will still see stagnation and erratic 'hotfixes' in unique deployments until a high-intensity conflict comes around that calls for a large-scale professional overhaul of the military in many aspects.

---

Of course they will reassess and reanalyse. Women have participated in combat since it began. It always seems to shake out that it was not the greatest idea conceived by mankind.

Heretofore it was always an act of desperation by a society faced with destruction, or of individuals motivated to try it. Israel has a small population compared to all its neighbours. Everyone else is motivated by equal rights.

People have a perfect right to aspire to anything. They don’t necessarily have the abilities to carry it off. If they did we would all be sports stars, movie stars or perhaps nobel laureates.

While technology may remedy some of these problems, overall, we are engaged in another exercise of rediscovering past wisdom.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.... :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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!"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.