USA gives bigger guns to women

[Fisherking]

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.

[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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

[Fisherking]

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

[Husar]

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....

[Noncommunist]

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?

[Fisherking]

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.

[Gilrandir]

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.