Well?
QuoteGirls in the Hood
If women can defend Fort Hood, they can defend America
By William Saletan
Fort Hood, Texas, hosts tens of thousands of men who are trained to fight for their country. But none of them stopped Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as he blew away 13 of their colleagues Thursday afternoon. It was a civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who confronted and shot him in an exchange of gunfire. For her trouble, Munley took bullets in both legs and an arm. Maybe the president will pin a medal on her.
Here's a better way to honor Munley: End the ban on women in combat.
Department of Defense policy states that "women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." According to the policy, "Direct ground combat takes place well forward on the battlefield."
Well forward on the battlefield? In Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no forward. There isn't even a battlefield. We're living in a world of car bombs, snipers, suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, and civilian airplane attacks. The battlefield is everywhere.
So are women. By the most recent count, courtesy of ABC News two weeks ago, there are 10,000 female personnel in Iraq and 4,000 more in Afghanistan. They're driving trucks, treating wounded, and shooting when attacked. More than 100 have given their lives in Iraq; another 15 have died in Afghanistan.
The no-combat policy pretends that women can't take such risks without harming overall military performance. It bars women from infantry positions, training as armored vehicle drivers, and being assigned as medics to combat units. The latest instruction, issued by the secretary of the Navy six months ago, says that women
may not be assigned to billets as members of: infantry regiments and below; artillery battalions and below; any armored units (tanks, amphibious assault vehicles, and light armored reconnaissance) ... or units engaged in long-range reconnaissance operations or Special Operations Forces missions, when such billets are inherently likely to result in being exposed to hostile fire.
Exposed to hostile fire? You mean, like Sgt. Munley? I'd say she acquitted herself pretty well. So did Spc. Ashley Pullen, who earned a Bronze Star in Iraq by running through a line of fire and using her body as a shield to save a wounded soldier. Spc. Monica Brown got a Silver Star for rescuing five injured comrades under heavy fire in Afghanistan. Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester led her team through a line of fire in Iraq to outflank and destroy the insurgents who had ambushed her convoy.
Not every woman is capable of such feats. But not every man is, either. According to a report issued yesterday by several retired military leaders, 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 are unfit for military service because of poor physical condition, criminal history, or failure to complete high school. Wouldn't our combat forces be stronger if they included the fittest men and women, instead of reaching deeper into the pool of unfit men?
The question isn't whether men are physically stronger than women on average. Of course they are. The question is whether to translate that average into a rule against women in combat. The 2009 Navy policy, for example, states that women must be barred from jobs whose "physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members." Why should some women be excluded based on the performance of others? Would you tolerate such an average-based rule against any racial or religious group?
Despite these absurdities, the ban is still in place, defended by the anti-feminist lobby and its allies in Congress. The Center for Military Readiness, which supports the ban, accuses the Army of evading it and blames the expanding roles of women in the military on "the agendas of civilian feminists." War is no time or place for "social experiments," the center argues. "The needs of the military—and the nation—must come first."
That's the right principle. But its application needs updating. Today, combat is everywhere. Even on a stateside military base, a civilian police officer can find herself under fire. Like other women who have faced such threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kimberly Munley put the needs of her military and her nation first.
The exclusion of women from combat is a failed social experiment. It's time to end it.
Seeing how U.S. college chicks seem to play soccer I'd say they'd make a fine Marines special unit.
Thanks Bmol
Quote from: Syt on November 07, 2009, 09:53:43 AM
Seeing how U.S. college chicks seem to play soccer I'd say they'd make a fine Marines special unit.
LOL, was that hilarious or what?
Personally, I was turned on.
Nothing is sexier than a woman with PTSD and PMS! :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2009, 10:09:01 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 07, 2009, 09:53:43 AM
Seeing how U.S. college chicks seem to play soccer I'd say they'd make a fine Marines special unit.
LOL, was that hilarious or what?
Personally, I was turned on.
Mormon chicks being abused? Sign me up.
Nothing I can imagine will scare Al-Qaeda more than a pre-menstrual female marine armed to the teeth.
Onward with the Fish Speakers!
G.
I say yes.
I say Jaron in combat.
I don't see any reason why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat units.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2009, 01:22:01 PM
I say Jaron in combat.
I say the female equivalent of Jaron in combat.
Quote from: Zanza on November 07, 2009, 01:53:37 PM
I don't see any reason why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat units.
The reason the IDF gave it up was they found men were overprotective of their female unit members, to the detriment of the mission.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 07, 2009, 01:53:37 PM
I don't see any reason why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat units.
The reason the IDF gave it up was they found men were overprotective of their female unit members, to the detriment of the mission.
That's why they need chicks like the marines in Aliens. Overprotect them and they will beat the crap out of you.
Quote from: PDH on November 07, 2009, 02:41:09 PM
That's why they need chicks like the marines in Aliens. Overprotect them and they will beat the crap out of you.
Gorman went back to protect Vasquez. :contract:
You can't beat up your protector if you've had acid sprayed all over your legs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 02:45:34 PM
Gorman went back to protect Vasquez. :contract:
You can't beat up your protector if you've had acid sprayed all over your legs.
Marines always go back to help a wounded comrade, gender makes no difference. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 02:35:23 PMThe reason the IDF gave it up was they found men were overprotective of their female unit members, to the detriment of the mission.
If that's really such a big problem, just make women-only units. But I somehow doubt that it is such a big problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
The reason the IDF gave it up was they found men were overprotective of their female unit members, to the detriment of the mission.
I wonder if this is still true, now that so many women are involved in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside men.
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2009, 05:44:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
The reason the IDF gave it up was they found men were overprotective of their female unit members, to the detriment of the mission.
I wonder if this is still true, now that so many women are involved in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside men.
I'd rather they not find out.
"Gee, I wonder...if I land on that grenade, will she give me her phone number?"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2009, 05:47:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2009, 05:44:58 PM
I wonder if this is still true, now that so many women are involved in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside men.
I'd rather they not find out.
"Gee, I wonder...if I land on that grenade, will she give me her phone number?"
*shrugs*
Darwin's theory in action
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 07, 2009, 01:53:37 PM
I don't see any reason why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat units.
The reason the IDF gave it up was they found men were overprotective of their female unit members, to the detriment of the mission.
Bingo.
Also, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.
The one thing that the IDF is very happy with is with females as drill sergeants for infantrymen. The boys try really hard to impress them.
Quote from: PDH on November 07, 2009, 04:08:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 02:45:34 PM
Gorman went back to protect Vasquez. :contract:
You can't beat up your protector if you've had acid sprayed all over your legs.
Marines always go back to help a wounded comrade, gender makes no difference. :contract:
Wrong. You fight the fight first, then go back and help the wounded.
If you try to help the wounded without finishing the fight first, you will likely get wounded or killed, and the wounded you were trying to help will either bleed to death or be captured and decapitated by hajj on video.
Those are the hard facts.
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:09:01 AMAlso, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.
That's the same in every other job in the world too. Why would the military be special in that aspect?
And why would it be unprofessional? A lot of people meet their partner on the job. What matters is if they do their job correctly, not their private partnership.
One more thing. You saying that it is unprofessional from the female only shows your old Middle Eastern gender image again.
Quote from: merithyn on November 07, 2009, 05:44:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
The reason the IDF gave it up was they found men were overprotective of their female unit members, to the detriment of the mission.
I wonder if this is still true, now that so many women are involved in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside men.
I have never seen woman involved in combat over here. They have been in convoys that have been shot at, and they have returned fire, but they are not in infantry units and they certainly don't go knocking on the doors of the bad guys.
I have seen what happens when a pog convoy gets shot at. Everybody ducks, a few return fire, maybe, but they all claim to deserve the CAB (combat action badge).
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2009, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:09:01 AMAlso, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.
That's the same in every other job in the world too. Why would the military be special in that aspect?
In most other jobs you don't have convenient opportunities, like a messy firefight, to dispose of rivals.
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2009, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:09:01 AMAlso, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.
That's the same in every other job in the world too. Why would the military be special in that aspect?
And why would it be unprofessional? A lot of people meet their partner on the job. What matters is if they do their job correctly, not their private partnership.
One more thing. You saying that it is unprofessional from the female only shows your old Middle Eastern gender image again.
If you think that the military is like any other job, you are out of your fucking mind.
Do you wanna know what a deployment is?
A bunch of lions inside a cage.
We are together 24/7. There is no time off. There are no places to go, no family, no girlfriends, no sex or alcohol, no parties, no nothing. Tensions are high, stress levels are pretty high.
Throw a female in the middle of this, and all hell gonna break lose.
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:31:19 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2009, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:09:01 AMAlso, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.
That's the same in every other job in the world too. Why would the military be special in that aspect?
And why would it be unprofessional? A lot of people meet their partner on the job. What matters is if they do their job correctly, not their private partnership.
One more thing. You saying that it is unprofessional from the female only shows your old Middle Eastern gender image again.
If you think that the military is like any other job, you are out of your fucking mind.
Do you wanna know what a deployment is?
A bunch of lions inside a cage.
We are together 24/7. There is no time off. There are no places to go, no family, no girlfriends, no sex or alcohol, no parties, no nothing. Tensions are high, stress levels are pretty high.
Throw a female in the middle of this, and all hell gonna break lose.
you make a good point for recruiting an all-gay force. :P
Quote from: Syt on November 08, 2009, 08:23:37 AMIn most other jobs you don't have convenient opportunities, like a messy firefight, to dispose of rivals.
The off-chance that someone might negligently get his teammate killed or even murder that teammate in a firefight is not exactly a convincing argument to generally exclude all women from all combat roles in the military.
Quote from: Syt on November 08, 2009, 08:23:37 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2009, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:09:01 AMAlso, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.
That's the same in every other job in the world too. Why would the military be special in that aspect?
In most other jobs you don't have convenient opportunities, like a messy firefight, to dispose of rivals.
Or to dispose of the bitch. Most infantrymen are alpha-males by nature. They could feel deeply wounded when the honey chooses another dog. Sometimes the female goes in a second from being the honey to being the hated bitch.
I can't see an infantry platoon with females having any sense of discipline or brotherhood. It is hard enough without females.
I'm glad Siege showed up to liven up an otherwise boring thread. :)
So the argument against women in combat roles is that the men are unprofessional jerks? Not convincing.
The answer should be that the military and its members must change, not that women are excluded.
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2009, 08:44:32 AM
So the argument against women in combat roles is that the men are unprofessional jerks? Not convincing.
The answer should be that the military and its members must change, not that women are excluded.
Sure. Come and join the military, deploy with a platoon with females, be the main effort, not some friggin battalion QRF back inside the wire, and then come and tell us how it went. You wanna be part of that stupid experiment? By all means, go ahead. But don't force that evil on us.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2009, 08:42:02 AM
I'm glad Siege showed up to liven up an otherwise boring thread. :)
Who the fuck are you?
Timmothy Assplay or Monkeybutt?
Can't tell you two apart.
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2009, 08:42:02 AM
I'm glad Siege showed up to liven up an otherwise boring thread. :)
Who the fuck are you?
Timmothy or Monkeybutt?
Can't tell you two apart.
We both changed our names years ago. I'm Tim.
Please edit my last name out of that post.
Interesting...
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:56:47 AMSure. Come and join the military, deploy with a platoon with females, be the main effort, not some friggin battalion QRF back inside the wire, and then come and tell us how it went. You wanna be part of that stupid experiment? By all means, go ahead. But don't force that evil on us.
No thanks. I am a civilian and intend to stay one.
But I reserve myself the right to have an opinion on general issues of society. And the discrimination of women in the military is such an issue.
So far, the arguments I've read suggest that the problem is not with the women, but with the men serving in the military. That's not a good enough reason for discrimination in my opinion.
I have no problem with setting standards for say strength or stamina as a criterion of fitness for a certain task even if that excludes most or all women.
We as a society have (rightly) declared that men and women are equal. Distinctions between men and women are becoming increasingly blurred in virtually all areas of life. As long as one is physically and mentally qualified, I can't think of a single compelling logical or moral reason why the military should be an exception to this principle.
I feel vaguely insulted by GI Jew.
Oh, its gas.
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:09:01 AMAlso, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.
It's a rank structured organization, not a fucking dating service. Get over yourselves.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2009, 09:01:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2009, 08:42:02 AM
I'm glad Siege showed up to liven up an otherwise boring thread. :)
Who the fuck are you?
Timmothy or Monkeybutt?
Can't tell you two apart.
We both changed our names years ago. I'm Tim.
Please edit my last name out of that post.
We already know your last name, Chemo.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 08, 2009, 09:28:13 AM
We as a society have (rightly) declared that men and women are equal. Distinctions between men and women are becoming increasingly blurred in virtually all areas of life. As long as one is physically and mentally qualified, I can't think of a single compelling logical or moral reason why the military should be an exception to this principle.
Women
do serve in the military.
There are two main arguments against women in combat, and both need to be addressed before one can try to use logic to justify putting women in combat units.
The first is the resistance this move will find from the men in these combat units. As has been noted, Israel attempted to place women in combat units and gave up the policy when they saw its effects. Simply arguing that the "men should get over it" isn't logical.
The second is the unreadiness of the public to accept female casualties the way they do male casualties. Remember how everyone got so upset at the Iranian chick dying during the demonstrations, when dozens of men died without much comment from the western public? Multiply that by hundreds of cases, and you can start to see how the "cost of war" will become disproportionately higher if a significant fraction of the dead are women.
Neither of these reactions is logical, but if we are to logically address the issue, we must acknowledge that the reactions exist, and would make the introduction of mixed-gender combat units risky. Women-only combat units might be an answer, but were do you get the critical senior NCOs for such a unit? And women-only combat units would surely be disproportionately targeted by an enemy, in order to exploit the weakness of the scheme to public pressures as women die in large numbers.
I am sure women will be in combat units at some point, but I don't see how we are going to get there from here. Wishing away the problems will doom such efforts to failure, even if such wishing-away is accompanied by appeals to morality and logic.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 08, 2009, 09:28:13 AM
We as a society have (rightly) declared that men and women are equal. Distinctions between men and women are becoming increasingly blurred in virtually all areas of life. As long as one is physically and mentally qualified, I can't think of a single compelling logical or moral reason why the military should be an exception to this principle.
I agree completely.
For that matter, I've long thought that women should be required to register for Selective Service just like the men. It's a sexist program at its core, and completely unfair to the men forced to register.
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2009, 12:06:09 PM
Remember how everyone got so upset at the Iranian chick dying during the demonstrations, when dozens of men died without much comment from the western public? Multiply that by hundreds of cases, and you can start to see how the "cost of war" will become disproportionately higher if a significant fraction of the dead are women.
Hell, just remember all the bullshit over Jessica Lynch. And she was just in a fucking car accident.
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2009, 12:06:09 PM
Women do serve in the military.
There are two main arguments against women in combat, and both need to be addressed before one can try to use logic to justify putting women in combat units.
The first is the resistance this move will find from the men in these combat units. As has been noted, Israel attempted to place women in combat units and gave up the policy when they saw its effects. Simply arguing that the "men should get over it" isn't logical.
The second is the unreadiness of the public to accept female casualties the way they do male casualties. Remember how everyone got so upset at the Iranian chick dying during the demonstrations, when dozens of men died without much comment from the western public? Multiply that by hundreds of cases, and you can start to see how the "cost of war" will become disproportionately higher if a significant fraction of the dead are women.
Neither of these reactions is logical, but if we are to logically address the issue, we must acknowledge that the reactions exist, and would make the introduction of mixed-gender combat units risky. Women-only combat units might be an answer, but were do you get the critical senior NCOs for such a unit? And women-only combat units would surely be disproportionately targeted by an enemy, in order to exploit the weakness of the scheme to public pressures as women die in large numbers.
I am sure women will be in combat units at some point, but I don't see how we are going to get there from here. Wishing away the problems will doom such efforts to failure, even if such wishing-away is accompanied by appeals to morality and logic.
Valid points, all. The question isn't if it's a problem. The question is how best to fix it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2009, 12:09:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2009, 12:06:09 PM
Remember how everyone got so upset at the Iranian chick dying during the demonstrations, when dozens of men died without much comment from the western public? Multiply that by hundreds of cases, and you can start to see how the "cost of war" will become disproportionately higher if a significant fraction of the dead are women.
Hell, just remember all the bullshit over Jessica Lynch. And she was just in a fucking car accident.
To be fair, she was a POW that was rescued. Were she a man, it would have been just as awesome to have him saved in such a fashion. It made for good news. That she was a woman didn't hurt, no, but I think it would have been made a big deal either way.
It's just basic physiology.
I mean, a woman's physical attributes don't come into play when it comes to a cockpit, or a tank turret, or any number of activities on the modern battlefield with today's technology.
But, when it comes to the nitty gritty, room-to-room warfare in the trenches, someone 4'11" and 115lbs is at a distinct disadvantage in hand-to-hand, close quarters combat.
Same thing with cops; I've seen female officers tossed around like little dish rags because they had no ass, dragged around bars by their little ponytails.
That's why, way back in the day before equal rights, Maryland State Troopers were required to be 6' tall with proportional weight. Why? Because out on the road, with back up long minutes and miles away, you need to have the physical attributes necessary to ensure, or at least give you a fighting chance for, tactical survival.
Combat, at its most literal, is about killing the man opposite you. And women are at a distinct disadvantage at that moment.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2009, 12:18:30 PM
It's just basic physiology.
I mean, a woman's physical attributes don't come into play when it comes to a cockpit, or a tank turret, or any number of activities on the modern battlefield with today's technology.
But, when it comes to the nitty gritty, room-to-room warfare in the trenches, someone 4'11" and 115lbs is at a distinct disadvantage in hand-to-hand, close quarters combat.
Same thing with cops; I've seen female officers tossed around like little dish rags because they had no ass, dragged around bars by their little ponytails.
That's why, way back in the day before equal rights, Maryland State Troopers were required to be 6' tall with proportional weight. Why? Because out on the road, with back up long minutes and miles away, you need to have the physical attributes necessary to ensure, or at least give you a fighting chance for, tactical survival.
Combat, at its most literal, is about killing the man opposite you. And women are at a distinct disadvantage at that moment.
Which is why it's imperative that nothing changes as it regards the requirements for the job. Everyone must still be able to lift XX amount, run XX speed, tackle someone XX size, etc. That can't change to accommodate women. If a woman happens to be able to do those things, then yes, let her do the job. If she can't, then it's no different than if a man can't. The job requires those things, ergo one must be able to do them in order to have the job.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 12:21:10 PM
Which is why it's imperative that nothing changes as it regards the requirements for the job. Everyone must still be able to lift XX amount, run XX speed, tackle someone XX size, etc. That can't change to accommodate women.
But it already has changed.
Yes, and if you don't change it, then the criticism becomes "the bar is set artificially high".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2009, 12:22:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 12:21:10 PM
Which is why it's imperative that nothing changes as it regards the requirements for the job. Everyone must still be able to lift XX amount, run XX speed, tackle someone XX size, etc. That can't change to accommodate women.
But it already has changed.
Physical fitness standards in the army nowadays are laughably easy. You only fail if you're fat or lazy.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 08, 2009, 12:28:45 PM
Physical fitness standards in the army nowadays are laughably easy. You only fail if you're fat or lazy.
Or if your tits get in the way. But that goes for Jaron, too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2009, 12:22:28 PM
But it already has changed.
Which I see as a real problem.
I'm as much a feminist as you're likely to meet, but not in the "bad" way. What I believe is that women should have exactly the same opportunities as men to do the exact same job. Don't change it to accommodate the fact that women tend to be smaller, weaker, and *coughs* smarter. Find the bare minimum of what it entails to do the job, and apply them across the board.
The one thing to keep in mind is that most jobs need to be re-evaluated due to new techonologies, new ways at viewing the jobs, and to make sure that the bare minimum is correct. There was a time when job requirements were made what they were in order to keep women out of them. (I'm thinking construction here, in particular, but there are other jobs that did that, as well.) I think that as a whole, our society is now better at saying, "Okay, let's find out what needs to happen, what is needed to make it happen, and right our requirements accordingly, regardless of gender, race, sexual practices, or how many teeth a person has in their head." Unfortunately, it's not perfect, and there are still those who will set their "guidelines" in a way to intentionally keep a particular set of people out.
Quote from: Warspite on November 08, 2009, 12:27:41 PM
Yes, and if you don't change it, then the criticism becomes "the bar is set artificially high".
Are you saying that this doesn't happen?
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:13:23 AM
Those are the hard facts.
Not in the goddammed Space Marines, asshole.
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2009, 09:19:21 AM
No thanks. I am a civilian and intend to stay one.
But I reserve myself the right to have an opinion on general issues of society. And the discrimination of women in the military is such an issue.
So far, the arguments I've read suggest that the problem is not with the women, but with the men serving in the military. That's not a good enough reason for discrimination in my opinion.
"The problem" is with the ability of the military to perform its function. For counties where that function is fighting the enemy that's a pretty serious concern.
Women are there to make babies and fix sandwiches.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 08, 2009, 04:10:15 PM
Women are there to make babies and fix sandwiches.
You're all balls here, but you wouldn't say shit like that to the little missus, and you know it.
I'm surprised your ass isn't at a crafts fair right now.
He is. He's posting from his phone.
I'm busted. I'm in the corner trying to get CBS TV reception on my 2" B&W TV.
Also, may you fuckers have to suffer through "Scrapbooking".
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 12:30:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2009, 12:22:28 PM
But it already has changed.
Which I see as a real problem.
I'm as much a feminist as you're likely to meet, but not in the "bad" way. What I believe is that women should have exactly the same opportunities as men to do the exact same job. Don't change it to accommodate the fact that women tend to be smaller, weaker, and *coughs* smarter. Find the bare minimum of what it entails to do the job, and apply them across the board.
The one thing to keep in mind is that most jobs need to be re-evaluated due to new techonologies, new ways at viewing the jobs, and to make sure that the bare minimum is correct. There was a time when job requirements were made what they were in order to keep women out of them. (I'm thinking construction here, in particular, but there are other jobs that did that, as well.) I think that as a whole, our society is now better at saying, "Okay, let's find out what needs to happen, what is needed to make it happen, and right our requirements accordingly, regardless of gender, race, sexual practices, or how many teeth a person has in their head." Unfortunately, it's not perfect, and there are still those who will set their "guidelines" in a way to intentionally keep a particular set of people out.
I bet the military brass would be against having the same standards for men and women. Women serve a lot of key noncombat roles, but many of them would have trouble achieving the male fitness standards and would end up out of the service.
That one's easy. There should be different fitness standards for males in combat and non-combat roles too.
For instance, I shouldn't be categorically rejected from the military because I require contact lenses.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 04:32:28 PM
I bet the military brass would be against having the same standards for men and women. Women serve a lot of key noncombat roles, but many of them would have trouble achieving the male fitness standards and would end up out of the service.
Not all military jobs require the same fitness standards. And women do have to meet the basic requirements to get into the military... for women. Where they went wrong was in not lowering those standards for men, as well.
The idea is to put the requirements at the lowest possible to do the job. Then add more requirements to do the more difficult jobs, irregardless of gender.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 04:42:13 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 04:32:28 PM
I bet the military brass would be against having the same standards for men and women. Women serve a lot of key noncombat roles, but many of them would have trouble achieving the male fitness standards and would end up out of the service.
Not all military jobs require the same fitness standards. And women do have to meet the basic requirements to get into the military... for women. Where they went wrong was in not lowering those standards for men, as well.
The idea is to put the requirements at the lowest possible to do the job. Then add more requirements to do the more difficult jobs, irregardless of gender.
I don't know. I was trying to follow a military fitness program for a while, and was able to reach the women's marine fitness standards, and never hit the men's. If the fitness standards are about promoting discipline and good health--and to a large extent I think they are--then I can see accepting a woman who had to work much harder to achieve the same amount of upper body strength, but not me.
Also, for what it is worth (and I'd be interested if someone with military experience correcting this if it is wrong), I don't think the standards for front line units are bright line. Someone who can pass the fitness tests will not necessarily be considered at an acceptable level of fitness in an infantry unit by the NCOs.
BTW, the Canadian forces have integrated women into combat roles for 20 years or so now. Submarines used to be the only exception, but even that was eliminated a few years ago.
We've even had female soldiers die in Afghanistan.
Doesn't seem to have hurt our combat capability.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 05:49:31 PM
BTW, the Canadian forces have integrated women into combat roles for 20 years or so now. Submarines used to be the only exception, but even that was eliminated a few years ago.
We've even had female soldiers die in Afghanistan.
Doesn't seem to have hurt our combat capability.
But we know that Canadians are superior to Americans in most things. :)
No, I'm not being sarcastic, says the besotted wife of a Canadian. :wub:
Canada Sucks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2009, 11:22:48 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2009, 09:01:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 08, 2009, 08:42:02 AM
I'm glad Siege showed up to liven up an otherwise boring thread. :)
Who the fuck are you?
Timmothy or Monkeybutt?
Can't tell you two apart.
We both changed our names years ago. I'm Tim.
Please edit my last name out of that post.
We already know your last name, Chemo.
Thanks for the edit. :lol:
When you add all the shit you have to be able to carry in light infantry it adds up to about 150 pounds. Are there any women outside of former east german athletes able to carry that load?
Add to that the complete lack of privacy and the need to be able to operate with little to no personal hygene for extended periods of time and you got a situation that makes it completely ridiculous to integrate women in all aspects of the military.
At least it is completely ridiculous to anyone who has actual experience in the arena. I blame stupid SCIFI and Fantasy novels in making such a ridiculous premise plausible.
Not to mention that such a policy would lead to an exodus of women from the military and cause serious harm to military readiness.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 07:45:27 PM
When you add all the shit you have to be able to carry in light infantry it adds up to about 150 pounds. Are there any women outside of former east german athletes able to carry that load?
Add to that the complete lack of privacy and the need to be able to operate with little to no personal hygene for extended periods of time and you got a situation that makes it completely ridiculous to integrate women in all aspects of the military.
At least it is completely ridiculous to anyone who has actual experience in the arena. I blame stupid SCIFI and Fantasy novels in making such a ridiculous premise plausible.
Not to mention that such a policy would lead to an exodus of women from the military and cause serious harm to military readiness.
Why would allowing women into combat roles lead to an exodus of women, and didn't the Soviets make it work?
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 07:45:27 PM
When you add all the shit you have to be able to carry in light infantry it adds up to about 150 pounds. Are there any women outside of former east german athletes able to carry that load?
Add to that the complete lack of privacy and the need to be able to operate with little to no personal hygene for extended periods of time and you got a situation that makes it completely ridiculous to integrate women in all aspects of the military.
At least it is completely ridiculous to anyone who has actual experience in the arena. I blame stupid SCIFI and Fantasy novels in making such a ridiculous premise plausible.
Not to mention that such a policy would lead to an exodus of women from the military and cause serious harm to military readiness.
I imagine Hans calling for support over the radio and guy on the other side is wondering when they let eastern European chicks on the front line.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 07:52:37 PM
Why would allowing women into combat roles lead to an exodus of women, and didn't the Soviets make it work?
IIRC the Soviets used women in segregated units.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 07:45:27 PM
When you add all the shit you have to be able to carry in light infantry it adds up to about 150 pounds. Are there any women outside of former east german athletes able to carry that load?
Plenty. My 5'10" wife for one. She never went out for the army, but passed the male physical requirements for the RCMP.
I'm with Meri in that I don't believe in reduced physical requirements for women, but some women are certainly as physically capable as men.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 07:52:37 PM
Why would allowing women into combat roles lead to an exodus of women, and didn't the Soviets make it work?
Because the step from "allowable" to "mandatory" is very small and most women would quit rather than taking that risk. And the Soviets made that work the way everything "worked" in the Soviet Union. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 08:13:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 07:52:37 PM
Why would allowing women into combat roles lead to an exodus of women, and didn't the Soviets make it work?
IIRC the Soviets used women in segregated units.
I think you are right. I didn't bother to read Hans' post closely enough--I thought he was discussing just putting women in front line roles rather than also integrating them.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 08:18:07 PM
Because the step from "allowable" to "mandatory" is very small
Hmmm--it seems large to me.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 07:45:27 PM
When you add all the shit you have to be able to carry in light infantry it adds up to about 150 pounds. Are there any women outside of former east german athletes able to carry that load?
Plenty. My 5'10" wife for one. She never went out for the army, but passed the male physical requirements for the RCMP.
I'm with Meri in that I don't believe in reduced physical requirements for women, but some women are certainly as physically capable as men.
Nonsense, the amount of weight you can safely carry without risking permanent damage is a combination of physical fitness and proportional body weight. Contrary to popular belief wars are not fought conducting physical fitness tests, nor are any monkeybars involved in actual combat. A women's physical frame is simply not capable of supporting a lot of weight, not to mention women's lack of upper body musculatur (women have 50% less musle than men, no amount of physical training can overcome that).
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 08:21:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 08:18:07 PM
Because the step from "allowable" to "mandatory" is very small
Hmmm--it seems large to me.
Trust me, there are many things in the military that are "voluntary", yet your average Soldier would have a hard time opting out. :P
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 08:22:07 PM
Nonsense, the amount of weight you can safely carry without risking permanent damage is a combination of physical fitness and proportional body weight. Contrary to popular belief wars are not fought conducting physical fitness tests, nor are any monkeybars involved in actual combat. A women's physical frame is simply not capable of supporting a lot of weight, not to mention women's lack of upper body musculatur (women have 50% less musle than men, no amount of physical training can overcome that).
So, basically, because you say so, it's true? Even though there are plenty of women who can and do manage? (i.e. the Canadian military allows women in combat situations, as has been stated here)
Think what you want, but please don't be so arrogant as to state it as fact.
I'd like a little more background on that Canadian women "in combat situations" thing. US women are fired on, and killed, but they don't serve in combat units. Beeb, do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads?
I thought Hans was talking infantry.
Still, I'm not sure that integrating women is a useful thing to do.
Interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html?_r=2&em (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html?_r=2&em)
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 08:55:02 PM
Interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html?_r=2&em (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html?_r=2&em)
Her gun is bigger than she is.
How can we discourage child soldiers and yet use women in our own armies?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 08:49:44 PM
Beeb, do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads?
Yes.
http://www.forces.ca/html/womeninthecf_en.aspx
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/women-cdnmilitary.html
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 08:22:07 PM
Nonsense, the amount of weight you can safely carry without risking permanent damage is a combination of physical fitness and proportional body weight. Contrary to popular belief wars are not fought conducting physical fitness tests, nor are any monkeybars involved in actual combat. A women's physical frame is simply not capable of supporting a lot of weight, not to mention women's lack of upper body musculatur (women have 50% less musle than men, no amount of physical training can overcome that).
You get into huge trouble by taking averages then translating them to immutable facts.
Yes, on average women have less muscle mass then men do.
That does not mean however that some women don't have significantly more muscle mass than others.
She-Hulk has significantly more muscle mass than the Invisible Woman, for example.
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2009, 09:12:29 PM
She-Hulk has significantly more muscle mass than the Invisible Woman, for example.
I'd think Wonder Woman would have them both beat, however.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomicculturewarrior.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fwonder-woman1.jpg&hash=5be26f89bc37520b0ecc28f7528072148892a288)
You think Wonder Woman has bigger muscles than a feminine version of the Hulk? :blink:
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 08:46:43 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 08:22:07 PM
Nonsense, the amount of weight you can safely carry without risking permanent damage is a combination of physical fitness and proportional body weight. Contrary to popular belief wars are not fought conducting physical fitness tests, nor are any monkeybars involved in actual combat. A women's physical frame is simply not capable of supporting a lot of weight, not to mention women's lack of upper body musculatur (women have 50% less musle than men, no amount of physical training can overcome that).
So, basically, because you say so, it's true? Even though there are plenty of women who can and do manage? (i.e. the Canadian military allows women in combat situations, as has been stated here)
Think what you want, but please don't be so arrogant as to state it as fact.
Well, that's how he gets his facts. He doesn't question the information he gets why should you?
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2009, 09:12:29 PM
She-Hulk has significantly more muscle mass than the Invisible Woman, for example.
I'd think Wonder Woman would have them both beat, however.
She-Hulk is significantly larger than Wonder Woman, and is strong on a similar scale. Even within the DC Universe, Power Girl is larger and as strong or stronger than Wonder Woman.
Sorry, but she's not much bigger than Wonder Woman, imo. At least compared to the more recent Wonder Woman comics.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rock107.ca%2Fmorningshow%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2Fshe-hulk.gif&hash=28f837a20df7e7bce2e35addfb08e9020107400c)
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2009, 09:40:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2009, 09:12:29 PM
She-Hulk has significantly more muscle mass than the Invisible Woman, for example.
I'd think Wonder Woman would have them both beat, however.
She-Hulk is significantly larger than Wonder Woman, and is strong on a similar scale. Even within the DC Universe, Power Girl is larger and as strong or stronger than Wonder Woman.
She's certainly larger. :perv:
And really... Power Girl? :x
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2F0%2F77%2F182668-113570-power-girl_super.jpg&hash=370cc5d37cef3866db581d09fb8904a29a21c14f)
Compared to this??
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2F0%2F40%2F75741-129237-wonder-woman_super.jpg&hash=2bc688f1fe263ac560d337542f7df6d5a4b9aadb)
No contest. Wonder Woman, hands down. :wub:
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 08:49:44 PM
Beeb, do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads?
Yes.
You have any cites on this? Neither of your links stated this to be true. Artillery, yes (and that is further than the US goes) but nothing about infantry. I'd be interested to know just how many Canadian infantrymen are female.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 09:59:34 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2F0%2F77%2F182668-113570-power-girl_super.jpg&hash=370cc5d37cef3866db581d09fb8904a29a21c14f)
First time I've seen camel toe on a super hero.
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2009, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 08:49:44 PM
Beeb, do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads?
Yes.
You have any cites on this? Neither of your links stated this to be true. Artillery, yes (and that is further than the US goes) but nothing about infantry. I'd be interested to know just how many Canadian infantrymen are female.
From one of my links (the CBC one)
QuoteAbout two per cent of Canadian regular force combat troops are women
and of course
QuoteCanada is considered a progressive nation with respect to its policy of equal access and full gender integration in its Armed Forces.
not to mention
QuoteThe Canadian Armed Forces opened all occupations, including combat roles, to women in 1989. Only submarines were excluded and they followed in 2000.
Of course I would dare to say that there are NO female infantrymen. -_-
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2009, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 08:49:44 PM
Beeb, do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads?
Yes.
You have any cites on this? Neither of your links stated this to be true. Artillery, yes (and that is further than the US goes) but nothing about infantry. I'd be interested to know just how many Canadian infantrymen are female.
It's stated in the article that I posted, as well. Canada is cited as the most forward-thinking country as it regards women in the military.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 09:55:08 PM
Sorry, but she's not much bigger than Wonder Woman, imo. At least compared to the more recent Wonder Woman comics.
She's significantly larger than Wonder Woman. For one thing, she's quite a bit taller.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsarama.com%2Fpreview_images%2Fmarvelnew%2Fmar09%2Fshehulk038_cov.jpg&hash=e41b1b9a0b3aaca37b25a9fb3bd3adba4d99fb7f)
She certainly is in that pic. :blink:
You win; She-Hulk has more muscle mass than Wonder Woman. But Wonder Woman still kicks ass. :wub:
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 09:59:34 PM
And really... Power Girl? :x
Depends on the artist. Kara is usually been depicted as having more of a bodybuilder's physique than Wonder Woman. Of course, certain artists draw her with a stock body but an extra large rack.
Her action figure is much cooler than the drawn pics I've found. I know nothing of her story, though.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joeacevedo.com%2Fimages%2Ffigurezone%2Fdcdfigures%2Fdcdinfcrisis_powergirl.jpg&hash=4843aead0b4fb6094d12ce53fb1d5641d4e90da3)
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 10:39:52 PM
Her action figure is much cooler than the drawn pics I've found. I know nothing of her story, though.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joeacevedo.com%2Fimages%2Ffigurezone%2Fdcdfigures%2Fdcdinfcrisis_powergirl.jpg&hash=4843aead0b4fb6094d12ce53fb1d5641d4e90da3)
Kara? She's an alternate version of Supergirl. However, her continuity has changed so many times over her 40-year lifespan that she's had at least half-a-dozen different powersets and origins. She seems to have settled down into alternate-universe Kryptonian over the last few years though.
Personally, I've always liked Kara. She was part of the good-old-days of the Justice League.
Here Meri, here's some heroines for you.
http://www.docomics.com/main.html
I'd type NSFW, but it's me...so I don't have to, now do I?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 09:00:03 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 08:22:07 PM
Nonsense, the amount of weight you can safely carry without risking permanent damage is a combination of physical fitness and proportional body weight. Contrary to popular belief wars are not fought conducting physical fitness tests, nor are any monkeybars involved in actual combat. A women's physical frame is simply not capable of supporting a lot of weight, not to mention women's lack of upper body musculatur (women have 50% less musle than men, no amount of physical training can overcome that).
You get into huge trouble by taking averages then translating them to immutable facts.
Yes, on average women have less muscle mass then men do.
That does not mean however that some women don't have significantly more muscle mass than others.
It is an immutable fact that women have 50% less muscles than men, it's genetic and fixed at birth. Don't confuse the strength of muscles with the amount of muscles, two different things.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 08:49:44 PM
Beeb, do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads?
Yes.
http://www.forces.ca/html/womeninthecf_en.aspx
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/women-cdnmilitary.html
Those links say nothing about women serving in infantry.
Here:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/05/17/afghanistan-cda.html (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/05/17/afghanistan-cda.html)
QuoteA female soldier from Canada was killed while fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan on Wednesday, military officials said.
Capt. Nichola Goddard, 26, had been serving in Afghanistan with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. She was a member of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, based in Shilo, Man.
She-Hulk is the best.
And here:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=1581 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=1581)
Quote1986-1988
Following a discrimination complaint, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal orders the Canadian Forces to:
* Continue the CREW trials as preparation for the full integration of women in all occupations of the CF rather than as a trials program;
* Fully integrate women into Regular and Reserve Forces (with the exception of submarines);
* Remove all employment restrictions and implement new occupational personnel selection standards; and
* Devise a plan to steadily, regularly and consistently achieve complete integration within ten years.
1988 Colonel Sheila A. Hellstrom is the first female graduate of National Defence College. She becomes the first Regular Force woman to be promoted to the rank of Brigadier-General.
First female gunners in the Regular Force graduate from qualification 3 training and are posted to 5e Régiment d'artillerie légére (5 RALC) in Valcartier, Quebec as part of the CREW trials.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 11:55:20 PM
It is an immutable fact that women have 50% less muscles than men, it's genetic and fixed at birth. Don't confuse the strength of muscles with the amount of muscles, two different things.
What does that have to do with doing the job? Cite me something that says that women are completely incapable of doing the job. Anything. You can't, because it's just not the case. As a gender, women are as diverse as men. There are men who can handle the physical requirements, and there are those who cannot. The same is true of women.
How it hurts to allow them the opportunity to try is beyond me, other than it frightens some macho men to think that there are women just as physically capable as they are.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 11:55:20 PM
It is an immutable fact that women have 50% less muscles than men, it's genetic and fixed at birth. Don't confuse the strength of muscles with the amount of muscles, two different things.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 09, 2009, 12:06:47 AM
And 74% of polls are made up.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 11:57:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 08:49:44 PM
Beeb, do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads?
Yes.
http://www.forces.ca/html/womeninthecf_en.aspx
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/women-cdnmilitary.html
Those links say nothing about women serving in infantry.
You're right that they don't say "women serve in infantry".
But what it does fucking say is:
QuoteThe Canadian Armed Forces opened all occupations, including combat roles, to women in 1989. Only submarines were excluded and they followed in 2000.
The only exception was submarines, and even that was removed almost 10 years ago. Do you think they'd just leave out the entire infantry? Not to mention the PPCLI officer that Meri mentioned - unless you think Infantry regiments don't count as infantry.
Sheesh Hans - please pick your battles. If you want to argue the point at least try and argue that the Canadian military is horribly weakened and ineffective by having women in it (although I'll scoff at such an assertion). But don't try and argue that black is white.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 11:55:20 PM
It is an immutable fact that women have 50% less muscles than men, it's genetic and fixed at birth. Don't confuse the strength of muscles with the amount of muscles, two different things.
First, do you have a cite on that?
Second - you left out the words ON AVERAGE. I fully accept that, on average, women have fewer muscles than men. That does not mean however that some women do not in fact have more muscles than some men.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 11:57:23 PMThose links say nothing about women serving in infantry.
The original article posted says that women are banned from all combat roles, not just light infantry. That's a limitation that Siege and you have brought into the argument. So, let's go back to combat roles in general: Why can't they drive a tank or IFV? Or operate artillery?
Quote from: Zanza on November 09, 2009, 01:21:54 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 11:57:23 PMThose links say nothing about women serving in infantry.
The original article posted says that women are banned from all combat roles, not just light infantry. That's a limitation that Siege and you have brought into the argument. So, let's go back to combat roles in general: Why can't they drive a tank or IFV? Or operate artillery?
Women drivers? :huh:
Quote from: merithyn on November 09, 2009, 12:16:48 AM
Here:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/05/17/afghanistan-cda.html (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/05/17/afghanistan-cda.html)
QuoteA female soldier from Canada was killed while fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan on Wednesday, military officials said.
Capt. Nichola Goddard, 26, had been serving in Afghanistan with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. She was a member of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, based in Shilo, Man.
She was a forward observer. Which is close enough for me, maybe not for Hans.
The impression I get from Beeb's first link is that while all slots, including infantry, are open to women, no woman has volunteered yet. The list of female firsts looks pretty exhaustive, no female first grunt is conspicuous by its absence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 01:29:04 AM
The impression I get from Beeb's first link is that while all slots, including infantry, are open to women, no woman has volunteered yet. The list of female firsts looks pretty exhaustive, no female first grunt is conspicuous by its absence.
I question that logic. I'm not sure that "first grunt" wound indeed make that list, as it seems to mostly involve women in leadership roles.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2009, 01:33:52 AM
I question that logic. I'm not sure that "first grunt" wound indeed make that list, as it seems to mostly involve women in leadership roles.
First woman to fly a CF-18, first woman to log 10,000 flight miles in a Hercules, first women to enter the artillery, etc.
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2009, 12:06:09 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 08, 2009, 09:28:13 AM
We as a society have (rightly) declared that men and women are equal. Distinctions between men and women are becoming increasingly blurred in virtually all areas of life. As long as one is physically and mentally qualified, I can't think of a single compelling logical or moral reason why the military should be an exception to this principle.
Women do serve in the military.
There are two main arguments against women in combat, and both need to be addressed before one can try to use logic to justify putting women in combat units.
The first is the resistance this move will find from the men in these combat units. As has been noted, Israel attempted to place women in combat units and gave up the policy when they saw its effects. Simply arguing that the "men should get over it" isn't logical.
The second is the unreadiness of the public to accept female casualties the way they do male casualties. Remember how everyone got so upset at the Iranian chick dying during the demonstrations, when dozens of men died without much comment from the western public? Multiply that by hundreds of cases, and you can start to see how the "cost of war" will become disproportionately higher if a significant fraction of the dead are women.
Neither of these reactions is logical, but if we are to logically address the issue, we must acknowledge that the reactions exist, and would make the introduction of mixed-gender combat units risky. Women-only combat units might be an answer, but were do you get the critical senior NCOs for such a unit? And women-only combat units would surely be disproportionately targeted by an enemy, in order to exploit the weakness of the scheme to public pressures as women die in large numbers.
I am sure women will be in combat units at some point, but I don't see how we are going to get there from here. Wishing away the problems will doom such efforts to failure, even if such wishing-away is accompanied by appeals to morality and logic.
I agree those are valid points. In fact, I deliberately left out "practical" reasons because I do think in practice there would be some difficulty in implementing that change right now.
On the other hand, important cultural shifts are generally met with some from of opposition and resistance. The main question, of course, is to what extent those forces are still strong enough to prevent the change.
Personally, I have no direct contact in any way with the army. My opinion of its attitudes and how its men behave is largely founded on history books, the media and, frankly, broad societal stereotypes. I'm not in a position to say to what extent the army is "ready" for that change.
As for the general public's readiness to accept female casualties, I'm not sure we are that far off from acceptance of it. It is a difficult thing to gauge, of course. But there are indicators. I think it's safe to say acceptance of women's expanding role in the military has increased, and our language has changed to reflect that (i.e. "the men and women of the armed forces"). Documentaries and the news deal increasingly with women in the military, and that helps to normalize the notion of women in the military. From there, the leap to combat roles may not be that large in the public's mind. Similarly, women are increasingly filling other traditionally male jobs that involve chance of bodily harm. On the other hand, other factors (such as those you have outlined) suggest we may not be there yet.
For the time being, however, not having women in combat roles remains a glaring inconsistency to a fundamental pillar of our modern values, namely the equality of the sexes. I tend to feel when a democracy has such an obvious inconsistency, progressive forces will work towards eliminating it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 08, 2009, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 08:49:44 PM
Beeb, do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads?
Yes.
You have any cites on this? Neither of your links stated this to be true. Artillery, yes (and that is further than the US goes) but nothing about infantry. I'd be interested to know just how many Canadian infantrymen are female.
From one of my links (the CBC one)
QuoteAbout two per cent of Canadian regular force combat troops are women
and of course
QuoteCanada is considered a progressive nation with respect to its policy of equal access and full gender integration in its Armed Forces.
not to mention
QuoteThe Canadian Armed Forces opened all occupations, including combat roles, to women in 1989. Only submarines were excluded and they followed in 2000.
Of course I would dare to say that there are NO female infantrymen. -_-
So when the question was "do you mean Canadian women are serving as grunts in infantry squads" and you answered "yes," do you mean yes, or no?
The reason this is of interest is because it gives us a basis for comparing some theoretical approach to the actual practical approach of the Canadian Forces. If CF have no female infantrymen, we can look to see whether that is because none wish to so serve (which would astonish me), because none make it through training, or because the applicants are deterred by something other than training. If CF have women infantrymen, then we can look to see if they have met the physical requirements that men had to meet before the integration, or whether the standards were changed to allow more women to participate.
As an aside, it appears that Israel has again decided to allow women infantrymen, having formed the Caracal Battalion in 2000 as a bi-gender infantry unit in the territorial forces.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2009, 10:24:19 PM
It's stated in the article that I posted, as well. Canada is cited as the most forward-thinking country as it regards women in the military.
It is not stated in the article you posted, either. :(
Seems a simple question: how many combat infantrymen are in the Canadian Forces?
The answer "Canada is cited as the most forward-thinking country as it regards women in the military" is non-responsive.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
It is not stated in the article you posted, either. :(
Seems a simple question: how many combat infantrymen are in the Canadian Forces?
The answer "Canada is cited as the most forward-thinking country as it regards women in the military" is non-responsive.
A lovely table on percentages of what jobs in the CF here:
http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf (http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf)
Scroll down to the bottom for your numbers. Women represent 1.4% of combat arms troops in the CF.
Periods would give the squad's position away.
Quote from: merithyn on November 09, 2009, 08:38:15 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
It is not stated in the article you posted, either. :(
Seems a simple question: how many combat infantrymen are in the Canadian Forces?
The answer "Canada is cited as the most forward-thinking country as it regards women in the military" is non-responsive.
A lovely table on percentages of what jobs in the CF here:
http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf (http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf)
Scroll down to the bottom for your numbers. Women represent 1.4% of combat arms troops in the CF.
That still does not answer the question.
Also, I am not really sure Canada is a good comparison. What might work in a rather small military that sees relatively limited combat may not work in a much larger military pulling troops from a much larger and more diverse pool, that is in a lot more combat a lot more regularly.
Although I think the US military is going to have to figure this out eventually. I just don't buy the idea that the reason they have not rushed into it is simply emotional bias against women. There are real problems there, and they need solutions. War is not a good place to engage in social engineering, most of the time.
Quote from: merithyn on November 09, 2009, 08:38:15 AM
A lovely table on percentages of what jobs in the CF here:
http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf (http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf)
Scroll down to the bottom for your numbers. Women represent 1.4% of combat arms troops in the CF.
So I gues the answer to my question is "nobody knows." :(
I suppose it wouldn't be obvious to someone who is unfamiliar with the subject, but "combat arms" is a much broader category than "combat infantryman" (aka "grunts") and includes radiomen and even clerks in combat units, as well as artillery gunners, tanks drivers, etc. Knowing the percentage of combat arms made up of women rtells us nothing about the number of female combat infantrymen.
The reason the issue of combat infantrymen comes up is that it is probably the most physically demanding activity a military person can engage in (gunners might argue this, but their physical effort is over a shorter period of time; grunts often hump 150+ pounds of gear for ten hours a day for several days). Thus, it would be the likeliest one to have either (1) no women qualify for it, even if they are theoretically eligible, or (2) the standards change so that women can qualify. Either of those outcomes would be informative, and it would be even more informative if neither was true.
I would like to hear from one of our resident grunts about what those standards actually are beyond the "book" standards.
From the talks I ahve had with infantry grunts, meaning actual 11B type guys out there on patrol, they spend an appreciable amount of their time working out and staying in shape - simply passing the basic standards for physical fitness is not necessarily adequate to be an effective combat infantryman.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 09, 2009, 08:44:41 AM
Periods would give the squad's position away.
Then use exclamation points.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2009, 01:05:16 AM
Not to mention the PPCLI officer that Meri mentioned - unless you think Infantry regiments don't count as infantry.
She was actually part of the RCHA, not the PPCLI. Both units are part of the 1st Canadian Mechanized Brigade, based in Edmonton.
They usually form the enemy force in the local militia's maneuvers.
Here's an interesting article on the Israeli experience:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/20091028.aspx
QuoteIsraeli Women Volunteer For Combat
October 28, 2009: Israel has, over the last few decades, expanded the number of combat jobs women can volunteer for. Israel conscripts men (for three years) and women (for two years). But women have more exemptions (especially marriage). Women who volunteer for combat duty are hard core, because not only will they have to undergo some hard training, but will have to serve three years on active duty, plus several years as reservists. This is necessary to justify the longer training required.
Like many other countries, Israeli military police units contain men and women. Same with dog handlers, border guards, artillery units and some search and rescue units. Women have long served as flight instructors, as well as trainers for tank crews.
There is also a largely female infantry unit, the Caracal Battalion. Part of the 512th Brigade in Southern Command, the battalion was formed in 2000 to provide a place for women who wanted to be in the infantry. It's a light infantry units that mainly serves along the Jordanian or Egyptian borders. The battalion took part in safeguarding Israeli civilians and troops during the 2005 evacuation of Gaza. Initially, about half the troops in Caracal were female, as are most of the officers and NCOs, and, usually, the commander. Now about 90 percent of the Caracal members are women. While many troops see Caracal as a publicity stunt and a sop to the feminists, the unit has performed well, and has a reputation as a non-nonsense and reliable outfit.
During their independence war in 1948, Israel had female infantry units, but these were withdrawn. Not because the women couldn't fight, but because Arab units facing them became more fanatical, and less likely to surrender, when they realized they were fighting women. Conservative Jewish clergy in Israel want women to be barred from combat jobs, while Arab radicals are urging more women to get involved in terrorism operations, including suicide bombings.
The last contradicts the story I heard when I was in Israel - that the real reason women were withdrawn from combat roles was the increased likelihood of being taken prisoner, where they were (allegedly) very likely to be raped by Arab soldiers - leading to escalating reprisals. Of course in 1948 with the state facing extinction, this wasn't a major priority.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2009, 09:24:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 09, 2009, 08:38:15 AM
A lovely table on percentages of what jobs in the CF here:
http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf (http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf)
Scroll down to the bottom for your numbers. Women represent 1.4% of combat arms troops in the CF.
So I gues the answer to my question is "nobody knows." :(
I suppose it wouldn't be obvious to someone who is unfamiliar with the subject, but "combat arms" is a much broader category than "combat infantryman" (aka "grunts") and includes radiomen and even clerks in combat units, as well as artillery gunners, tanks drivers, etc. Knowing the percentage of combat arms made up of women rtells us nothing about the number of female combat infantrymen.
The reason the issue of combat infantrymen comes up is that it is probably the most physically demanding activity a military person can engage in (gunners might argue this, but their physical effort is over a shorter period of time; grunts often hump 150+ pounds of gear for ten hours a day for several days). Thus, it would be the likeliest one to have either (1) no women qualify for it, even if they are theoretically eligible, or (2) the standards change so that women can qualify. Either of those outcomes would be informative, and it would be even more informative if neither was true.
Another point would be that, if very few are able to qualify, is it worth the trouble? If 1-2% of your combat infantry would be women, is that worth addressing all the social problems that have been brought up, or would it be easier to just recruit 1-2% more men? Even if it would be easier to recruit extra men, is it fair to limit the opportunities for the women that could do these jobs?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2009, 10:37:42 AM
Another point would be that, if very few are able to qualify, is it worth the trouble? If 1-2% of your combat infantry would be women, is that worth addressing all the social problems that have been brought up, or would it be easier to just recruit 1-2% more men? Even if it would be easier to recruit extra men, is it fair to limit the opportunities for the women that could do these jobs?
I think that, in the name of justice, we would need to ignore the percentages of women who would qualify to carry out a role as a factor in deciding whether we would allow women to apply for that role.
As I have said, I think that, forty years from now, people will be amazed that this was even an issue. However, that doesn't mean that it is easy to get there from here. In fact, I don't see a good way to do it.
Gradual relaxation may be the answer (i.e. have a plan to transition slowly from "no women in combat" to "no job closed to qualified women") but that still doesn't deal with the issue of fairness to a woman who wants to be, and could be, a grunt right now. We can live with imperfect justice, but clearly it is better not to.
I think it would probably be more useful to discuss how to get there from here, rather than whether or not it is wise to go there. Wise or not, it seems sure to happen.
Can't we just end war instead? We have the weapons for it.
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:09:01 AM
Also, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.
That's a simple thing to correct, just forbid it. If two become involved, one of them has to change unit or both are fired.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2009, 09:24:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 09, 2009, 08:38:15 AM
A lovely table on percentages of what jobs in the CF here:
http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf (http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf)
Scroll down to the bottom for your numbers. Women represent 1.4% of combat arms troops in the CF.
So I gues the answer to my question is "nobody knows." :(
I suppose it wouldn't be obvious to someone who is unfamiliar with the subject, but "combat arms" is a much broader category than "combat infantryman" (aka "grunts") and includes radiomen and even clerks in combat units, as well as artillery gunners, tanks drivers, etc. Knowing the percentage of combat arms made up of women rtells us nothing about the number of female combat infantrymen.
The problem I have is that we do know that all roles are open to women, and that ~2% of "combat arms" are women in the CF. It seems extremely speculative to suggest that there may be no women infantrymen.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2009, 01:45:22 PM
The problem I have is that we do know that all roles are open to women, and that ~2% of "combat arms" are women in the CF. It seems extremely speculative to suggest that there may be no women infantrymen.
It also seems extremely speculative to suggest that there may be
some women infantrymen. The only non-speculative answer in the absence of evidence is "I don't know."
If 2% of the combat arms in Canadas military are women, can't they just send an email to all 10 of them and ask them if any are infantryman?
Quote from: viper37 on November 09, 2009, 01:39:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2009, 08:09:01 AM
Also, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.
That's a simple thing to correct, just forbid it. If two become involved, one of them has to change unit or both are fired.
That would lead to an extraodinary number of transfers, I'd guess. The only way to really limit the problem would be to summarily execute both parties. And that wouldn't eliminate the problem, just limit it by preventing repeat offenders.
Quote from: Berkut on November 09, 2009, 02:40:05 PM
If 2% of the combat arms in Canadas military are women, can't they just send an email to all 10 of them and ask them if any are infantryman?
And Berkut continues his campaign of disrespect towards the Canadian military.
Not having read the thread---Has anyone posted Starship Troopers pics yet?
Combat arms != infantry.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 11:55:20 PM
It is an immutable fact that women have 50% less muscles than men, it's genetic and fixed at birth. Don't confuse the strength of muscles with the amount of muscles, two different things.
Which muscles are they missing?
Quote from: Berkut on November 09, 2009, 07:09:47 PM
Combat arms != infantry.
Infantry is a subgroup of combat arms however.
You seem to be speculating that despite all branches of military service being desegregated for over 20 years (except subs), and despite ~2% of combat arms soldiers being women, that it is at all conceivable that not a single woman has even been in the infantry. That seems so unlikely to me that if it were true it surely would have been noted somewhere.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2009, 07:13:26 PM
Which muscles are they missing?
I can confirm the vocal chord muscles are at full strength.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2009, 07:17:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 09, 2009, 07:09:47 PM
Combat arms != infantry.
Infantry is a subgroup of combat arms however.
You seem to be speculating that despite all branches of military service being desegregated for over 20 years (except subs), and despite ~2% of combat arms soldiers being women, that it is at all conceivable that not a single woman has even been in the infantry. That seems so unlikely to me that if it were true it surely would have been noted somewhere.
I am not speculating anything.
I went back through The List (tm) and found this:
Quote1989
Private Heather R. Erxleben becomes Canada's first female Regular Force infantry soldier.
Erxleben sucked as a punter and dedicated kick-off kicker.
(let's see who gets THAT reference)
Quote from: PDH on November 09, 2009, 08:10:29 PM
Erxleben sucked as a punter and dedicated kick-off kicker.
(let's see who gets THAT reference)
Frederich Munchhausen Erxleben, professional longshoreman and failed poet, was the dedicated punter of punts and kick off kicker for the Canton Bulldogs, 1920-1924.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 08:19:47 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 09, 2009, 08:10:29 PM
Erxleben sucked as a punter and dedicated kick-off kicker.
(let's see who gets THAT reference)
Frederich Munchhausen Erxleben, professional longshoreman and failed poet, was the dedicated punter of punts and kick off kicker for the Canton Bulldogs, 1920-1924.
You're so full of shit.
He was an accomplished poet.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2009, 01:07:29 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 11:55:20 PM
It is an immutable fact that women have 50% less muscles than men, it's genetic and fixed at birth. Don't confuse the strength of muscles with the amount of muscles, two different things.
First, do you have a cite on that?
Second - you left out the words ON AVERAGE. I fully accept that, on average, women have fewer muscles than men. That does not mean however that some women do not in fact have more muscles than some men.
You do know that the number of muscles fibers is fixed at birth depending on gender and cannot be changed? it is the strength of the muscles that can vary depending on exercise. Women have a similar amount of muscle fibers in the lower body, but significantly fewer in the upper body.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2009, 11:04:00 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 09, 2009, 10:37:42 AM
Another point would be that, if very few are able to qualify, is it worth the trouble? If 1-2% of your combat infantry would be women, is that worth addressing all the social problems that have been brought up, or would it be easier to just recruit 1-2% more men? Even if it would be easier to recruit extra men, is it fair to limit the opportunities for the women that could do these jobs?
I think that, in the name of justice, we would need to ignore the percentages of women who would qualify to carry out a role as a factor in deciding whether we would allow women to apply for that role.
As I have said, I think that, forty years from now, people will be amazed that this was even an issue. However, that doesn't mean that it is easy to get there from here. In fact, I don't see a good way to do it.
Gradual relaxation may be the answer (i.e. have a plan to transition slowly from "no women in combat" to "no job closed to qualified women") but that still doesn't deal with the issue of fairness to a woman who wants to be, and could be, a grunt right now. We can live with imperfect justice, but clearly it is better not to.
I think it would probably be more useful to discuss how to get there from here, rather than whether or not it is wise to go there. Wise or not, it seems sure to happen.
In forty years it won't be an issue because all Soldiers will be wearing exoskeletons.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 09, 2009, 11:55:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2009, 01:07:29 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 11:55:20 PM
It is an immutable fact that women have 50% less muscles than men, it's genetic and fixed at birth. Don't confuse the strength of muscles with the amount of muscles, two different things.
First, do you have a cite on that?
Second - you left out the words ON AVERAGE. I fully accept that, on average, women have fewer muscles than men. That does not mean however that some women do not in fact have more muscles than some men.
You do know that the number of muscles fibers is fixed at birth depending on gender and cannot be changed? it is the strength of the muscles that can vary depending on exercise. Women have a similar amount of muscle fibers in the lower body, but significantly fewer in the upper body.
So every man is equally strong, and every woman is equally (but less so) strong?
Really - do you have a cite on that?
To supplement Siege's point, a jailguard in the city I work at shot his colleauge, the woman he lived together with, in a supposed fit of jealous rage, then killed himself.
Quote from: Tamas on November 10, 2009, 02:26:57 AM
To supplement Siege's point, a jailguard in the city I work at shot his colleauge, the woman he lived together with, in a supposed fit of jealous rage, then killed himself.
thus we can be relieved that when Siege shoots his own wife out of PTSD-derived insanity, it won't be because of current workplace issues.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 09, 2009, 11:55:15 PM
You do know that the number of muscles fibers is fixed at birth depending on gender and cannot be changed? it is the strength of the muscles that can vary depending on exercise. Women have a similar amount of muscle fibers in the lower body, but significantly fewer in the upper body.
Hans is partially right. Women have, on average (note, Hans, this is average and can vary quite a bit...) about 70% of the muscle fibers as men. Lower body it is about the same strength, normalized for weight (and actually stress tests show such weight normalization has women come out slightly ahead often), while upper body women have fewer fibers, on average.
To cut down your argument to a realistic level, Hans (and I know you thrive on hyperbole), there are many women whose strengths falls well within what a male military recruit would require - yes, this means muscle fibers. I assume that these women may well be the ones who would be on the front lines hauling things.
Don't confuse averages with...oh what I am I saying, it is Hans misusing facts!
Quote from: alfred russel on November 08, 2009, 04:54:00 PM
Also, for what it is worth (and I'd be interested if someone with military experience correcting this if it is wrong), I don't think the standards for front line units are bright line. Someone who can pass the fitness tests will not necessarily be considered at an acceptable level of fitness in an infantry unit by the NCOs.
Army wide the minimum to pass is 60% in each of the 3 events: Push-ups, Sit-ups, and the 2 mile run.
How many push-ups you actually need to do to achieve 60% depends of your sex and age group. The older you are the more push-ups and less sit-ups you need.
That 60% each means a total of 180 out of 300 maximum.
That's the standard to Army wide and to pass basic training.
Now, in the infantry, the minimum is always over 250, at the commanders discretion. In my battalion, the 3 line infantry companies require 270, while my platoon, as the recon platoon for the battalion, requires 280. The guys in the headquarter company that are not infantry are only required the 180 army standard.
Keep in mine though, that the 180 minimum is 60% in each event. If you max out you push-ups, getting a 100, and get 100 in sit-ups, but only a 50 in the 2 mile run, you got a total of 250, way over the 180 minimum, but because you didn't get the minimum of 60 in the 2 mile run, you just failed your PT test.
Hey Siege, what do you know of the Caracal Battalion?
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 09, 2009, 11:57:46 PM
In forty years it won't be an issue because all Soldiers will be wearing exoskeletons.
Wrong.
Quote from: Tamas on November 10, 2009, 02:26:57 AM
To supplement Siege's point, a jailguard in the city I work at shot his colleauge, the woman he lived together with, in a supposed fit of jealous rage, then killed himself.
So in other words, the same argument can be used to defend sex discrimination in civilian jobs? Uh, that's not a particularly good point.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:13:13 PM
Hey Siege, what do you know of the Caracal Battalion?
Not much. I've heard about it. Some people like it, most people I know don't take then seriously. They always get posted to safe areas, and train for disaster relief missions. The IDF is afraid to commit them into the real fight, in the territories. You can tell what units the IDF consider to be efective by the places they get deployed to.
Quote from: Neil on November 10, 2009, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 09, 2009, 11:57:46 PM
In forty years it won't be an issue because all Soldiers will be wearing exoskeletons.
Wrong.
Right.
Stop crushing my dreams.
Germany has women in infantry combat units. They have also opened up the most elite special forces unit to women. EDIT: Apparently no women has so far fulfilled the physical standards for that special forces unit though so they are only working in supportive roles there.
Not sure if women can go into all units though, there may still be some exceptions. I've never seen a women in the representative unit they use to welcome guests of state for example. But it could be that that unit only has conscripts, no professional soldiers.
According to a recent study, about 43% of male soldiers think that female soldiers don't have the necessary strength for some tasks. 25% say they don't trust women in combat situations.
2/3 of the male soldiers see admitting women to combat units positively. 15% think that the army can no longer fulfill its functions with women in combat units.
85% think that the general communication and atmosphere has improved with women joining.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bundeswehr.de%2Ffileserving%2FPortalFiles%2FC1256EF40036B05B%2FW26NAGKR967INFODE%2Fsichern_6564_420.jpg%3Fyw_repository%3Dyouatweb&hash=7d7754aac4dcf64cac086265551c53b850a033d7)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bundeswehr.de%2Ffileserving%2FPortalFiles%2FC1256EF40036B05B%2FW26NAG2W753INFODE%2FABC_Ausbildung_277.jpg%3Fyw_repository%3Dyouatweb&hash=b1a2707dbdb746865d7687dd905e76a67dc68874)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bundeswehr.de%2Ffileserving%2FPortalFiles%2FC1256EF40036B05B%2FW26NAGSC673INFODE%2FSoldatin_G36_277.jpg%3Fyw_repository%3Dyouatweb&hash=b4d55afe36acb399a2a3168b3273945d72c0ab20)
It is a lot easier to admit women to combat units when you are certain that the odds of them ever seeing any actual combat are pretty slim. It is just an intellectual exercise at that point.
Quote from: Zanza on November 10, 2009, 03:55:59 PM
Germany has women in infantry combat units.
Except the German infantry doesn't actually see any combat. Ever. Thus, it's a non-issue.
Quote from: Siege on November 10, 2009, 03:50:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 10, 2009, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 09, 2009, 11:57:46 PM
In forty years it won't be an issue because all Soldiers will be wearing exoskeletons.
Wrong.
Right.
Stop crushing my dreams.
You'll be either retired or dead in 40 years anyways. Still, that's a pipe dream.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:57:38 PM
It is a lot easier to admit women to combat units when you are certain that the odds of them ever seeing any actual combat are pretty slim. It is just an intellectual exercise at that point.
Except that in the last 6 years or so Canadian combat units have seen quite a lot of combat. Indeed the CF has (from my outsider's perspective) rediscovered itself as an actual armed force as a result of Afghanistan.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2009, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:57:38 PM
It is a lot easier to admit women to combat units when you are certain that the odds of them ever seeing any actual combat are pretty slim. It is just an intellectual exercise at that point.
Except that in the last 6 years or so Canadian combat units have seen quite a lot of combat. Indeed the CF has (from my outsider's perspective) rediscovered itself as an actual armed force as a result of Afghanistan.
I wasn't talking about Canada.
Germany still gets a plus for using MG42s
Quote from: Zanza on November 10, 2009, 03:55:59 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bundeswehr.de%2Ffileserving%2FPortalFiles%2FC1256EF40036B05B%2FW26NAGSC673INFODE%2FSoldatin_G36_277.jpg%3Fyw_repository%3Dyouatweb&hash=b4d55afe36acb399a2a3168b3273945d72c0ab20)
How about a little fire, Scarecrow?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 07:55:35 PM
I went back through The List (tm) and found this:
Quote1989
Private Heather R. Erxleben becomes Canada's first female Regular Force infantry soldier.
Thanks. That is a starting point. Dunno why Beeb and other found this so hard.
The List(TM) just gives firsts, though. I am still looking for current numbers, and if standards changed.
I would note that I am not looking for a specific answer. As I have said, I am convinced that this is a transition issue, and someday threads like the "Fallo of the Berlin Wall" thread will be written about women in combat.
However, all of the "the emperor surely does has clothes" responses don't tell us much.
Denmark has women in front line combat units, women who has seen combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. However despite the best efforts from both politicians and the Army leadership, do females in the Danish Army make up less than 4% of the soldiers. One of the reasons is that physical requirement the same for women as they are for men, this alone has the effect that more than 80% of female recruits leaves the Army before completing basic training...