Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

khorum_sl said:

Nobody is disagreeing with meeting the basic PT standards, but there's plenty of evidence disproving the notion that women in military units will diminish discipline and cohesion. The Israeli IDF is one of the most admired infantry organizations in the world and they've had women in combat roles for some time.

Click to expand...

You might want to research this one a bit more. The IDF has 2 women combat units, but they are not truly integrated as you'd think by the news. There are two units that allow women that are combat units. The Caracals and the Lions of Jordan. They are relegated to guarding Egyptian and Jordanian borders. The types of duties they have are limited as well, for instance they are not allowed in tank crews. They are also not required to carry as much weight as men. This isn't to say they haven't performed with distinction in the roles given to them. Its just that the 'Women in the IDF' story is as much PR as it is reality and the IDF is very careful to place them in positions with an eye towards minimizing the reduction in combat ability of their army as a whole.

I can't find the reports of their performances from the war in Lebanon, which reportedly had them suffering significantly higher casualties than all male units, but I did find this article after a quick cursory search that gives a rough outline of the women serving in Israel's army.

Womens combat roles in Israel Defense Forces exaggerated, military traditionalists say - Washington Times

Seananigans_sl said:

I'll never be for women in combat. Women are the key to civilization continuing, they control our procreation. They are to be protected, not thrown into combat to be blown to bits or shot up--that's what men are for, we're expendable. As far as I'm concerned, scale doesn't matter to me either. I don't care if it's only a small number of women who will end up in combat, I'm just categorically against it, it makes no sense from a societal/civilization standpoint.

The fact that this logical, pragmatic way of thinking--that revering your women and protecting them from physical harm--is viewed by some/many as patriarchal shitlordism just makes me... I dunno, Picard facepalm doesn't even do it justice. This world is so fucking backwards nowadays.

Click to expand...

Uh, maybe if we were still stuck in a hunter-gatherer society that would be true, but it sure as hell isn't true in a modern society. What you're actually doing is infantilizing women, not revering them, and it's deeply sexist.

Mao_sl said:

I can't find the reports of their performances from the war in Lebanon, which reportedly had them suffering significantly higher casualties than all male units, but I did find this article after a quick cursory search that gives a rough outline of the women serving in Israel's army.

Click to expand...

I'd be curious to see what their casualty rate was compared to an all male unit with similar combat experience.

Caliane_sl said:

Again, also they clearly are overwhelmed with anxiety having to live up to male expectations, and thus do more poorly.

No jokes, more bodies in uniform sounds better then less to me. And, if a female meets the standards fine. But I would be concerned with women failing to meet the standards, being pushed through due to political pressure.

Click to expand...

I think you're reading that wrong. She wants neutral standards, right now the military has many dual standards for fitness/competency along gender lines. This has always been the political 'push through' and even then there have been issues because even with lower requirements fewer women still join the military, want to do strenuous combat jobs and are over-achiever enough type-A personalities to actually compete.

Neutral standards would be much better overall though they would likely mean less women will qualify for the physical requirements of some jobs, but none would be disallowed from having the job provided they met those expectations.

Our society isn't going to die out or decline in any meaningful way because some small percentage of women volunteer for the military. Don't be absurd. Your position is most surely sexist.

Seananigans_sl said:

No, I'm actually not, and no, it's actually not, but thanks for highlighting my point.

Click to expand...

Once we're done denying women their freedom to choose whether they want to see combat or not, why don't we deny them abortions since babies are the key to civilization continuing.

The Marines last addressed the upcoming pullups standard on Jan. 24, reiterating that pullups "will become the single standard measure of physical fitness," but adding that the requirement would be delayed until at least June 30 as the Corps continued to collect data on how well female Marines would adapt physically to the new standard. At the time, officials said that 55 percent of women had been unable to complete the minimum standard of three pullups to pass the PFT.

Click to expand...

I'm sort of torn on this. I support equal standards for men and women, but pullups don't seem like a very fair fitness standard given the substantial disparity in upper body strength between men and women. I imagine most women, unless they were at pretty close to peak fitness before enlisting, would require more time to build upper body strength than basic training provides unless they have regular access to more gym equipment than what was available to my platoon during basic (which was basically none, I think we had a couple dumbbells). I mean obviously I've never seen combat, but how many situations would really occur where you are expected to be able to pull yourself up with nothing but upper body strength, with no assistance from the rest of your body or from a squad mate?

On the other hand, maybe there should be separate fitness standards for combat and non-combat MOS. If women want to be in combat, tough shit, do your three pullups or gtfo.

Seananigans_sl said:

So you two are arguing that it's sexist to suggest women are more valuable than men

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the literal definition of sexism question mark?

Seananigans_sl said:

So you two are arguing that it's sexist to suggest women are more valuable than men, and act accordingly. Ok, keep fighting the good fight guys!

Click to expand...

Suggesting women are more valuable than men is absolutely sexism. You're discriminating against men on the basis of their gender. As Sebudai pointed out, that is the exact definition of sexism. You're also reducing women down to nothing more than their biological function as baby incubators. It doesn't fit neatly inside the definition of sexism or misogyny since you think this makes women more important to society, butyou're literally advocating for restricting their rights because they have a uterus.

Seananigans_sl said:

Also, combat duty isnot a fucking career.

Click to expand...

Yes, it absolutely is a career. Sorry that reality disagrees with you, but you can absolutely spend your entire time in the military from enlistment to retirement in the infantry.

Seananigans_sl said:

As such, all throughout time women had only seen combat out of dire necessity

Click to expand...

Vikings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could also pretty easily point out that due to differences in strength and body structure, women were less suited to primitive forms of combat where upper body strength was very directly relevant to your ability to function in battle, which could just as easily account for women not being used as soldiers. In the modern age of warfare, the difference in physical strength between a male and female body is much less relevant. Incidentally...

This is a hot topic in my family. I did 5 years in the Marine Corps (Intel with an infantry battalion). In March, My wife went to South Cali to screen for something in Navy Special Warfare. She's leaving on Sunday for 2 months for combat training and SERE. At this point, I can guess at the nature of her future job but we don't talk about it. She's easily top 1 percent for women in the Navy for physique and discipline. I was a little above-average in the USMC. There is absolutely no way she could have done what I did in Afghanistan for any extended period of time. Too much weight, too little time to repair.

Women in theater (Iran/AFG) are attrited at over 2x the rate of men due to "non-combat injuries". Pelvic stress fracture being the big culprit; an affliction almost non-existent in men.

The rate of injury for women isn't debatable at this point and no amount of hand-waving is going to change this -- last time my extended family was together my stance was: ("If the civilian overlords decide that full integration is worth paying for, then the military will find a way to make it happen. But it will be radically expensive.") If we throw women into the USMC Infantry, we'll be breaking down bodies left and right and paying for them in perpetuity. Not to mention all the other costs -- pregnancy in theater = immediate evacuation... rape/assault...

I don't think pregnancies would be a consideration. Not because lol lesbians, but because even in basic training many women will stop cycling. It's the same with professional female athletes. It's a little odd, but if a woman becomes too fit she becomes less fertile. Systemic stress, the body reacts. Now rape/assault I can see. Not necessarily from the goonsquad they're serving with either. Then again sexual assault is a danger that male soldiers face as well. Remember Abu-Graib.

But pelvic stress fracture. If they really do suffer that at an unacceptable rate then they really do. That's exactly the sort of thing that the service should have the exact data on and it isn't a political matter.

I would personally think that fitness is more relevant. But I might be wrong.

Psychological tolerance would be my big concern for troops. women may be cooler under pressure than men (I've heard that before, somewhere) I'm ok letting the weak pelvises get shot instead of me..I'm pretty sure I'd be a worthless mess in combat so even though I can carry more weight you may actually want the functional person.

Iannis_sl said:

I don't think pregnancies would be a consideration. Not because lol lesbians, but because even in basic training many women will stop cycling. It's the same with professional female athletes. It's a little odd, but if a woman becomes too fit she becomes less fertile. Systemic stress, the body reacts. Now rape/assault I can see. Not necessarily from the goonsquad they're serving with either. Then again sexual assault is a danger that male soldiers face as well. Remember Abu-Graib.

But pelvic stress fracture. If they really do suffer that at an unacceptable rate then they really do. That's exactly the sort of thing that the service should have the exact data on and it isn't a political matter.

I would personally think that fitness is more relevant. But I might be wrong.

Click to expand...

The service does indeed have the exact data, but it is a political matter in the sense that the political landscape may shape the nature of the military. After all, the military exists to further the country's goals. If one of those goals happens to be "ensuring all doors open to men are also open to women", then we'll have women trying to be SEALS and taxpayers paying for their poor judgement.

EDIT: Even if pregnancy is a relatively rare occurrence, it's still very expensive when it happens in theater. That unit suffers attrition not caused by the enemy because the woman needs to GTFO asap. I read somewhere, no idea how accurate this is, that it costs about a million dollars to send a man to Afghanistan (training costs, equipment, transport, logistics while deployed...). Anyway, deploying Marines is expensive and all non-combat losses are scrutinized. Women willneversuffer lower non-combat loss rates; the question is, do the civilian overlords want to pay to have them there anyway?

Yeah, true. It shouldn't be a political matter... parts is parts, facts is facts... but I suppose it is.

Cad_sl said:

Its a political matter because the higher ups and the public want it to be one way, but its the other way. So contrary data/opinions/reports are probably suppressed.

Click to expand...

Not to mention how its potentially career-ending for any man to speak out on this subject. And men makeup about 99 percent of those that actually know what they're fucking talking about when it comes to infantry warfare.