Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Let me remind you that female hygiene involves managing large quantities of blood.

Number Three is also about a lot more than just hygiene products.

That should definitely not be more important than the equipment one, and even that is a petty complaint. The military gear is not made for any person or even group of people, it's just made to be as generic as possible. So that it can be mass-produced cheaply.

1, You are confusing Cracked's populist "everything is a list" formula for a "sorted by worsitude breakdown list". It is not. Having read Cracked for a long time, they hardly ever make the numbering matter, and this is clearly the case here - they wanted to bring up things that are bad in the military and because of the way they write articles on Cracked it had to be made into a list.

2, "Petty complain", huh?

Again, as if she's complaining about comfort instead of about equipment making her less effective as a soldier

[Helgoland]

Since when are women allowed to serve in the military? These might just be adaption troubles - some stuff needs time.

[XXSockXX]

Roughly 25 years or so? Depending on the country. I think there were women in the US military in combat in the first Gulf War (90/91). Seems like enough time.

Still I'm always surprised how naive people in general are about what it means being in the military. No matter what recruiters tell you, don't people watch the news or movies?

Since Germany switched from conscription to recruitment 2 years ago, they are being extra nice to recruits in the first half year. Still 30% drop out after that time.

[lorb]

It is not even one year that woman are allowed in most combat roles in the US.
Source: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119098

[Graknorke]

That should definitely not be more important than the equipment one, and even that is a petty complaint. The military gear is not made for any person or even group of people, it's just made to be as generic as possible. So that it can be mass-produced cheaply.

2, "Petty complain", huh?

Again, as if she's complaining about comfort instead of about equipment making her less effective as a soldier

But that is not a woman-exclusive problem. It's not something that comes about through sexism, it's because of practicality. It is assumed that everybody will match one body-type, because most of them do. Everyone who doesn't has to deal with it.

[Ogdibus]

Most people are women, though.  Does that mean that society ignores the concerns of men out of practicality?

[Vector]

When you have a bimodal distribution, you don't just outfit one of the modes.  You outfit both.  Outfitting to only one is not "practical" at all.

Also, hey, I used to do martial arts.  Armor came in three sizes: small, medium, large.  The small is ill-fitting because I'm even smaller than that, but it's usable.  The large is not usable for me.  It is not usable as armor, because having that much clearance space makes it not function properly.  And I was only getting hit by sticks, while we're at it.

For example, women and men have different bicycle helmets made for them because their head sizes are so different, and having a much larger helmet than is made to possibly fit your head is a serious safety issue in event of a crash--you almost might as well not be wearing one at all.  I am sure you can extrapolate that to military helmets.

It is not a comfort problem.  Proper fitting of equipment to the average member of the other 50% of your army is a physical safety problem.

[Dutchling]

It is not a comfort problem.  Proper fitting of equipment to the average member of the other 50% of your army is a physical safety problem.

Is it really 50% though?
(not that I disagree with your point)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It is not a comfort problem.  Proper fitting of equipment to the average member of the other 50% of your army is a physical safety problem.

Is it really 50% though?
(not that I disagree with your point)

No.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Women Active Duty Military Statistics    Number    Percent of Branch
Total number of women serving in the military    214,098    14.6 %
Army    76,694    13.6 %
Marine Corps    13,677    6.8 %
Navy    53,385    16.4 %
Air Force    63,552    19.1 %
Coast Guard    6,790    15.7 %
Women Reserve Military Statistics    Number    Percent of Branch
Total number of women in the reserves    118,781    19.5 %
Total number of women in the National Guard    470,851    15.5 %
Female Military Statistics    
Total number of women veterans    1,853,690
Number of military women held as prisoners during the Civil War    1
Number of military women held as prisoners during World War II    90
Number of military women held as prisoners during Desert Storm    2
Number of military women held as prisoners during Operation Iraqi Freedom    3

[Vector]

It is not currently 50%.  Currently, it's 15.7% according to the US Army Webpage.

So, they're one standard deviation out at the moment.

I'm sorry--I made an incorrect argument, thinking about the recruiting pool (but I don't know how many people from each sex would actually be able to serve).  In any case, I think that 15% of 1,105,301 US Army personnel--165,795 people--is a big enough problem that you might want to outfit them with equipment which is functional, if not comfortable.

[Loud Whispers]

Most people are women, though.  Does that mean that society ignores the concerns of men out of practicality?

Yes?

If you're going to also be specific, this is the armed forces; practicality > most concerns, where most concerns do not infringe on practicality.

I'm sorry--I made an incorrect argument, thinking about the recruiting pool (but I don't know how many people from each sex would actually be able to serve).  In any case, I think that 15% of 1,105,301 US Army personnel--165,795 people--is a big enough problem that you might want to outfit them with equipment which is functional, if not comfortable.

Only matters if a sizeable portion of that is going to be in combat. Anyone know what are the stats for that?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm sorry, but are you actually arguing that functional and efficient equipment is only a priority for direct combatants? Because the rest of the military isn't just a clubhouse for Senator's kids. All of their jobs are more or less vital to eventually make the shooty-shooty part happen.

[Vector]

Furthermore, combat roles are where promotions up the chain of command happen.  I'm sure that you can see why the next investigation into why women aren't being promoted could turn ugly, if they're denied functional equipment.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm sorry, but are you actually arguing that functional and efficient equipment is only a priority for direct combatants?

Only? No. Priority? Yes. Seems obvious really, the people who face the most risk of dying need the most functional equipment before all else.

Because the rest of the military isn't just a clubhouse for Senator's kids.

Senators join the military? Is the US a literal Rome?

All of their jobs are more or less vital to eventually make the shooty-shooty part happen.

Spoiler: I was under the impression that the US armed forces were the largest and best equipped in the world. (click to show/hide)

Now, if you're talking about body armour - that shit is expensive. Tailoring it exclusively for women, is expensive.

The US armed forces of course have plenty of money to throw around, so there is no longer an issue of equipment either.

[Ogdibus]

That armor probably exists thanks to people like the ones in the article.