Print

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

Yes

10 (76.9%)

No

3 (23.1%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Solifuge]

These days, to be a capable soldier means being able to lug around hundreds of pounds of equipment in a backpack while running, something very few women are capable of doing (and even those who are able would tend towards getting some form of muscle damage in the long run). Seeing as how many people in the DoD would put the PR of "Women are in the military, look how egalitarian we are!" over actually having an efficient system, the long term result of this is a bunch of underqualified women who can't realistically pull their own weight being let in.

To briefly touch on the subject of ladies carrying heavy equipment over rough terrain, for days at a time...



My friend on the front-left works a desk-job, does yoga but isn't really fit, and has been carrying 60lbs of water, food, and gear on her back, over hills, across rivers, and up boulder-slides spilling over cliffs for 1.5 days at this point. She's been outpacing me, keeping up with the veterans, and has been our go-to person for running ahead to scout terrain for our navigators.

Spoiler: The terrain (and gear) in question looks like this: (click to show/hide)

So yeah. If sedentary civilian ladies can do this and barely break a sweat, I don't think it's a real issue for ladies in the military.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

Aren't we already past peak oil? Didn't that already happen?

In the 70's. Now we are enjoying the effects, and if we know anything about a bell curve, it get's pretty steep pretty quick.

[weenog]

Oh, yeah, I suppose dying of abject failure would be pretty horrifying.

I figure even if there is an afterlife, you make the journey from here to there alone.  No point having a bunch of people waving from the docks that can't come with you.  Besides, dying is a pretty awkward and nasty thing to do.  Dramatic movies tend to gloss over the part where your bowels and bladder let go, or sometimes your body keeps running on autopilot for a while and you're basically a breathing corpse for a few hours until something disturbs your body and it stops.  I'd rather do that alone than with an audience.

[Andrew425]

These days, to be a capable soldier means being able to lug around hundreds of pounds of equipment in a backpack while running, something very few women are capable of doing (and even those who are able would tend towards getting some form of muscle damage in the long run). Seeing as how many people in the DoD would put the PR of "Women are in the military, look how egalitarian we are!" over actually having an efficient system, the long term result of this is a bunch of underqualified women who can't realistically pull their own weight being let in.

To briefly touch on the subject of ladies carrying heavy equipment over rough terrain, for days at a time...



My friend on the front-left works a desk-job, does yoga but isn't really fit, and has been carrying 60lbs of water, food, and gear on her back, over hills, across rivers, and up boulder-slides spilling over cliffs for 1.5 days at this point. She's been outpacing me, keeping up with the veterans, and has been our go-to person for running ahead to scout terrain for our navigators.

Spoiler: The terrain (and gear) in question looks like this: (click to show/hide)

So yeah. If sedentary civilian ladies can do this and barely break a sweat, I don't think it's a real issue for ladies in the military.

That's all well and good, except the problem isn't if someone can carry their own weight and gear, it's if their fellow soldier gets shot and they have to carry him as well. If your buddy is 200 pounds before his gear, and then has 60 pounds on top of that does he feel comfortable that the person dragging him out of combat weighs half as much as him?

I think that the requirements for women should be as tough as men, and I'm still not sold on the idea of them as combat troops.

[pisskop]

Yea thanks guys for sparking a debate in the Oasis.  Half of us support it and half of us are saying ehhh, perhaps.  Its not all women on the support side either

[Solifuge]

That's all well and good, except the problem isn't if someone can carry their own weight and gear, it's if their fellow soldier gets shot and they have to carry him as well. If your buddy is 200 pounds before his gear, and then has 60 pounds on top of that does he feel comfortable that the person dragging him out of combat weighs half as much as him?

I think that the requirements for women should be as tough as men, and I'm still not sold on the idea of them as combat troops.

Andrew, I'm not debating that standards should or would have to be different for women than for men at all. Also, the group was composed of 2 ladies and 5 guys, and not one among us had the raw strength needed to carry another person out of that gorge. If we were militarily fit it'd be a different story, but we were all civvies. (Also though I've never asked her weight, I'm pretty sure she weighs more than I do, and has a similarly dense build)

The point of interest, in my mind, is that all of us were only moderately physically active, were walking the same terrain with the same amount of weight on our backs. Yet, all other things being equal, she was easily the most resilient and steadily energetic one among us.

Yea thanks guys for sparking a debate in the Oasis.  Half of us support it and half of us are saying ehhh, perhaps.  Its not all women on the support side either

I'd be interested to hear what people are arguing, out your way.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Aren't we already past peak oil? Didn't that already happen?

Maybe. It depends upon whom you ask, whom you trust, and what kinds of oil you are counting. With just conventional, yes, we're well past global peak oil and did so sometime between 1990 and 2010. With unconventional oils we might be past peak, having hit it in 2005, or we might be just before it. If you count absolutely everything, including the net loss oils and inaccessible oils, we're still well before it.

In the 70's. Now we are enjoying the effects, and if we know anything about a bell curve, it get's pretty steep pretty quick.

That was just the US peak oil.

[pisskop]

I'd be interested to hear what people are arguing, out your way.

Cons:

-Women are too weak.
-They cant carry/drag a wounded soldier.
-They shouldn't be in tanks/other confined spaces or on the front-frontlines.
-Even with power-armour, which is too expensive to be practical/we don't really have that yet, women would be inferior to men in terms of strength.
-as a female I think women should stay at home for the good of our society.
-mentally women are as of yet untested for the rigors of specialized situations, and its known that even hardened vets will eventually break down in a warzone.


But all support increased female presence.

On the pro-side:

Our army is really just an occupation force anyhow
Equal means equal, and that means half woman armies.
Equal means equal, and that means the same (lowered) standard for everyone.
"                                                                 " unaltered standard for all.
Our society is always going to change towards equality, and nothing will stop it
The advance of technology propels us towards equality, and combat danger is lessened.

et certra.  But now people have left me and some guy alone

[Max White]

-Women are too weak.
-They cant carry/drag a wounded soldier.
-They shouldn't be in tanks/other confined spaces or on the front-frontlines.
-Even with power-armour, which is too expensive to be practical/we don't really have that yet, women would be inferior to men in terms of strength.
-as a female I think women should stay at home for the good of our society.
-mentally women are as of yet untested for the rigors of specialized situations, and its known that even hardened vets will eventually break down in a warzone.

As far as anything questioning a womens physical preformance, this is a null point. We have fitness tests, so if they aren't fit enough, they don't get in. As long as we hold these tests to a high standard, any women in the military would be able to drag a wounded soldier. Women in general aren't as strong as men, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't accept those that have proven themselves.

"As a woman" Basically means "I am going to appeal to authority here because I know my subjective opinion is one of many, but I still want everybody to agree with me unquestionably!"

If even the hardest veteran will break down eventually, why does that disqualify women? On that basis nobody should be allowed in the military.

[Andrew425]

There is also the point of view that the army isn't some fantasy fair land.

It's a place were people kill each other. You want the best there so the most of your side lives. Putting mediocre troops that just meet the requirements is a recipe for getting your soldiers shot up. In the army you always want to have the most advantages, the best troops, equipment, planning, approach and luck. If you reduce one even a little bit you increase the odds of something going wrong.

I think this linkhttp://www.michaelyon-online.com/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat.htm might help explain a few things. (Although i'm not sure I believe in everything he lays out)

[Vector]

Let me put it this way.

Suppose we have two kinds of soldiers in the military: Type A and Type B.  A is better than B, but we don't have enough of A to fill out the ranks.  Men can be A or B, but women are only B, and it's not usual that you'd have a progression from B to A for anyone.

Why shouldn't we take in both men and women who qualify for B?  You're not actually weakening your troops.  They satisfy the same physical standards, so there's no reason to leave them out.

There is also the point of view that the army isn't some fantasy fair land.

I don't think anyone in this topic is enough of a moron to think that women want into the military so they can sit around doing their nails.

[Max White]

There is also the point of view that the army isn't some fantasy fair land.

It's a place were people kill each other. You want the best there so the most of your side lives. Putting mediocre troops that just meet the requirements is a recipe for getting your soldiers shot up. In the army you always want to have the most advantages, the best troops, equipment, planning, approach and luck. If you reduce one even a little bit you increase the odds of something going wrong.

I think this linkhttp://www.michaelyon-online.com/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat.htm might help explain a few things. (Although i'm not sure I believe in everything he lays out)

So when a guy meets the minimum requirements, it is fine, but when a woman meets the minimum she is a 'mediocre troop' who is 'a recipe for getting your soldiers shot up'?
The minimum standards are what is required for a troop to preform well in combat situation and not be a hindrance. If a woman can preform to this standard, she won't be a hindrance.

Further more, you need to give females a bit of fucking credit. They know it isn't some 'fantasy fair land', they know war is full of blood and swear and so much worse. Why is it that if a woman wants to enlist, it is assumed she doesn't understand the scope of her choice, at least less than when a man does?

[Neonivek]

I don't think anyone in this topic is enough of a moron to think that women want into the military so they can sit around doing their nails.

Yeah! That is the navy!

[misko27]

The problem is Peak oil underestimated the effects of attempts to change (Which, it should be noted, are in fact considerable), as well as un-realized reserves and new technology (tar sands, et cetera) Plus Natural Gas boom.

Suppose we have two kinds of soldiers in the military: Type A and Type B.  A is better than B, but we don't have enough of A to fill out the ranks.  Men can be A or B, but women are only B, and it's not usual that you'd have a progression from B to A for anyone.

]The problem with this is the Whole Professional Military thing. Remember the lack of a draft means we get to pick and choose, and there are a lot of people out there willing to die for there country. We aren't short on soldiers per se.


Which incidentally is good, as I'm actually a flat-foot.

[Flying Dice]

I... uh, actually, I think Max said everything that really needs to be said on the first page (at least in terms of the core topic). The same tests for all trainees, everyone who is passed is treated in the same way. Gender is irrelevant, what matters is ability.

And I said that the test is based upon being male. Gender is relevant.

Except what I said may not be true since from what I can gather there could be separate tests... and the general aptitude and necessity and source of the test are still unknowns.

What are you talking about? The tests are (and should be) based around the minimum standards necessary for a soldier. Unless you inherently identify "soldier" with "male", it isn't. What was said, and what I'm saying, is that there shouldn't be any sort of double standard, regardless of the reason. Everyone who is tested should be tested for the basic necessary level of ability.

Almost all of the arguments for keeping women out of military service/frontline combat don't apply to women, they apply to people. Unless someone wants to suggest that it's acceptable for men to go through traumatic events because they're men. Also, re: the "But women are naturally weaker!" bit: this reeks of advocacy of the natural gender role bullshit that has been used to keep various other jobs gender-exclusive, and is even less plausible for a group of people who have been through intensive training. The only point where physical build might be relevant is in terms of extremely short, slender people, in which case it is once again not a matter of gender, but one of people.