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

[weenog]

Putting mediocre troops that just meet the requirements is a recipe for getting your soldiers shot up.

If the standards set by the minimum requirements aren't good enough, raise the requirements, for everybody.  If they are good enough, why are they not good enough when it's a woman meeting them?

[Vector]

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.

But we are short on Type A Best-of-the-Best soldiers.  So we need some Type B Get-Er-Done soldiers.  Some of those happen to be women.  Why call them mediocre, just because they happen to have tits?


I'm going to add that that whole thing about women not being psychologically intimidating enough is, uh. . . it's interesting.

[Max White]

I'm going to add that that whole thing about women not being psychologically intimidating enough is, uh. . . it's interesting.

I find just about anybody looking to kill me intimidating.
Actually I can just imagine a camp of guys laughing at a female enemy, until she stabs one of them with a bayonet. Then they collapse in a fit of hysterics. I'm pretty sure it will be directed by Tarantino.

[tahujdt]

I'm going to add that that whole thing about women not being psychologically intimidating enough is, uh. . . it's interesting.

I find just about anybody looking to kill me intimidating.
Actually I can just imagine a camp of guys laughing at a female enemy, until she stabs one of them with a bayonet. Then they collapse in a fit of hysterics. I'm pretty sure it will be directed by Tarantino.

I just had that mental image.

Now I'm thinking of a scene from NCIS, where Ziva is at a Marine shooting range. She fires three shots, then mentions to the commanding officer how his scope is off. He makes some sexist comment, then the target comes up and he sees three head shots.

[Toady One]

I cleaned up a mess of internet gibberish.  I was also called in here about some kerfuffle over misquoting and possible trolling and so on.  People should try to be okay, instead of going out of their way to make things worse for other people.

[Max White]

Thank you for that Toady.
Now, I believe we were onto something about women and peek oil?

[pisskop]

I find just about anybody looking to kill me intimidating.
Actually I can just imagine a camp of guys laughing at a female enemy, until she stabs one of them with a bayonet. Then they collapse in a fit of hysterics. I'm pretty sure it will be directed by Tarantino.

Close combat training.  One of the exercises was confronting an attractive female monkeying with some fuses.  She starts flirting with you and *wham*  you dead, got a knife in your throat.

[Knight of Fools]

Intimidation isn't everything. My mom was an actor in one of those role play military training camps (Yes, my mom got paid to LARP), and she had some pretty fun experiences. In particular, she once approached an Army camp and was telling everyone she lost her wallet. The soldiers at the gate weren't sure what to do, so they brought her to their sergeant. The sergeant wasn't sure what to do, so he brought her to his colonel. The colonel wasn't sure what to do, so he brought her to the general.

She stepped into the general's tent, opens the coat that no one bothered searching, and says, "Boom, you're all dead."

Yeah, it was awesome. My mom is the best pretend suicide bomber, and had the best job ever.

I'm guessing that if a woman had been on post instead of just men, she wouldn't have had any qualms about turning my mom away.


Not only that, you'll be hard pressed to tell whether or not the person shooting at you is a woman or not in most combat situations.

[Solifuge]

Spoiler: The problem with the conclusion that Men are inherently stronger than Women (click to show/hide)

Through my study of Biology, I've long wondered about how accurate the claim that Women are innately weaker or less fit than Men was. It seemed more likely that it was a cultural consequence of most Women being discouraged from physically active and dangerous jobs, thus very few reaching their peak potential, while men are encouraged to pursue these activities and fields, and more commonly reach their peak potential.

To me, this seems a much more likely explanation than some inherent, genetic predisposition toward relative weakness; Men and Women have not been subject to the same developmental conditions, so we can't conduct testing that would yield an accurate comparison between them. We'd first need a population of Men and Women to be born, raised, and treated identically for their developmental lives. This isn't really possible in the world of the present, where these cultural biases still exist.

Spoiler: Men are not only genetically weaker and more prone to illness than Women are, but are less capable of making rational judgements about their situation and capabilities (click to show/hide)

From an interview with German Professor Frank Sommer: Linko

1) He states that many "Men vs. Women" health tests are pharmaceutical tests, which bar women of childbearing age from participating to prevent damage to potential children. This means Males are being measured against Preteen Girls and older Women, and exclude Women at the peak of their fitness.

2) He cites how men, culturally, don't like their strength/capability/fitness called into question, because this is seen as demasculinizing. It's the reason men in general don't visit the doctor for health problems, are discouraged from worrying about their weight/appearance, and that whole cliche where "Real Men don't stop and ask for directions," etc.

3) Lacking cultural disincentive to monitor and maintain their health, health conditions in women are primarily prevented, whereas men treat conditions after they've been exacerbated. This leaves Women in general healthier and more fit than the average man.

4) XY chromosomes are genetically "weaker" than XX chromosomes, which can lead to a higher incidence of men manifesting genetic problems than Women. BONUS BIO-FACTS: The Y chromosome originated as a mutated and damaged form of the X chromosome, and they are still more prone to further damage. Similarly, the "Female" phenotype is actually the baseline that humans default to, when hormones are not introduced; "Female" is the template which the "Male" phenotype is an altered, and limited/reduced form of.

However, even if Women have a genetic potential to be as strong, and have higher degrees of toughness and clearer judgement in crisis situations than Men, you could make a legitimate argument that this was irrelevant; so long as most cultures dissuade girls from striving for Physical Strength as they grow into adults, fewer women will make for top-tier soldiers. But that said, here's where this argument comes in:

But we are short on Type A Best-of-the-Best soldiers.  So we need some Type B Get-Er-Done soldiers.  Some of those happen to be women.

Any profession could use more "Best Of The Best" people. Regarding jobs that require physical strength, most of those Best of the Best types living today are men. However, the majority of people both male and female occupy the middle ground, and would make for "Type B" soldiers at best. Take a look at this chart of raw human strength, measured by each individuals' sex and age: (Source)


(Click to Embiggen)

When looking at the physical strength of people from the A and B trials, there is a larger sample size of Strong Men than there are of Strong Women, and a smaller sample size of Weak Men than of Weak Women. However, take a look at the area between the lines measuring the average strength of Men and Women. These are your "Type B" soldiers; not as strong as the strongest people in the world, but not weak either. You may notice that they're made up of roughly equal parts Men and Women, especially toward the 20-40 years range where most soldiering is done.

The jury on whether Men are genetically disposed to being stronger than Women is still out, because the world-as-it-exists prevents us from conducting that research without a heavy bias in favor of Men. Until cultural ideas change, existing Women by and large will not seek to be, and thus will not become, as strong as existing Men. However, among humans of average strength, we find equal parts Men and Women, with no heavy leaning toward either.

If we based our Military Entrance Exams on this Human Average, rather than on a separate Male Average and Female Average, I think we'd end up with a lot more capable soldiers on the ground (both male and female), as well as fewer people with false conceptions about the capabilities of women.

[Knight of Fools]

Looking at that graph, there's a 65 year old woman on graph B that's above and beyond even most of the above average men, coming out stronger than nearly every single man in graph A at just under 300 Nm of Torque. I find that hilarious and awesome.

It's pretty hard to read with all of the large manly black dots covering up all the womanly small white squares, though.

[Max White]

I thought this one was pretty much understood. Humans are sexually dimorphic, and greater strength is more prevalent in males. We know this because we understand the chemistry of it. I mean it is one thing to look at these graphs and look for easons for this outcome such at biology or cultural factors, but we are actually capable of understanding, to some degree, the human metabolism and know how it all works.
Although you don't really have to, just look at all of our closest relatives. Are we going to say that in great apes the males tend to be stronger because they are all sexist?

The thing that you have to remember is that:
1. A general statistical trend does not mean a rule. There are plenty of very physically strong women out there.
2. To be equal, you do not have to be the same. If the strongest woman on earth was weaker than the weakest man, that still doesn't make women less deserving of equal rights.

[freeformschooler]

Looking at that graph, there's a 65 year old woman on graph B that's above and beyond even most of the above average men, coming out stronger than nearly every single man in graph A at just under 300 Nm of Torque. I find that hilarious and awesome.

It's pretty hard to read with all of the large manly black dots covering up all the womanly small white squares, though.

Somewhere, a small boy is telling a large fifth grader that his grandma could kick everyone's ass.

The fifth grader laughs, but the small boy knows.

[Truean]

From experience, there is a reason the military invented and constantly used the acronyms FUBAR and SNAFU and will forever. This is the military we're talking about here. The motto is and has always been, "If it makes sense, we won't do it."

If it can be screwed up, a way to screw it up will be found and if need be invented, if at all possible while betting on something.

Now, as I recall, most were trying to get out of this situation: Exhibit A:



Then of course there's the crappy pay: Exhibit B:


Now, that said the only real problem is going to be troop discipline. Granted most of the time, that's faked enough so the officers leave everybody else alone stop screaming quite so much, but meh.

But if you really want in on that crap, you go right ahead. Don't say you weren't warned.

[Neonivek]

If the strongest woman on earth was weaker than the weakest man, that still doesn't make women less deserving of equal rights

The question ultimately what is the military bar based off of?

I know the Ambulance physical test AND Firefighter physical test is on actually being able to lift and carry people over a distance. As in their physical fitness requirements can be measured and calculated in quantifiable terms.

My personal assumption is that the Military test is based off of being generally fit and their bar is based off of averages.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Personally, I'd put shooting straight over physical fitness, though they are both important.