Print

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

[Criptfeind]

A generation is 20 years about right? I think it is very doable in 60 years.

[Bauglir]

Actually, the decreased muscle and bone mass is a huge problem. Also women, due to the higher amounts of estrogen would me more emotional, not less.

Except in the women where it's not a problem. They exist, why shouldn't they serve? Estrogen, incidentally, isn't some sort of magic emotion-hormone. Testosterone affects emotions too, as do dozens of others, and the levels vary from person to person. You don't really get emotional problems unless you have them off-balance.

[Neonivek]

I'd be a bit surprised if it didn't happen AT LEAST within the next two generations.

Anymore then that and I'd go "What the heck Military!?!"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, the decreased muscle and bone mass is a huge problem. Also women, due to the higher amounts of estrogen would me more emotional, not less.

Except in the women where it's not a problem. They exist, why shouldn't they serve? Estrogen, incidentally, isn't some sort of magic emotion-hormone. Testosterone affects emotions too, as do dozens of others, and the levels vary from person to person. You don't really get emotional problems unless you have them off-balance.

Although, Estrogen is fairly bad to have off balance compared to other hormones, because excessive amounts of it cause outright dementia.

In any case, plenty of nations have already introduced women into their armed forces in totality without serious issue, and there's no reason why those that have not shouldn't start immediately.

[Strife26]

Societal differences, active war time environment, leading to the problems that I listed earlier.

Women can already do every job in the army, except combat arms, which is a pretty small minority, in my little private first class opinion.

[Bauglir]

Actually, the decreased muscle and bone mass is a huge problem. Also women, due to the higher amounts of estrogen would me more emotional, not less.

Except in the women where it's not a problem. They exist, why shouldn't they serve? Estrogen, incidentally, isn't some sort of magic emotion-hormone. Testosterone affects emotions too, as do dozens of others, and the levels vary from person to person. You don't really get emotional problems unless you have them off-balance.

Although, Estrogen is fairly bad to have off balance compared to other hormones, because excessive amounts of it cause outright dementia.

True, if I recall correctly, but I just object to people simplifying stuff like this down to "Oh, estrogen correlates with emotionality", which is what it sounded like. BRAIN CHEMISTRY IS COMPLEX

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

I'd be a bit surprised if it didn't happen AT LEAST within the next two generations.

Anymore then that and I'd go "What the heck Military!?!"

Well, in defense of the military, they are extremely conservative.  If it currently works, dont screw with it until it doesnt, just incase what you screw with breaks it.  Thats the military mindset so many people seem have a problem with.  But its not personal or sexist or immoral or racist, etc, its just that military screw ups tend to be rather, well, fatal and no one wants to be left holding the "good intentions" bag when their units get wiped out.

As far as timeline, considering how long it took african americans to be assimilated into regualr units, I would say 3 generations is about right.


As far as logistics, most modern militaries allready has women serving side by side with men.  Combat troops make up a small part of the whole miltary apparatus.  Combat support is huge.  There have been logistics for women in place for decades now that are just standard part and parcel of life in the military.  I dont think moving women into combat roles will effect logictics much at all.

Now we must devise a way of determining which men and women would serve with honor and respect for one another, and which would end up doing crap like those officers. And it must include magma.

Its called the UCMJ

[Strife26]

Believe me, on patrol bases, it's a big deal to have to deal with specific female shower times and tents.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Believe me, on patrol bases, it's a big deal to have to deal with specific female shower times and tents.

I dealth with those issues 20 years ago in the military.  Whats changed?

[Farmerbob]

The simple fact is that there's no real reason to prevent women from from being front line soldiers.  On average, women are smaller, and have less muscle mass.  However, on average they are also cooler under stress.

If a woman can perform the tasks that need to be performed in order to qualify for front line infantry duty, let them.

If the military brass think that witholding women front line soldiers from certain theatres might be appropriate, then let them.

Putting a woman infantry soldier with a rifle in charge of a blockade checkpoint in a middle eastern country is just begging for dead male middle eastern drivers.  While this might be best for the gene pool in the long term, it won't do us any good in the short term.

Actually, the decreased muscle and bone mass is a huge problem. Also women, due to the higher amounts of estrogen would me more emotional, not less.

If the women can meet the physical requirements, then the muscle and bone mass issue is not a problem, obviously.

As for estrogen levels.  I'm sorry but comparing testosterone to estrogen in modern combat where people are shooting at each other with guns is absurd.  Testosterone is more dangerous because it makes men stupidly aggressive if not controlled.  Estrogen doesn't have the effect of making men act like a gorilla when the adrenaline hits.

Given the same level of training, there's absolutely no reason why female soldiers would not be at least as effective as male soldiers.  On the whole they would likely tend to be more cerebral in their tactics, which is just fine considering that most combat these days is performed at range with guns, not up close with clubs.

[Nilocy]

Huh, seems scifi writers were right all along; women make better pilots than men : D

On to infantry, the biggest problem isn't women, its men reacting to women.

[Mechanoid]

On to infantry, the biggest problem isn't women, its men reacting to women.

Exactly this in every "problematic situation" with placing non-white /non-male /non-hetero /foreigner (and probably other descriptors... just wait for "non-humans" to apply. you'll see) persons into the military. This entire situation summed up:
Two students are taking an exam test in a classroom.
The teacher sees the first student looking at the second student's exam, obviously cheating.
The teacher throws out the second student to stop the first student from cheating on a test.

The example displays incompetence of not only the student who is obviously cheating on a test and who should be failed for not only cheating but also for their ignorance, but also the incompetence of the teacher for being unable to punish the first student for cheating and the punishment of the second student for doing absolutely nothing incorrectly; except of course being the target of TWO people's both personal and professional failures.

[Heron TSG]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The military isn't as strong as it should be in general. Men need to lift weights much more and women can't lift weights near as successfully as men. Being able to run far distances isn't fitness.

Are you saying that because I can only bench press 60 pounds, I am unfit? Because I have and will again run upwards of 20 miles at a stretch. I know at least one woman that has as well. Can you do that? How about running fast? Can you run a quarter of a mile in less than a minute? Because I can do that. I know of at least one woman that has done that. This isn't a large sample, either.

There are outliers for women just as there are for men. There are some women that are strong enough to carry a 100 pound pack wherever they want. There are some men (such as myself) that would die trying.

Well Barbarossa, combat effective isn't just bench press, speed, or flexibility, its a combination of all of those plus more.  Its not designed to make anyone feel bad in anyway, conversely, its the most honest.  Its simple the result of studying what makes effective soldiers after 5000+ years of combat history to draw from.  Like I said before, what the job takes to succeed is what the job takes to succeed.  Military enemies tend to be very unforgiving in combat.

I don't think you got my point. My point is that there are women that are qualified to do anything that the average man can do. We outright require that all men sign up for the draft, and not all of us are half as qualified as some women. I see no downsides to allowing women to join the infantry on both the equality and practicality sides to this. If they're good enough, let them.

[Criptfeind]

We outright require that all men sign up for the draft

Oh snap, I knew I forgot something. I better get to Candia well the getting is good.

[Mindmaker]

*sigh*
Another discussion I missed, due to being in an european timezone.
Posting to watch, I guess.