All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Pentagon Says

SheWolf · Dec 6, 2015

braindrain said:
And what of those servicemen that are going to be at greater risk due to the loss of combat effectiveness that will result from this. Guess that does not matter as long as we don't hurt anybody's feeling are we pursue some folks ideas of what's fair. Been to war 4 seperate times and it never seemed all that fair to me.

And what of the men "at the bottom of the bell curve." If everybody is passing the same same requirements, then the men at the bottom of the bell curve are also going impair combat readiness, right? The only difference is they have dicks.

The argument isn't about anything other than not wanting women in combat, otherwise, you could just propose raising the bar and skewing the entire bell curve (as Cpwill calls it).

Henrin · Dec 6, 2015

Cardinal said:
I can't counter his study because he hasn't provided it yet.

Ok, but do you have anything to support your case? We have actually been going around this train car for decades and your side isn't exactly known for having anything to support their case.

cpwill · Dec 6, 2015

Cardinal said:
I assume you're referring to a study?

SheWolf actually quoted the post where I laid some out on the physical side of the house.

Riveroaks · Dec 6, 2015

Henrin said:
So basically you're calling for units that are designed to under perform.

Your syllogism is fraught with ass-u-me-ptions.

You should try spelling them all out and then you can see where the problems are.

A sound syllogism goes like this:

"All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore Socrates is mortal."

Henrin · Dec 6, 2015

Riveroaks said:
Your syllogism is fraught with ass-u-me-ptions.

You should try spelling them all out and then you can see where the problems are.

A sound syllogism goes like this:

"All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore Socrates is mortal."

You support all female units, but that is just filling an entire unit with people on the bottom of the bell curve. That might solve some issues with mix units, but it isn't an acceptable solution.

cpwill · Dec 6, 2015

SheWolf said:
And what of the men "at the bottom of the bell curve."

They are on a bell curve that remains a bell curve. Yes, they reduce the average. Injecting women, however, reduce the average further because you don't get the same bell curve -you get a clustering at the bottom, just over the minimum requirements.

If everybody is passing the same same requirements, then the men at the bottom of the bell curve are also going impair combat readiness, right?

If you had a unit that was overrepresented by them, absolutely. Infantry combat is exhausting and strains even the toughest of men. That's why infantry units emphasize physical fitness so much. The problem being, the more the infantry pounds on strength and endurance training, the more they are going to break their females. So now you are in a Catch-22. Do you want to deploy physically weaker? Or more heavily undermanned? Either way, your combat effectiveness is reduced, and you are going to take more casualties as a result.

The argument isn't about anything other than not wanting women in combat, otherwise, you could just propose raising the bar and skewing the entire bell curve (as Cpwill calls it).

Like I said, I've actually served with females and know first-hand what they can do. I've served in both the all-male and the mixed-gender units, and I've seen the difference.

I've just also served in the infantry, and I know what it entails.

Riveroaks · Dec 6, 2015

Henrin said:
You support all female units, but that is just filling an entire unit with people on the bottom of the bell curve. That might solve some issues with mix units, but isn't an acceptable solution

I do support having all female squads, platoons, and companies.

This protects the babes from the boyz and also means they don't need to drag boyz back who are wounded.

Correct.

Now what else are you pasting onto it then ??

cpwill · Dec 6, 2015

Henrin said:
You support all female units, but that is just filling an entire unit with people on the bottom of the bell curve. That might solve some issues with mix units, but it isn't an acceptable solution.

You could use them similarly to how Israel uses theirs. Honestly, if we wanted to have an all-female Bn that we sourced Lioness teams and the like from, that would probably work well.

braindrain · Dec 6, 2015

SheWolf said:
And what of the men "at the bottom of the bell curve." If everybody is passing the same same requirements, then the men at the bottom of the bell curve are also going impair combat readiness, right? The only difference is they have dicks.

The argument isn't about anything other than not wanting women in combat, otherwise, you could just propose raising the bar and skewing the entire bell curve (as Cpwill calls it).

And has already been pointed out several times those men at the bottom of the curve are not at risk of injury at the same rate as women, are not at risk of pregnancy, the will not cause a loss of unit cohesion as women will do and they will not require special treatment the same as women will. So no them having dicks is not the only difference.

The fact that you think physical performance is the only reason some are unhappy about this proves you are not paying attention.

SheWolf · Dec 6, 2015

cpwill said:
My point is that integrating females into infantry units reduces combat effectiveness resulting in higher casualties, concentrated in the females (from injury), but including the males, who now face an enemy with a relative advantage.

If we make this change, we are saying that we are willing to have 19 year old males die so that 19 year old females can self-actualize by serving in the infantry. If that's what the people want, that's what they're going to get, but we should make the choice honestly, and with open eyes.

Unlike you, I have actually served with females in war zones. I have seen fantastic female Marines and I have seen crappy female Marines, just as I have seen fantastic and crappy male Marines. I have fought for female Marines to get meritoriously promoted, put them in positions of high-profile responsibility, and helped them where appropriate to break barriers (for example, I played a small role in helping one of the Female Marines I had served with become the first of her job field in a particular Special Operations role). No one is saying they don't belong in a war zone (war zones are things like "Afghanistan" and "Iraq"), we need females in warzones. I am saying that integrating them into the infantry degrades the combat effectiveness of the infantry, resulting in increased casualties and reduced ability to overcome the enemy.

:shrug: no one is saying they can't serve.

Not in the infantry it isn't - you are depending on that individual next to in front of and behind you. War isn't an individual effort - it's a team sport.

Imagine, for example, being on a football team, and suddenly two of your offensive linemen have to leave the field, but you can't replace them. Now imagine, that the loser of this football game gets shot. Combat is more like that than your job. Losing teammates to injury reduces the combat power you can bring to bear against the injury as much as losing them to enemy action does, and doing so increases the chances of follow-on casualties.

It just sounds like you want to change the entry requirements. You're making this into a statistical argument based on how much an individual solider may actually get hurt and deal with physical pain.

Cp it doesn't matter what you have seen, and what you think. You think women make better housewives than anything else and are better equipped at parenting than men are, but it's not the government's job to play babysitter and distrust women with the decision of serving in the military and in a combat role or not.

braindrain · Dec 6, 2015

SheWolf said:
It just sounds like you want to change the entry requirements. You're making this into a statistical argument based on how much an individual solider may actually get hurt and deal with physical pain.

Cp it doesn't matter what you have seen, and what you think. You think women make better housewives than anything else and are better equipped at parenting than men are, but it's not the government's job to play babysitter and distrust women with the decision of serving in the military and in a combat role or not.

When you have to make up things that no one is saying instead of countering their points it's rather obvious you have a pretty weak argument.

SheWolf · Dec 6, 2015

braindrain said:
When you have to make up things that no one is saying instead of countering their points it's rather obvious you have a pretty weak argument.

He has said those things. I can provide quotes.

Henrin · Dec 6, 2015

SheWolf said:
It just sounds like you want to change the entry requirements. You're making this into a statistical argument based on how much an individual solider may actually get hurt and deal with physical pain.

Cp it doesn't matter what you have seen, and what you think. You think women make better housewives than anything else and are better equipped at parenting than men are, but it's not the government's job to play babysitter and distrust women with the decision of serving in the military and in a combat role or not.

If the government doesn't concern itself over the safety of the unit and individual solders than they have failed military personnel, the military personnel families, and the citizens of the country. Saying women are to great of a risk to the unit when the data they collected supports it is in fact doing their job.

cpwill · Dec 6, 2015

SheWolf said:
It just sounds like you want to change the entry requirements

I think those could be looked at - we let in some weak men who didn't belong there (though very few).

Realistically, however, it's a numbers game. 1/3 Bn needs 85 Riflemen, 18 Machinegunners, and 12 Mortarmen, so that's what SOI is going to make sure they graduate. Infantry Officers Course (in the Marine Corps, at least) is a real winnowing tool - the School of Infantry is not. That's probably because of how we shape the force with regards to depending on one-termers v careerists. But generally, with the drawdown, we can be more selective.

You're making this into a statistical argument based on how much an individual solider may actually get hurt and deal with physical pain.

Well, yeah - that plays a large role. If females get broken at the cyclic rate, that's going to seriously degrade any infantry company or battalion that has to integrate them. The football example from earlier is apt here - you don't get to magically replace teammates - what you have is generally what you deploy with. If you lose your running back and a lineman from your offense string, you just aren't going to have a running back and lineman - or else you're going to have to strip another position to staff those two.

Cp it doesn't matter what you have seen, and what you think. You think women make better housewives than anything else

Now you are projecting. I have never argued that women are better at being housewives than anything else.

and are better equipped at parenting than men are

I have said that generally women are better at caring for small children because they are. For a single example, men can't lactate, and formula is an imperfect replacement for breast milk. This, however, has zero impact whatsoever on a discussion of how we want to man, train, equip, and deploy our combat infantry.

but it's not the government's job to play babysitter and distrust women with the decision of serving in the military and in a combat role or not.

....are you even reading the posts you are responding to? No one has stated (certainly I haven't) that we shouldn't have women serve in the military or even in a combat role.

SheWolf · Dec 6, 2015

Henrin said:
If the government doesn't concern itself over the safety of the unit and individual solders than they have failed military personnel, the military personnel families, and the citizens of the country. Saying women are to great of a risk to the unit when the data they collected supports it is in fact doing their job.

Then the government has a a long record of failing it's military personnel.

Henrin · Dec 6, 2015

SheWolf said:
Then the government has a a long record of failing it's military personnel.

The government has a long history of failing the citizens period, but that doesn't mean we should support policies that will only further that.

Oh and yes, I'm aware of what you're getting at. Being in the miltary is in fact inherently dangerous and as should be obvious to everyone there is no reason to increase it needlessly.

Henrin · Dec 6, 2015

SheWolf said:
are better equipped at parenting than men are..

Which is supported by biology, statistics and history.

SheWolf · Dec 6, 2015

cpwill said:
Now you are projecting. I have never argued that women are better at being housewives than anything else.

I have said that generally women are better at caring for small children because they are. For a single example, men can't lactate, and formula is an imperfect replacement for breast milk. This, however, has zero impact whatsoever on a discussion of how we want to man, train, equip, and deploy our combat infantry.

Your attitudes towards women has everything to do with this discussion. You have a tendency to believe women play the most well suited role in terms of running a household and make better parents than men. Your attitude on any discussion involving gender is that men and women are unequal. If you said women and men were equal in a war zone, I would be shocked. In classic fashion, you're making a multitude of arguments about women being "less ready" and more likely to get an injury, whilst failing to argue to raise the bar on all soldiers. I don't know about every poster taking your side in this discussion, but I do know that in your case, the central issue is your attitude towards women.

cpwill · Dec 6, 2015

SheWolf said:
Your attitudes towards women has everything to do with this discussion. You have a tendency to believe women play the most well suited role in terms of running a household and make better parents than men. Your attitude on any discussion involving gender is that men and women are unequal. If you said women and men were equal in a war zone, I would be shocked. In classic fashion, you're making a multitude of arguments about women being "less ready" and more likely to get an injury, whilst failing to argue to raise the bar on all soldiers. I don't know about every poster taking your side in this discussion, but I do know that in your case, the central issue is your attitude towards women.

....

....

....

What part of

cpwill said:
Unlike you, I have actually served with females in war zones. I have seen fantastic female Marines and I have seen crappy female Marines, just as I have seen fantastic and crappy male Marines. I have fought for female Marines to get meritoriously promoted, put them in positions of high-profile responsibility, and helped them where appropriate to break barriers (for example, I played a small role in helping one of the Female Marines I had served with become the first of her job field in a particular Special Operations role). No one is saying they don't belong in a war zone (war zones are things like "Afghanistan" and "Iraq"), we need females in warzones.

Was beyond your reading comprehension level?

FFS, I'm helping integrate women into SOF, and you're saying that because I prioritize combat effectiveness for an organization whose purpose is combat, that I must be a sexist who wants to keep them barefoot and pregnant? :roll:

Reminds me of the old lawyers' maxim: When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law and the facts are both against you, attack the plaintiff. :mrgreen:

cpwill · Dec 6, 2015

Henrin said:
Which is supported by biology, statistics and history.

The facts are against her in the topic, so she's desperate to try to divert this into a conversation where she can just accuse everyone who disagrees with her of sexism. Don't follow the bait.

braindrain · Dec 7, 2015

SheWolf said:
Your attitudes towards women has everything to do with this discussion. You have a tendency to believe women play the most well suited role in terms of running a household and make better parents than men. Your attitude on any discussion involving gender is that men and women are unequal. [\B] If you said women and men were equal in a war zone, I would be shocked. In classic fashion, you're making a multitude of arguments about women being "less ready" and more likely to get an injury, whilst failing to argue to raise the bar on all soldiers. I don't know about every poster taking your side in this discussion, but I do know that in your case, the central issue is your attitude towards women.

Do you honestly not realise that his saying that is 100% the truth. Men and women are not equal. The fact that you don't know that is rather surprising.

There are some things women are better at then men and some things men are better at them women. The sexes are not the same. For a perfect example of this look no further then virtually every single sporting event. From bowling to MMA there is a reason you never see women competing against men on athletics.

It does not for a single minute mean that one is better then the other just that we are not equal. The fact that this needs to be explained is rather strange.