Women in Combat Roles

[Gavin]

Just a comment here, a shortage of soldiers and "laying off" soldiers are not mutually exclusive. Combat time is a finite resource for any soldier.

I guess we just have to wait to see if women have to start registering for selective service.

That's a fair point.

[silverjon]

How normal are these abnormal instances of debilitating menstruation?

They are medical conditions, mostly. So if you can't serve because you have asthma, you can't serve if you have {name of medical condition menstrual cycles}. I guess what I'm saying is that it is a matter of the individual and her uterus, rather than an affliction that shows up because of random chance (although these exist too I guess. Pretty rare though) and then goes away again a cycle or two later.

Yup. Anecdotally, everyone I know that gets really horrible can't-even-function periods gets them consistently (or has a very irregular cycle as part of her issues), and everyone else just maybe feels a little blah for a couple of days.

Now, the plural of anecdote is not "data", but I will venture that debilitating menstruation isn't normal, and isn't likely to suddenly strike a random individual unpredictably.

This is all leaving out that some women choose to not have regular periods using artificial hormonal treatments, otherwise known as birth control.

[noxiousdog]

This is all leaving out that some women choose to not have regular periods using artificial hormonal treatments, otherwise known as birth control.

I believe that medication is not a consideration in these instances, because it is difficult to ensure an uninterrupted supply.

Like asthmatics are not allowed in regardless of inhalers/advair.

[Gavin]

Yup. Anecdotally, everyone I know that gets really horrible can't-even-function periods gets them consistently (or has a very irregular cycle as part of her issues), and everyone else just maybe feels a little blah for a couple of days.

Now, the plural of anecdote is not "data", but I will venture that debilitating menstruation isn't normal, and isn't likely to suddenly strike a random individual unpredictably.

Well, I've seen a lot of variance in severity. But you're right that people with a serious problem typically keep on having it. But I've also seen women without typically severe periods hit a really bad patch a few times a year.

Also, the particular problem can vary. One period can be bad cramping but not much else while the next can be a migrane headache with bad mood swings. It's frankly all over the place.

The good part is that a normal period can be treated in much the same way as a minor cold. Take some pain meds and march right on. It still impacts them but is not debilitating. I'd be interested in seeing frequency charts on the more extreme effects. I know about 15% of women that deal with cramping have severe cramping but it's a hard thing to put a number on.

This is all leaving out that some women choose to not have regular periods using artificial hormonal treatments, otherwise known as birth control.

Most birth control methods still allow for the period or the person will become infertile. This is why the pill usually has a few days of sugar pills to allow the process to happen.

[silverjon]

This is all leaving out that some women choose to not have regular periods using artificial hormonal treatments, otherwise known as birth control.

I believe that medication is not a consideration in these instances, because it is difficult to ensure an uninterrupted supply.

Like asthmatics are not allowed in regardless of inhalers/advair.

That does make sense, although I'm no longer even sure how long the implanted versions can last. It's seemingly getting longer all the time. (Which is still not a guarantee in the event of a serious break in the supply chain for whatever reason, if it falls when it's time for a new implant/shot/etc.)

[hepcat]

I can't imagine what the military would do with vulcans. Pon Farr would be a bitch!

[silverjon]

This is all leaving out that some women choose to not have regular periods using artificial hormonal treatments, otherwise known as birth control.

Most birth control methods still allow for the period or the person will become infertile. This is why the pill usually has a few days of sugar pills to allow the process to happen.

Huh, as far as my understanding of it goes, that's a load of crap. When "the pill" was first marketed, it was decided that women were completely reliant on a monthly period as evidence of being not-pregnant so not having one would be psychologically distressing, so the week off was actually built in to the system (either counting days or just using a brand with the dud pills included), rather than just having the hormonal control active all the time.

Since further studies have shown that monthly periods do not have any discernible benefit to women, and that constant menstruation and having more periods over a lifetime may even in some ways be detrimental to health (earlier average onset of menses, coupled with typically less time spent pregnant), suppressing periods hormonally has become... at least not uncommon.

(Not going to debate about whether these methods are safe or good, just saying they exist.)

[LawBeefaroni]

That does make sense, although I'm no longer even sure how long the implanted versions can last. It's seemingly getting longer all the time.

Off the top of my head, Mirena is 5 years. There are others.

[Gavin]

Huh, as far as my understanding of it goes, that's a load of crap. When "the pill" was first marketed, it was decided that women were completely reliant on a monthly period as evidence of being not-pregnant so not having one would be psychologically distressing, so the week off was actually built in to the system (either counting days or just using a brand with the dud pills included), rather than just having the hormonal control active all the time.

Completely suppressing the period usually results in serious clotting and potentially death. I've heard some recent birth control pills have attempted doing that and have succeeded but they're also currently undergoing significant legal battles and/or suffering from a lack of research (why Yaz got released to the public is beyond me. It's like they didn't even test it.). What with the deaths and all. The pill in general is hell on the cardiovascular system anyways to the point that I'm mildly surprised it's still sold. But convenience is what it is. Because of the clotting issue, most pills still allow the entire cycle with pills that just contain progesterone (typically called sugar pills or placebos from what I've heard, but they really contain something which makes those names incorrect unless there are some that really do just contain sugar). A woman on a serious pill that mitigates the period would potentially be at a much higher risk for cardiovascular issues like clotting, strokes and heart attacks, serious problems on the front lines.

It would seriously harm your body. Take a look at the research. It is honestly surprising that the cardiovascular risk associated with standard pill variations are considered acceptable. There's even an increase in blood pressure and cholesterol. Then there's the fact that birth control pills increase the risk of several types of cancer (though they do decrease the risk of others). While that likely wouldn't matter on the battlefield that is potentially a huge cost to the military later. They can also worsen depression which is just fantastic when dealing with all the other stress induced mental problems combat can cause.

It appears that you're correct as far as it not impacting fertility as was once thought. (bolded to avoid looking like I'm avoiding this admission, it was still thought to be true when I was in school or my teacher was out of the loop, so thanks for the correction. Since I'm not a doctor I have not kept up with new information).

Now, after a review of these risks in relation to the job demands they may say that it is not a significant concern since these are healthy women. I'm merely pointing out the potential risks here. What about women who want to serve but don't want to use the pill because of these risks? Is it then ok to require their use of it if they want to serve in that capacity? What about women who have health concerns that mean they can't take the pill but aren't bad enough to prevent serving?

Since further studies have shown that monthly periods do not have any discernible benefit to women, and that constant menstruation and having more periods over a lifetime may even in some ways be detrimental to health (earlier average onset of menses, coupled with typically less time spent pregnant), suppressing periods hormonally has become... at least not uncommon.

(Not going to debate about whether these methods are safe or good, just saying they exist.)

But that debate about whether they're safe or good is pretty vital, wouldn't you agree? Likewise, this frontier is fairly new and attempts at circumventing periods are coming out regularly and failing (Yaz and Yasmin were absolutely screw ups that got people killed and permanently disabled). In some ways, this age old issue may not have enough information yet. As dumb as it is, I think science has been squeemish about research on the subject, or just dumb about it. I'm not sure which but it's definitely one or the other. Research is still currently overthrowing other research that was just recently made. We could even potentially see an overturning of the fertility study I saw while researching. But it looks solid, it's just so recent and doesn't include all forms of birth control pills. Perhaps there's more I haven't seen or more in the works?

[silverjon]

I'm not interested in debating it in this context because I don't think taking birth control should be mandated, for a variety of reasons including health risks, therefore it's merely an option available to the interested individual. I'm saying it's a thing that's possible, not an ultimate solution for all.

I'm not personally a fan of hormonal controls, so I don't necessarily know as much about them as I could, and I haven't done much reading on them for a couple of years.

[Gavin]

I'm not interested in debating it in this context because I don't think taking birth control should be mandated, for a variety of reasons including health risks, therefore it's merely an option available to the interested individual. I'm saying it's a thing that's possible, not an ultimate solution for all.

I'm not personally a fan of hormonal controls, so I don't necessarily know as much about them as I could, and I haven't done much reading on them for a couple of years.

Fair enough. Thanks for giving me more information though.

[Grifman]

Right, but combat has evolved beyond stabbing with bayonets or wrestling around with knives. Not to mention that sheer physical strength is not the only (or even primary) attribute that helps in hand to hand fighting.

We've long since entered the era of push button warfare.

None of which makes it any less physical. Women can't take the physical punishment of modern combat and they can't perform as well as men do:

The average female soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine is about five inches shorter than her male counterpart and has half the upper body strength, lower aerobic capacity (at her physical peak between the ages of 20 and 30, the average woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old male), and 37 percent less muscle mass. She has a lighter skeleton, which means that the physical strain on her body from carrying the heavy loads that are the lot of the infantryman may cause permanent damage.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... tml?page=1" target="_blank

Come back when you can solve these differences.

Other noted problems:

Indeed, each year, somewhere between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant. In certain locales, the figure is even higher. Former senator James Webb noted that when he was secretary of the Navy in 1988, 51 percent of single Air Force and 48 percent of single Navy women stationed in Iceland were pregnant. During pregnancy (if she remains in the service at all), a woman must be exempted from progressively more routine duties, such as marching, field training, and swim tests. After the baby is born, there are more problems, as exemplified by the many thousand uniformed-service mothers, none of whom fairly could be called a frontline soldier.

Women also suffer a higher rate of attrition than men from physical ailments, and because of the turnover, are a more costly investment. Women are four times more likely to report ill, and the percentage of women being medically nonavailable at any time is twice that of men. If a woman can’t do her job, someone else must do it for her.

This is a disaster, good men will die because a woman was trying (and failing) to do a man's job.

[Grifman]

Do you endorse taking men out of frontline duty the moment they come down with a cold?

If only that was the real problem:

Women also suffer a higher rate of attrition than men from physical ailments, and because of the turnover, are a more costly investment. Women are four times more likely to report ill, and the percentage of women being medically nonavailable at any time is twice that of men. If a woman can’t do her job, someone else must do it for her.

[GreenGoo]

I'll mention it to our women soldiers, but I think they'll probably kick my ass.

Your women are already on the front line. Being unhappy about it isn't going to change that.

There are plenty of armies already doing this. There are a number of proven female soldiers.

I like stats, I like studies, and I like proof.

The proof is that women are already fighting on the front lines with their male counterparts.

Get back to me with studies showing me that women are incapable of running, lifting and shooting. 'til then, I'm not interested in hearing an opinion piece from a guy who has spent 2 decades trying to stop women from becoming front line combatants.

Women are not physically equal. And are highly unlikely to ever be. But men aren't physically equal either. Neither women nor men are a homogenous group.

Wash out 90% of the women who try and fail. I don't care. The 10% that make it should be allowed to fight.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Right, but combat has evolved beyond stabbing with bayonets or wrestling around with knives. Not to mention that sheer physical strength is not the only (or even primary) attribute that helps in hand to hand fighting.

We've long since entered the era of push button warfare.

None of which makes it any less physical. Women can't take the physical punishment of modern combat and they can't perform as well as men do:

The average female soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine is about five inches shorter than her male counterpart and has half the upper body strength, lower aerobic capacity (at her physical peak between the ages of 20 and 30, the average woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old male), and 37 percent less muscle mass. She has a lighter skeleton, which means that the physical strain on her body from carrying the heavy loads that are the lot of the infantryman may cause permanent damage.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... tml?page=1" target="_blank

Come back when you can solve these differences.

Other noted problems:

Indeed, each year, somewhere between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant. In certain locales, the figure is even higher. Former senator James Webb noted that when he was secretary of the Navy in 1988, 51 percent of single Air Force and 48 percent of single Navy women stationed in Iceland were pregnant. During pregnancy (if she remains in the service at all), a woman must be exempted from progressively more routine duties, such as marching, field training, and swim tests. After the baby is born, there are more problems, as exemplified by the many thousand uniformed-service mothers, none of whom fairly could be called a frontline soldier.

Women also suffer a higher rate of attrition than men from physical ailments, and because of the turnover, are a more costly investment. Women are four times more likely to report ill, and the percentage of women being medically nonavailable at any time is twice that of men. If a woman can’t do her job, someone else must do it for her.

This is a disaster, good men will die because a woman was trying (and failing) to do a man's job.

Well put, Grifman. I have a good friend who served as a tank operator in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was the loader in a Challenger tank crew, which was all about upper body strength, given the somewhat cramped conditions of a Challenger tank with four crew members. While some tanks may use automatic loaders, I remember asking him about that and he told me that the British Army had specifically ruled that out after a risk analysis suggested that adding auto-loaders reduced battlefield survivability.

The point being, there are certain roles, even in the era of push button warfare, for which female soldiers are particularly ill-suited. And they needn't involve getting stabby with bayonets or wrestling around with knives.

[Isgrimnur]

Army Times (US)

More than 135,000 female soldiers have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, earning more than 400 valor awards, including two Silver Stars, the nation’s third-highest award for valor, Price said.

More than 77 have been killed in action, while another 853 were wounded, he said.

Monica Lin Brown ... is a United States Army Soldier medic who became the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second woman since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the United States' third-highest medal for valor.

After a roadside bomb detonated near a convoy of Humvees in the eastern Paktia Province of Afghanistan, Brown saved the lives of fellow soldiers in April 2007 by running through insurgent gunfire using her body to shield wounded soldiers while mortar rounds fell nearby.

Hester's squad of two women and eight men in three Humvees was shadowing a 30-truck supply convoy when approximately 50 insurgent fighters ambushed the convoy with AK-47 assault rifle, RPK machine gun fire and rocket propelled grenades (RPG). The squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Hester maneuvered her team through the kill zone and into a flanking position, where she and her squad leader, Staff Sergeant Timothy F. Nein, assaulted a trench line with hand grenades and M203 grenade launcher rounds. Hester and Nein assaulted and cleared two trenches. During the 25-minute firefight, Hester killed at least three enemy combatants with her M4 carbine.

[Isgrimnur]

Oh, and as for standards:

At Fort Benning, home of the infantry and armor schools, preparations are underway to receive female trainees.

“For the initial entry-type training that we do, these would be the first female soldiers [to come through],” said Col. Kevin MacWatters, commander of the 194th Armored Brigade.
...
Male or female, all trainees will be held to the same standards, MacWatters said.

“All trainees will go through the exact same training, the exact same PT,” he said. “The overall mission is, we look at it as a transformation of volunteers into disciplined and competent mechanics, ready to contribute to their units. It doesn’t matter, in our view, if they’re male soldiers or female soldiers. The mission doesn’t change.”

[Rip]

I'll mention it to our women soldiers, but I think they'll probably kick my ass.

Your women are already on the front line. Being unhappy about it isn't going to change that.

There are plenty of armies already doing this. There are a number of proven female soldiers.

I like stats, I like studies, and I like proof.

The proof is that women are already fighting on the front lines with their male counterparts.

Get back to me with studies showing me that women are incapable of running, lifting and shooting. 'til then, I'm not interested in hearing an opinion piece from a guy who has spent 2 decades trying to stop women from becoming front line combatants.

Women are not physically equal. And are highly unlikely to ever be. But men aren't physically equal either. Neither women nor men are a homogenous group.

Wash out 90% of the women who try and fail. I don't care. The 10% that make it should be allowed to fight.

Even if washing out that 90% causes an increase of say 50% cost in training. Since you now have to put 30K recruits in to get 22K fighting soldiers instead of 24K recruits in?

[hepcat]

I think we're seeing some new members from the 18th century historical recreation board that some folks of OO started a while back. Welcome! Hope you enjoy your visit!

[GreenGoo]

You keep saying there are some jobs they can't do. Will you stop saying if it I just say "ok"?

You emphasized the 8% of positions that the Israelis weren't putting women into. 8% doesn't seem significant, but again, ok.

If a job involves lifting heavy objects over and over again for the majority of combat, then no shit it's going to be a better job for a man.

Women and men are not the same. No one said they were. Women can kill people with the proper training. At least some of them can. And I encourage people who *want* to fight on the front line, to be able to do so if they are capable.

[GreenGoo]

Even if washing out that 90% causes an increase of say 50% cost in training. Since you now have to put 30K recruits in to get 22K fighting soldiers instead of 24K recruits in?

Get back to me when it does. Do you really expect them to make it through all the training and then wash out at the ceremony?

The information is available. Go read.

Some of your concerns are valid. Some are not.

[Rip]

Even if washing out that 90% causes an increase of say 50% cost in training. Since you now have to put 30K recruits in to get 22K fighting soldiers instead of 24K recruits in?

Get back to me when it does. Do you really expect them to make it through all the training and then wash out at the ceremony?

The information is available. Go read.

Some of your concerns are valid. Some are not.

I am for doing it by whatever gets the best combat soldier per dollar spent possible. If that means left handed hairlips from Tennesee with size ten feet only I couldn't care less.


We should get to work on cloning tech and maybe we could all just have to submit a clone for service instead of having selective service. They could just abort the ones the don't want.

[Grifman]

Your women are already on the front line. Being unhappy about it isn't going to change that.

So when women weren't on the front line I could have told you that they weren't there, and being unhappy about it wasn't going to change that? Like that logic?

The fact that they are serving on the front lines is irrelevant. The question is whether they are as effective as a male soldier.

There are plenty of armies already doing this. There are a number of proven female soldiers.

This doesn't prove that they are as effective as male soldiers. That's the real issue that must be addressed.

I like stats, I like studies, and I like proof.

Good, strange then why you ignore the physical differences between men and women that I posted. Will you address those?

The proof is that women are already fighting on the front lines with their male counterparts.

That proves nothing. You could put me on the front line tomorrow but that wouldn't mean that I was an effective soldier. The question is whether the women in combat are as effective as the males that would replace them.

Get back to me with studies showing me that women are incapable of running, lifting and shooting.

I've already given you data that military women get pregnant fairly regularly, are out for illness more, can't carry as much weight as men, and are less aerobically capable. What more do you want?

'til then, I'm not interested in hearing an opinion piece from a guy who has spent 2 decades trying to stop women from becoming front line combatants.

Ad hominem argument. You have no facts on your side, you can't dispute his facts, so you attack the other person. So far all we have from you is your opinion. Where are the "facts" on your side?

Wash out 90% of the women who try and fail. I don't care. The 10% that make it should be allowed to fight.

I would have less quarrel if woman had to meet the same standards men do in the military, across the board. But they don't. The problem is that combat support roles, even total non-combat roles can quickly become combat. In the Battle of the Bulge, the US threw in cooks, drivers, clerks, bandsmen into combat to stop the Germans because things were that desperate, being outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1. If that happens in the future, some people are going to be killed because a woman couldn't drag a wounded soldier to safety, or lug a machine gun into place. You can't deny that won't happen.

[GreenGoo]

No offence Grif, but you've given me an article written by someone with an agenda. I went back and read his entire article.

When your source says things like

I doubt that there is a huge push on the part of female soldiers and Marines to join the infantry. Captain Petronio makes the same point. The impetus comes instead from professional feminists still living in the 1970s and a small number of female officers who believe that serving in the infantry will increase the likelihood that they will become generals. But the Pentagon itself points out that military women are already promoted at rates equal to or faster than men.

Things like "I doubt". Things like "the impetus professional feminists still living in the 1970's". Things like "female officers who believe that serving in the infantry will increase the likelihood that they will become generals".

When he says things like that, speculating but reporting it as truth, he's as guilty as the "professional feminists from the 1970's" of having an agenda that is not objective. His "data" is given without context and without cite. His "data" is given without regard to how the "data" negatively impacts females that they are not able to fulfill their duties.

Your source is a joke. Your evidence is the opinion of someone who has spent 20 years by his own admission trying to keep women out of combat roles. My evidence is the internet and decades of women in combat roles for multiple first world militaries. Your source is opinion and speculation and fear. My source is reality.

a) women are already on the front line
b) your opinion is irrelevant (and his. and mine) since it's happening anyway.

As a nation, you need to prepare yourself for the absolute certainty that women are going to be captured, raped and tortured to death at some point. That is a given, and the women going into combat will already be aware of it. If they can face it with determination and bravery, you as a nation better not puss-out the first time female combat troops are captured, raped and killed and the media wets itself in the rush to report on the horror.

In the Battle of the Bulge, the US threw in cooks, drivers, clerks, bandsmen into combat to stop the Germans because things were that desperate, being outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1. If that happens in the future, some people are going to be killed because a woman couldn't drag a wounded soldier to safety, or lug a machine gun into place. You can't deny that won't happen.

See a) above. Women are already on the front lines fulfilling those roles. Nothing has changed in that respect. If as you say, good men are going to die because women are on the frontline, then good men are already dying and have been for decades.

[silverjon]

Female war journalists manage to "solider on", somehow. So do aid workers.

[Kraken]

Even if washing out that 90% causes an increase of say 50% cost in training. Since you now have to put 30K recruits in to get 22K fighting soldiers instead of 24K recruits in?

Get back to me when it does. Do you really expect them to make it through all the training and then wash out at the ceremony?

The information is available. Go read.

Some of your concerns are valid. Some are not.

I am for doing it by whatever gets the best combat soldier per dollar spent possible. If that means left handed hairlips from Tennesee with size ten feet only I couldn't care less.


We should get to work on cloning tech and maybe we could all just have to submit a clone for service instead of having selective service. They could just abort the ones the don't want.

Give robotics another 10-15 years. Dunno how cost-effective they'll be, but our land drones will be terrifying.

[GreenGoo]

I am for doing it by whatever gets the best combat soldier per dollar spent possible. If that means left handed hairlips from Tennesee with size ten feet only I couldn't care less.


We should get to work on cloning tech and maybe we could all just have to submit a clone for service instead of having selective service. They could just abort the ones the don't want.

Yeah, but when they start to resent being breed for warfare and they are the only ones who have been trained for it, and they have all the guns....Has the imagination of geeks everywhere taught us nothing?

Ditto the robots thing, but worse (or better, depending on your penchant for being a battery).

I get that we want perfection in our army and warriors. But we already don't get that. There are absolutely frontline fighters who are awesome. Poster children for a marine recruitment poster. But there are also some average soldiers. And, dare I say, some incompetent ones. What we have is good enough to get the job done. Excluding women because they are not perfectly idealized warriors is to ignore the fact that most men are not perfectly idealized warriors. "Good enough" tends to be way better than the enemies they are fighting against anyway.

No offense to dbt and anyone from that era, but I'd take volunteer female infantry from today over a bunch of men drafted against their will, trained for a couple of weeks then shoved out the door with a rifle in their hand and resentment in their heart.

I do not think women are equal in every facet that defines women and men. That's not a good enough reason to keep women from fighting if they are "good enough" to do it and want to do it.

I keep thinking we have the luxury of allowing women to fight because we are not fighting for our freedom in total war, but the truth is that if we were fighting for our freedom in total war, we'd need every competent hand on the frontline, which makes it even more likely that women would be doing some of the fighting.

If can exist, I'm sure we can make room for some competent women.

[Gavin]

If a job involves lifting heavy objects over and over again for the majority of combat, then no shit it's going to be a better job for a man.

Frontline combat involves lifting heavy objects and carrying them rapidly over sometimes difficult terrain while under fire. What you have here is an admission that it's a better job for a man.

I find that Grifman is making some very similar points and presenting numbers to the biological differences I presented earlier. It is almost nonsensical to need to argue that men and women are a significant ways apart physically. The average differences alone are a sea that a woman would have to traverse just to hit average male output. Even then, they can't have denser bonse (they injure easily) or completely control hormone fluxuations which I maintain do make a difference in behavior and decision making just like they would if pumped into a man's blood stream.

So again, what we have here is the military playing PR with something that may cost lives. That's pretty damn costly if you ask me.

[GreenGoo]

If a job involves lifting heavy objects over and over again for the majority of combat, then no shit it's going to be a better job for a man.

Frontline combat involves lifting heavy objects and carrying them rapidly over sometimes difficult terrain while under fire. What you have here is an admission that it's a better job for a man.

Don't be silly. The discussion was for a tank loader. He is literally doing reps with heavy weights for the entirety of combat. I concede that tank loader might not be a good career path for a woman.

Hope that helps.

[noxiousdog]

Female war journalists manage to "solider on", somehow. So do aid workers.

Neither of which causes other people to die if they aren't functioning at their highest capability.

I think grifman's statistics are compelling. If they aren't accurate it should be easy enough to find competing information. Since there are women serving on the front lines in other countries, there should be data.

[silverjon]

Female war journalists manage to "solider on", somehow. So do aid workers.

Neither of which causes other people to die if they aren't functioning at their highest capability.

I think grifman's statistics are compelling. If they aren't accurate it should be easy enough to find competing information. Since there are women serving on the front lines in other countries, there should be data.

Was a direct comment re: squeamishness about probable treatment of PoWs.

[Gavin]

Don't be silly. The discussion was for a tank loader. He is literally doing reps with heavy weights for the entirety of combat. I concede that tank loader might not be a good career path for a woman.

Hope that helps.

Sure, he's lifting reps, but is he carrying an 80lb pack?

[GreenGoo]

Female war journalists manage to "solider on", somehow. So do aid workers.

Neither of which causes other people to die if they aren't functioning at their highest capability.

I think grifman's statistics are compelling. If they aren't accurate it should be easy enough to find competing information. Since there are women serving on the front lines in other countries, there should be data.

I don't disagree, except grifman's data is an opinion piece with no cites. I don't automatically dismiss the numbers, but neither do I accept them as anything other than cherry picked to forward the writer's agenda, without more a lot more info.

You would think a woman qualifying for a silver star would be compelling, but no.

Ideally, short, strong men make the best fighter pilots. Followed by short, strong women (but it's a near thing. Very, very similar performance between short men and women). Tall men have more difficulty maintaining blood flow during high g maneuvers. Yet some tall men can still be fighter pilots. Some must apply for an exemption and go through a lot of hoops to make it. Yet they are willing to do so, and the military is willing to allow them to fly if they can qualify. The tall men are "good enough".

I don't see this as any different. And I'm seeing talk of some of the "obvious" aspects of female physiology is not quite what we all "know" either. My proxy is acting up (can't even get to google atm, not sure if this will even post) so I'll try to find some info later. I noticed WIRED had some discussion.

[GreenGoo]

Don't be silly. The discussion was for a tank loader. He is literally doing reps with heavy weights for the entirety of combat. I concede that tank loader might not be a good career path for a woman.

Hope that helps.

Sure, he's lifting reps, but is he carrying an 80lb pack?

I've already provided one example of a Canadian woman who was a member of a two man heavy machine gun team who carried 80lbs of ammo (plus her pack, I'm assuming) so where are you going with this? I wouldn't be able to provide that example if she was never given a chance. Which is what you're suggesting for American women.

Women are never going to be as physically strong as men on average. Can they be strong enough is the question.

[Gavin]

I've already provided one example of a Canadian woman who was a member of a two man heavy machine gun team who carried 80lbs of ammo (plus her pack, I'm assuming) so where are you going with this? I wouldn't be able to provide that example if she was never given a chance. Which is what you're suggesting for American women.

Women are never going to be as physically strong as men on average. Can they be strong enough is the question.

But why put them in this position if there are more qualified/stronger men available? Equality works when there's little difference and it doesn't cost lives. I thought all equal opportunity meant is that the best candidate should be picked for the job. I don't see that ever being a female when men are available. The fact that the canadian person was able to carry the 80lbs doesn't mean she did it efficiently. It also doesn't mean she carried them in the way other people would or that she saw the same action our front-line troops would. I'm going to reread your article regarding this account now.

[noxiousdog]

You would think a woman qualifying for a silver star would be compelling, but no.

A woman or A man or AN anything isn't compelling.

Ideally, short, strong men make the best fighter pilots. Followed by short, strong women (but it's a near thing. Very, very similar performance between short men and women). Tall men have more difficulty maintaining blood flow during high g maneuvers. Yet some tall men can still be fighter pilots. Some must apply for an exemption and go through a lot of hoops to make it. Yet they are willing to do so, and the military is willing to allow them to fly if they can qualify. The tall men are "good enough".

I don't see this as any different. And I'm seeing talk of some of the "obvious" aspects of female physiology is not quite what we all "know" either. My proxy is acting up (can't even get to google atm, not sure if this will even post) so I'll try to find some info later. I noticed WIRED had some discussion.

As long as a rigorous (but not excessive cost or timewise) qualification system (which would include time days unable to perform) can be put in place I see no reason they shouldn't be allowed to participate. This assumes that there would be no quota in place and there's no whining if it wound up 80/20 men/women or vice versa.

[GreenGoo]

Well, I think when one side is saying that "no, not possible, men will die" even 1 example of the opposite being true is significant. Or should be. Luckily there is more than a single case study for reference.

Also, 1 example is pretty good, when the status quo has always been to prevent women from ever being in that situation in the first place. It's harder to give meaningful examples when by definition women are being prevented from creating those examples.

[noxiousdog]

Well, I think when one side is saying that "no, not possible, men will die" even 1 example of the opposite being true is significant. Or should be. Luckily there is more than a single case study for reference.

Also, 1 example is pretty good, when the status quo has always been to prevent women from ever being in that situation in the first place. It's harder to give meaningful examples when by definition women are being prevented from creating those examples.

You're inventing an argument. Nobody is saying what you think they are saying.

One side is saying, "let our current fighting force be scored at 100. If we put a significant number of women in front line combat there are reasons to believe the new fighting force would have to be score at less than 100."

This allows for a lot of variables. How much less? How much will it cost? What is a significant number of women? Which front lines of combat? Are there other positives that make it worth it?

To me, these are all fair questions.

[dbt1949]

In the air force just before I got out we got a woman in our shop. She was the ugliest and strongest woman I ever met in my life. She could lift an 88lb 50 cal machine gun with one hand at the very end of the barrel and hold it parallel to the ground. None of the rest of us could do that. Of course that's not your average woman's strength.
So as long as a woman can physically (and mentally) do the job she should be allowed to do it. But just like men not all women are going to qualify. Indeed probably a smaller percentage in some fields. But please for the love of all that's holy don't put quotas into effect.

PS I know I shouldn't have said the ugliest part.........so sue me.

[silverjon]

(Well, it's just your opinion, and presumably had no bearing on her ability to do her job... but as opinions go, I don't see how it's not valid.)