Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

Women in Combat Roles

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Anonymous Bosch » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:21 pm

Are women expressly forbidden from playing in the NFL, NHL, NBA, and the like (I'm no sportsfan; I honestly do not know)? If not, is it discrimination that keeps female athletes from playing in any of those organizations?
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster

User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Gavin » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:30 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote:Are women expressly forbidden from playing in the NFL, NHL, NBA, and the like (I'm no sportsfan; I honestly do not know)? If not, is it discrimination that keeps female athletes from playing in any of those organizations?
I absolutely know that men aren't allowed to participate in the women's versions of the sport, so if it is discrimination then tough tits. haha.

Anywyas, I believe there are no rules that say women can't play in the NFL but to my knowledge there have been no women players. Though there have been some place kickers in college football.

The fact is that they're simply not able to compete physically. This is why all sports segregate by gender without people bitching about it. It isn't a question, it's a fact and is the entire premise for why a physically demanding job that can cause lives should be left to stronger males except where it's more important to fill a pair of boots. It's based on the only real differences genders have. They aren't dumber than men but they are weaker.

Again:

Less bone density,
Less muscle mass (something like 40-60% less on average)
shorter on average,
more prone to serious injury (goes back to the weaker bones),
greater pelvic bone angle (less efficient weight distribution that makes carrying things harder for them and causes slower leg movement),

If that weren't enough, they're also pumped with mood swinging hormones every month that can cause symptoms that further weaken performance.

User avatar
PLW
Posts: 3058
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
Location: Clemson

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by PLW » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:34 pm

Averages are not salient to the discussion at all. Let's say I have a job where you have to be able to reach to the top of some shelf, and you have to be 6' tall to do it. The fact that the average woman is shorter than the average man has no bearing on whether women should be restricted from having that job.

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23139
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by noxiousdog » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote:Are women expressly forbidden from playing in the NFL, NHL, NBA, and the like (I'm no sportsfan; I honestly do not know)? If not, is it discrimination that keeps female athletes from playing in any of those organizations?
There aren't 46,000 people in the NFL, NHL, NBA and the like. Nor are soldiers grades solely on their physical prowess.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Gavin » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:44 pm

PLW wrote:Averages are not salient to the discussion at all. Let's say I have a job where you have to be able to reach to the top of some shelf, and you have to be 6' tall to do it. The fact that the average woman is shorter than the average man has no bearing on whether women should be restricted from having that job.
Some of those averages I presented are pretty much standard or difficult to measure.

Bone density is well established which comes with greater proneness to injury and the typically greater pelvic angle is common (but not universal, mind you) as it benefits child birth. The muscle mass is SOOO far behind that it'd be interesting to see if any female soldiers can match the strength of typical male ground troups. It's be interesting for us to measure.

Either way, there is a reason why men and women are seperated in physical sports and that should mean far more here.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Rip » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:49 pm

PLW wrote:Let's say we had some objective definition of "physically capable of sustaining the rigors of combat", but that it was impossible to measure directly. Instead, we have some medley of imperfect measures of this (mile time, # of pushup, # of chin-ups, etc), and we want to qualify everyone who we judge to be above that standard with probability above some threshold (say 95% sure they satisfy it). I think this is pretty much the current state of affairs.

Given the underlying differences in the distributions of abilities, differences in selection into taking the test, and differences in the mapping between our objective and outcomes we can actually measure, I think it is extremely unlikely that the optimal qualification thresholds on the imperfect tests would be the same for men and women. Probably, some should be higher and some should be lower, but it's not impossible that all should be lower.
If they would all could be lower how do you justify that to the men who scored higher than every woman who made it but yet were denied? That just doesn't make any sense. If there would be ANY metric which they were allowed to score lower in there must be some metric (that could be measured) in which they were superior, otherwise it is just a disguised quota program.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Rip » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:53 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote:Are women expressly forbidden from playing in the NFL, NHL, NBA, and the like (I'm no sportsfan; I honestly do not know)? If not, is it discrimination that keeps female athletes from playing in any of those organizations?
There aren't 46,000 people in the NFL, NHL, NBA and the like. Nor are soldiers grades solely on their physical prowess.
Nor are professional athletes. Believe it or not being good at one of them is about more than just physical ability, just ask John Kruk or Wade Boggs. :wink:

User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Anonymous Bosch » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:58 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote:Are women expressly forbidden from playing in the NFL, NHL, NBA, and the like (I'm no sportsfan; I honestly do not know)? If not, is it discrimination that keeps female athletes from playing in any of those organizations?
There aren't 46,000 people in the NFL, NHL, NBA and the like. Nor are soldiers grades solely on their physical prowess.
Who said there were, or that soldiers were graded solely on their physical prowess? I only threw the above questions out there to illustrate the fact that there could conceivably be practical reasons why we have yet to see a female athlete playing in the NFL/NHL/NBA etc, rather than outright bigoted discrimination.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster

User avatar
PLW
Posts: 3058
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
Location: Clemson

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by PLW » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:03 pm

Rip wrote: If they would all could be lower how do you justify that to the men who scored higher than every woman who made it but yet were denied? That just doesn't make any sense. If there would be ANY metric which they were allowed to score lower in there must be some metric (that could be measured) in which they were superior, otherwise it is just a disguised quota program.
It's just statistics. Say we have two populations, and one test, but the underlying distribution of ability is different for the two populations and/or the accuracy of the test is different for the two populations. Then if I was willing to be wrong no more than 5% of the time, the threshold test score I would set for the two groups would be different.

No quotas.. just facts.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Rip » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:05 pm

PLW wrote:
Rip wrote: If they would all could be lower how do you justify that to the men who scored higher than every woman who made it but yet were denied? That just doesn't make any sense. If there would be ANY metric which they were allowed to score lower in there must be some metric (that could be measured) in which they were superior, otherwise it is just a disguised quota program.
It's just statistics. Say we have two populations, and one test, but the underlying distribution of ability is different for the two populations and/or the accuracy of the test is different for the two populations. Then if I was willing to be wrong no more than 5% of the time, the threshold test score I would set for the two groups would be different.

No quotas.. just facts.
Different distribution is one thing but that ONE group would be allowed to score lower on EVERY item is favortism plain and simple.

User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by silverjon » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:05 pm

Gavin wrote:greater pelvic bone angle (less efficient weight distribution that makes carrying things harder for them and causes slower leg movement)
With regard to averages, I walk significantly faster than average, like 2-3 times what appears to be a normal walking pace for most people. Even that of men taller than me with longer legs. This is an unrushed stride for me, completely effortless.

While I know I am capable of doing this carrying 40-50 pounds of (well-balanced) load, I've never had reason to try 80. But I can do it for hours at a time while climbing hills in the rain. Not effortlessly, but enough that I do not fear the zombie apocalypse, because all the slow people should be eaten first.

None of this means I'd be a fantastic soldier, or want to.
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Rip » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:10 pm

silverjon wrote:
Gavin wrote:greater pelvic bone angle (less efficient weight distribution that makes carrying things harder for them and causes slower leg movement)
With regard to averages, I walk significantly faster than average, like 2-3 times what appears to be a normal walking pace for most people. Even that of men taller than me with longer legs. This is an unrushed stride for me, completely effortless.

While I know I am capable of doing this carrying 40-50 pounds of (well-balanced) load, I've never had reason to try 80. But I can do it for hours at a time while climbing hills in the rain. Not effortlessly, but enough that I do not fear the zombie apocalypse, because all the slow people should be eaten first.

None of this means I'd be a fantastic soldier, or want to.
True, but not being able to do it would certainly mean you wouldn't be a fantastic soldier.

User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by silverjon » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:12 pm

Yes, and I think anyone who couldn't should flunk out, male or female.
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23139
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by noxiousdog » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:19 pm

Gavin wrote: If that weren't enough, they're also pumped with mood swinging hormones every month that can cause symptoms that further weaken performance.
Some are.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 59732
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:21 pm

And I'm sure there's not a single case of roid rage in front line troops either.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Gavin » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:29 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Gavin wrote: If that weren't enough, they're also pumped with mood swinging hormones every month that can cause symptoms that further weaken performance.
Some are.
Short of women who've gotten hysterectomies where they can't have periods then all are flooded with estrogen and progesterone.
Silverjon wrote:Yes, and I think anyone who couldn't should flunk out, male or female.
Then what do you think about the notion of making lower standards for women?

User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by silverjon » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:30 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:And I'm sure there's not a single case of roid rage in front line troops either.
<insert US Navy bath salts psa>
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?

User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by silverjon » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:31 pm

Gavin wrote:[
Silverjon wrote:Yes, and I think anyone who couldn't should flunk out, male or female.
Then what do you think about the notion of making lower standards for women?
I already said no.

But I'm opposed to barring a large segment of the population from even trying.
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?

User avatar
PLW
Posts: 3058
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
Location: Clemson

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by PLW » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:34 pm

Rip wrote: Different distribution is one thing but that ONE group would be allowed to score lower on EVERY item is favortism plain and simple.
Now, I'm confused. Are you saying it would look like favoritism, or that it really is favoritism? Because the analysis I outlined does not ex-ante favor either group. They each have to meet the same standard, namely "achieve a score that indicates that there is 95% likelihood that your underlying ability surpasses the common standard we require."

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23139
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by noxiousdog » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:37 pm

Gavin wrote: Short of women who've gotten hysterectomies where they can't have periods then all are flooded with estrogen and progesterone.
The fact that you use the word 'flooded' rather than any real measurement is indicitive of the argument. More importantly, perhaps, is that you don't draw any actual conclusions.

We are all bags of chemicals. They rise and fall. Is there any reason to suppose that estrogen and progesterone are any more of a battlefield detriment than adrenaline or testosterone?
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Gavin » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:41 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Gavin wrote: Short of women who've gotten hysterectomies where they can't have periods then all are flooded with estrogen and progesterone.
The fact that you use the word 'flooded' rather than any real measurement is indicitive of the argument. More importantly, perhaps, is that you don't draw any actual conclusions.

We are all bags of chemicals. They rise and fall. Is there any reason to suppose that estrogen and progesterone are any more of a battlefield detriment than adrenaline or testosterone?
Unsure, it needs to be researched.

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23139
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by noxiousdog » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:49 pm

Gavin wrote: Unsure, it needs to be researched.
Then it seems an awful poor reason for denying equality. Especially when it seems like it's confined to a portion of the female population. I do agree that it should be disqualifying for those women who are prone to debilitating symptoms.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 20548
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by dbt1949 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:51 pm

That would have been horrible if I had flunked infantry and been forced to be some clerk in Oxnard.
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39203
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Smoove_B » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:06 pm

It won't matter in another two generations when everything is done by drones. And another four when we have robot infantry.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Rip » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:17 pm

PLW wrote:
Rip wrote: Different distribution is one thing but that ONE group would be allowed to score lower on EVERY item is favortism plain and simple.
Now, I'm confused. Are you saying it would look like favoritism, or that it really is favoritism? Because the analysis I outlined does not ex-ante favor either group. They each have to meet the same standard, namely "achieve a score that indicates that there is 95% likelihood that your underlying ability surpasses the common standard we require."
How could you possibly get that if one group scores lower on EVERY metric. Unless the tested metrics and the "common standard" have absolutely nothing to do with each other. How could one group have someone score lower on EVERY tested metric than someone in the other group yet make the standard while the person who outscored them on EVERY tested metric not meet that "common standard". Perhaps you should better explain this common standard that apparently has little to do with qualification testing?

User avatar
PLW
Posts: 3058
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
Location: Clemson

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by PLW » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:16 pm

Rip wrote: How could you possibly get that if one group scores lower on EVERY metric. Unless the tested metrics and the "common standard" have absolutely nothing to do with each other. How could one group have someone score lower on EVERY tested metric than someone in the other group yet make the standard while the person who outscored them on EVERY tested metric not meet that "common standard". Perhaps you should better explain this common standard that apparently has little to do with qualification testing?
It's easiest to see in the one-test example, but it extends to multiple tests. Let's say we are trying to do some test to see if you have a disease, and we are also testing your wife. The test is of some hormone that men and women both have, on average, the same level of (say 300units/ml just to be specific). Men and women who have the disease all experience an 100unit/ml increase in the hormone. The difference between men and women is that the natural variation of the hormone level is much higher in men than women. Finally, say we only want to report a positive test if we are 95% sure you have the disease. In that case, we would require a higher hormone level to give a positive for men than for women, because for men there is a greater likelihood that the test result is driven by underlying variance in hormones than it is for women.

Things get more complicated and interesting if there are more tests, groups differ in base risk, or the hormone level shift is different for men and women. But the result that would would want different reporting thresholds for men and women is very general. As I said before, the differences could all go the same way (i.e., if one group is lower variance, overall, than the other), or they could go different ways (if some test work particularly well for some groups over others), but the idea that you would want the same threshold for both groups is simplistic. This is only correct if you can perfectly measure the underlying characteristic of interest.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40363
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:38 pm

dbt1949 wrote:That would have been horrible if I had flunked infantry and been forced to be some clerk in Oxnard.
:D

My thoughts exactly.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40363
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:39 pm

Smoove_B wrote:It won't matter in another two generations when everything is done by drones. And another four when we have robot infantry.
Kraken already mentioned that.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33706
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Kraken » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:42 pm

I'll confess that I haven't followed this issue, or this thread, very closely, so forgive me if this is off the mark, but didn't the Pentagon institute this policy on their own? Unless I'm mistaken, it was not imposed on them by Congress or the administration or the courts. If that is true, then mightn't one presume that they did it to improve their force structure, rather than as a social engineering experiment?

I'm inclined to see it as a non-issue if the War Department was the instigator.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40363
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:01 pm

I don't know how it works. It was the defense secretary's decision, although I'm sure she didn't make it in a vacuum. I believe it was an oversight committee (or something named similarly) that recommended the change. Let me look.

edit: Apparently last November 4 women soldiers announced they were suing the DoD over its restrictions on women serving on the frontline. So we know that at least 4 female soldiers were "clamouring" to get into combat, even if the female marine who's article we've read and is being toted by a lot of naysayers (not just hear, everywhere) doesn't know of any women personally who want to be frontline combatants. One of the women, who I read in a different article, was hit by an IED while serving in...one of the two countries, Afghanistan or Iraq, I don't remember which. Her quick quote was to the effect that even if women at not allowed in roles that require them to directly engage the enemy, the enemy is directly engaging them, so the whole "no women on the frontline" was a legal fallacy. Something to that effect.

http://www.aclu.org/combat-exclusion-policy-women" target="_blank

edit2: I couldn't find how the decision came to be, but my google-fu was weak and I'm not spending any more time on it tonight. It has to be easy to find, I'm just not able to. Somebody send up the Isgrim signal.

Edit3: Last comment. If the Pentagon did come to this conclusion on their own, then they get kudos, as they would be the only military in the world who made this leap without outside influence/pressure/law. Every single other military that allows women in combat roles does so because either their legal system was changed to require it or political pressure was brought to bear to force them to change. None did it of their own accord. Not even Canada's. Our Human Rights Tribunal that Mr. Fed hates so much was the culprit in our case. Women were allowed in combat roles in Canada due to equal rights discrimination issues.

Take that, P.C. haters. We're putting women in harm's way just to be politically correct!

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33706
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Kraken » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:34 am

GreenGoo wrote: If the Pentagon did come to this conclusion on their own, then they get kudos, as they would be the only military in the world who made this leap without outside influence/pressure/law.
I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary unless you believe that the lawsuit had the Pentagon quaking in its combat boots. Is there any evidence that the policy was changed due to outside pressure for non-military reasons? (Honest question.) Because if not, then I don't see why you're all arguing.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Rip » Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:55 am

I would not say I am against it. I am simply voicing my feelings that it be done for the right reasons. As long as the optional metrics for the job as determined without regard to sex and the women applying meet the cutoff for those roles then I say let them at it.

I also think you may have to look at stiffening the punishment for relationships/pregnancies. It should be pretty easy to determine the parties involved. It will be interesting to see where the statistics on that go if implemented. Since several militaries have already permitted women in front line roles has anyone seen stories on instances or statistics of pregnancies among front line combat troops?

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40363
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:26 am

Kraken wrote:
GreenGoo wrote: If the Pentagon did come to this conclusion on their own, then they get kudos, as they would be the only military in the world who made this leap without outside influence/pressure/law.
I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary unless you believe that the lawsuit had the Pentagon quaking in its combat boots. Is there any evidence that the policy was changed due to outside pressure for non-military reasons? (Honest question.) Because if not, then I don't see why you're all arguing.
Once Isgrim comes to our rescue we'll have our answers. Fairly sure it was an advisory committee that "strongly" suggested. Whether it was an advisory committee from within or without I have no idea.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40363
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:29 am

Rip wrote:I would not say I am against it. I am simply voicing my feelings that it be done for the right reasons. As long as the optional metrics for the job as determined without regard to sex and the women applying meet the cutoff for those roles then I say let them at it.

I also think you may have to look at stiffening the punishment for relationships/pregnancies. It should be pretty easy to determine the parties involved. It will be interesting to see where the statistics on that go if implemented. Since several militaries have already permitted women in front line roles has anyone seen stories on instances or statistics of pregnancies among front line combat troops?
I don't have an opinion on increasing penalties, but I would like to ask you your reasoning. It seems to me that men and women are already in close contact throughout the military, even in combat zones. Is it the specific weakening of a fighting unit (when a woman is removed from it due to pregnancy) rather than a support unit that has you concerned?

Like I said, I don't have an opinion, I'm just trying to understand yours.

User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 20548
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by dbt1949 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:34 am

I'm too lazy but why doesn't someone research the Russian women of WW2 fighting in the army?
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Rip » Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:35 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:I would not say I am against it. I am simply voicing my feelings that it be done for the right reasons. As long as the optional metrics for the job as determined without regard to sex and the women applying meet the cutoff for those roles then I say let them at it.

I also think you may have to look at stiffening the punishment for relationships/pregnancies. It should be pretty easy to determine the parties involved. It will be interesting to see where the statistics on that go if implemented. Since several militaries have already permitted women in front line roles has anyone seen stories on instances or statistics of pregnancies among front line combat troops?
I don't have an opinion on increasing penalties, but I would like to ask you your reasoning. It seems to me that men and women are already in close contact throughout the military, even in combat zones. Is it the specific weakening of a fighting unit (when a woman is removed from it due to pregnancy) rather than a support unit that has you concerned?

Like I said, I don't have an opinion, I'm just trying to understand yours.
Rotating front line troops engaged in combat is not an easy task. It takes resources. Having to do that by the very nature of it weakens the fighting capability. If it turns out to not be a problem great. I know for certain it has been a problem when it comes to non-frontline foces and that is already to our detriment IMHO. If it weren't for all the bible thumpers we could probably get some requirement for birth control for forces on rotation but I suspect there would still be much whining about it.

User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Gavin » Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:58 am

dbt1949 wrote:I'm too lazy but why doesn't someone research the Russian women of WW2 fighting in the army?
Great idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_wom ... rld_War_II" target="_blank

Very interesting but it doesn't do much about qualitative performance. Most of the female heros got killed and I haven't exactly figured out how they got their elevated status of hero. Does anyone know why Manshuk Mametova got her status? The wiki-page is deplorably sparse.

Another woman, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, is famous for not giving up names despite being tortured and "humiliated".

I can't find better examples. There's Zinaida Portnova who was captured and shot one of her captors before being caught and killed.

I'd be interested in seeing a unit of female troops. It would completely side step the issue of them holding stronger male soldiers back. We could also make qualitative distinctions between the units.

User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Anonymous Bosch » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:03 am

Kraken wrote:
GreenGoo wrote: If the Pentagon did come to this conclusion on their own, then they get kudos, as they would be the only military in the world who made this leap without outside influence/pressure/law.
I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary unless you believe that the lawsuit had the Pentagon quaking in its combat boots. Is there any evidence that the policy was changed due to outside pressure for non-military reasons? (Honest question.) Because if not, then I don't see why you're all arguing.
This is what Marine Captain Katie Petronio said about it, FWIW:
Capt. Katie Petronio wrote:Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Rip » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:05 am

Gavin wrote:
dbt1949 wrote:I'm too lazy but why doesn't someone research the Russian women of WW2 fighting in the army?
Great idea!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_wom ... rld_War_II" target="_blank

Very interesting but it doesn't do much about qualitative performance. Most of the female heros got killed and I haven't exactly figured out how they got their elevated status of hero. Does anyone know why Manshuk Mametova got her status? The wiki-page is deplorably sparse.

Another woman, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, is famous for not giving up names despite being tortured and "humiliated".

I can't find better examples. There's Zinaida Portnova who was captured and shot one of her captors before being caught and killed.

I'd be interested in seeing a unit of female troops. It would completely side step the issue of them holding stronger male soldiers back. We could also make qualitative distinctions between the units.
There is certainly good representation throughout history to attest to the fact that they can be every bit as brave and courageous as a man. Not to mention that in the proper situations they can do things a man could never do.

User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Women in Combat Roles

Post by Gavin » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:30 am

Rip wrote:There is certainly good representation throughout history to attest to the fact that they can be every bit as brave and courageous as a man.
Absolutley.
Not to mention that in the proper situations they can do things a man could never do.
Yes, there being significant differences between men and women mean different strengths and weaknesses that play to/detract from specific situations. I don't know what physical activities you're thinking of but even being smaller has its advantages.

Post Reply