Women in Combat Roles
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
- Anonymous Bosch
- Posts: 10514
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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 is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
- Gavin
- Posts: 1702
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.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?
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.
- PLW
- Posts: 3058
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
- Location: Clemson
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
There aren't 46,000 people in the NFL, NHL, NBA and the like. Nor are soldiers grades solely on their physical prowess.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?
Black Lives Matter
"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
"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
- Gavin
- Posts: 1702
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm
Re: Women in Combat Roles
Some of those averages I presented are pretty much standard or difficult to measure.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.
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.
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.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.
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.noxiousdog wrote:There aren't 46,000 people in the NFL, NHL, NBA and the like. Nor are soldiers grades solely on their physical prowess.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?
- Anonymous Bosch
- Posts: 10514
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.noxiousdog wrote:There aren't 46,000 people in the NFL, NHL, NBA and the like. Nor are soldiers grades solely on their physical prowess.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 is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
- PLW
- Posts: 3058
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
- Location: Clemson
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.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.
No quotas.. just facts.
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
Different distribution is one thing but that ONE group would be allowed to score lower on EVERY item is favortism plain and simple.PLW wrote: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.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.
No quotas.. just facts.
- silverjon
- Posts: 10781
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: Western Canuckistan
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.Gavin wrote:greater pelvic bone angle (less efficient weight distribution that makes carrying things harder for them and causes slower leg movement)
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?
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?
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
True, but not being able to do it would certainly mean you wouldn't be a fantastic soldier.silverjon wrote: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.Gavin wrote:greater pelvic bone angle (less efficient weight distribution that makes carrying things harder for them and causes slower leg movement)
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.
- silverjon
- Posts: 10781
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: Western Canuckistan
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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?
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?
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
Some are.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.
Black Lives Matter
"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
"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
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82327
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
And I'm sure there's not a single case of roid rage in front line troops either.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Gavin
- Posts: 1702
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm
Re: Women in Combat Roles
Short of women who've gotten hysterectomies where they can't have periods then all are flooded with estrogen and progesterone.noxiousdog wrote:Some are.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.
Then what do you think about the notion of making lower standards for women?Silverjon wrote:Yes, and I think anyone who couldn't should flunk out, male or female.
- silverjon
- Posts: 10781
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: Western Canuckistan
Re: Women in Combat Roles
<insert US Navy bath salts psa>Isgrimnur wrote:And I'm sure there's not a single case of roid rage in front line troops either.
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?
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?
- silverjon
- Posts: 10781
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
- Location: Western Canuckistan
Re: Women in Combat Roles
I already said no.Gavin wrote:[Then what do you think about the notion of making lower standards for women?Silverjon wrote:Yes, and I think anyone who couldn't should flunk out, male or female.
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?
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?
- PLW
- Posts: 3058
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
- Location: Clemson
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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."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.
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.Gavin wrote: Short of women who've gotten hysterectomies where they can't have periods then all are flooded with estrogen and progesterone.
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?
Black Lives Matter
"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
"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
- Gavin
- Posts: 1702
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm
Re: Women in Combat Roles
Unsure, it needs to be researched.noxiousdog wrote: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.Gavin wrote: Short of women who've gotten hysterectomies where they can't have periods then all are flooded with estrogen and progesterone.
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?
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.Gavin wrote: Unsure, it needs to be researched.
Black Lives Matter
"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
"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
- dbt1949
- Posts: 25757
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
- Location: Hogeye Arkansas
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949
- Smoove_B
- Posts: 54726
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
- Location: Kaer Morhen
Re: Women in Combat Roles
It won't matter in another two generations when everything is done by drones. And another four when we have robot infantry.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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?PLW wrote: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."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.
- PLW
- Posts: 3058
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:39 am
- Location: Clemson
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.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?
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.
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42347
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: Women in Combat Roles
dbt1949 wrote:That would have been horrible if I had flunked infantry and been forced to be some clerk in Oxnard.
My thoughts exactly.
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42347
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: Women in Combat Roles
Kraken already mentioned that.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
- Posts: 43802
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.
I'm inclined to see it as a non-issue if the War Department was the instigator.
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42347
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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!
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!
- Kraken
- Posts: 43802
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.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.
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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 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?
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42347
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.Kraken wrote: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.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.
- GreenGoo
- Posts: 42347
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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?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?
Like I said, I don't have an opinion, I'm just trying to understand yours.
- dbt1949
- Posts: 25757
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
- Location: Hogeye Arkansas
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.GreenGoo wrote: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?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?
Like I said, I don't have an opinion, I'm just trying to understand yours.
- Gavin
- Posts: 1702
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm
Re: Women in Combat Roles
Great idea!dbt1949 wrote:I'm too lazy but why doesn't someone research the Russian women of WW2 fighting in the army?
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.
- Anonymous Bosch
- Posts: 10514
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]
Re: Women in Combat Roles
This is what Marine Captain Katie Petronio said about it, FWIW:Kraken wrote: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.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.
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.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Women in Combat Roles
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.Gavin wrote:Great idea!dbt1949 wrote:I'm too lazy but why doesn't someone research the Russian women of WW2 fighting in the army?
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.
- Gavin
- Posts: 1702
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm
Re: Women in Combat Roles
Absolutley.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.
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.Not to mention that in the proper situations they can do things a man could never do.