Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[DefunctTheory]

You literally cannot screw up with this thing.

But only if it doesn't fit over your head. We once had a guy with a head wound whose wife tried putting a tourniquet around his neck "like they do on ER". Fortunately, she was quite incompetent at it.
I swear, sometimes I feel like I'm working in a huge asylum.

And to stay completely offtopic, do you happen to know any reasoning for Army First Aid pouches favoring NPAs over OPAs? Seems like a weird choice considering its contraindications, although I guess it takes up less space than a whole set of OPAs...

I don't really know why.

If I were to guess, it's because the Army's Surgeon General is an asshole, and enjoys making soldiers jam these things up each others noses during first aid training.

 

[Yuuki]

I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.

But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?

Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.

In my 6 years in the military, I knew exactly one female who had problems with plate carriers. And she had retardly huge breast. The kind of breast that, when you see them, your first thoughts aren't sexual, but of an engineering perspective - How does a female not topple over onto her face every time she stands up? How could God create such a poorly balanced creature?

I don't think the US Military needs to redesign armor to accommodate such a small percentage of females. Besides, the armor still works, it just required what I assume was an industrial strength sports bra.

...

I'll, ah, be back later. Need to um... google something.

 

[Yuuki]

I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.

But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?

Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.

You seem to be under the impression that if women join they'll replace men instead of being in addition to men

You seem to be under the impression that an infinite number of soldiers can be deployed anywhere...it is always specified how many troops are required to get a job done. While it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from, a smart nation isn't going to deploy 5 female soldiers with 95 male soldiers to a place where things are going to get harsh/uncomfortable, facilities are scarce and the women's performance suffers (even slightly) as a result.
That's why I asked, where is the benefit to the military unit? There are times where a nation has no choice but to send their very best in order to give themselves the best chance, where nothing unnecessary/extra will be done (i.e. cut all corners) unless there is a quantifiable pay-off/return.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I don't really care one way or the other. If the military says women can serve in combat-specific roles, I'm cool with it. The only places where I think integration would be tricky business is special forces and submarines. Special Forces because it's just fucking grueling and unit cohesiveness is life or death for those guys, and subs because... well, let's face it: a bunch of guys and girls in a tiny cramped space for months at a time... yeesh. All kinds of problems I can see with that. Female sub commanders is one thing; they get their own bunk and most people aren't stupid enough to mess around with someone well above their paygrade, but full integration I just don't see going smoothly.

At the same time, if we can't trust our own men and women not to fuck around why the hell are we trusting them at all to defend the country?

Well... who else could do it? Dolphins?

 

[DefunctTheory]

I don't really care one way or the other. If the military says women can serve in combat-specific roles, I'm cool with it. The only places where I think integration would be tricky business is special forces and submarines. Special Forces because it's just fucking grueling and unit cohesiveness is life or death for those guys, and subs because... well, let's face it: a bunch of guys and girls in a tiny cramped space for months at a time... yeesh. All kinds of problems I can see with that. Female sub commanders is one thing; they get their own bunk and most people aren't stupid enough to mess around with someone well above their paygrade, but full integration I just don't see going smoothly.

At the same time, if we can't trust our own men and women not to fuck around why the hell are we trusting them at all to defend the country?

Well... who else could do it? Dolphins?

Dolphins are notorious rapist.

This does not seem like a step up in the fucking around department.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I don't really care one way or the other. If the military says women can serve in combat-specific roles, I'm cool with it. The only places where I think integration would be tricky business is special forces and submarines. Special Forces because it's just fucking grueling and unit cohesiveness is life or death for those guys, and subs because... well, let's face it: a bunch of guys and girls in a tiny cramped space for months at a time... yeesh. All kinds of problems I can see with that. Female sub commanders is one thing; they get their own bunk and most people aren't stupid enough to mess around with someone well above their paygrade, but full integration I just don't see going smoothly.

At the same time, if we can't trust our own men and women not to fuck around why the hell are we trusting them at all to defend the country?

Well... who else could do it? Dolphins?

Dolphins are notorious rapist.

This does not seem like a step up in the fucking around department.

Chimpanzees are notoriously aggressive and territorial, too. They'd always be starting shit. Well, that settles it. Our military must be staffed entirely by scarecrows and jack-o-lanterns with smiley faces.

 

[Yuuki]

So you're deliberately ignoring benefits to increased recruitment because of specific situations you may not want it that you didn't specify beforehand? Shifting the goal posts much?

Besides it increases recruitment potential. When you need it you can't just flick a switch on then back off

That's why I said "...while it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from...".

Increased recruitment potential is nice, but 10,000 male troops vs 10,000 mixed-gender troops is going to have zero benefits, only downsides regarding increased male-on-female sexual assault and a sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities. What is the gain/return? Answer the main question already, the goalposts haven't moved anywhere.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

So I was just imagining those women's only fitness clubs, women's health centers, domestic abuse shelters that service only women, charities that serve only victimized women, and the entire month of October being devoted to Breast Cancer Awareness?

Aren't those discriminatory?

Of course not. You can go start your own men's fitness clubs, health centres, abuse shelters, charities and awareness campaigns. You can allow whoever you want in a private organisation, spend your money however you want. And people do.

Your nation probably won't allow you to start your own military because you don't like the existing one.

Riddle me this , Batman; If it's alright to have male only fitness clubs, how come the only one's I've heard of have faced lawsuits for "being discriminatory?"

Also, you can totally have your own military, you just need to call yourself a "Private Security Contractor Service" and you're golden.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

So you're deliberately ignoring benefits to increased recruitment because of specific situations you may not want it that you didn't specify beforehand? Shifting the goal posts much?

Besides it increases recruitment potential. When you need it you can't just flick a switch on then back off

That's why I said "...while it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from...".

Increased recruitment potential is nice, but 10,000 male troops vs 10,000 mixed-gender troops is going to have zero benefits, only downsides regarding increased male-on-female sexual assault and a sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities. What is the gain/return? Answer the main question already, the goalposts haven't moved anywhere.

The answer is simple; "Sack up and shower with the dudes."

 

[Yuuki]

The answer is simple; "Sack up and shower with the dudes."

Dear god, I can only imagine the shitstorm that would ensue. I remember a thread/poll here about gender-neutral showers...some said "sure why not", some said "only if I have to", MOST said "no fucking way".

Also what about all these other downsides...
> Increased male-on-female sexual assault
> Higher PTSD victims
> Higher fatigue-related injuries
> Higher stress-related injuries
> A sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities

What is the gain/return that will out-weigh those downsides? If it exists, I'm ALL for it, trust me I love working with logic/numbers instead of against it. Anything that improves the military's effectiveness on their missions, full steam ahead.
The goalposts haven't moved anywhere.

 

[DefunctTheory]

The answer is simple; "Sack up and shower with the dudes."

Dear god, I can only imagine the shitstorm that would ensue. I remember a thread/poll here about gender-neutral showers...some said "sure why not", some said "only if I have to", MOST said "no fucking way".

Also what about all these other downsides...
> Increased male-on-female sexual assault
> Higher PTSD victims
> Higher fatigue-related injuries
> Higher stress-related injuries
> A sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities

What is the gain/return that will out-weigh those downsides? If it exists, I'm ALL for it, trust me I love working with logic/numbers instead of against it. Anything that improves the military's effectiveness on their missions, full steam ahead.
The goalposts haven't moved anywhere.

Like... meth high or weed high?

In seriousness though...

Sexual assault could be a problem.

More PTSD cases... probably. Women soldiers report a far higher percentage of cases (Something like 19%, as opposed to males who are around 9 percent). Several studies have found, however, that women handle it far better once they get state side. Men have a tendency to delve into destructive behavior.

The PTSD reports are also heavily flawed - While the US Military has gotten really good at supporting PTSD over the years, their still terribly bad at finding it in the first place. It took them 2 and half years to diagnose me, and I know several people that clearly came back from Iraq a bit scrambled but never were diagnosed or treated. Women are far more likely to seek treatment on their own.

Yah, fatigue injuries are more common in females.

Don't know what you mean by stress. Mental stress?

It really, really isn't hard to get a separate shower/bathroom and living space for females. It's not an issue, really, outside of maybe the Navy, where space is at a premium. And they already dealt with the issue years ago and figured it out.

 

[Yuuki]

Like... meth high or weed high?

In seriousness though...

Sexual assault could be a problem.

More PTSD cases... probably. Women soldiers report a far higher percentage of cases (Something like 19%, as opposed to males who are around 9 percent). Several studies have found, however, that women handle it far better once they get state side. Men have a tendency to delve into destructive behavior.

The PTSD reports are also heavily flawed - While the US Military has gotten really good at supporting PTSD over the years, their still terribly bad at finding it in the first place. It took them 2 and half years to diagnose me, and I know several people that clearly came back from Iraq a bit scrambled but never were diagnosed or treated. Women are far more likely to seek treatment on their own.

Yah, fatigue injuries are more common in females.

Don't know what you mean by stress. Mental stress?

It really, really isn't hard to get a separate shower/bathroom and living space for females. It's not an issue, really, outside of maybe the Navy, where space is at a premium. And they already dealt with the issue years ago and figured it out.

That's all great.

Still waiting to hear about the benefits/gains to the military as a whole, besides higher recruitment numbers.

There you go comparing 10k to 10k.

The benefit was already pointed out, you tried to weasel out by talking about the scenario where apparently they just need 10k troops as opposed to more in general.

You shifted the goal.posts when you made it about a situation where numbers weren't important. In doing so you changed the scenario, not needing higher recruitment was not initially specified.

You you feel bigger recruitment numbers out-weigh all the downsides (and there's definitely a few more than I'm missing), that's fine. I can't argue against opinions.

I will happily give you that point - if more troops are needed in combat and not enough are signing up, nations can resort to sending women into combat. Actually I think a couple of ancient civilizations/kingdoms DID literally resort to using women/children as warriors after they ran out of men. It didn't work out too well and they fell anyway, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Like I said, I'm happy with whatever works best.

 

[CHUD]

Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.

The return is to society, in that you reduce discrimination. In itself, that is reason enough.

 

[chikusho]

"Anyone - dumb enough - to want to be in the military should be allowed in." - Bill Hicks

That's all it comes down to.

"As long as the people who kinda wanna go kill other people - are going to go kill OTHER people who kinda wanna go kill other people; you're killing all the right people and opening up all the best parking spaces." - Doug Stanhope

How come it takes comedians to really figure most of this stuff out?

 

[Fasckira]

Spoiler: 100% agree

(from that news story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340700/Video-half-naked-female-Israeli-soldiers-pole-dancing-rifle-emerge-days-racy-pictures-women-recruits-posing-weapons-underwear.html)

But yes, I don't see an issue but then I don't have to work out the various implications of have women serve alongside men.

 

[Yuuki]

Question: What's the difference between a Male and a Female of the human species?
Answer: Genitalia.

What on earth...meaning no offense but I recommend going back to school, or at least taking a biology class or two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology

Okay, let me rephrase that. What is the tangible, functional difference that means anything to the average human being between a Male and a Female of the Human species?

Answer: Genitalia.

Ah, that's more like it. Except that what is considered "tangible, functional" boils down to your personal opinion, and it also ignores that there are varying levels/types in functionality.
Men and women are created equal in the sense that we deserve equal rights, equal respect and we make each other complete (as far as nature/evolution cares). That's the extent of our equality. That's my opinion

Also another person's opinion, a female US Marine who served for a quite a long time and would therefore know (better than any of us) what the harsh reality is: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
Scroll down to the comments below that article to see perspectives of other females who have served in combat roles, and a vastly richer set of viewpoints in general (at least compared to this mess of a thread).

The overwhelming majority of posts in this thread must be along the lines of "as long as they meet same requirements blah blah", while giving absolutely no thought to the long-term physical, sociological, etc repercussions because apparently those don't matter as long as females pass the same fitness requirements as males. Sigh. Apparently being a successful combat soldier is as simple as passing field tests because they can totally "test" what happens over the course of 5/10/15 years of service and how it could impact the other men. Double sigh.

 

[Jodah]

As long as the requirements are the same as their male counterparts yes. I have a major problem with having lower requirements for females, however, as is often the case is similar jobs (see police and firefighters).

 

[Yuuki]

Sociological and psychological things like tradition, gender roles, gender identity or the notion of masculinity and femininity are simply shit we made up and then reinforced. Gender roles aren't actually real, they were just opinions about gender we conformed to. Masculinity and Femininity were the ways we determined those roles. Gender Identity is a by-product of the stigma of those gender roles we conformed to. And Tradition was the flimsy excuse we used for all three.

In reality, on a base scientific level, none of those things are actually real. They aren't in any way apart of the real aspects of gender (body chemistry, reproduction, and base hormonal animal instinct). They're a creation (or by-product) of human stupidity (or rebellion against human stupidity in the case of Identity).

And was it by sheer coincidence that almost every kingdom/empire/nation/civilization found gender roles to be the best way to function throughout the history of mankind? Oh and it was also coincidence that they all arrived at that conclusion completely independent/separated from each other by time periods or geographic locations, right? Because I highly doubt everyone was copying everyone else, as if one civilization said "hey I heard rumors of a nation beyond the horizon who use men for war and protect their women! Lets copy them, yeah!". I'm fairly certain each one arrived at their own conclusion independently and used something that worked best for them. Despite the vastly different cultures, societies and conditions that each civilization rose from, there was ONE strikingly similar pattern across all of them - gender roles. Coincidence? Stupidity?
Or are you really implying with a straight face that all that was simply a miraculous stroke of luck on a global scale resulting in the exactly the same scenario for men and women, over and over again, over the course of thousands of years? All a made-up nonsensical thing, yes?

Different times call for different needs. We are in a time where the rise of technology is making gender roles less and less relevant, but it is only thanks TO that constant progression of technology & advances in our knowledge. Being able to use brains instead of manual labor has opened up a lot more options for women, which is great, I love it. But the long-term physical toll of being a SOLDIER (that's what this thread is about) isn't much different from what it was 500 years ago. It's still absolutely brutal on the body, inflicting strain on a daily basis - and men are capable of handling that over extended periods far better than women, even if that tiny portion of women do manage to pass the same entry physical tests. This isn't about gender equality, it's about being logical.

Unfortunately the majority of the people who are campaigning for women be allowed into combat/frontlines are civilians or activists who have absolutely no clue about what they're asking for, they just want to see their wonderful ideology of "true equality" play out in this harsh/unfair world where men and women are still very much different in everything from career/occupation choices to gender roles. Gender roles are still prevalent in most of the world's population (call it human stupidity, call it whatever you want), you can't just look at first-world-countries and yell "see, gender roles are gone, completely gone!". They are most certainly NOT gone if you look at any developing nation with lower GDP and worse living conditions than the oh-so-glorious USA.

 

[Yuuki]

The ability to fight and handle the stress of fighting is a psychological one. It does't discriminate by gender in any sense.

What's the legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat? There's no rational or scientific argument against it that doesn't rely on entirely anecdotal evidence.

Errr it's a documented fact that PTSD rates among female soldiers is far higher than males, as well as their rates of medical discharges & therapy for strain/fatigue-related injuries being significantly higher than males. They also face higher rates of sexual harassment (not their fault, simply harsh reality).

Here's several links documenting the realistic impact of gender differences how they have differing sociological effects, differing physiological effects, injury rates/long-term performance, etc...but I don't know why I'm posting these because you'll probably ignore all of it:
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/ [http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7] / Cached version [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_ylOQK5HkPYJ:www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx%3Fdocid%3Db42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a] (just read the Foreword on page 7 lol)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/
http://www.hopetocope.com/Item.aspx/558/women-war
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
http://www.coe.ucsf.edu/coe/research/ptsd-sexualtrauma.html
http://ptsd.about.com/od/causesanddevelopment/a/PTSDandMST.htm
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174756788/off-the-battlefield-military-women-face-risks-from-male-troops

You really need to wake up and smell the coffee of biological differences and come out of this dream world of yours with the "it's just genitalia, nothing more!". In civilian life, yes we're getting there, in the military, fuck no. The ability to fight and handle the stress is NOT just a psychological one, it is very much physical as well and absolutely related to gender...as explained in all the links above.

I can keep finding more and more data if you want, but there's no point if you've simply encased yourself in a steel box and shouting things from the inside. That's not how discussions work.