(September 10, 2015 at 9:14 pm)SmootherPebble Wrote: Sorry for the trigger title (so to speak), but it comes from an argument I made 3 years ago as an opinion columnist when I had just left the Air Force... around the time the ban on women on the frontlines was lifted. That argument can be found here. 

The reason for the post now is because the Marines just released a year long study showing how men outperformed women in combat in every case... just weeks after the big news came out that 2 women had made it through Ranger school. I'd state more of my argument here, but you can just read it in the link above.

My opinion has been strengthened from 3 years ago. I'll fight for equality (literally and figuratively), but in the interest of national security and lives being willfully put on the line, equity supersedes. Women should not be allowed on the front line, and if they must, they must match the minimum expectation of men. 

Ian

Yes Ian it's obvious that "men are better than women in combat" - why else can't women compete equitable against men in sports?

The interesting thing about allowing women to serve on the front lines isn't so much about whether they "should" or "shouldn't", but about what's going to happen when the public realises there's a big difference in something like chance of survival among trained military personnel in a combat zone.

But for now you should at least be glad that women are being used for a military purpose instead of being trafficked as sex slaves for the combatants.

(September 11, 2015 at 4:21 am)LastPoet Wrote: It takes time to resolve the confusion, so I think women can be as deadly as men in combat.

To be fair, is anyone in this thread saying they can't be?

It's more of an issue of requirements IMO and not really anything to do with gender. I know from when I was thinking about applying for the army myself a while ago that women straight up have different fitness requirements. For instance they don't have to score as highly on the bleep test to get accepted. But if they were ever called up and had to fight, would the situation they find themselves in be more forgiving because of the fact that they're female? No, ofcourse it wouldn't. So why do we have different requirements?

Whether women on the whole perform better or worse than men is besides the point because, as RocketSurgeon rightly suggests, it's down to individuals. And what they as an individual are physically capable of. It's more just a matter of physiology that most women are smaller/less physically strong than men on average. It doesn't mean they all are and to my knowledge nobody in this thread has suggested so.

(September 11, 2015 at 4:36 am)Aractus Wrote: Yes Ian it's obvious that "men are better than women in combat"

Okay, I take back my previous post. People actually are making such sweeping generalizations.

Watching tennis US open now, why do woman have best of 3 sets?
Because as a general rule they don't have the stamina to go a 5 hour 5 set marathon ...

Nothing wrong with that. It's our evolution.

(September 11, 2015 at 4:54 am)ignoramus Wrote: Watching tennis US open now, why do woman have best of 3 sets?
Because as a general rule they don't have the stamina to go a 5 hour 5 set marathon ...

Nothing wrong with that. It's our evolution.

Right, that logic might be okay for tennis, but it doesn't cut it in a scenario where you have a squad whose lives are dependent on your own stamina. 

This is what people don't seem to be getting.

The solution isn't to give women lowered standards to adhere to in the name of equality IMO. It's to hold them to the same standards as everyone else and if they meet them, fantastic, if not, just like if a man couldn't meet it, tough shit.

(September 11, 2015 at 5:02 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 4:54 am)ignoramus Wrote: Watching tennis US open now, why do woman have best of 3 sets?
Because as a general rule they don't have the stamina to go a 5 hour 5 set marathon ...

Nothing wrong with that. It's our evolution.

Right, that logic might be okay for tennis, but it doesn't cut it in a scenario where you have a squad whose lives are dependent on your own stamina. 

This is what people don't seem to be getting.

The solution isn't to give women lowered standards to adhere to in the name of equality IMO. It's to hold them to the same standards as everyone else and if they meet them, fantastic, if not, just like if a man couldn't meet it, tough shit.

And not only that. In the field of combat, physical prowess gets center-stage, but the fact is that in that same field of combat, such ineluctables as leadership and fight are at least as important, not to mention the cultural differences which add value to women being the point-of-contact, or (ahem) our own social programming which leads women to find different solutions to tactical problems which might not occur to men.

A woman might be weaker, yet more willing to fight; a woman might be buff, but because of social programming be more adaptable to talking with locals. Not everything, even in the infantry boils down to muscle, especially in this day.

(September 11, 2015 at 12:51 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I haven't seen any evidence here that women  shouldn't be allowed in combat, or that women are not capable of it. That's because there is no such thing as women. There are individuals who are male and individuals who are female, and some of each try to become soldiers. There are also different jobs within the military, which should have different minimum requirements, as has already been discussed. No one in their right mind would say that a woman should be held to different requirements than a male applying for the same job; that is sexism in the guise of "political correctness", and serves neither female nor male soldiers. If you speak to female athletes who apply for the jobs that are currently only open to male athletes (because, let's be honest, almost nobody here would qualify for those jobs either), they do not want the standards lowered, either. The two female Rangers are a case in point.

The entire OP and thread are about differential standards for male soldiers and female ones. And yes, that is harmful to the military and to the unit integration.

The rape argument is unworthy of discussion; it is no more to the point about their capacity  to be equal members of a combat unit than it is to the point that racists didn't want black members in white units in the 1940s, when the military was ordered desegregated. It also ignores that men are commonly raped in the military, as well,  and even though it's not at the same astounding rate that it occurs for women, the numbers are still shocking and significant. It speaks to a military culture that needs to change drastically, and that is all.

The reason I bring up the "there is no such thing as 'women' but only females who become soldiers" line is that you cannot describe individuals as comprising a general category, and then apply the average number to the individual, because it does not apply to that individual. To show why, let's ignore gender and violence for a moment, and talk about rocket science:

The average IQ of a person is 100, and 90% of the population is between 90-110 IQ. Only one out of ten people is outside that range, and since only half of those are above that range, only 5% of people have 110+. I have an IQ in the 150 range, so I might qualify to become an astrophysicist or engineer for NASA... but I would first have to pass a rigorous set of tests, including a huge amount of differential calculus and other mathematics, applied physics, chemistry, etc. Rightfully so! I know from personal experience that, smart as I am, I have enough difficulty with certain kinds of advanced mathematics (my brain is more "tuned" to verbal comprehension and pattern-seeking than to calculating) that I would be a poor fit for a job at NASA/JPL. But if I did somehow manage to take the exams and join the team at NASA, the very last thing that should matter is that I belong to a category  (human beings) that, in general, is 95% incapable of even beginning to qualify for the basic requirements for that job. Of the remaining 5%, only about 20% of those really qualify, so about 1% of the population, and even among that 1% of the population, very few actually make it because the requirements are (rightfully) stringent.

Should I accomplish all those things, only to be told at the end that "in general", men are not qualified for that job, I would be horrified. If I found that I had been held to lower standards for entry because I belong to any particular sub-group (say, "those with penises") of humanity, I would be even more appalled. The same exact situation applies to women in combat. I would rather have Rhonda Rousey at my side in hand-to-hand combat than a copy of myself-- why? Because she could kick my ass, hands down, even though I am in great shape and have studied martial arts since I was five years old. Her vagina doesn't enter into this equation.

Beautifully said.  Love the Rousey illustration, lol.

(September 11, 2015 at 4:40 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 4:36 am)Aractus Wrote: Yes Ian it's obvious that "men are better than women in combat"

Okay, I take back my previous post. People actually are making such sweeping generalizations.

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realise you didn't know. Men are also better than women at Motorcar Racing - that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't do it, or that they should be excluded. Such a concept is valid in sports because in the majority of the time Women will not be able to reach the level that allows them to compete directly against men; however in something like combat it isn't about who is "better" than who in determining who should serve on the front line. It is about getting people who are willing to do service for their Country, training them, and sending them into conflict zones. Nevertheless it is a fact that women will have a higher chance of casualty in war zones due to differences in physical ability.

FYI Tennis is a sexist sport, I can't stand it. Yes women should play the same number of sets as men - and the scorer should learn to count.

(September 11, 2015 at 4:39 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(September 11, 2015 at 4:21 am)LastPoet Wrote: It takes time to resolve the confusion, so I think women can be as deadly as men in combat.

To be fair, is anyone in this thread saying they can't be?

It's more of an issue of requirements IMO and not really anything to do with gender. I know from when I was thinking about applying for the army myself a while ago that women straight up have different fitness requirements. For instance they don't have to score as highly on the bleep test to get accepted. But if they were ever called up and had to fight, would the situation they find themselves in be more forgiving because of the fact that they're female? No, ofcourse it wouldn't. So why do we have different requirements?

Whether women on the whole perform better or worse than men is besides the point because, as RocketSurgeon rightly suggests, it's down to individuals. And what they as an individual are physically capable of. It's more just a matter of physiology that most women are smaller/less physically strong than men on average. It doesn't mean they all are and to my knowledge nobody in this thread has suggested so.

Never said anything about that. On average close range combat is most likely won by a man, barring ofc close range friendly combat. In war people are tools and one needs to be wise using those tools. Have I told you that war is a horrible thing?

(September 11, 2015 at 3:29 am)I_am_not_mafia Wrote: I read that the American military were finding women in the army increasingly useful because of a lot of action went on behind the front lines with insurgency. So even though the female soldiers were not on the front line they still ended up in combat. And in Islamic states a lot of women won't talk to men who are not family.

Anyway, what about the Iraqi kurds fighting Isis? Half of those soldiers are women.

Yes, as war changes, the definition of what is the most preferred type of soldier may also change.