More Gender Wars

[Commander Jon Snow]

What is this thread about? Just curious because it seems as if most of the debates have continued from previous threads and I can't follow

[James Arryn]

Right. Suddenly, he doesn't seem quite as enlightened.

When did he seem enlightened?

But, more to the point, when did that matter to his argument?

[The Mance]

What is this thread about? Just curious because it seems as if most of the debates have continued from previous threads and I can't follow

It's a continuation of this thread-

[Joanna vander Poele]

This really just sounds like an argument for more drones. Yay!

[sologdin]

For periodic combat operations, for some types of maneoevers many people could pull it off. But

now the case is altered. i will reassess. but: what has any of that to do with carrying a big-assed person?

[Commander Jon Snow]

If we're talking women in combat (I'm still a bit lost in this thread lol), then I think they should have the same opportunity to represent as the men. That said, I would hope for the best people for the job and for this specific one, there will probably be a lot more men.

[leighm89]

Yay for different time zone and having stuff on. I think there's been quite a lot spoken about since I left & I really don't have a hope of covering much of it here, so I'll go off recentness.

I'm not entirely sure to what degree the women in combat movement shows heightened sexism or not. There may well be an old fashioned squeamishness of it, to the line of "but what if she's captured...??" among other somewhat 'noble' but demeaning arguments.

Physical capability is quite a different avenue, and there's valid arguments from both sides. As a general rule, a large sample size of men versus a large sample size of women will contain more men suited to the role than women. Does that matter? Not really. Most men aren't in the army. Women who possess the capability, and more importantly the commitment to train their bloody arses off (a very important aspect that we really can't ignore. Grunts aren't born bulging with muscles) then there's absolutely zero reason to exclude them.

Will the men in the army act differently if there's women around? Possibly. Does that indicate sexism within the army? Well, yes. In Australia, a report was just handed down to the government showing rampant sexism in the armed forces. Sexual abuse, assault and so on were far too common. Perhaps women in front line roles will have some small, positive impact on a backwards culture. We can only hope.

I've known one woman my entire life who I could trust beside me in combat, and until that number goes up, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would serve beside women in combat. Until women start growing stronger arms, running faster, and hitting harder then they should not be allowed in combat.

Then let me explain something to you. Firepower maximization already happens to a very large degree, and big-assed male soldiers play a good part in that. If you can accomplish tasks with fewer people, you're more efficient, and one of the biggest arguments against women in combat today is that they are not as physically capable as men, hence requiring more of them to accomplish their task (i.e. log PT.) Until science disagrees with me, I'll stand by that.

So the women - rare or not, it's not for us to know nor judge - who are capable should be excluded? I find it sad that you're judging your opinions on 50% of the population (which is roughly 3 000 000 000 000 people FYI) on your dealings with the few dozen in your life. Science does disagree with you. Some women are capable. Some men are capable. Many men and women are not capable. End of story.

To be fair, PRT, PFT, BFC and other physical testing minimal requirements are adjusted for gender.

But he can't say that. He doesn't necessarily know particulars. There is an assumption about the requirements of the occupation, and that assumption produced physical minimums requirements. Those requirements were lowered for women so that the USAF wouldn't defy gender barriers. So the woman he's sitting next to may or may not meet the standards applied to men (high probability of not, but no degree of certainty), but the point is he has no way of knowing the way he would if it was a man.

As the 'strictest requirements regardles of sex' are not legally allowed to be implelemented, he is left with an uncertainty protecting his back. I personally wouldn't give too much weight to his assessment that he's met only 1 woman who would qualify...individual bias can play a huge role in that kind of eval...but I can sympathize with the predicament of having your life and death occupational standards lowered for some of the people you may have to rely on to save you.

Agreed. There's currently a debate in Australia about women serving in combat roles. As far as I'm aware, it will happen and there will be no different entry test. I am concerned about different standards for different genders, it lowers the confidence of the "right" person for the job and many women are more than able to step up to the job anyway. Plus it seems sexist.

If we're talking women in combat (I'm still a bit lost in this thread lol), then I think they should have the same opportunity to represent as the men. That said, I would hope for the best people for the job and for this specific one, there will probably be a lot more men.

Agreed. Most people who are in combat roles are absolutely the right people for the job and perform their tasks with absolute diligence.

[Kalbear]

The Israelis - the second most successful military in the world currently - have women as frontline soldiers.

Your arguments to the contrary are invalid.

[leighm89]

^ I forgot to mention Israel. Good point.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

And yet, "virgin" is a concept developed to commoditize females, no? Or have we had historical periods where a man was judged as more worthy and more moral based on his lack of sexual experience? I guess some religious orders that glorify abstinence may apply, but for society as a whole?

So I don't think the table is turning as much as you'd like it to be.

Interestingly enough, if you read the early church fathers, such as St. Ambrose in particular, they tended to glorify abstinence and virginity in a sexist (though some would say that it's 'queer') manner in which taking on the feminine virtues of chastity and virginity accentuated their masculinity as a means of describing themselves as hypermasculine.

Pardon my useless interjection. Please carry on this conversation.

[James Arryn]

The Israelis - the second most successful military in the world currently - have women as frontline soldiers.

Your arguments to the contrary are invalid.

1) 2nd most what? Where did they finish in regular season play vs. playoffs?

2) The IDF is an interesting examination, but I don't think it supports your theorum here. First off, neither access nor contributions are equal, or even close to equal. Secondly, female participation is signifantly on the decline. And there is constant internal debate and studies and conclusions about the efficacy.

That said, where I think the IDF is an interesting model and indicative of how things might be in the future is this: overall participation is something around 1/3 of the forces...but officer positions it's about half. I think that's a nice summary of where the limitations will and won't apply. (ie, being in charge, thinking, planning, etc. elements which often involve much less physical demand, and it's even, which reflects equal levels of ability outside the physical.)

[leighm89]

Another point in regards to the IDF......isn't it mandatory service?

[Kalbear]

Second most as in actual wars fought recently. There aren't many countries that have been to war in the last 40 years, but Israel is one of the few to be victorious. Most people consider Israel to be one of the more competent militaries out there. And while the attendance is in decline it is still a presence that is very large. Especially by comparison to the us.

You can argue efficacy if you want, but the notion that a modern army cannot be good with women in it is obvious utter sexist bullshit.

[Chaldanya]

You can argue efficacy if you want, but the notion that a modern army cannot be good with women in it is obvious utter sexist bullshit.

It's alright, Kal. He will produce a wall of text in a bit to try to obfuscate the sexist bullshit.

Not for nothing but women are already on the frontline in combat but not recognised officially and therefore don't receive the right grade pay. Oopps, little bit sexist.

Can't wait for Datepalm and Lany to hit this thread.

N

[Lyanna Stark]

Just as a side note on where HE lives, it's the same country I live in, and it's by no means free from sexism, racism and misogyny.

[karaddin]

If that's directed at me, I don't understand the question.

You said that the physical tests are judged differently for women, as though that is justification for saying women don't really meet the requirements and therefore shouldn't be allowed. I'm saying the more logical thing to do is stop judging the results differently for women.

[James Arryn]

Second most as in actual wars fought recently. There aren't many countries that have been to war in the last 40 years, but Israel is one of the few to be victorious. Most people consider Israel to be one of the more competent militaries out there. And while the attendance is in decline it is still a presence that is very large. Especially by comparison to the us.

Warning, bit drunk. Anyways, you're rattling off non-facts here. Who do you mean when you say 'most people consider'...where do you get this? And why would second most active equate to second most successful? Who was first? What timeframe are tou talking? It's really...there's not really a rational way to rank armed forces in terms of sucess, especially when most conflicts nowadays are either between a modern industrialized force and soft-target weaker forces or the results of alliances, coalitions, etc. I think it betrays a sort of sophomoric understanding of international relations and conflict to use inapplicable subjective and mostly made up rubrics like this.

You can argue efficacy if you want, but the notion that a modern army cannot be good with women in it is obvious utter sexist bullshit.

Who said that an army can't be good with women in it? We were talking about lowered standards to allow for it in the U.S., and of the impact that has on the USAF as a whole, and we were talking about the physical demands required which, by USDF standards, women have a hard time achieving. If you want to talk about the IDF, women are actually more restricted from universal access than in the U.S.; they have deemed some types of forces beyond the capability for women to achieve it. I think it's like 20-25% of the types of forces are men only. The USAF doesn't do that...there it's more egalitarian, but they lower the physical demands to make it so.

And I said the IDF was a model for future armies in terms of incorporating women in a more limited basis where physical demands are higher, but equally when it comes to leadership, strategic planning, officer positions, etc.

How the hell is that sexist, let alone bullshit?

[James Arryn]

It's alright, Kal. He will produce a wall of text in a bit to try to obfuscate the sexist bullshit.

Lol, glad we agree: prejudice is wrong. But since I've been pre-judged, I'll not bother responding more. Say that for prejudice: it's efficient.

]

[Chaldanya]

Lol, glad we agree: prejudice is wrong. But since I've been pre-judged, I'll not bother responding more. Say that for prejudice: it's efficient.

Nope, I haven't pre-judged you. I've read your posts here and in the book forums and I've judged you on those. That's what happens when the only thing we have to go on is your words and not the way you walk and your winning smile.

N

[James Arryn]

You said that the physical tests are judged differently for women, as though that is justification for saying women don't really meet the requirements and therefore shouldn't be allowed

I said that? No, I said the physical tests are judged differently as though that is the truth. I actually said I had no problem with it, if you read back. Lol at groupthink. And the women who do get in with results below the requirments for men DON'T meet the requirements.

Want to know how they arrived at the requirements for women? (I'm going to use completely made up numbers to illustrate; so the numbers are wrong, but the process is what happened.)

Okay, so the previous standards had been arrived at for men based on studies about what the job required. Of the numbers of men available for service, a certain % are deemed fit for service at level 1, and then of those a lower % are able to pass the higher level standardized physical testing to enlist....these are the minimum requirements we're talking about. Ok so far? So let;s say 1/30 of the fit for service pass the min req.s for advancement. Well, they then took the results of the standardized tests of the women applicants and post-graded minimal requirements so that 1/30 of the fit would meet the mins.

Okay? So it was divorced from the original concept of what it takes to do the job, and aligned now so that the same ratio of fit to enlisted held true for men and women. So, for example, whereas the BCA body fat maximum for men was 22-23% (depending on age), for women it was 33-34%. Then you get your PRT (Physical Readiness Test) which involves pushups, curl-ups, sit ups and long distance running. Again, across the board, the numbers are lowered for women. This pattern continues.

So I was not saying this happens ''as though this were justification for saying women don't really meet the requirements and therefore shouldn't be allowed"...I was saying women (in general) don't meet the requirements, and in spite of that I still said they should be allowed.

I find the discussions in this thread are seemingly continually having to confront arguments against points I didn't make, and finding the points I did make to be evaded or ignored.

. I'm saying the more logical thing to do is stop judging the results differently for women.

I think that would be a better solution for the dilemna of soldiers like the one who posted earlier, but it would absolutely remake the Armed Forces into a male dominated industry again. I think the future of armed conflict will allow a much more equal capacity for both genders to contribute on a roughly equal basis as I think the physical requirments should become less important as technology makes weapons more independant action and/or lighter and easier to use, and more because I think 'boots on the ground' will cease to be as important as it is now. I said ALL THIS before. Not sure how you missed. it.

But anyways, yeah, that would be more fair to men right now. And I can sympathize with their frustration with the current situation. But I think we're heading towards a place where it will be equal, and I'm detached enough to see that getting that going now is probably a smart way to integrate it, though I admit I have the luxury of sitting safe at home while I say that.