Funny. You say, “I have no problem with women in combat roles.” Then you go on to list three non-combat roles.
IIRC, the only three MOSs (military occupational specialty) that were closed for women (before yesterday) were infantry, artillery, and cavalry (tanks).
We spend so much time trying to justify why unfit people are fit for specific roles. Let the process filter out the weak ones - I for one, am one of those that would be filtered out with the women who aren’t qualified for specific roles within the front lines of the military. Yes women are great people but no, in general, women can’t do everything men can (at full value) do and vice versus.
And the winner of this argument by unanimous decision is…BS.
The reason standards are lower for women in the army is because the army is left choosing between either training a bunch of people who quit which drains resources and money or lowering standards. Since entrance standards are significantly lower, opening the pool to women basically forces you into this situation when budgets are already an issue. So you’re taking money from equipment and further training to waste on dropouts or less capable soldiers on the battlefield.
I didn’t realize that combat was defined so narrowly. I thought the argument was that women weren’t fit to be fighter pilots or naval gunners because they can’t carry a 180 lb man while firing back at the enemy left-handed all the time running across the plains of Kandahar at a 6 minute mile pace.
I can’t do that either but it was still mandatory for me to sign up for selective service, and the Marines kept after me to sign up when I was in high school, with special emphasis on just how those shiny full-dress uniforms were good at making the local girls all weak in the knees. Although I would never qualify for being a special force, I have no doubt that they would have had little trouble throwing me into harms way should the need arise.
Well, I wanted to address the idea of f"combat role" that was being thrown around in the thread. But you’re right. Anyhow, I have less of an issue with women serving in tank divisions as smaller size could be an asset and it’s less physically driven. The artillary where you’re doing a lot of manual work and infantry would be two that I think you should draw the line at. Particularly in a branch like the marines that operates under a much lower budget and resource base than the army and often functions in an assault troops role.
One thing to ponder. In an actual battle it’s been documented that only about 10% of the participants actually engage the enemy. Most just shit themselves (literally) and look for a way to escape. So perhaps whether or not it’s a man or a woman cowering behind a rock while the true warriors are fighting is immaterial. I say go ahead and let them in - help get rid of the huge gender imbalance in college campuses.
a fascinating read on this subject is On Combat by Dave Grossman. Really interesting analysis of the what a person’s physiology goes through when faced with a fight or death situation.
According to Tom Lehrer in the 1950s, the US Army has taken the American democratic ideal to its logical conclusion in the sense that not only do they not discriminate on the grounds of race, creed, or color, but also on the grounds of . . . ability.
Yeah, I disagree with having different standards. Make the standards the same. I know many women who could easily qualify under the the male standards there. I’d also take out the age allowances too.
according to metal gear solid, women are better snipers. i would imagine that combat planners would harness their underlings’ strengths and not send their weakest soliders to bust down doors and perform room to room search and combat. unless women come to represent like 20% of front line soldiers, i doubt we’re going to see many stories with the title “weak ass woman is unable to carry comrade to safety causing his death”. send the gorilla looking dudes to break down doors and leave the women to snipe haji’s brains out.
Dr. Ruth.
I stopped reading five words in
I love them hot classy soldier babes…
IIRC, women are (were?) also not allowed on submarines. I think this is more of a logistical matter, though.
In a submarine, there is barely enough room to have one set of living quarters. If you add women, you would have to have a whole new sleeping area for women, plus their own bathrooms. This just isn’t feasible on a submarine.
If I recall correctly, the royal navy made it happen at a cost of 3 million pounds per sub. And the cost of the “wasted” space was calculated to be many times higher in terms of capability and readiness.
it was just a fun way of saying it. i do think the evidence shows that women actually are better shooters. i’m not really all that inclined to look. my point stands that i doubt combat leaders will send the weakest in to fight hand-to-hand and keep the baboons back to shoot their firesticks.
Women are statistically and in practice worse shooters. I already covered that earlier. So what you basically have is a portion of limited troops vs capable troops. You’re also assuming there’s always a requirement for a sniper role (most units do not include a “sniper” whereas you could find yourself in falujah with a handful of soldiers that are just incapable.
It constantly blows my mind how much of people’s understanding of combat comes from movies or video games and how often people who have never held or fired assault style weapons (much less grown up with them) chime in on combat logistics.
You also A) assume that soldiers just drive everywhere they go B) ignore the weight of sniper riflles, the kick they deliver and the ammunition that is carried C) assume a regular platoon is even going to include snipers D) assume CQB = hand to hand and E) ignore the heavy equipment loads that are constantly being moved.
just from a quick reading, it appears that women are equal shots at worst. i’m not necessarily against your position as i certainly do see the potential liability but the cream of the crop of women versus the average combat troop probably isn’t all that different. and if they’re in roles that don’t require the skills of the typical combat troop, then i see little reason to not put a woman in that role if they are the best candidate. i agree that standards s/b equal for male and female.
would you rather have the world’s best female sniper covering your ass, or me covering your ass? my counterstrike skills are many but i highly suggest you choose the lady.
i’m the perfect example btw. i could probably just barely pass the entrance requirements but wouldn’t have the strength of a 140 lb jacked woman. but then again, i doubt the military would make me the gorilla who busts down the door. they would look at me at say, you stand back here and shoot anybody you can.
All you need to do is compare men and women’s competition shooting scores. It’s not close. Especially timed competitions that require movement.
http://www.thebangswitch.com/the-gender-gap-in-competitive-shooting/
This article discusses it, citing a competition where the top women finished 66th place overall in a pro pistol competition. Olympic shooting isn’t even relevant because it’s a .22 drilled out from a standing position. This ties to my real world experience as well.
Clearly you did not read any of the post so I’ll TL;DR it for you.
Training costs with much higher failure rates (think 80% for female versus 20% for male) detract from further equipment and training. So finding a rare equivalent female by opening up to the female pool hurts the entire force directly through the budget. Would you rather have the high grade or budget body armor because the corps trained a bunch of drop outs? This is a real concern since even my friends in the armed forces now have things like higher quality body armor shipped out by their families.
Roles are not neatly defined as you think. Each requires cross functionality, especially in a smaller force like the marines.
With higher caliber and faster action rilfes the accuracy of women vs men falls off of a cliff. They simply can’t control the recoil and fire as accurately as a man can due to lower body mass. Furthermore sniping often requires moving far distances on foot carrying 50+ lbs of gear, a heavy ass gun, etc. This is at least as important as how well you shoot a .22 at the range. How fast you get there and how winded and exhausted you are all play a role.
Black Swan, you’re just being a jerk. You can come up with all the statistics in the world stating that women in general are below men in this, that or the other thing. It is pointless. It just means it is less likely your population of the top 25% (or whatever percent) of those interested in combat roles will contain women. But that set of the top performers may contain a few extraordinary women. So have ONE SET of standards and hold people (male or female) to them. I also think, as a womem, I would be adult enough to realize that being a female in those roles is an anomaly and that there will not be special accomodations (sleeping, bathroom)… and I would also expect my male peers to have the respect to not make that difficult on me… a woman who got in fair and square on the same standards.