what??? as a scout you spend you resouces finding top performers. If an anomaly, like a 5’8 baskeball player happens to be in this field of top performers you did not spend extra resources to seek him out. He is just there after the screening is complete… because he happens to be awesome. It is highly ususual, but that is why we dont see it very much. It is not because it wasn’t in the budget to seek out a short guy!
I think his point is that more advance screening costs more.
and they have their own agenda. my agenda is equality. theirs is not. there is a reason why this decision was made. gender equality > old boys worried about 1/1000 girls who are too weak. equality comes at a price but its the right thing to do.
Their agenda is to field the best fighting force. It’s life or death and they take this seriuosly They took a selective pool (meaning more selective than the wider pool and had horrible results). They then formed units and studied them in equal tasks and found them to perform worse. This was all conducted with oversight. Basically your entire stance is built on your own lack of any understanding of the military and ignoring studies and facts. You provide literally not a single stat, just platitudes. If it comes at a price under a fixed budget and comes with no real gain it is literally the wrong thing to do by definition.
No one gives women a chance on pro sports teams and no one cries. They don’t complain that we have male and female sports in HS. But when there’s a battlefield involved and people are dying, suddenly everyone wants perfect equality.
so integrate the military. give women fair treatment and support. then run the studies and we’ll actually see what its going to look like. you can’t test one paradigm and expect the results to remain constant in another paradigm.
They did this. The marines used integrated Marine combat units that had been trained and exists before the test for the studies on unit effectiveness.
The study used only 7% of women in the integrated units vs all male units and found that despite this, over the 1 year period the men outperformed across the board. They were faster to target with more hits on target and competed basic tasks more efficiently and quickly with lower injury rates. These differences particularly showed up in units like machine gun and artillary units that require heavy equipment. It’s always the least informed people on the topic that raise the biggest fuss.
Oh, but it is. Evidence mounting that non-blacks are being overlooked for that very reason. Your comment exposes you. Scouts do not generally waste their time with 5’8" prospects, because no matter how good, their odds of success in the NBA are slim. There are limited resources. Decisions have to made to field the best team. Spending time on low probability pursuits, means you are missing out on finding the best players. You will not field a good team and you will never make the playoffs. Your bias is getting the best of you.
and you’re suggesting male and female battlefields? okay taliban, send out your women. we’re not talking about the top say 1000 players in sports that favour male characteristics in the entire WORLD, we’re talking about a force of 200,000 in a single country that represents ~5% of the world. your comparing 1000 freak-of-nature guys to a group of 4,000,000 soldiers. i highly doubt that the world’s top 4,000,000 soldiers are all men.
The study used only 7% of women in the integrated existing Marine units vs all male units and found that despite this, over the 1 year period the men outperformed across the board. They were faster to target with more hits on target and competed basic tasks more efficiently and quickly with lower injury rates. These differences particularly showed up in units like machine gun and artillary units that require heavy equipment.
These units included only 7% of women, women who completed the full marine basic training. And it created significant differences in performance across 90 some tests conducted over a year.
Women have played in the NHL. No one is calling for a 50/50 gender split in the Marines. What is being advocated is that if a woman is fit to serve, then they can serve. If they are not, then they are not. Screening costs are a cop out IMO. Not material.
Definitely agree with BS. But this isn’t pro sports we are talking about. People’s lives are on the line. It won’t be the woman who pays the price for performing poorly. The guys picking up her slack, getting injured or dying will. The sweeping change to include gender intergation was politically motivated. Not based on operational needs or mission success.
maybe the fact that women were only 7% of the unit was part of the problem. give women fair treatment and support. what is the sample size of the study in question? is it anywhere representative of what we’ll see when women are given equal treatment?
They made it 7% to reflect real world #'s found in the Army’s open units as well as their expectation of enrollment levels. Jesus Christ read it yourself. I’m tired of eductating an uneducated moron on a study conducted over a year that they have a strong opinion on but never bothered to read. It’s like discussing climate change with the GOP. Why are all most ill informed always the most ignorantly stubborn?
I mean for f*ck’s sake, would it kill you to produce an actual fact somewhere?
further, would women’s much higher EQ scores, empathy and linguistic skills on average provide benefits in combat that outweigh their ability to simply run and gun? every mission isn’t simply going out and blowing the crap out of things. sometimes some poise and understanding is required to get the job done. do women make better combat decisions in general as they are less aggressive? less friendly fire? less civilian casualties? we won’t know unless they enter combat en masse.
i think my argument stands without this consideration but adding women to a unit certainly wouldn’t hurt in this regard.
The navy killed a female pilot in 1994 in the name of equality. Let the games begin.Turns out women make fine pilots when held to the same standards. Make sure the evidence shows that the units are just as good when integrating women into the infantry or someone may have blood on their hands.
my point is that there are no facts because you can’t make grand assumptions for a handful of “studies” that don’t represent what the field will look like. you also can’t account for strenghts that women have besides running and shooting. that is your only argument. because women can’t run and shoot as well as men ON AVERAGE, they shouldn’t be allowed to be a sniper and they shouldn’t be allowed to work recon. the best woman runner and gunner will be better than the average male runner and gunner. fact.
Doesn’t help that 29 female marine officers attempted the infantry officer school and no one graduated.
I’ll agree with you that BS can be pretty opinionated, and it can come across as being a jerk. But nobody here has actually come up with any fault in his facts or his logic.
And it’s not pointless. Dead soldiers and overrun positions are not pointless. Defending the country and our way of life is not pointless. These people are trained to fight and kill other people. I should hope that we have the most capable killers on our side.
Trying to insert various iterations of “how would you feel if…” doesn’t change the facts.
no, your bias is getting the best of you. If the shortie made the cut of top performers, then he would be successfull in the NBA. The odds are slim that a short guy would be that good. However, if he does have some freak of nature talent that makes him able to show up the tall guys and be included on the list of top performers then how is it unlikely he will be successful? If anything a short player who is that good would be a commodity for a pro team because he would attract a fan base and the money that goes along with it.