BS, you took perfectly good points and turned this into an argument when even people who agree with you can’t side with you.
Things that haven’t been addressed yet:
You are putting women up to fight men. Not other women, but men. A whole army of them.
sure women are great endurance athletes, but that is without the 80lbs rucksack and combat loadout, on average. Power to weight ratio means something - it’s not a made up metric meaning fluff. There are plenty of men who are stronger yet can’t make some of these units. Backing the argument up with facts like better aim, mental balance, etc, doesn’t matter in a situation that demands you are in peak shape in all aspects of combat, and that includes hand to hand combat. This isn’t the olympic games, this is life or death. If you can’t drag someone out of battle as quickly as they can drag you, there’s an issue. Hell, I couldn’t pass these tests, but I don’t seek inclusion - I’d hate to be the guy who lets my buddies down.
rape. lots of it. from your own guys and from the enemy. I’m not sure america could stomach that. Theyve been pretty lucky thus far but who knows what will happen when ISIS releases that first video.
I’ve always believed in “if they’re good enough, they’re ready”, but I think that’s best used in the Air Force as pilots or in the Navy at the end of the day. Infantry is just a totally different ball game.
did you shit yourself? Be honest. This a very average reaction to life threatening situations. Any other weird physiological reactions - like slow motion time, loss of hearing? I’m honestly interested.
Guys I’ve been shooting hoops since I was 2 years old when my parents bought me a plastic Fisher-Price basketball hoop, so clearly I’m the forum’s leading authority on all things regarding the sport of basketball.
If you’ve been shooting hoops since you were two you probably would be the leading authority on basketball. Not sure how that’s a controversial statement. I know nothing about basketball, no argument from me.
1 - I don’t disagree with WHAT Black Swan is saying. I just find the way he’s saying it to be very personally annoying.
2 - I, too, have never been in combat. My comments/discussion/analysis is limited to training exercises that were supposed to be “problem-solving/team-building” exercises. But whenever there was a physical element involved, the women generally got relegated to “hey–just back off and let us handle this” status, because they weren’t nearly as physical as the men, and they knew it.
I imagine the type of women who would volunteer for the infantry and probably also inferior to the men (physically), but they don’t know it, which makes them even more dangerous.
Look, point is you guys are all latching on to one straw man apparently because you haven’t been able to refute any of my points yet with actual data. Yes, shooting a lot (including a good amount of tactical comps in HS) does in my mind give me an advantage when we’re talking about women’s aptitude in an activity that requires shooting as a primary skill set. I also never implied or stated otherwise. Now let’s all get really worked up about that. To your point, you may not be Lebron James but if you played basketball for 15 years you don’t need NBA experience to educate me on something I clearly have no background whatsoever in. Shocking…
Anyhow, back to it. So a major study conducted over a year with a cohort of trained female marines who met equal BASIC standards found putting just 7% in a unit was enough to make that unit underperform male units across a wide range of combat tests. So to be PC we’re going to ignore those findings and spend more money to make our units less combat effective. In addition, 29 female officers attempted infantry officer school and none of them were able to graduate. Feel free to contradict those points with an actual fact anytime.
No, I keep raising the point of high cost of training drop outs in a branch that already runs underfunded relative to other branches. That money could buy further training or equipment for existing units. It’s been odd to me how the economics of the situation are routinely ignored on a finance forum. It also points to the overall aptitude of the pool.
But is this really about economics to you? Be honest, you’re passionate about this because you don’t like the idea of ignorant civilians with no experience making political decisions on tactical matters. If you were truly bothered by economics, I think you would be much more passionate about the massive waste and overspending in the military. Like what the Marines did to the JSF…
I see what you did there, but it’s honestly the economics. That and the fact that including women who passed BASIC even at a small percentage disadvantages the force based on the conducted studies and risks lives. For what it’s worth I’m a fan of the f35 (although to your point maybe they shouldn’t have tried to push everything into one plane), but that’s not really here or there since we’re talking about the past at this point.
^I think that the military is smarter than that. I’m really trying not to offend the women on the board (even though that ship sailed long ago), but I imagine that this would end in disaster, and everybody knows it.
BS - per the article below, it took army about 8-9 years to generate random 10-digit numbers for soldiers to put on dog tags as opposed to their SS number. If this is any indication for how slowly things change in the U.S. Armed Forces, I don’t think you have to worry about women in combat positions in your lifetime.
“The change was mandated in 2007, but it has taken the military this long to replace the Social Security number with the 10-digit idea number through a number of systems, Klemowski said.”
