Posted by Stealth on Friday June 8, 2012 @ 08:59pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

A pair of high ranking female Army reservists are suing the Department of the Army to try and open up combat roles for women. I'd actually be interested in the collective thoughts on the subject...

can you make sandwiches in a foxhole?

Well they all them on combat vessels.. and they are starting to allow them on submarines too so it's getting harder to fight the trend; but i do know it's different on the green team. I will say that i find it funny that we are ok joining male/female units but they have issues with people seeing asses on tv and making lots of sexual harassment suites. We are very lawyer happy.. i think it will be a problem with lots of accusations.

Posted by Stealth on Friday June 8, 2012 @ 09:06pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

A pair of high ranking female Army reservists are suing the Department of the Army to try and open up combat roles for women. I'd actually be interested in the collective thoughts on the subject...

can you make sandwiches in a foxhole?

Well they all them on combat vessels.. and they are starting to allow them on submarines too so it's getting harder to fight the trend; but i do know it's different on the green team. I will say that i find it funny that we are ok joining male/female units but they have issues with people seeing asses on tv and making lots of sexual harassment suites. We are very lawyer happy.. i think it will be a problem with lots of accusations.

Also.. there will have to be a big change in the general male idea that women are weaker, not as capable, etc.

Posted by voltaic on Friday June 15, 2012 @ 11:59am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Also.. there will have to be a big change in the general male idea that women are weaker, not as capable, etc.

The problem is that some of those stereotypes are true in general. It's biology. Women are, on average, less strong than men. If the average male soldier can effectively engage in combat while carrying 60 pounds of gear, what can the average female soldier carry? This is a huge, huge issue. Same with running speed, endurance, etc.

It's also a biological fact that women and men have different brain structures. Women have significantly more white matter (the stuff that connects) and men have significantly more grey matter (the stuff that processes). Intelligence is on average the same but the computational source is different: men tend to run on fewer "big iron" servers while women tend to use distributed networking. Some speculate this is why men tend to be more analytical and monolithic while women tend to be more relational and aware.

The implications for combat may be meaningless or they may be vast. Would I want a women as a recon team spotter over a man? She might notice more. Would I rather a woman drive a tank than a man? Her brain might be more resistant to concussive injuries (like the internet) than a man. Would I want a woman as a field staff officer receiving field intel from multiple sources and making snap judgments? She might put things together more quickly. But would I want a platoon of women to take a hill during a traditional infantry scenario? I think here, biology says send men. They carry more, will be faster, and will focus more singularly on the details of the objective.


Brief and interesting articles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm
http://www.mindupdate.com/2007/07/men-think-using-grey-matter-women-with-white/

Posted by Stealth on Sunday July 1, 2012 @ 12:09pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Also.. there will have to be a big change in the general male idea that women are weaker, not as capable, etc.

The problem is that some of those stereotypes are true in general. It's biology. Women are, on average, less strong than men. If the average male soldier can effectively engage in combat while carrying 60 pounds of gear, what can the average female soldier carry? This is a huge, huge issue. Same with running speed, endurance, etc.

It's also a biological fact that women and men have different brain structures. Women have significantly more white matter (the stuff that connects) and men have significantly more grey matter (the stuff that processes). Intelligence is on average the same but the computational source is different: men tend to run on fewer "big iron" servers while women tend to use distributed networking. Some speculate this is why men tend to be more analytical and monolithic while women tend to be more relational and aware.

The implications for combat may be meaningless or they may be vast. Would I want a women as a recon team spotter over a man? She might notice more. Would I rather a woman drive a tank than a man? Her brain might be more resistant to concussive injuries (like the internet) than a man. Would I want a woman as a field staff officer receiving field intel from multiple sources and making snap judgments? She might put things together more quickly. But would I want a platoon of women to take a hill during a traditional infantry scenario? I think here, biology says send men. They carry more, will be faster, and will focus more singularly on the details of the objective.


Brief and interesting articles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm
http://www.mindupdate.com/2007/07/men-think-using-grey-matter-women-with-white/

Very interesting points..

Posted by Caliber on Sunday July 1, 2012 @ 02:32pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Very interesting points..

So this topic came up while I was at Ft. Lee and the debate was heated. I'm not perfect at reading people, but I can say with pretty strong conviction that the females argued strongly in favor of women in combat for one sole reason...

Because someone somewhere told them they couldn't...

Kind of jaded me on the conversation overall. There was no real interest in facts or social reality in any way. It was just a, no bullshit, feminist bitchfest.

This is an example of an argument presented, and I quote, "Ain't no man gonna tell me what I can and can't do"

She rested her case on this argument. I wept a little for humanity...

Posted by Stealth on Monday July 2, 2012 @ 01:07pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Very interesting points..

So this topic came up while I was at Ft. Lee and the debate was heated. I'm not perfect at reading people, but I can say with pretty strong conviction that the females argued strongly in favor of women in combat for one sole reason...

Because someone somewhere told them they couldn't...

Kind of jaded me on the conversation overall. There was no real interest in facts or social reality in any way. It was just a, no bullshit, feminist bitchfest.

This is an example of an argument presented, and I quote, "Ain't no man gonna tell me what I can and can't do"

She rested her case on this argument. I wept a little for humanity...

The flip side of that is.. let them do it until they prove they can't,. then they can cry. If men can do it, then let them try.. and fail (in training, camp whatever).. and then let them prove themselves like the rest of us.

Doing something because someone said you can't isn't a bad way to have motivation..

Posted by Caliber on Monday July 2, 2012 @ 08:25pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The flip side of that is.. let them do it until they prove they can't,. then they can cry. If men can do it, then let them try.. and fail (in training, camp whatever).. and then let them prove themselves like the rest of us.

Doing something because someone said you can't isn't a bad way to have motivation..

I would vehemently disagree with you. It might be a powerful self motivator, but as a rule its bad policy. Not to mention that it is about the worst foundation for an argument I can think of.

You know what dude, fuck you security guys. I'm going to hack my workstation and start running malicious code on the .mil network... I mean hell, you told me not to, and fuck that.

Posted by MadArab on Tuesday July 3, 2012 @ 09:35am
>> [ reply ][ rating -1  

 

 

]

You know what dude, fuck you security guys. I'm going to hack my workstation and start running malicious code on the .mil network... I mean hell, you told me not to, and fuck that.

he told you not to, not that you can't do it because you're just some Logistics guy in the Army. :-p

Posted by Caliber on Tuesday July 3, 2012 @ 01:40pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You know what dude, fuck you security guys. I'm going to hack my workstation and start running malicious code on the .mil network... I mean hell, you told me not to, and fuck that.

he told you not to, not that you can't do it because you're just some Logistics guy in the Army. :-p

You assume there is no instrumental reason for the original decision...

Posted by Stealth on Saturday July 7, 2012 @ 05:41pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You know what dude, fuck you security guys. I'm going to hack my workstation and start running malicious code on the .mil network... I mean hell, you told me not to, and fuck that.

he told you not to, not that you can't do it because you're just some Logistics guy in the Army. :-p

You assume there is no instrumental reason for the original decision...

No, he quoted it.. "you're just some Logistics guy in the Army".. hehe

I can see your point in the argument, but when given the change to run things uncontrolled, it's been shown that users suck and break things, run things and cause problems. It hasn't been shown yet what having women in the military will do. that's more my point.

Posted by Caliber on Sunday July 8, 2012 @ 04:26pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You know what dude, fuck you security guys. I'm going to hack my workstation and start running malicious code on the .mil network... I mean hell, you told me not to, and fuck that.

he told you not to, not that you can't do it because you're just some Logistics guy in the Army. :-p

You assume there is no instrumental reason for the original decision...

No, he quoted it.. "you're just some Logistics guy in the Army".. hehe

I can see your point in the argument, but when given the change to run things uncontrolled, it's been shown that users suck and break things, run things and cause problems. It hasn't been shown yet what having women in the military will do. that's more my point.

They can be in the military just fine, that's not the issue. Having them as part of ground-based combat arms in mixed units during the warfight is the issue.

Advantages: chicks get to branch infantry or special forces (only matters to officers), and chicks get to wrack up a political win against the chauvinist pig dog military complex
Disadvantages: the American public get to see video of their beloved sweethearts getting splattered across the afghani desert (only matters to NCOs), guys get to deal with having split/conflicting obligations, a complete change of combat paradigm in the middle of a conflict, new facilities and infrastructure at every military installation in existence, a rash of sexual harassment claims, some deserved some perceived, a newfound vigor in our enemy with eyes on the prize of carrying off American servicewoman, a new paradigm of warcrimes as common practice ala Jessica Lynch times dozens of times per day, etcetcetcetc

Of course I am playing the devil's advocate. My thoughts on the matter are mostly ambivalent since I have no real say in the final decision.

I agree that change HAS to happen, and sometimes it requires extreme decisions be made on the spot to "initiate a change of culture". Unfortunately there are implications here both foreseen and unforeseen that could be so disastrous as to cost lives for all the wrong reasons.

Posted by MadArab on Monday July 2, 2012 @ 06:56am
>> [ reply ][ rating +1  

 

 

]

This is an example of an argument presented, and I quote, "Ain't no man gonna tell me what I can and can't do"

She better get back in the kitchen and fix up some lunch for you guys! shit...

Posted by Krux on Sunday July 1, 2012 @ 04:06pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Very interesting points..

So this topic came up while I was at Ft. Lee and the debate was heated. I'm not perfect at reading people, but I can say with pretty strong conviction that the females argued strongly in favor of women in combat for one sole reason...

Because someone somewhere told them they couldn't...

Someone told them they couldn't rape and murder as well. Not a good argument.

This is an example of an argument presented, and I quote, "Ain't no man gonna tell me what I can and can't do"

She rested her case on this argument. I wept a little for humanity...

I'm guessing one of her commanding officers is a male, in which case, yes.. yes a man is going to tell her what she can and can't do.

Posted by MadArab on Friday May 25, 2012 @ 08:52pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

A pair of high ranking female Army reservists are suing the Department of the Army to try and open up combat roles for women. I'd actually be interested in the collective thoughts on the subject...

Knowing the additional risks they may face in the event of capture, I don't see why not. All I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God... man or woman.

The IDF has been doing this for years. A good portion of the IDF is made up of women, less in Combat roles, but they're there.

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @ 08:19am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Knowing the additional risks they may face in the event of capture, I don't see why not. All I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God... man or woman.

The IDF has been doing this for years. A good portion of the IDF is made up of women, less in Combat roles, but they're there.

The IDF has a different mission though. They are primarily a protective/defensive force kept in a very small area near the home country. The US currently operates under more like a rapid-projection-of-force doctrine which includes long term missions far away from the homeland. The two aren't really comparable. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do it; it only means we can't easily compare them.

On the other hand, there's a reason Maxim magizine did a "women of the IDF" layout. Holy Jehovah!

Posted by MadArab on Saturday May 26, 2012 @ 12:38pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Knowing the additional risks they may face in the event of capture, I don't see why not. All I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God... man or woman.

Ok, that was misworded!! LOL I meant:

So long as they go in... Knowing the additional risks they may face in the event of capture, I don't see why not.

Posted by Caliber on Saturday May 26, 2012 @ 03:29pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Knowing the additional risks they may face in the event of capture, I don't see why not. All I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God... man or woman.

Ok, that was misworded!! LOL I meant:

So long as they go in... Knowing the additional risks they may face in the event of capture, I don't see why not.

gotcha

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 25, 2012 @ 06:55am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

That they're suing under the fifth amendment, which is about criminal procedure, is a bad call. They've given the courts an easy way to dodge the issue: "Military service isn't a criminal penalty. Next!"

That said, I don't care if they serve or not. As long as their different needs can be met by the military without hampering the mission, sure.

Posted by Krux on Saturday May 26, 2012 @ 08:48pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

That they're suing under the fifth amendment, which is about criminal procedure, is a bad call. They've given the courts an easy way to dodge the issue: "Military service isn't a criminal penalty. Next!"

That's the thing with the military. You actually have less rights, even though you are working to ensure others get to keep the rights they are given. Once you've enlisted you are in till your time is up, and you pretty much have to do what you are told under the rules of the military. That's the way it is.

That said, I don't care if they serve or not. As long as their different needs can be met by the military without hampering the mission, sure.

As long as it doesn't hurt the mission, I'm fine with who ever wants to do the job being there.

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @ 08:15am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

That they're suing under the fifth amendment, which is about criminal procedure, is a bad call. They've given the courts an easy way to dodge the issue: "Military service isn't a criminal penalty. Next!"

That's the thing with the military. You actually have less rights, even though you are working to ensure others get to keep the rights they are given. Once you've enlisted you are in till your time is up, and you pretty much have to do what you are told under the rules of the military. That's the way it is.

Sure but I didn't meant to speak about having or not having rights; rather I meant the proper application of them. For instance, if someone took away my right to freedom of press, I wouldn't sue them under the Third Amendment. Likewise here, military service isn't a criminal offense subject to the Fifth Amendment.

Posted by unicron on Friday May 25, 2012 @ 01:31am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Honestly...and you all obviously know I've never been in the military, but my protective instinct would be MUCH higher for women, and that might be a bad thing, a horrible thing, to the detriment of the op. If I watched a combatant hurt a female in my squad, it would be his ass, immediately. Just my opinion, and I wouldn't have all the variables, but I wouldn't be able to take watching a woman hurt. Centuries of development, my own decades of conditioning, would say we protect them above all else, and fuck the mission. Just my opinion, take it as you will.

They're our mothers.

Posted by kodrik on Monday May 28, 2012 @ 09:30am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Honestly...and you all obviously know I've never been in the military, but my protective instinct would be MUCH higher for women, and that might be a bad thing, a horrible thing, to the detriment of the op.

As soon as they openly allowed gays in the military, there were no more arguments to prevent woman in combat roles. Some can be protective against men just as much a woman I guess. Women work fine in the Israeli forces in combat role, and they do see combat.

The only think I hope is that the military doesn't go the PC way with different bathrooms, showers and dorms depending on sex and orientation. Do it the Starship Troopers way, blind to sex and orientation, they are all brothers in arm. The training process must be hard so those who make the cut will not be a drag to others, psychological evaluation would be important also.

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @ 08:22am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

As soon as they openly allowed gays in the military, there were no more arguments to prevent woman in combat roles. Some can be protective against men just as much a woman I guess. Women work fine in the Israeli forces in combat role, and they do see combat.

As mentioned above, we should be cautious about comparing IDF women in combat (defensive, near the homeland) to current American military doctrine. There is no doubt that women would be valuable combatants protecting "the nest" but it's not been demonstrated historically the effectiveness of women in long-range, long-term combat situations.

Posted by kodrik on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @ 03:54pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

As mentioned above, we should be cautious about comparing IDF women in combat (defensive, near the homeland) to current American military doctrine. There is no doubt that women would be valuable combatants protecting "the nest" but it's not been demonstrated historically the effectiveness of women in long-range, long-term combat situations.

You are correct, interesting article about it:
http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/women-in-idf.html

Posted by Krux on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @ 02:10pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

As soon as they openly allowed gays in the military, there were no more arguments to prevent woman in combat roles. Some can be protective against men just as much a woman I guess. Women work fine in the Israeli forces in combat role, and they do see combat.

As mentioned above, we should be cautious about comparing IDF women in combat (defensive, near the homeland) to current American military doctrine. There is no doubt that women would be valuable combatants protecting "the nest" but it's not been demonstrated historically the effectiveness of women in long-range, long-term combat situations.

I'm still confused how they are going to go into combat from the kitchen. Perhaps they are talking about cleaning the oven, in which case I am all for that, though a little annoyed that they didn't clean said oven already.

Posted by unicron on Wednesday May 30, 2012 @ 10:20pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +2  

 

 

]

As soon as they openly allowed gays in the military, there were no more arguments to prevent woman in combat roles. Some can be protective against men just as much a woman I guess. Women work fine in the Israeli forces in combat role, and they do see combat.

As mentioned above, we should be cautious about comparing IDF women in combat (defensive, near the homeland) to current American military doctrine. There is no doubt that women would be valuable combatants protecting "the nest" but it's not been demonstrated historically the effectiveness of women in long-range, long-term combat situations.

I'm still confused how they are going to go into combat from the kitchen. Perhaps they are talking about cleaning the oven, in which case I am all for that, though a little annoyed that they didn't clean said oven already.

"Suppression fire" means "Knit me a sweater".