Gender Roles in the Military

[Sailor Mars]

nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/politics/combat-military-women-ash-carter.html?referer=&_r=0

Since "recently" all positions in the military have been opened to women, Ive been seeing a lot of controversy and to put it bluntly, a lot of shit thrown at women in the military because of it. It can be seen at any comment section of any article or video you see about it. Men, and even women, saying things like "women shouldn't be able to join combat roles if they can't run, lift, and shoot like a man." Or "women shouldn't put herself at risk for a man" etc etc.

What the fuck.

[Prepare for rant here]
How the hell can anyone think this? Is society that fucked up that a woman has to live up to the standards set by a man? Do people not realize that woman have been shooting, killing, flying fucking airplanes, medicating, and fucking training alongside men for hundreds of years? Do they not realize that America is as much a home to any woman as it is to any man?

Thousands upon thousands of women, even (especially) outside of America, have been fighting and dying for their countries for years. Plenty of European armies allow women to join and it hasn't been an issue. Why is it that Americans can't realize this? So fucking what if women aren't as "physically strong" or equal to men. It doesn't matter. Why is it that men have set a standard that we apparently have to live up to? We physically are not able to be equal to men. That's a fact. We don't have dicks and they don't have boobs. We simply aren't the same. But we live and fight for the same thing. So why should we not be able to risk our lives the same? We're all human, are we not? We all love freedom and the rights we have, do we not? We can all carry 70 pounds on our back and shoot a gun the same, so why should it matter if we have a dick or if we don't?

It fucking sucks that people still think this way. That were incapable of doing the same things as men (occupation wise...) simply because we're women. I mean the fuck?
[End rant]

Anyway, thoughts on people who think this way or the topic in general?

p.s thanks grandma for making me a complete feminist

[Chapperz16]

There is the argument that mixed combat units with both men and women would not have as good as a cohesion as an all male combat unit due to romantic heterosexual relationships possibly formulating.

[Sailor Mars]

There is the argument that mixed combat units with both men and women would not have as good as a cohesion as an all male combat unit due to romantic heterosexual relationships possibly formulating.

If men and women can't put their duty and job over romance, then they shouldn't be doing what they signed up to do.

I understand that they might like each other and fall in love with each other, but that isn't something that is bound to just men and women. There's plenty of homosexuals in the military that do the same thing. But again, it isn't a problem when you put your job as a priority over that because that's what you need to do.

[Judean Zealot]

There is the argument that mixed combat units with both men and women would not have as good as a cohesion as an all male combat unit due to romantic heterosexual relationships possibly formulating.

The Spartans used to encourage their warriors to pork each other, on the grounds that they would be more fiercely protective of one another. I think we can agree that Sparta's army was a pretty good template to base on.

[Babs]

The military has certain standards for admission. If a person meets those standards, then it's stupid to bitch about whether or not that person should be allowed in.

It's also kinda stupid to bring up the romance angle. If they can't do their job because they're busy banging their coworker, then they weren't qualified for it in the first place. Everyone with a job is expected to put that shit aside so they can get shit done, and most people don't have much of a problem doing that.

[Judean Zealot]

In Israel women can serve in all roles, and (I think) I approve. However, on the flip side:

1) Do periods interfere with combat ability?
2) Women are able to become pregnant, which causes all sorts of headaches in a combat unit.

Just playing devil's advocate.

[Sailor Mars]

In Israel women can serve in all roles, and (I think) I approve. However, on the flip side:

1) Do periods interfere with combat ability?
2) Women are able to become pregnant, which causes all sorts of headaches in a combat unit.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Periods would probably make a woman more aggressive :P
All jokes aside tho, I doubt they would. You would be doing a lot of physical activity which would help with any cramps or anything like that. Again, like me and Satan said, if you can't put your duty over relationship, then you aren't fit to be in the military in the first place (idk how you would get pregnant without fuckin another dude... so...). Besides, I'm pretty sure women aren't stupid enough to do it unless they want to go on leave.

[Porpoise101]

I think there was a study saying mixed squads were less affective and were not as cohesive, but it wasn't even by a big margin anyways.

[BenF-22]

[deleted by user]

[Sailor Mars]

It mostly has to do with the idea that if you mix women and men into a single unit, that unit wouldn't function as well as it would if it was all males, which in a way, is true. You see, men have a certain comradery that allows them to work together so well without needing much communication whatsoever; this comradery however, has not been as observable in women. Now, I'm not saying that all women would function horribly in the military, but I feel like we need to look at the fact that men and women are different, and that a lot of women just aren't cut out for military combat.

Ah... 1. Evidence or studies that showed this? Genuinely curious to see them.
2. And the women that are "ready" for military combat? I mean... You realize that women are in combat regardless of if they're infantry roles or not. If you're put in a war zone where at any moment you need to be able to respond accordingly, then what is wrong with opening up combat positions to women? Besides, there's plenty of other areas where men and women work fine together under stressful environments. I don't see why it should be different for 11B infantry or any other positions that have been opened to women as of the beginning of the year.

[Microcosm]

If they pass the physical requirements to join, I see no problem with it. It is a gender role that doesn't need to be there. If someone wants to give their life for their country, they should be able to as long as they don't hold others back, which being a woman doesn't automatically do.

I think the periods thing is a non-issue. If a woman gets her period while on duty, she could effectively deal with it and, as has previously been said, physical activity would assist with cramps.

Sexual attraction between male and female soldiers causing problems also isn't really a problem. If you actually put yourself in the position of a soldier, I don't think you'd be focusing on the gals when there's bullets and shit flying towards you.

While it is definitely true that most men are stronger than most women(this is natural given that we are just now beginning to exit the age of intense gender roles), that doesn't at all mean that a woman is always less qualified than a man or never reaches the physical requirements. They definitely can in just the same ways men can.

[Sir Suomi]

Alright, time for a little rant of my own.

So, to begin with, my opinion here is based on three things: Studies, common sense, and my own personal experience with women in the military.

First of all, it has been proven by the Marine Corps that co-ed squads perform less than male-only squads. Simply put, women are more prone to injury, are less accurate with their weapons, and are unable to complete physically demanding tasks as well as their male counterparts.

Second, it should be obvious to all that women, on average, are physically weaker than their male counterparts. Combat roles, especially those like infantry, are one of the most physically demanding roles that someone can have in the military. Hand-to-hand fighting, maneuvering, and evacuating wounded comrades are some of the many aspects that go into a combat role like infantry. There are a lot of men in the military that are unable to do these things, and trying to think that even a small amount of women could do this is quite absurd in my opinion. Look at all the women who tried to complete the Marine Infantry Officer Course. All 29 of them failed within the first few days, many of them within the first day. These weren't little wimpy girls either, no, these were women who were thought to be "tough as nails" and "should be able to pass". Simply put, women are physically weaker than men.

Finally, my own experience in the military. In my RSP unit, my platoon has about 4-6 girls (Depending on when they shift and when we get a new recruit), and 3 of these girls have been drilling with me since I was enlisted back in September. Every time PT is done, not only do they fail to perform at a level even close to rest of us males, but a great majority of the time they quit early or try an make excuses. All they ever do is bitch and moan about PT, and quite frankly I think their overall attitudes are much worse than us males. I know sure as hell I would want none of them serving in my unit with me as an Airborne Infantryman. They'd hinder us beyond belief, and quite frankly I feel more comfortable with an all male unit.

To wrap things up nicely, if you think the military is something that you can alter to "be more inclusive", you're downright stupid. The military isn't about everyone getting their way and being happy. The military is about defending our nation and it's interests, and the only way we know how to do that is by killing every last bastard that gets in our way. Keep your feminist bullshit on your liberal art schools and the hell away from my military.

As a side note, I will say that I have no problems with women in non-combat roles. I think it's perfectly okay for women to want to serve in the military, as long as they don't hinder its goals.

[sqishy]

Personally I see gender as being irrelevant with regards to the military, nothing more.

[Sailor Mars]

Alright, time for a little rant of my own.
To wrap things up nicely, if you think the military is something that you can alter to "be more inclusive", you're downright stupid. The military isn't about everyone getting their way and being happy. The military is about defending our nation and it's interests, and the only way we know how to do that is by killing every last bastard that gets in our way. Keep your feminist bullshit on your liberal art schools and the hell away from my military.

As a side note, I will say that I have no problems with women in non-combat roles. I think it's perfectly okay for women to want to serve in the military, as long as they don't hinder its goals.
>my military
>national guard
right on mate.

And again, repeating what I said in the OP, there is no such thing as a non combat role when you're deployed. At any given moment you could be shot at, blown up, shelled, etc. You think terrorists care if you're military or not? You think they care if you're a man or woman? You think they have any mercy for infidels? Hell no.

As for the "not physically equal" part, I agree (I said I agree in OP too), but have you met the women that carry ammo boxes every day or that fly F-22s and face G force every time they go on a mission? You realize how fucking fit those people are?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter the gender of the person. If they are capable of doing what the military requires them to do, they shouldn't be excluded. Gender does not "hinder the goals" of the military, idiots that can't follow directions and get others killed do.

[Hyper]

>my military
>national guard
right on mate.

And again, repeating what I said in the OP, there is no such thing as a non combat role when you're deployed. At any given moment you could be shot at, blown up, shelled, etc. You think terrorists care if you're military or not? You think they care if you're a man or woman? You think they have any mercy for infidels? Hell no.

As for the "not physically equal" part, I agree (I said I agree in OP too), but have you met the women that carry ammo boxes every day or that fly F-22s and face G force every time they go on a mission? You realize how fucking fit those people are?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter the gender of the person. If they are capable of doing what the military requires them to do, they shouldn't be excluded. Gender does not "hinder the goals" of the military, idiots that can't follow directions and get others killed do.

He just wrote you a post explaining exactly how physical differences based on gender do hinder the goals of the military.

And please the first half of your post is pure semantics - the same kind of semantics that get high ranking officials deployed in ''combat zones'' a chest full of medals because ,, they might have come under fire while being there '' or they were in the vicinity of combat actions (lol).

The reality of the matter is that when we're talking about ''boots on the ground'' we're talking about the infantry and it's various outfits and in there, generally, women do not belong. Simply based on physical ability.

Notice the word generally, there might be women who can operate on the same level as the men, but I assume they are very few and far between - you can't force nature to be more ''inclusive''. And in a ground unit, or any unit military or otherwise, the ''weakest link'' sets the pace of the entire unit.

Now fighter jets, tanks & other vehicles are a completely different story. There is nothing biological there, that I know of, that would stop most female servicewomen from operating on the level as most male servicemen.

My post isn't saying that women should be stopped from entering these roles - it's just pointing to the reality of our biological differences. If a woman can pass whatever physical barriers are set in said military roles then gender becomes irrelevant, but changing requirements or having different requirements for women? No no no... The military isn't a college campus or an affirmative action program.

[Sailor Mars]

He just wrote you a post explaining exactly how physical differences based on gender do hinder the goals of the military.

And please the first half of your post is pure semantics - the same kind of semantics that get high ranking officials deployed in ''combat zones'' a chest full of medals because ,, they might have come under fire while being there '' or they were in the vicinity of combat actions (lol).

The reality of the matter is that when we're talking about ''boots on the ground'' we're talking about the infantry and it's various outfits and in there, generally, women do not belong. Simply based on physical ability.

Notice the word generally, there might be women who can operate on the same level as the men, but I assume they are very few and far between - you can't force nature to be more ''inclusive''. And in a ground unit, or any unit military or otherwise, the ''weakest link'' sets the pace of the entire unit.

Now fighter jets, tanks & other vehicles are a completely different story. There is nothing biological there, that I know of, that would stop most female servicewomen from operating on the level as most male servicemen.

My post isn't saying that women should be stopped from entering these roles - it's just pointing to the reality of our biological differences. If a woman can pass whatever physical barriers are set in said military roles then gender becomes irrelevant, but changing requirements or having different requirements for women? No no no... The military isn't a college campus or an affirmative action program.

Ah... Might've taken some of it out of context then. My bad if I did.

In general, though, there shouldn't be boundaries that exclude anyone from applying for and testing for a job they want. If they pass requirements then they should be able to do that job. If they don't, then they shouldn't do the job. "They" being anyone, man or woman. Gender shouldn't affect who can or can't even apply and test for what they want to do. I agree that the standards should be "equal", and not be changed just for a woman. If they fail, they fail, but they shouldn't not be given a chance to pass. That's all I'm trying to say I guess. It's unfair that guys don't even allow us a chance to try before saying we can't.

[Hyper]

Ah... Might've taken some of it out of context then. My bad if I did.

In general, though, there shouldn't be boundaries that exclude anyone from applying for and testing for a job they want. If they pass requirements then they should be able to do that job. If they don't, then they shouldn't do the job. "They" being anyone, man or woman. Gender shouldn't affect who can or can't even apply and test for what they want to do. I agree that the standards should be "equal", and not be changed just for a woman. If they fail, they fail, but they shouldn't not be given a chance to pass. That's all I'm trying to say I guess. It's unfair that guys don't even allow us a chance to try before saying we can't.

Are there barriers like that in the US military?

I'm not aware since I'm not American, but in here there are none.

[Sailor Mars]

Are there barriers like that in the US military?

I'm not aware since I'm not American, but in here there are none.

There were. Combat positions and special forces were opened to women the start of this year. Before that, here: http://www.womensmemorial.org/Education/timeline.html
A timeline of military openings to women and men etc. There's also this movie I saw the other day, Unsung Heroes, that's about the history of women in the military.

[thatcountrykid]

As far the concerns about having the same physical ability as man, combat is already extremely trying on male soldiers and it's no secret that a lot of women seen as strong so there is some concern there. It's not hate. They're not saying they have to meet a mans standards. They're saying they have to meet the same standards men are held to. It's not that the man is setting it, the army is.

[ethan-s]

if you want equality, make the requirements the same for men and women. im tired of all this female privilege.:confused::mad:

[Sailor Mars]

As far the concerns about having the same physical ability as man, combat is already extremely trying on male soldiers and it's no secret that a lot of women seen as strong so there is some concern there. It's not hate. They're not saying they have to meet a mans standards. They're saying they have to meet the same standards men are held to. It's not that the man is setting it, the army is.

http://imgur.com/tGF1Cuv.jpg
http://imgur.com/SYtBWVv.jpg
http://imgur.com/F6RYyxi.jpg
http://imgur.com/p8101Fi.jpg
^Some stupid shit.

I agree that men and women should be held at the same standard. It's mainly when people who've never even served say things like that ^. That women can't join the military and serve their country because they aren't capable of doing anything else than be mothers and be sex objects. It pisses me off to no end.

[thatcountrykid]

image (http://imgur.com/tGF1Cuv.jpg)
image (http://imgur.com/SYtBWVv.jpg)
image (http://imgur.com/F6RYyxi.jpg)
image (http://imgur.com/p8101Fi.jpg)
^Some stupid shit.

I agree that men and women should be held at the same standard. It's mainly when people who've never even served say things like that ^. That women can't join the military and serve their country because they aren't capable of doing anything else than be mothers and be sex objects. It pisses me off to no end.

Most of what they said I disagree with but the third one it seems more conservative in a chivalrous way.

[Sailor Mars]

Most of what they said I disagree with but the third one it seems more conservative in a chivalrous way.

Still, if someone wants to risk their life for someone else's, then they should be able to do so. I'm surprised you guys aren't more pissed off about this stuff tbh... Saying you should risk your lives for others because you're a man. It's all BS. People should be able to do what they want to do. Not what others expect of them because they're a man or woman.

[Ragle]

if you want equality, make the requirements the same for men and women. im tired of all this female privilege.:confused::mad:

I agree. Who wants to fight, should fight. There's no need for interminable discussions about this.

[ethan-s]

keep in mind i do not support women in the military.

[Sailor Mars]

keep in mind i do not support women in the military.

Why is that?

[phuckphace]

"women in the military" and "women in combat" seem like two very different debates.

I'm cool with the former. the military is pretty large and has a lot of non-combat roles that suit them fine.

but millennials think "women in combat" is like selecting a female character in their fave vidyagame. it involves far more than running and shooting, like immense physical exertion which even a lot of dudes aren't cut out for. who here could see their mom or older sister running around in 130-degree heat with 90 pounds of gear strapped to her back (for hours)? it's not happening outside the realm of feminist fantasy, I'm afraid.

there's videos floating around of women in aforementioned combat gear trying to run and falling flat on their faces after a few feet. I'll see if I can dig them up.

[thatcountrykid]

Still, if someone wants to risk their life for someone else's, then they should be able to do so. I'm surprised you guys aren't more pissed off about this stuff tbh... Saying you should risk your lives for others because you're a man. It's all BS. People should be able to do what they want to do. Not what others expect of them because they're a man or woman.

It all goes back to the traditional man going off to war type deal and providing for his family. I have no issue with women fighting as long as the standards are the same for all. I have no issue with dying for other not because I'm a man but because that's how I am. I've seen plenty of women like that. For example female police officers and firefighters. However, to be honest I do feel more inclined to defend a woman over a man in the event I must choose, and like I said that just goes back to chivalry and all that jazz.

[Microcosm]

"women in the military" and "women in combat" seem like two very different debates.

I'm cool with the former. the military is pretty large and has a lot of non-combat roles that suit them fine.

but millennials think "women in combat" is like selecting a female character in their fave vidyagame. it involves far more than running and shooting, like immense physical exertion which even a lot of dudes aren't cut out for. who here could see their mom or older sister running around in 130-degree heat with 90 pounds of gear strapped to her back (for hours)? it's not happening outside the realm of feminist fantasy, I'm afraid.

there's videos floating around of women in aforementioned combat gear trying to run and falling flat on their faces after a few feet. I'll see if I can dig them up.

Given that there are women in combat positions, I'd say it's not impossible for them to complete these tasks. If they train and build up their body the same way men do(maybe a bit more effort is required of them since their bodies don't naturally want to fight), they can do it. That's just the truth.

We shouldn't force women to be in the military like we shouldn't force men to. If they don't want to fight or aren't cut out for it, that's fine. Some men aren't either. However, I see no good reason to bar them from the opportunity.

[ethan-s]

Why is that?

"women in the military" and "women in combat" seem like two very different debates.

I'm cool with the former. the military is pretty large and has a lot of non-combat roles that suit them fine.

but millennials think "women in combat" is like selecting a female character in their fave vidyagame. it involves far more than running and shooting, like immense physical exertion which even a lot of dudes aren't cut out for. who here could see their mom or older sister running around in 130-degree heat with 90 pounds of gear strapped to her back (for hours)? it's not happening outside the realm of feminist fantasy, I'm afraid.

there's videos floating around of women in aforementioned combat gear trying to run and falling flat on their faces after a few feet. I'll see if I can dig them up.

i agree with ^^^ thats what i meant to say.

[Sailor Mars]

And again this all goes back to the idea that if someone can, they should be able to do it, and if someone can't, then they shouldn't.

[Arkansasguy]

nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/politics/combat-military-women-ash-carter.html?referer=&_r=0

Since "recently" all positions in the military have been opened to women, Ive been seeing a lot of controversy and to put it bluntly, a lot of shit thrown at women in the military because of it. It can be seen at any comment section of any article or video you see about it. Men, and even women, saying things like "women shouldn't be able to join combat roles if they can't run, lift, and shoot like a man." Or "women shouldn't put herself at risk for a man" etc etc.

What the fuck.

[Prepare for rant here]
How the hell can anyone think this? Is society that fucked up that a woman has to live up to the standards set by a man? Do people not realize that woman have been shooting, killing, flying fucking airplanes, medicating, and fucking training alongside men for hundreds of years? Do they not realize that America is as much a home to any woman as it is to any man?

Thousands upon thousands of women, even (especially) outside of America, have been fighting and dying for their countries for years. Plenty of European armies allow women to join and it hasn't been an issue. Why is it that Americans can't realize this? So fucking what if women aren't as "physically strong" or equal to men. It doesn't matter. Why is it that men have set a standard that we apparently have to live up to? We physically are not able to be equal to men. That's a fact. We don't have dicks and they don't have boobs. We simply aren't the same. But we live and fight for the same thing. So why should we not be able to risk our lives the same? We're all human, are we not? We all love freedom and the rights we have, do we not? We can all carry 70 pounds on our back and shoot a gun the same, so why should it matter if we have a dick or if we don't?

It fucking sucks that people still think this way. That were incapable of doing the same things as men (occupation wise...) simply because we're women. I mean the fuck?
[End rant]

Anyway, thoughts on people who think this way or the topic in general?

p.s thanks grandma for making me a complete feminist

Men should protect women, not the other way around.

To allow women to fight in the army is a step toward barbarism.

[Britboo14]

To not allow women to fight is archaic.
The article says the standards will not be lowered, therefore if a woman can't keep up, she won't end up there in the first place

[Sailor Mars]

Men should protect women, not the other way around.

To allow women to fight in the army is a step toward barbarism.

And how so? Women are equal to men. Men are equal to women. We should protect each other regardless of gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc. Its the foundation of true equality to realize the differences that make us unique but focus instead on the fact that we are all human. Allowing women to enter combat roles if capable of passing military standards is a step forward to this foundation.

[Arkansasguy]

And how so? Women are equal to men. Men are equal to women.

Which is patently absurd. Men and women are manifestly not equal. There are plenty of things that men can do and women can't, and vice versa. From this, it is not at all a stretch to think that there are things that men should do but women shouldn't, and vice versa.

Its the foundation of true equality to realize the differences that make us unique but focus instead on the fact that we are all human.

There are lots of humans who shouldn't be in the military.

[Vlerchan]

There are plenty of things that men can do and women can't, and vice versa. From this, it is not at all a stretch to think that there are things that men should do but women shouldn't, and vice versa.
If it was the case that some subset of woman couldn't hit the same target as men then we wouldn't have to introduce the second part of this quote: that this subset of woman shouldn't hit the same target as men.

You'll need to justify the second proposal with more than just semantics.

[Sailor Mars]

Which is patently absurd. Men and women are manifestly not equal. There are plenty of things that men can do and women can't, and vice versa. From this, it is not at all a stretch to think that there are things that men should do but women shouldn't, and vice versa.



There are lots of humans who shouldn't be in the military.

Well of course I didn't mean women and men are physically or mentally equal, but we're all on common ground because we're all human, and therefore should treat each other as another person, not another Christian, or black, or women, or homosexual.

And of course it's a stretch to think there are things men should do but women shouldn't. People should and can do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn't affect another negatively. If women pass military standards to fit a role, then they should be able to do that job and help. If they can't, then they shouldn't. Again this all goes back to previous posts. I completely agree that some shouldn't be in the military but not based off of their gender etc. It should be based off of the physical requirements and mental requirements and if that person can pass them.

[Chapperz16]

I wonder what the phscological effects upon a combat until would be if it was mixed sex... An all male unit has a sense of brotherhood, mightn't a women endanger that aspect?

[Sailor Mars]

I wonder what the phscological effects upon a combat until would be if it was mixed sex... An all male unit has a sense of brotherhood, mightn't a women endanger that aspect?

Eh... Women work fine with men in other positions... idk why it would be much different in combat roles (the "brotherhood" aspect at least)

[sqishy]

Men should protect women, not the other way around.

To allow women to fight in the army is a step toward barbarism.


Um, explaining that point would help.

[Chapperz16]

Still there has been research which shows a lot of evidence for women not being suited for mixed combat units.

[sqishy]

Still there has been research which shows a lot of evidence for women not being suited for mixed combat units.

What research is this? (I only wonder.)

[Arkansasguy]

Well of course I didn't mean women and men are physically or mentally equal, but we're all on common ground because we're all human, and therefore should treat each other as another person, not another Christian, or black, or women, or homosexual.

I fundamentally disagree that people should be treated as interchangeable abstracts with no individuality, which is what this statement ultimately implies.

And of course it's a stretch to think there are things men should do but women shouldn't. People should and can do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn't affect another negatively. If women pass military standards to fit a role, then they should be able to do that job and help. If they can't, then they shouldn't. Again this all goes back to previous posts. I completely agree that some shouldn't be in the military but not based off of their gender etc. It should be based off of the physical requirements and mental requirements and if that person can pass them.

If you agree that there are things that are categorically impossible for one gender, then it necessarily follows that there are some things that one gender categorically should not do. ("I ought to do X" implies I can at least in theory do X)

[Sailor Mars]

I fundamentally disagree that people should be treated as interchangeable abstracts with no individuality, which is what this statement ultimately implies.
That's... That's not what I meant...
Everyone is different, but everyone is human. We should be treated as human but realize we are different. We shouldn't be treated or treat others differently because we are different.


If you agree that there are things that are categorically impossible for one gender, then it necessarily follows that there are some things that one gender categorically should not do. ("I ought to do X" implies I can at least in theory do X)
There are things we should not do as civilized people themselves. Such as rape, prejudice, murder, etc. However gender shouldn't decide what we should or should not do. It should be the basic morals of someone and common sense that should decide.

[Vlerchan]

If you agree that there are things that are categorically impossible for one gender, then it necessarily follows that there are some things that one gender categorically should not do. ("I ought to do X" implies I can at least in theory do X)
The issue is that there is a certain subset of woman that can meet the standards for enlistment in the marines.

That means it's either not categorically impossible or we've approached a fundamental disconnect on our definitions of what a woman is.

The latter would be pretty bizarre but I've come across stranger.

[Arkansasguy]

We shouldn't be treated or treat others differently because we are different.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that individuality shouldn't be recognized.

There are things we should not do as civilized people themselves. Such as rape, prejudice, murder, etc. However gender shouldn't decide what we should or should not do. It should be the basic morals of someone and common sense that should decide.

Except there are things that are categorically impossible for one gender.

[Vlerchan]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that individuality shouldn't be recognized.
Except when it comes to essentialising the sexes.

Except there are things that are categorically impossible for one gender.
We're not discussing one.

Well you and The F.M Mars aren't. I'm talking to myself.

[Sailor Mars]

Except when it comes to essentialising the sexes.


We're not discussing one.

Well you and The F.M Mars aren't. I'm talking to myself.
Haha sorry...

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that individuality shouldn't be recognized.

Except there are things that are categorically impossible for one gender.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't recognize each other as unique or different. I'm saying we shouldn't treat each other differently or unfairly because we are different.

Like Vlerchan said, we aren't talking about one of those things. It isn't impossible for women and men to fit into combat roles into the military.

This is getting slightly off topic I realize, so if we can keep it on the subject at hand that'll be great :D

[Arkansasguy]

Except when it comes to essentialising the sexes.

Individuality isn't reducible to will.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't recognize each other as unique or different. I'm saying we shouldn't treat each other differently or unfairly because we are different.[/QUOTE}

These are contradictory statements. Which is it? Should or should we not recognize differences?

[QUOTE]Like Vlerchan said, we aren't talking about one of those things. It isn't impossible for women and men to fit into combat roles into the military.

This is getting slightly off topic I realize, so if we can keep it on the subject at hand that'll be great :D

If you acknowledge that There are things that it's impossible for one gender to do, that logically necessitates that there are things that one gender shouldn't do.

[Vlerchan]

Individuality isn't reducible to will.
Would you mind rewording this.

The claim I'm making is that you're ignoring the individual variance that exists amongst a sample of woman. If you're responding that the fact that the relevant subsample are striving towards this and for some reason that makes it invalid then I would appreciate an elaboration.

Thank you.

If you acknowledge that There are things that it's impossible for one gender to do, that logically necessitates that there are things that one gender shouldn't do.
I consider this entire line of reasoning irrelevant. But nonetheless.

There is no reason that the premise necessitates the conclusion. It was at one stage impossible for humans to survive small pox - that the outcome can't be desirable is nonsense.

[Sailor Mars]

These are contradictory statements. Which is it? Should or should we not recognize differences?
It isn't contradictory at all. We are different. Yes. But we should not be prejudice to each other because we are different.

If you acknowledge that There are things that it's impossible for one gender to do, that logically necessitates that there are things that one gender shouldn't do.
What a gender should or should not do isn't determined by what they can do. It's determined by social standards and what is expected of them. What a person should and should not do is entirely up to the person them self.

But again, this is getting off topic.

The decision to allow women to join combat roles is entirely up to the military and the women capable of joining such jobs. Not all men can pass standards to join these jobs. Not all women can pass standards to join these jobs. Should the incapability of them ultimately decide if the mass should or should not do these jobs? No. There are some who can. And if they can and want to, then they should be able to.

[Stronk Serb]

Well, since our tribal days women used to be protected by men since the future of the tribe lies with them. The amount of women equates to how fast the tribe will grow. Now there is no need for that in mist countries since the world has a demographic boom. Non-combat is fine, active combat only if they are at least capable as serving men.

[Sir Suomi]

Excuse me for the lack of a response. I've been busy and it's hard to find the time to get on here.

Hyper pretty much summed it up. For roles that involve extremely physically demanding roles, that are designed to run into combat situations, or areas where having mixed units in, I am completely against "evening the playing field", as some may say. As Hyper put it, for roles such as tank crewmen, pilots, basically anything aboard a ship, etc, I'm more the fine with women serving.

I'm also going to just ignore your beginning that tries to hint towards the National Guard not being the military. If you want to try and continue down that path, I will most certainly let loose on you.

[Sailor Mars]

I'm also going to just ignore your beginning that tries to hint towards the National Guard not being the military. If you want to try and continue down that path, I will most certainly let loose on you.
Just a joke dude :P Sorry if it offended you.

And again... All goes back to my point of "If they can, they should be able to. If they can't, they shouldn't", regardless of the gender.

I think society has imprinted the idea that man = strong, woman = weak so far that our perspective and opinions on things such as this is so biased.

Strong men = strong, strong women = strong
Weak men = weak, weak women = weak

It's also made it so men seem like horny animals and therefore cannot have women integrated into combat patrols. Society has become so... fucked that our brains have been basically rewired to believe it and act on such beliefs.

[Sir Suomi]

Just a joke dude :P Sorry if it offended you.

And again... All goes back to my point of "If they can, they should be able to. If they can't, they shouldn't", regardless of the gender.

I think society has imprinted the idea that man = strong, woman = weak so far that our perspective and opinions on things such as this is so biased.

Strong men = strong, strong women = strong
Weak men = weak, weak women = weak

It's also made it so men seem like horny animals and therefore cannot have women integrated into combat patrols. Society has become so... fucked that our brains have been basically rewired to believe it and act on such beliefs.

I understand where you're coming from here. But, as I've shown previously, it has literally been shown that mixed units do not perform as well as segregated units. In a role like infantry, where you're face-to-face with an enemy, having anyone or anything slowing you down is a literal death sentence.

And what is considered "Strong" for a woman, is really "Average" for a male, at least from what I've personally seen, both in the military and in other experiences. Yes, there are exceptions to that, but for the most part, men should always outperform their female counterparts in the physical aspect.

[Microcosm]

I understand where you're coming from here. But, as I've shown previously, it has literally been shown that mixed units do not perform as well as segregated units. In a role like infantry, where you're face-to-face with an enemy, having anyone or anything slowing you down is a literal death sentence.

And what is considered "Strong" for a woman, is really "Average" for a male, at least from what I've personally seen, both in the military and in other experiences. Yes, there are exceptions to that, but for the most part, men should always outperform their female counterparts in the physical aspect.

But why say they can't do it? If push comes to shove and there is legitimately good reason to do so, they could just put them in different squads, male and female. I personally believe that the cooperation aspect and other problems related to that are most likely negligible. I'd like to see evidence or something if anyone can prove otherwise.

I just don't see any good reason to say that someone can't give their life for their country. I'd rather not bar them from the opportunity.

[Sir Suomi]

If push comes to shove and there is legitimately good reason to do so, they could just put them in different squads, male and female.

First of all, there isn't that many women who are actually interested in combat roles, such as infantry. So attempting to try and group them together would be very difficult. Even if you could, having a physically inferior squad performing with their male counterparts could still prove to be more trouble than its worth.

I personally believe that the cooperation aspect and other problems related to that are most likely negligible. I'd like to see evidence or something if anyone can prove otherwise.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/

I just don't see any good reason to say that someone can't give their life for their country. I'd rather not bar them from the opportunity.

Putting them in roles that would endanger their male comrades is a pretty good reason.

[Vlerchan]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/
I had a look. The first point is that the full report isn't released to be read. That's problematic insofar as I gathered from elsewhere that there was a significant number of other categories tested.

Nonetheless the report makes no attempt - as far as I can see - to control for the woman that weren't capable of graduating and thus undermining the scores of mixed-member units. That means that the report isn't testing what an actual mixed-member unit would look like as a significant number in the sample tested would never pass screening.

That needs to be controlled for before we can have a proper conversation.

[Sir Suomi]

Nonetheless the report makes no attempt - as far as I can see - to control for the woman that weren't capable of graduating and thus undermining the scores of mixed-member units. That means that the report isn't testing what an actual mixed-member unit would look like as a significant number in the sample tested would never pass screening.

That needs to be controlled for before we can have a proper conversation.

This doesn't seem as much as a flaw for me. It clearly states that most women are not suited for the combat tasks, and it's clear to see the difference in injury rates when the two sexes are compared.

[Vlerchan]

This doesn't seem as much as a flaw for me.
Your claim was that "mixed units do not perform as well as segregated units". The fact that the mixed-member units were made up of a significant number of people "not suited for the combat tasks" distorts relative outcomes and doesn't offer a clear picture of what an actual mixed-member unit would operate like.

It clearly states that most women are not suited for the combat tasks, and it's clear to see the difference in injury rates when the two sexes are compared.
To emphasise: the stats of most woman are then being used as an argument against the entrance of the other woman whose stats align with those of graduating men.

[Sir Suomi]

Your claim was that "mixed units do not perform as well as segregated units". The fact that the mixed-member units were made up of a significant number of people "not suited for the combat tasks" distorts relative outcomes and doesn't offer a clear picture of what an actual mixed-member unit would operate like.

I'd argue that this shows that women, in general, are not suited for combat roles. When you have a 3:1 Graduation Ratio, that speaks for itself.

[TonyJoe]

Completely agree with you, OP. It's tragic that they think that way.

[Meron]

Personally I don't think women were made to fight, kill or hold a weapon. But yes, it's possible. And can be even used if necessary (For example there aren't enough members in the squad so they let females fight with them).

However I don't support mixing squads, since there are a lot of douchebags in there that might do anything you can think of.

Overall, if she wants to fight then... let her be? Her responsibility anyhow, not ours if anything happens to her.

[Vlerchan]

I'd argue that this shows that women, in general, are not suited for combat roles. When you have a 3:1 Graduation Ratio, that speaks for itself.
Sure.

But the argument of those in support of mixed-member units is that there's a certain subset of woman that are capable - and these woman shouldn't be denied the chance to participate because of the performance of the rest of their sex.

The report linked doesn't undermine that logic at all.