Women in the army

[rachmaninoff_forever]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/from-women-in-combat-to-top-brass/2013/01/25/550494de-6715-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html

Apparently they did a survey and 66% of bodies said that women shouldn't be able to be in the infantry.

what the heck?!  They're all a bunch of losers.

[ahinton]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/from-women-in-combat-to-top-brass/2013/01/25/550494de-6715-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html

Apparently they did a survey and 66% of bodies said that women shouldn't be able to be in the infantry.

what the heck?!  They're all a bunch of losers.

Whether in part as a consequence of the US decision I do not know, but there's now debate in UK about whether women should be allowed to function as front-line combat troops in the British army, although the timing of this is rather surprising, given that government cuts just announced will lead to a substantial scaling back of the British armed forces in general; perhaps they think that they can get women cheaper...

I don't think that women should be allowed to do this - but then that's not a sexist statement, because I don't think that men should either. As third in line top the British throne, what is reported (how reliably I'm not entirely sure) at https://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/26/285571/uk-prince-harry-crass-arrogant/ gives little confidence in the whole defence business; the truly astonishing financial black holes that have recently been discovered to have arisen largely from crass incompetence in procurement for the British armed services on an unprecedented scale gives a whole lot less and might arguably seem even to suggest that the cutbacks in spending on those services might look more like a damage limitation exercise than a series of economies for their own sakes.

Best,

Alistair

[outin]

, given that government cuts just announced will lead to a substantial scaling back of the British armed forces in general; perhaps they think that they can get women cheaper...

Or maybe they think quality is more imporatant than quantity?

[p2u_]

I don't think that women should be allowed to do this - but then that's not a sexist statement, because I don't think that men should either.

Although I don't have a right to speak about any other country's political and internal affairs, I couldn't agree with you more.

P.S.: If armies are really necessary, then it should be the work of professionals (= the best people for the job). For some strange reason, women have to be better than men to be considered just as good...

Paul

[j_menz]

government cuts just announced will lead to a substantial scaling back of the British armed forces in general

Finally woke up that the empire's gone?

[lloyd_cdb]

Ridiculous military spending and the financial black holes are there to cover up the money being funneled into defense against the alien invasion coming this year.  Commentary about women is just another distraction.  Don't fall into their propaganda traps!

[ahinton]

Finally woke up that the empire's gone?

If only it were either so simple or so logical; no way, however! This is simply blatant and arrogant mismanagement, at a massive cost to the British taxpayer - and what's being mismanaged isn't even worthy of proper efficient management!

Bests,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Women have fought for equality so let them fight in the Army if they wish.

Thal

[ahinton]

Women have fought for equality so let them fight in the Army if they wish.

Women have indeed had to fight for equal rights, a phenomenon which is not, however, the same as blanket gender "equality"; it's an indictment to men that women have felt the need to do this and even, some might argue, that the entire feminist movement had to arise as an outcome of such a purpose. I still stick to my viewpoint that women should not be allowed to function professionally on the front line of formal armed combat because men shouldn't either and, if neither did so anywhere, the world would be a far better place for us all.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

if neither did so anywhere, the world would be a far better place for us all.

A situation that is hardly likely to happen.

Thal

[lloyd_cdb]

The military has physical fitness requirements. Fascinatingly, men and women have different physiques. Here are some statistics by height and weight, assuming a white ethnicity and an age of 20, and that the requirements to serve are the top 75% of men's averages.

75% of men are taller than 68 inches.
less than 10% of women are taller than 68 inches.

75% of men weigh at least 145 lbs.
~33% of women weight at least 145 lbs.

Using the 145 lb minimum, here are some bench press percentiles:

80% of men can bench 140 lbs.
~15% of women can bench that weight.
(these are extrapolated numbers which are not based on regression analysis)

My point is not that they aren't capable, but that it might just boil down to cost/benefit analysis for separate facilities, bla bla bla. I don't think this means they shouldn't be allowed to serve, I'm just highlighting the fact that men and women are different (again, incredibly shocking). Different people are suited to different things. Forcing people to accept "equality" when it doesn't actually exist in the first place is just dumb.

I'm going to fight for women to buy ME dinner on a first date. I DEMAND GENDER EQUALITY!

[ahinton]

A situation that is hardly likely to happen.

Sadly true, although the fact the economic woes are giving rise to the scaling back of defence forces might be seen as something of a step in the right direction, even if for other than the best reasons.

Best,

Alistair

[p2u_]

The military has physical fitness requirements. Fascinatingly, men and women have different physiques. Here are some statistics by height and weight, assuming a white ethnicity and an age of 20, and that the requirements to serve are the top 75% of men's averages.

Strange as this may seem, but these requirements have NOTHING to do with how capable someone is in combat.

Paul

[jogoeshome]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/from-women-in-combat-to-top-brass/2013/01/25/550494de-6715-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html

Apparently they did a survey and 66% of bodies said that women shouldn't be able to be in the infantry.

what the heck?!  They're all a bunch of losers.

Totally bullshit, yeah they might not be as strong as men, but in war situations they can still do a lot of damage. Think about the british spies who were parachuted in war time France. And they didn-t even had a formal military training.

[jogoeshome]

The military has physical fitness requirements. Fascinatingly, men and women have different physiques. Here are some statistics by height and weight, assuming a white ethnicity and an age of 20, and that the requirements to serve are the top 75% of men's averages.

75% of men are taller than 68 inches.
less than 10% of women are taller than 68 inches.

75% of men weigh at least 145 lbs.
~33% of women weight at least 145 lbs.

Using the 145 lb minimum, here are some bench press percentiles:

80% of men can bench 140 lbs.
~15% of women can bench that weight.
(these are extrapolated numbers which are not based on regression analysis)

My point is not that they aren't capable, but that it might just boil down to cost/benefit analysis for separate facilities, bla bla bla. I don't think this means they shouldn't be allowed to serve, I'm just highlighting the fact that men and women are different (again, incredibly shocking). Different people are suited to different things. Forcing people to accept "equality" when it doesn't actually exist in the first place is just dumb.

I'm going to fight for women to buy ME dinner on a first date. I DEMAND GENDER EQUALITY!

Yeah, but its not just the physique, a woman can for example swim better and faster than a male twice her size. same with running or shooting. In certain operations muscular strength and size are actually inconvenient in the army.

[j_menz]

Strange as this may seem, but these requirements have NOTHING to do with how capable someone is in combat.

Paul

Indeed. Given that the military is moving more and more to conducting remote operations via robots/drones from a bunker somewhere. The only real requirement is the ability to handle the general boredom. Clearly women are superior in this; they do, after all, manage to live with their husbands.

[thalbergmad]

yeah they might not be as strong as men, but in war situations they can still do a lot of damage.

Indeed, just give them a tank and tell them to reverse it into a parking space.

Thal

[rachmaninoff_forever]

The military has physical fitness requirements. Fascinatingly, men and women have different physiques. Here are some statistics by height and weight, assuming a white ethnicity and an age of 20, and that the requirements to serve are the top 75% of men's averages.

75% of men are taller than 68 inches.
less than 10% of women are taller than 68 inches.

75% of men weigh at least 145 lbs.
~33% of women weight at least 145 lbs.

Using the 145 lb minimum, here are some bench press percentiles:

80% of men can bench 140 lbs.
~15% of women can bench that weight.
(these are extrapolated numbers which are not based on regression analysis)

My point is not that they aren't capable, but that it might just boil down to cost/benefit analysis for separate facilities, bla bla bla. I don't think this means they shouldn't be allowed to serve, I'm just highlighting the fact that men and women are different (again, incredibly shocking). Different people are suited to different things. Forcing people to accept "equality" when it doesn't actually exist in the first place is just dumb.

I'm going to fight for women to buy ME dinner on a first date. I DEMAND GENDER EQUALITY!

We talked about this in sociology, and they seem to be physically inferior because they're inexperienced.

For quite a while they weren't any women sports, and today it's discouraged for women to be in sports.

So they haven't been in the game long enough, but they're catching up.