Here is an article that I thought was somewhat interesting. I was curious of the other opinions that might be floating around out there. I feel that men and women should be afforded the same opportunities, but I DO NOT approve of equal representation just for the sake of having equal representation. I feel that if equal numbers of men and women attempted to sign up for the military or the nfl that due to the very nature of what they're signing up for that the men would and should (at this point in time due to where we're at on the evolutionary playing field) vastly outnumber the women on these particular fields (and similar ones).
Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality.
Yeah, because if you haven't heard it personally, it just simply doesn't exist...
The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldnât have foreseen.
Because men never get injuries or develop various symptoms either.
we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
I don't think there's nearly enough information out there to make this call.
At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males.
Exactly how much of this is women being diagnosed more readily, and with varying expectations? When public schools were first integrated, the acheivement gap between black and white students was attempted to use to justify re-segregation. This smacks of the same type of logic to me. While there are physical differences, how much of the percentage is due to other factors?
modifyingâ a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called âlowering the standardâ!
No one who's rational is advocating lowering the standards so women can get in, just so there's women in the Marine Corps.
there is a miniscule probability that sheâll be physically capable of serving at all.
Of which there is absolutely no data to back up this statement, just a personal experience from one person.
These standards are designed to ensure safety, quality, and the opportunity to be placed in a field in which one can sustain and succeed.
Again - anyone arguing that these be taken down isn't interested in equality, just a feminist agenda. Leave the standards alone and don't discriminate based on gender who can pass them. Simple.
After being in the army for a while......No. I'm all for females who want to serve and volunteer, because face it, most of our nations are going to face declining manpower in the years to come. What I don't advocate in general, is the introduction of conscription for women in nations with conscription.
Yes, females can be excellent shots. They can have the mental tolerance. They can be better than men. But on the whole the average man makes a better soldier than a woman. It's basic biology, it's not a conspiracy against women by hard line patriarchs. They just happen to be naturally better at the job, like how the ladies are on the whole much better at nursing, children-related jobs, and the like. It's not an issue of inequality.
Then, there's the issue of army rape, army discipline, separation, female biological needs, and the lot. It's hard enough getting the men in line, throw in females in mixed/separate units, and it would prove unbearable. They threw a female company with twenty male ones when I was in training, and the cases of punishment to prevent harassment were of a significant number.
But on the whole the average man makes a better soldier than a woman. It's basic biology,
Yes, this is true.
They threw a female company with twenty male ones when I was in training, and the cases of punishment to prevent harassment were of a significant number.
Do you think it would have been different if it wasn't such an unequal proportion of males to females?
I will say again, Israel have female as soliders, some even in fighting rules, and its just fine. I dont see your problem at all.
I dont know about your army Nich, but i serve with female soliders. And they get what they need just like i do. They have a Gynecologist coming once a week, the "shekem", a military operated shop, sell higyenic materials (and candies, toothpaste and anything else you need), we get 3 meals a day (free afcours) and life in general is good. But even more, the Karakal soliders (a unit mixed with males and females) are operating. And the females live just like any other solider, sleep in the dirt and running and etc.
You need to understand - the modern solider dont need to be extra strong. He need to be diciplaned, hard working and with will power. Sure most females dont start working out from teenage years, so you may low a little the demands at first, but when they get in they also get in shape. And befor the recruitment, like a year or two befor, any girl that intending to be in a fighting rule, start to work out. My friend went to a project while in school, kind of "befor the army",in which they ran long distances, carried "injured", made field food and in general got ready to the army. And less then half of them were girls. I know some which became fighters.
Summary for my confusing rambeling : There are Women in combat. And they are doing well.
Do you think it would have been different if it wasn't such an unequal proportion of males to females?
No I don't. I think it'll get worse in fact. They didn't target the women because there were so few of time, they did it because they just wanted to.
@Danielo - No, I don't mind individual units if they can get along well. But not all units/men will be that understanding. It messes up the dynamics. It brings up the issue of feminism pretty sharply - we recently had an army song banned because a feminist group found it offensive, and there was much angry murmuring in the army.
I do not dispute that the modern solder does not need to rely solely on his or her brute strength, however, other factors come into play that tip men over women, naturally. Take aggression for instance. More testosterone means more aggression, which translates to a tougher, fiercer soldier who is more willing to engage in combat.
Do you think the harassment would go away after it became "normal" for women to be there?
Nope.
And the next one, isn't the fact that there's harassment occurring demonstrate that there's a problem to begin with?
There is a problem. It's not just in the army too, but when you put it in the context of a work place where testosterone is meant to be up and running, it gets worse.
And why is that? According to Danielo, things aren't the same way in Israel. I would also think that, based on what I know of people, that once it was seen as normal for women to be in the army and men knew they wouldn't get away with harassing the women, it would no longer be a problem.
The exact same arguments on keeping women out of the armed forces can basically be compared with those on segregation. Less able to perform, causes conflicts, etc...
And why is that? According to Danielo, things aren't the same way in Israel. I would also think that, based on what I know of people, that once it was seen as normal for women to be in the army and men knew they wouldn't get away with harassing the women, it would no longer be a problem.
Because in the States, the number of sexual assaults per year numbers near 19,000, yet because of the slow, bureaucratic processes, coupled with the stigma, means that few of these cases are prosecuted, or even when they are, reach a general court martial.
I would argue that segregation and keeping most women from the army, or at least from the front lines are different issues. One was built on ignorance and misled bigotry, the other built on biological issues of which we can only control to a certain extent. Segregation was formed on the idea that other races were inferior intellectually, when we know that more or less this is hogwash, rectified once we pulled down the dams blocking them from proper education; yet we know for sure that in combat, men are on the whole far more effective, purely due to how they are born.
Caveat - This does not mean I would not like to see more women in the army if need be; I would merely not favour them on the front lines. I know many capable logistics, supply and admin female soldiers. Auxiliary roles.
