- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I stated this on the OP. Women jack their hips up at the cyclic rate (if you're military you understand the term) and it is usually permanent.
Thats the thing though, I don't believe anyone said women should not be in the military or are not an asset. We just believe that they are not suited for COMBAT ARMS
Every job in the military provides a useful function that helps the entire machine. Almost all of those jobs are open to women and they do just fine at them.
Infantry and Special Operations specifically are VERY PHYSICAL
I have already provided research from the Army that shows women are more prone to injury than men (even in basic training)
View attachment 67157392
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7
Many combat vets have given their opinions and they just happen to be supported by military doctors.
Please, this stuff is par for the course with you super conservative traditionalists.
I'm asking on statistics where there have been reported altercations or what not between female and male military members, and how often they occur in relation to how many are enlisted.
Of course, we are ALWAYS going to have some behavioral issues.
So why are you willing to expand their incidences to the units that are least capable of handling them and most likely to suffer in the form of increased casualties from having to deal with them?
If your answer is "because that is 'fair'", okay. That's fine. But at least you are recognizing the trade-off
Good Lord! These are people on an internet forum. I don't know anything about them.
Well now you do because they've opened up to you. War stories are often incredibly personal - it's a deep, powerful experience. I don't tell my **** to most folks, but here behind the computer screen it is easier. So now you do know something about them. And your response to them opening up to you was to dismiss or spit at them.
I didn't ignore them. I honestly haven't seen you post the stats I specifically requested.
How about you start with the stats above about women being more prone to injury?
Then we can work with 11% of women in the military in Any Given Year having an "unplanned" pregnancy. For comparison, that's 50% higher than the civilian populace.
The Navy did a study in the late 80s and found out that at any given time about 8.5% of their women were pregnant, although at that time only about 40% were "unplanned".
This bit from that particular piece struck me as interesting:
...Cmdr. Judy J. Glenn, a Navy nurse in the obstetrics and gynecology department at the Navy Hospital in Balboa Park was the first researcher to call attention to the pregnancy issue. During a 10-month period in 1986 and 1987, Glenn found that out of the 789 Navy women on active duty who registered for prenatal care at the hospital, 41% were single.
Single parents are a growing population in the Navy and society in general, Glenn said. With 52% of the women in her study under 22 years old, many had unrealistically optimistic expectations about caring for a child while remaining in the Navy, she said.
"We're not talking about mature, responsible adults. We're talking about very young adults," Glenn said. "They're 19 to 21, newly emancipated, sexually active and not using birth control."...
How do you think they are getting pregnant? Do you think perhaps "sex" might be involved?
If you would be so kind as to repost them, that would be great, and thank you in advance.
we can start there.
There are statistics that the Marine Corps took, polling Marines about the integration of women into combat units.... but for some reason they appear to have not been willing to release the full data, especially with regards to "how infantry veteran Marines polled on the question".
Lol! No, they aren't facts unless they are supported by EVIDENCE. Personal observations are NOT facts. LOL!
Wait. Are you telling me that if you step outside your house, right now, and witness a car crash, that it is not a "fact" that a car crash occurred? That you will retain a healthy skepticism over whether or not a car crash occurred until you read about it on the internet?
None of these things are FACTS. Sorry.
:doh They are all facts, and they are all true.
But since you are so keen on facts - where are yours? Where is your evidence that everyone here who has actual experience but you, with no experience or relevant data, are correct? Where are your statistics, links?
My opinions (which I don't deny, they are opinions) are based upon knowing that some females are most certainly capable of doing jobs that men do, and to stop them from doing what they want because of the fact that they are female is really nothing but gender discrimination if you really think about it.
No. This isn't about equality. It's about combat efficiency.
It's not their fault they were born females, and it's not their fault if the men can't control themselves
Both of those things are true. They are also unfortunately not relevant - if your higher value is combat efficiency. If you value "fairness" more than combat efficiency, then they do become relevant, but you need to be explicit about your relative valuation.
never suggested you faked anything.
Post #349
ChrisL said:What a ***** response. ... For all I know you aren't even in the military.
I simply don't know you, don't know anything about any of you people actually, and this is the internet. I'm not a newcomer.
Take a look at what we did to Joko's story. It's not terribly difficult for us to spot a fake.
Because older servicemembers aren't on the front lines kicking in doors. Dude, I know you've gotten pretty personal with others on this thread and it's gotten ugly. I've tried very hard not to do that with you. To be honest, I'm surprised no warnings have been issued yet. But please take my advice on this. You are very, very ignorant of what goes on in the military and should sit back and listen. I'm an active duty Marine and can't tell you about the culture of an Army infantry/airborne unit compared to a Marine infantry unit. So what makes you think you can speak on an even remotely intelligent level about this stuff?Why aren't you guys raging about how physical standards are different for service members based on age? What aren't you raging that if an older service member can't meet the same standards as younger men, THEY WILL GET PEOPLE KILLED!
Age discrimination in physical standards WILL GET PEOPLE KILLED!!!! Lower standards for older men in the military has caused huge numbers of casualties and will ultimately cause the USA to be invaded and defeated! Damn liberals!!!:lamo
Could you be a little more specific? Disagree with what exactly?
That disagreed with the CIC's social engineering agenda.
:doh this stuff is par for the course with veterans. Who know what they are talking about and therefore disagree with you.
I'm asking on statistics where there have been reported altercations or what not between female and male military members, and how often they occur in relation to how many are enlisted.
This here is a question that I find very important that I keep asking you to provide me with some data, and you either refuse or no such data exists. Either way, it does not support your argument unless you can PRODUCE something!!!
So why are you willing to expand their incidences to the units that are least capable of handling them and most likely to suffer in the form of increased casualties from having to deal with them?
If your answer is "because that is 'fair'", okay. That's fine. But at least you are recognizing the trade-off
There are MANY things that can cause strife within a unit. For you to try to put the blame on women being there and based on only the fact that they are WOMEN is certainly gender discrimination. I don't believe there is any "trade-off." I think having women is an ADDITION. They are being added on TOP of the men who are already/will be serving.
Well now you do because they've opened up to you. War stories are often incredibly personal - it's a deep, powerful experience. I don't tell my **** to most folks, but here behind the computer screen it is easier. So now you do know something about them. And your response to them opening up to you was to dismiss or spit at them.
Nobody shared any personal war story with me, and I have not been rude to anyone besides you here, and that is because I find your traditionalist views disgusting. Get a grip and STOP trying to make this some kind of "you're a big meanie" tit for tat. That's just lame. Argue your point and stop whining. This isn't an appreciation thread. This is a debate website and I am debating a topic. I have not broken any rules, and I'm tired of your "you're a meanie" routine.
How about you start with the stats above about women being more prone to injury?
Then we can work with 11% of women in the military in Any Given Year having an "unplanned" pregnancy. For comparison, that's 50% higher than the civilian populace.
This is a terrible argument. Some smaller boned men would be more prone to injuries too. Ridiculous. A young healthy woman who passes the physical fitness test is perfectly able bodied. Women as a WHOLE are more prone to injuries because as they age, they lose calcium in their bones (osteoporosis), but this happens with AGING. THIS is not a problem for healthy YOUNG women. :roll: Sure, their bones are smaller and less dense, but it's not like a healthy young woman is going to break her hip or something.
The Navy did a study in the late 80s and found out that at any given time about 8.5% of their women were pregnant, although at that time only about 40% were "unplanned".
Again, this is irrelevant. Pregnancy is a temporary condition. 8.5% is not really that many. What is the percentage of male soldiers out on injury leave or something at any given time? You have to make comparisons here. You can't just post one without posting the other. That really doesn't PROVE anything.
This bit from that particular piece struck me as interesting:
Single parents are growing in the population period. Of course that is reflected everywhere. The one thing you forget to mention is that more and more MEN are becoming single parents too.
How do you think they are getting pregnant? Do you think perhaps "sex" might be involved?
Yes, which takes two people. These pregnancies may not be the result of an affair with a fellow member of the military either. These women could easily have boyfriends.
we can start there.
There are statistics that the Marine Corps took, polling Marines about the integration of women into combat units.... but for some reason they appear to have not been willing to release the full data, especially with regards to "how infantry veteran Marines polled on the question".
Well then you don't have evidence. I'm sorry, your personal anecdotes I do believe, but they really don't mean anything in the bigger picture.
Wait. Are you telling me that if you step outside your house, right now, and witness a car crash, that it is not a "fact" that a car crash occurred? That you will retain a healthy skepticism over whether or not a car crash occurred until you read about it on the internet?
LOL! How foolish. If the police arrived and there was no car or any other evidence of a car crash, then NO it would not be a fact. Are you really this naive? I don't believe it. I think you're playing dumb.
:doh They are all facts, and they are all true.
No sorry, facts require evidence other than hearsay.
But since you are so keen on facts - where are yours? Where is your evidence that everyone here who has actual experience but you, with no experience or relevant data, are correct? Where are your statistics, links?
My claims are that the military is going to be accepting females into combat roles in the military and that I don't have a problem with that as long as they can pass the physical fitness tests the same as the men. I have nothing to prove. YOU, OTH, are making all KINDS of allegations.
No. This isn't about equality. It's about combat efficiency.
And your views about what women "should" do affect your opinions on this matter. I think that a woman could be completely efficient.
Both of those things are true. They are also unfortunately not relevant - if your higher value is combat efficiency. If you value "fairness" more than combat efficiency, then they do become relevant, but you need to be explicit about your relative valuation.
I value both, and I don't think that women would be the problem you are implying they would. I just don't believe that. Not that I don't believe your personal stories and others' stories, but they don't prove anything.
Yeah? That is true. For all I know you aren't. I never accused you of lying. I'm saying I don't know you at all and I don't know if you are or not. You probably aren't, but it certainly is not impossible, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been lied to and probably not the last either. Lol! I'll check that link out later maybe. I have other posts to address.
Take a look at what we did to Joko's story. It's not terribly difficult for us to spot a fake.
What do I care? That's between you and him. Nothing to do with me and I don't want to be involved.
Social engineering? Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific.
First of all your posts are TOO long. I timed out trying to respond to this. Thankfully I saved it.
No, there are many people who served who have traditionalist views which skew their outlook, especially when it comes to anything to do with women and equal rights. They just HATE that. Whether or not they are a veteran or served is irrelevant in MANY cases.
This here is a question that I find very important that I keep asking you to provide me with some data, and you either refuse or no such data exists. Either way, it does not support your argument unless you can PRODUCE something!!!
There are MANY things that can cause strife within a unit.
For you to try to put the blame on women being there and based on only the fact that they are WOMEN is certainly gender discrimination.
I don't believe there is any "trade-off." I think having women is an ADDITION. They are being added on TOP of the men who are already/will be serving.
Nobody shared any personal war story with me
and I have not been rude to anyone besides you here, and that is because I find your traditionalist views disgusting.
Get a grip and STOP trying to make this some kind of "you're a big meanie" tit for tat.
This is a terrible argument. Some smaller boned men would be more prone to injuries too. Ridiculous. A young healthy woman who passes the physical fitness test is perfectly able bodied. Women as a WHOLE are more prone to injuries because as they age, they lose calcium in their bones (osteoporosis), but this happens with AGING. THIS is not a problem for healthy YOUNG women.
:roll: Sure, their bones are smaller and less dense, but it's not like a healthy young woman is going to break her hip or something.
Again, this is irrelevant. Pregnancy is a temporary condition.
8.5% is not really that many.
What is the percentage of male soldiers out on injury leave or something at any given time?
You have to make comparisons here. You can't just post one without posting the other. That really doesn't PROVE anything.
Single parents are growing in the population period. Of course that is reflected everywhere. The one thing you forget to mention is that more and more MEN are becoming single parents too.
Yes, which takes two people. These pregnancies may not be the result of an affair with a fellow member of the military either. These women could easily have boyfriends.
Well then you don't have evidence. I'm sorry, your personal anecdotes I do believe, but they really don't mean anything in the bigger picture.
LOL! How foolish. If the police arrived and there was no car or any other evidence of a car crash, then NO it would not be a fact. Are you really this naive? I don't believe it. I think you're playing dumb.
No sorry, facts require evidence other than hearsay.
My claims are that the military is going to be accepting females into combat roles in the military and that I don't have a problem with that as long as they can pass the physical fitness tests the same as the men. I have nothing to prove. YOU, OTH, are making all KINDS of allegations.
And your views about what women "should" do affect your opinions on this matter. I think that a woman could be completely efficient.
I value both, and I don't think that women would be the problem you are implying they would. I just don't believe that. Not that I don't believe your personal stories and others' stories, but they don't prove anything.
Yeah? That is true. For all I know you aren't. I never accused you of lying. I'm saying I don't know you at all and I don't know if you are or not. You probably aren't, but it certainly is not impossible, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been lied to and probably not the last either. Lol! I'll check that link out later maybe. I have other posts to address.
What do I care? That's between you and him. Nothing to do with me and I don't want to be involved.
Your replies are just as long - you've taken a bit of my day
I don't think you would be able to point to a single individual in this thread who hates the notion of equal rights for females. As I've pointed out to you a couple of times - quite the opposite.
Data has been produced both in the narrative and statistical form. Thus far you are desperately trying to find ways to ignore it.
That is correct. For example, one guy can sleep with another guy's wife - that is why adultery is illegal in the military, and you can be thrown in prison for it. In fact, actions that are prejudicial to good order and discipline are generally covered under the UCMJ and the unit can have you removed in order to keep you from causing strife.
1. I am not trying to put the blame on women. I am pointing out that them being there causes strife. It's no one's fault, it's just human nature. It's a reality that we all have to deal with.
2. The measuring stick isn't "gender", it's do you contribute to the ability of a unit to act as an effective combat team. There are a whole list of items that will disqualify you from it - from color-blindness, to asthma, to being an adulterer, to being a woman.
That is incorrect - a unit only has so many billets, the women will REPLACE men who are already/will be serving. And there absolutely is a trade-off; as multiple people who have actually witnessed that trade off occur in real life have told you.
....did you miss the last 500 or so posts, as well as your own arguments? You are literally here telling us that our experience doesn't count, and now you claim we aren't even sharing our experiences?
:roll: I couldn't care one way or t'other about tradition, or family structure, or gender equality inside of this because my higher concern is making sure we aren't hindering our combat troops ability to function as a team, thus putting their lives in danger. I find your willingness to disregard the warnings of those who would actually know that you are putting people's lives in danger disgusting. I would think that at least they have earned the decency of being taken seriously when they make such a claim.
HAH - says the woman who not just a second ago was talking about how you are right because others are misogynists or traditionalists or whathaveyou?
That is incorrect - if you had bothered to actually read the information presented to you before trying to figure out a way to try to discount it, you would have noticed that those statistics for women breaking down were of young healthy women who had passed physical fitness tests.
Actually she is - it's called a "stress fracture".
Which is irrelevant. So is being wounded - it is still a casualty and a loss of combat power.
8.5% casualties right out the gate is actually pretty serious. And you will notice in the link above which you also tried to dismiss that it's up to about 10-11% now. A battalion commander, for example, whose unit saw 10-11% deployment-ending injuries in training would likely be relieved of command for endangering his mission.
Significantly less than females - I apologize; my wife is asking me to go to bed: I will answer the rest of this on the morrow
But that is incorrect - you are explicitly claiming that we are incorrect, and that women will not in fact detract from unit cohesion in the infantry or become problematic due to greater absence due to medical concerns (to include pregnancy). You are, in fact, making exactly the same type of observations and claims that you are demanding evidentiary support for from us. Either put up, or admit that the preponderance of evidence thus far presented in this thread supports the position of those who actually know what they are talking about.
And this. Since you are such an expert in our psychology, but apparently are unwilling to deal with the fact that in fact I treat women under my command the same as males, and have, at multiple times in my career, gone to bat for women under my leadership to see them promoted and even put into billets far exceeding their rank because I think they belong there, how about you describe for us this bogeyman that you insist anyone who disagrees with you must be.
There is so much Walter Mitty going on and so much false claims it too risky to engage in that I'm out of these topics. It's irrelevant anyway. The military and civilian leadership as left the past behind and advanced to wiser goals and practices learning from terrible mistakes of the past.
Well?Joko, please state the tactical advantages of having women in the infantry and other combat arms units.
Older soldiers, in order to be retained, are not left in those ground pounding front line positions; they move to support, management and training jobs or are forced out. This is true in the construction trades as well.
Well?
You at least have to decide if your position is that the entire military is in identical combat roles or not - rather than declaring it IS in relation to women and it ISN'T in relation to men - for which you then claim inequality in standards is fine for men but will destroy the military if for women.
We have, however, posted the tactical disadvantages of having women in the unit. Again, YOU show the tactical advantages of having women in combat units. That's the question. Don't try to turn it back around to me.I have posted this many times extensively. Your side has never presented any "tactical advantages" of only having men in combat units.
I'll explain this as easily as I can for you. Let's use aircraft as an example. A Supply Clerk in an air unit is responsible ordering parts for an aircraft. He then sends those parts to an aircraft mechanic to fix the bird. The pilot needs those parts to fly the jet. The jet exists to support the infantry. EVERY SINGLE JOB in the military always revolves around supporting the warfighter down range. Even if that MOS never has any direct interaction with the infantry, it is still inevitably supporting the infantry. Even administration clerks in a logistics battalion are supporting infantry indirectly? Why? They provide administrative support for the logisticians that are supporting the infantryman. If our military was set up any other way, it would cease to serve the purpose it's supposed to.More importantly, none of you have ever explained why you believe the entirety of the military exists singularly for the Infantry in "combat arms" - for which the rest of the military should I suppose just be eliminated.
If I'm following what you are saying correctly, you're saying we should have the same standards for everyone entering the military. There should be no special standards for each MOS. Well, that's the way it is now bro. It always has been. Read the OP. Those aren't infantry standards. They are standard Physical Fitness Test standards for all entry level Marines. And females cannot meet them nor are they being held to the same ones as men.The issue is physical standards for all persons entering the military as that is how basic training is done now. You have to defend those standards for your position as being a necessity for every person who enters military service - not just infantry that heads out on 2 week long small unit patrols - which is now all but a thing of the past anyway.
No one, as far as I know, has claimed that a drone operator should be able to do that. However, the minimum Physical Fitness standards in the OP are just as much about keeping costs down and a proper image as they are about actual fitness. Look at it this way, the better shape our military is in, the less it costs to provide healthcare. The less types of uniforms have to be produced because we all fit in a certain range of sizes for them. The more favorable our military looks to the public. No one likes to see a fat servicemember in uniform. If we do not have basic physical standards, that goes away. Finally, the drone operator has to be in good shape. Studies have shown that a person in shape will have better hand eye coordination, handle stress better, and have more endurance at even the most menial of tasks. Drone operators need all of these qualities.You have to explain why the person in Utah remotely flying the drone with infrared detectors that can find and kill "the enemy" with far better success rates and poising no risk of an American casualty should have to be able to run 2 miles with a heavy pack in 19/45, nor why the technician who services that drone has to, nor - for that matter - 90+% of the other people in that branch of service should.
However, without that Budweiser delivery man, the product doesn't move. You can have an executive with an MBA sitting in his office making big decisions all you want. If the product isn't moving, it doesn't matter what he does. Further, your analogy doesn't fit this situation. 1) Budweiser doesn't care what it's employees look like. 2) Budweiser doesn't require standard training for all employees prior to moving on to their area of expertise. 3) The infantryman, on average, costs more to train that technical MOS's do. Why? Because once a person learns a jet engine, that's it. A jet engine in the US is a jet engine in Afghanistan is a jet engine in the Philippines. However, a patrol is not the same in the US as it is in Afghanistan as it is in the Philippines. So, the infantryman requires constant follow on training to adapt the various theaters he may go to.It's like the guy driving the Budweiser delivery truck raging how everyone in the company should be able to lift as much as he does - and that he's more important than everyone else working for Budweiser because of it - when actually he is among the most easily trained and the most easily replaced.
ChrisL said:What is the percentage of male soldiers out on injury leave or something at any given time?
Single parents are growing in the population period. Of course that is reflected everywhere. The one thing you forget to mention is that more and more MEN are becoming single parents too.
Yes, which takes two people. These pregnancies may not be the result of an affair with a fellow member of the military either. These women could easily have boyfriends.
Well then you don't have evidence. I'm sorry, your personal anecdotes I do believe, but they really don't mean anything in the bigger picture.
LOL! How foolish. If the police arrived and there was no car or any other evidence of a car crash, then NO it would not be a fact. Are you really this naive? I don't believe it. I think you're playing dumb.
No sorry, facts require evidence other than hearsay.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?