SmokeAndMirrors
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
We aren't issued jock straps. There's no need for them. There's no need for additional dietary supplements for male soldiers either.
Between R&D, production, and distribution you might be surprised at how much all of what you have suggested ends up costing in the longrun.
"$10,000 for a hammer, $20,000 for a toilet seat."
If standards remain the same for men and women, the kinds of women you describe are going to be so incredibly rare as to be a virtual non-issue.
Canada has somewhere around 100 female combat soldiers in service, of which they have already managed to get 2 or 3 killed.
I mean... Why? What's the point?
How is it "a lot of trouble" to issue a menstrual cup instead of a jock strap?
I have suggested a single object that can be issued once and used for the entire length of a deployment, no matter how long. It would save the military money over what they're probably doing now.
And whatever money is spent on that would easily be saved in reduced calorie needs.
Where are you getting this thing about "all the things I've suggested?" For the most part, I've been saying that women don't actually NEED all of these things that YOU suggested.
Women are or would be qualified for an increasing number of jobs as combat strategies develop. As several other people who are IN the military have already said, this isn't WWII warfare anymore.
What is the point of male soldiers being killed?
However, neither of those facts really make for a compelling argument for having them go toe-to-toe with men in frontline combat.
You're going to have to provide some evidence that something like could work over an extended period of time.
I imagine that some non-negligible hygienic issues would come into play if a woman were to try and wear something that on an extended field op.
Military rations are already "one size fits all." Making special rations for men and women would simply cost more money.
Where are you getting this thing about "all the things I've suggested?" For the most part, I've been saying that women don't actually NEED all of these things that YOU suggested.
Yes, and these are all non-frontline positions which most women are already eligible for.
The current push is to toss them into combat jobs which are still run more or less exactly how they were during WW2.
It's sometimes necessary. However, men are more readily built for that kind of thing and require far less maintenance.
There's not much point in pushing people who aren't really meant for a given job into it if you're just going to wind up having to coddle them the whole time; particularly when there is really no shortage of ablebodied people around who are qualified.
We're not talking about "them". We're talking about the less then 1% of women who can pass the standards. If someone can do it, they can do it. But no lowering standards of any sort.
I can get behind that to a certain degree. However, I still have to question whether the comparive handful of soldiers we'd get out of it is worth all the grief they'd inevitably cause.
They're made of silicone, which doesn't easily breed bacteria. A simple wash with anything you have on hand once a month will take care of it. These products exist in the market already. They can be used for years.
They're actually more hygienic than tampons. There is no risk of TSS associated with them, like there is with tampons. There's sizing, but this is really just a marketing thing, and unimportant in reality. Vaginas are stretchy. For the purposes of the military, there shouldn't be any problem with just having a single standard issue size.
Menstrual cup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then don't. What I said is that a healthy woman DOESN'T NEED special rations.
What I said is if you're worried about it, you could do that. But there's no medical reason to be worried about it. A healthy woman doesn't lose much, if any, iron during her period.
It would actually cost the military less, reduce hygiene issues, and require less maintenance.
That isn't really what I'm hearing from people in the military on this thread. However, if that's true, I will defer to those more qualified; allow a given woman into the positions she qualifies for, and don't for the ones she doesn't.
Not true. Like I said, men actually require a lot more resources than women do. In long-term cast-away situations, a woman is more likely to survive due to her dramatically lower resource requirements.
Same standards and, for infantry, the female must do something to prevent her period. Bleeding costs too many calories when they are few, the mission is long and there's no logistics. We can't carry extra gear (nor adjust uniform packs for such), even one person, and we cannot carry extra calories.
I'm sure that sounds bad, but I've been (airborne) infantry and obviously someone bleeding is a problem. We're hungry, we're tired and we've got 10 klicks tonight - bleeding would make such miserable and maybe impossible unassisted, from the additional exhaustion.
ps. Poll is useless.
It's not about getting soldiers, it's about equal rights.
What grief?
How long before some feminist senator somewhere cries and moans about how the standards "aren't fair" and demands that quotas be put in place?
Racist, sexist fake veterans make me laugh.
I can get behind that to a certain degree. However, I still have to question whether the comparive handful of soldiers we'd get out of it is worth all the grief they'd inevitably cause.
How long before some feminist senator somewhere cries and moans about how the standards "aren't fair" and demands that quotas be put in place?
How do the Israelis and Canadians handle the difference?
You might be correct. However, I agree with Ecofarm's stance that rigorous field testing would be necessary to determine whether this can be said to definitively be the case.
Your estimations seem more than a tad overly optimistic. :lol:
I've served with a lot of women in my time. Very few of them seem to be the veritable dynamos you describe them as.
No new piece of equipment ever "costs less."
I'm not trying to be a dick about this particular point, but it is a simple reality of how the military functions.
The future of armed conflict is almost certainly going to involve a greater emphasis on cyber warfare and robotics, and a reduced emphasis on sustained ground operations.
Women are perfectly qualified for all these more technical roles. You don't need to toss them in the mud to be shot at just to prove a point.
It's not resources I'm necessarily worried about. It's the amount of "bang" we're getting for our "buck."
As infantry, men simply seem to provide a much better cost to benefit ratio.
Israel still has some positions closed to women, but they do a lot of combat stuff.
It seems to be going pretty much without a hitch.
Around The Globe, Women Already Serve In Combat Units : NPR
Female Israeli Soldiers Are Proving Themselves In Combat - Business Insider
You know it's going to happen sooner or later.
I see a lot of strange things as inevitable, for examples: a mental evolution of people to sustainable lifestyles, world democracy, global human rights and an end to war in any significant amount. But you know one strange thing that I don't figure will happen? Some female congress member committing political suicide in the name of lowering military standards.
Gat, I'm not clicky on jezebel.com
I'll be honest, they gross me out. I don't like them one bit.
First, it's a waste of tax dollars to give women guns and have them running around playing GI Jane.
Second, what happens if a woman is caught in battle? A woman is a liability out there.
Women are physically, mentally, and emotionally not cut out to be soldiers. For that reason, they have not been soldiers all throughout human history.
It's only in our modern, metrosexual era where Hollywood replaces reality that we are deluded enouigh to believe that men and women are exactly the same in every respect.
Check out the original Marine Corps Times article then.
Marine Corps Times - Pull-ups for women? Not going to happen (Jan 16, 2012)
That's standards for females. The premise is that females meet male standards in order to serve in previously male-only units, where such strength and endurance is a job requirement.
Luckily a lot of Infantry and other line units carry tampons with them already right? Look, if the Israelis did it then obviously it can be done in one form or another, lets not talk about it as if its impossible to do.
Yes, which has been shot down by the "powers that be" in the past because most women couldn't hack it.
Why wouldn't the exact same thing happen here?
Every idea floated by anyone I've seen has expected male standards for combat arms, where such strength and endurance is a job requirement. You're the only person I've ever seen propose that females serve in combat arms under female standards.
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?