Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 14, 2015, 03:54:10 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 14, 2015, 02:55:33 PM

Quote

It doesn't matter if she meets the grade. Even women who pass the relevant tests (which are usually lowered)

That means the problems lie with the tests allowing unfit candidates in.

Even fit female candidates have shown a propensity to be incapable of meeting the physically demanding aspects of infantry like men can.

Even if they ticked every conceivable box there's still biological aptitudes that we simply cannot get away from, such as female bone density that renders women more likely to sustain injury.

According to Army Times, the two women who passed Ranger School weren't given any preferential treatment nor lowered standards. Sure, it wasn't on one attempt, but they passed with other recycled male recruits. Ranger School is one of the military's most physically demanding schools.

Those two women shattered your argument to dust.

So long as the standards are kept the same, and they aren't shown preferential treatment, then there is no reason at all for their segregation.

As for other militaries, Isreal would like a word with you about the combat effectiveness of women. No one questions the IDF's military effectiveness

Oh wow two isolated cases that still don't debunk the fact that women inevitably affect unit cohesion. MY ARGUMENT IS SHATTERED!1!1

Dude, IDF is not an apt example. Gender integration in close combat situations was disbanded in 1948 due to myriad problems units were facing in regards to organizational bonding. I think there's like one specialized task force Israel allows for women to enter, and even then it's still heavily skewed towards men.

Oh wow two isolated cases that still don't debunk the fact that women inevitably affect the unit cohesion. MY ARGUMENT IS SHATTERED!1!1

It's not "fact" because of the myriad of issues surrounding women entering. The "facts" you cited were situations where the system failed to weed out incapable candidates. They in no way make statements about how women innately destroy units, they illustrate that weak people destroy units, and women are not innately weak. Most are by large margins, but there will be outliers who are not, and barring them from service despite being free from the reasons most are rejected, is just ignorant discrimination.

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 14, 2015, 04:09:17 PM

Oh wow two isolated cases that still don't debunk the fact that women inevitably affect the unit cohesion. MY ARGUMENT IS SHATTERED!1!1

It's not "fact" because of the myriad of issues surrounding women entering. The "facts" you cited were situations where the system failed to weed out incapable candidates. They in no way make statements about how women innately destroy units, they illustrate that weak people destroy units, and women are not innately weak. Most are by large margins, but there will be outliers who are not, and barring them from service despite being free from the reasons most are rejected, is just ignorant discrimination.

For the millionth time, you have yet to address the psychological affects on unit cohesion when women are introduced into combat roles.

When you stop misrepresenting my arguments and actually address what I'm saying, I'll be here.

Quote from: eggsalad on October 14, 2015, 04:08:06 PM

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 14, 2015, 03:54:10 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 14, 2015, 02:55:33 PM

Quote

It doesn't matter if she meets the grade. Even women who pass the relevant tests (which are usually lowered)

That means the problems lie with the tests allowing unfit candidates in.

Even fit female candidates have shown a propensity to be incapable of meeting the physically demanding aspects of infantry like men can.

Even if they ticked every conceivable box there's still biological aptitudes that we simply cannot get away from, such as female bone density that renders women more likely to sustain injury.

Just because womens' mean bone density is lower doesn't mean that it is literally impossible for a woman to have acceptable levels. You have this delusion that although women are typically weaker than their male counterpart, that it is impossible for a woman to meet male par. No one is advocating changing the standards, and what examples you are using are examples you admit tainted by altered standards that allowed unfit candidates in.

When you describe these "fit female candidates" as incapable, you are revoking any meaning of them being "fit candidates".

tbh I realize this female candidate I describe is incredibly rare, and that trying to account for her in the situation of a draft is logistically wasteful, but I'm just trying to illustrate to you why the concept "no woman is fit for service" just doesn't make sense. when Pvt Jacob breaks his wrist it's because he worked too hard, when Pvt Janine breaks hers it's because she's a woman and should have never been a soldier.

For fuck sake I'm not even saying women aren't capable of competently handling infantry positions. I'm sure there are numerous women fit for the task. It really helps to the discourse if you read what I'm saying.

It has been proven time and time again that even physically adequate women have an inclination to adversely affect how units operate and bond, due to a variety of biological and psychological factors. These are issues that cannot be ignored simply because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I won't deny it is discriminatory, because it absolutely is, but sacrificing the safety of military personnel just for the sake of equality really just holds no truck with me, nor the military for that matter.

Except I am addressing what you say you just choose to ignore me.

>even adequate women are proven to weaken cohesion
To which I pointed out that it was because many of the women failed to pull their weight in situations, which means that testing had failed to weed out candidates, and that these women were not actually adequate for the job in the first place. If a woman can pull her weight, you have to give a reason to disallow her.

>psychological factors
Inconclusive and based in hypothesis rather than theory. Positing that background "social influences" are more powerful and dangerous than emotional bonds made between friends is so ripe ridiculous it doesn't need refuting.

You do nothing but look at aggregates to justify an absolute position.

>Women have a lower mean accuracy than men.
So fucking what? Women at the higher end of their spectrum may reach or even outperform men at the lower end of the men's spectrum. Those women who perform at or better than the levels of men have no reason to be disallowed.

How much more do I have to keep ignoring your argument?

Do I have to fucking draw it for you?

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 14, 2015, 01:16:03 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on October 14, 2015, 01:14:22 PM

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 14, 2015, 07:19:58 AM

Women should not be in infantry positions.

I don't care what bullshit equality argument you throw at me. Safety comes before any kind of tenuous quota someone has to fulfill.

If a woman is qualified to hold an infantry position, why shouldn't she be allowed to do it?

Detriment to unit cohesion and operational efficiency.

The Secretary of the Army disagrees with you

Source?

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 14, 2015, 01:18:43 PM

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 14, 2015, 01:16:03 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on October 14, 2015, 01:14:22 PM

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 14, 2015, 07:19:58 AM

Women should not be in infantry positions.

I don't care what bullshit equality argument you throw at me. Safety comes before any kind of tenuous quota someone has to fulfill.

If a woman is qualified to hold an infantry position, why shouldn't she be allowed to do it?

Detriment to unit cohesion and operational efficiency.

The Secretary of the Army disagrees with you

Source?

Found one on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women/

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 14, 2015, 01:18:43 PM

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 14, 2015, 01:16:03 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on October 14, 2015, 01:14:22 PM

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 14, 2015, 07:19:58 AM

Women should not be in infantry positions.

I don't care what bullshit equality argument you throw at me. Safety comes before any kind of tenuous quota someone has to fulfill.

If a woman is qualified to hold an infantry position, why shouldn't she be allowed to do it?

Detriment to unit cohesion and operational efficiency.

The Secretary of the Army disagrees with you

McHugh also thought Raymond Chandler was full of great ideas so...

Ad hominem

>even adequate women are proven to weaken cohesion
To which I pointed out that it was because many of the women failed to pull their weight in situations, which means that testing had failed to weed out candidates, and that these women were not actually adequate for the job in the first place. If a woman can pull her weight, you have to give a reason to disallow her.

Which has already been explicitly outlined if you had even bothered to listen. Women have substantially less muscle and bone mass as well as significantly disadvantaged aerobic capabilities to their male counterparts. This is a proven biological, incontestable fact, even for those who can pass the military guidelines that males are also required to pass. Like fuck sake, what do you not understand?

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada398256
Combat isn't just the ability to meet physical demands. Cohesion requires the unit to maintain morale under significant waves of destruction, and it has been demonstrated time and time again that the introduction of women under combat situations has demonstrably effected the unit's capacity to facilitate that cohesiveness, regardless of said women's physiological capabilities.

>psychological factors
Inconclusive and based in hypothesis rather than theory. Positing that background "social influences" are more powerful and dangerous than emotional bonds made between friends is so ripe ridiculous it doesn't need refuting

"The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Lt Dave Grossman is a reputable academic paper on this issue and is far from being an inconclusive hypothesis. I suggest you read it since I'm clearly not getting through to you.

The IDF has faced innumerable issues in regards to gender integration within extreme combat situations, and is anything but a social issue. Men's innate biological imperatives to protect the female has resulted in the IDF's inability to competently control their combat unit's cohesion. This is not even up for debate at this point.

You do nothing but look at aggregates to justify an absolute position.

Please by all means, give me a genuine counterpoint to these sources that isn't just a half assed 'women should be in the infantry because it's unfair' cop out of an answer.

I've already addressed your point on a female candidates' potential to pass military guidelines, and it's still not a justifiable reason for women integrated infantry units because as was aforementioned for the eleventy billionth time, the presence of a woman bears adverse effects on the units overall operational activity, and thus endangers lives. It is undoubtedly discriminatory, but ultimately just.

>Women have a lower mean accuracy than men.
So fucking what?

Because it helps to you know, be able to shoot at your targets as efficiently as possible.

Women at the higher end of their spectrum may reach or even outperform men at the lower end of the men's spectrum. Those women who perform at or better than the levels of men have no reason to be disallowed.

I suppose I'm willing to entertain the possibility of a women only comprised infantry unit, but as you said, they are outliers that are so far and few between I doubt there would be a significant pool of them for the military to utilize.

There's also the issue of rape, and Islamist combatants utter refusal to surrender to women in a combat situation. How exactly do you propose we confront that?

How much more do I have to keep ignoring your argument?

Thanks for being honest at least.

Dropping since it's relevant.http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/27/some-advice-on-women-in-combat-from-a-female-veteran/

It's interesting. If she's real, I respect her service, even if I disagree with her opinion.

But that's all this is: one woman's opinion. My brother led a MP platoon in Afghanistan. His opinion after serving in combat with women is that they are ready. But that's his opinion.

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:12:24 AM

Isn't the purpose of having a defense force to defend your country? you need women for your country to continue existing, so sending them off to die rather defeats the point, no?

Ignoring for the moment that having children is wrong, you need men to create children as well, genius.

So much for your "rigorous, mathematically logical perspective".

You're the second person to make that misunderstanding. I am in no way saying that we do not need men, we need both men and women to survive. However, men and women are not equally expendable, men have evolved to be protectors hence our physical capabilities, so if you absolutely have to send people out to the front lines, it's them who are the best option.

You only get to be justifiably snarky once you've actually read someone's posts.
And i would hardly call this a rigorous opinion, I've left far too many things undefined.

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 11:59:07 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 14, 2015, 09:16:03 AM

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:12:24 AM

Isn't the purpose of having a defense force to defend your country? you need women for your country to continue existing, so sending them off to die rather defeats the point, no?

Ignoring for the moment that having children is wrong, you need men to create children as well, genius.

So much for your "rigorous, mathematically logical perspective".

You're the second person to make that misunderstanding. I am in no way saying that we do not need men, we need both men and women to survive. However, men and women are not equally expendable, men have evolved to be protectors hence our physical capabilities, so if you absolutely have to send people out to the front lines, it's them who are the best option.

You only get to be justifiably snarky once you've actually read someone's posts.
And i would hardly call this a rigorous opinion, I've left far too many things undefined.

Men's value in being soldier's doesn't reduce their value in being fathers.

I never claimed otherwise, sending good men off to die is always a loss for everyone.

Lmao, I love pure and blatant sexism

"M-muh unit cohesion"

Yup, guess we shouldn't let gays or blacks into the military, either.

Quote from: Cindo on October 15, 2015, 07:11:48 PM

Lmao, I love pure and blatant sexism

"M-muh unit cohesion"

Yup, guess we shouldn't let gays or blacks into the military, either.

There's no evidence they disrupt unit cohesion.

And there's solid, consistent evidence that women do, eh?

Quote from: Cindo on October 15, 2015, 07:32:50 PM

Quote from: Dr. Pavel on October 15, 2015, 07:16:57 PM

Quote from: Cindo on October 15, 2015, 07:11:48 PM

Lmao, I love pure and blatant sexism

"M-muh unit cohesion"

Yup, guess we shouldn't let gays or blacks into the military, either.

There's no evidence they disrupt unit cohesion.

And there's solid, consistent evidence that women do, eh?

Yup. You should get off Tumblr once in a while.

Oof

You said that I use Tumblr

Damn, man you really got me. I guess I'm just a dumb esjaydubyuh

Quote from: Dr. Pavel on October 15, 2015, 07:16:57 PM

Quote from: Cindo on October 15, 2015, 07:11:48 PM

Lmao, I love pure and blatant sexism

"M-muh unit cohesion"

Yup, guess we shouldn't let gays or blacks into the military, either.

There's no evidence they disrupt unit cohesion.

And there's solid, consistent evidence that women do, eh?

Not exactly related, but I imagine the staggering amount of sexual assault cases in the US military doesn't set a great precedent.