Military Should Women Be Able To Serve In the Military?

[almostinsane]

Would it be best to exclude women from the military due to psychological differences between men and women, laxer standards required to admit them, and the instinctive need for men to impress and protect women? Or are women capable of serving in combat roles with the same competence as men while the men themselves are taught to overcome biological instincts?

Alternatively, should women serve in non-combat roles only as that would eliminate lack of cohesion in the combat zone while allowing women to serve?

 

[CarlManvers2019]

So as they actually meet the same qualifications as the other sex and know what dangers and horrors they’re signing up for and know how much worse the enemy will treat them when the latter know they’re female

 

[almostinsane]

So as they actually meet the same qualifications as the other sex and know what dangers and horrors they’re signing up for and know how much worse the enemy will treat them when the latter know they’re female

And your solution to the breakdown in unit cohesion?

 

[Fleiur]

Maybe not in combat because women are more of a liability there.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

IF a girl can do it, let her rise on her own merits. Don't lower the standards though. As far as crushing instincts, need I remind you polygamy was once the norm? It's not impossible if you have the stomach to go through with it.

 

[almostinsane]

IF a girl can do it, let her rise on her own merits. Don't lower the standards though. As far as crushing instincts, need I remind you polygamy was once the norm? It's not impossible if you have the stomach to go through with it.

We crushed that norm, yes. That doesn't stop men from fantasizing about being with multiple women or threesomes being a common pornographic trope. Even if couples are discouraged, there will still be the instinct to protect the female members of the unit and treat them different in other ways. Disciplinary measures and training can only go so far.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

We crushed that norm, yes. That doesn't stop men from fantasizing about being with multiple women or threesomes being a common pornographic trope. Even if couples are discouraged, there will still be the instinct to protect the female members of the unit and treat them different in other ways. Disciplinary measures and training can only go so far.

and yet it's not a common thing in the streets, the human brain can be chained if given enough time and patience the puppet masters of the left have proven that much. the question is if you care enough about the objective to go through with it. Honestly though it'd be easier and more practical at the moment just to have segregated units or better yet just M.A.D. in the time it'd take to go into a transhumanism era we could create a killswitch that could turn earth into a mars like planet.

 

[almostinsane]

and yet it's not a common thing in the streets, the human brain can be chained if given enough time and patience the puppet masters of the left have proven that much. the question is if you care enough about the objective to go through with it. Honestly though it'd be easier and more practical at the moment just to have segregated units or better yet just M.A.D. in the time it'd take to go into a transhumanism era we could create a killswitch that could turn earth into a mars like planet.

The Left has certainly proven that it could try to reprogram the human mind... With disastrous results. Pity that they are to indoctrinated to realize that the monstrosity they created is unsustainable.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The Left has certainly proven that it could try to reprogram the human mind... With disastrous results. Pity that they are to indoctrinated to realize that the monstrosity they created is unsustainable.

I think the tactics are disasterous I think they are as intended. I just don't think the left has an endgoal, and frankly I think stability is an illusion it's just a question of what's going to rip the curtain off.

 

[almostinsane]

I think the tactics are disasterous I think they are as intended. I just don't think the left has an endgoal, and frankly I think stability is an illusion it's just a question of what's going to rip the curtain off.

Regardless, we haven't seen attempts to change human nature have good results.

 

[Geon]

Nearly ten years of military service behind me and the women I've worked with, besides a few exceptions, have been exceptional. They work just as hard as any fella, don't expect special treatment, and are generally pretty levelheaded and willing to accept things and just roll with them whereas guys are, occasionally, obstinate and obnoxious. Sometimes you just have to shut up and take things as they are and I've actually found women are (in my limited experience) often better at this.

For things like SOF and infantry-type roles, I think there needs to be a set of universal (high) standards and, if women can meet them, cool. But they shouldn't be lowered to "increase diversity in the force" or the like because, quite frankly, that leads to a very hollow force.

Haven't really seen a lack of cohesion in the gender-mixed teams/shops that I've led. If a gal proves herself, nobody really treats her differently. But then, that's exactly the same for guys, too. If you're a shitbag or malingerer, you'll get treated as such. Doesn't really change based upon gender (that I've seen).

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Regardless, we haven't seen attempts to change human nature have good results.

depends on your definition of good.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

depends on your definition of good.

If nothing else we've raised the overall literacy rate

 

[prinCZess]

Be able to serve in the military? Psshhhttt. Women should be the only gender allowed to serve in the military because of the sheer amount of monetary-savings and effectiveness that could be garnered! Instead of needing all the tanks, carriers, warplanes and artillery of the present male-dominated forces the world over rely on, all a women-only-military country would need is a few dozen light infantry divisions, basing to house them in disparate locations, and some studious bookkeeping so each division's personnel all get their baby-inspection by General Nature in a similar period...
With that? The host country perpetually has enough capacity in any single light infantry division of distinctly uncomfortable women to victoriously take-on any opponent. The US invasion of Guatemala would look like an extended and arduous affair compared to the devastation which could be wrought upon the lands and military of an enemy nation by a division of PMS'ing women with basic military hardware!


In seriousness, provided women can perform to the same standard for the role/service as their male compatriots, certainly they should be able to serve.

I've seen no convincing, hard argument against the present system where both genders serve in the same units (though one might exist). Presuming an argument does exist against that system, I'd question why sex-segregated units in broader application wouldn't be the answer as opposed to wholesale elimination of women from all military service (the argument-theme of 'A man will endanger self/unit/mission to save a woman' seems like it would be dulled significantly if it must be expanded to saving an entire battalion/etc. of women--and to an extent, such a system would also even limit how much damage differing standards might do to cohesiveness and the like...But *shrug* hard to speculate on).

Even presuming sex-segregated units are somehow argued against, I see no coherent argument against women serving in logistical, support, or other secondary duties that modern militaries require in order to conduct operations. A larger candidate-pool for jobs seems like something ANY organization would want in terms of being able to find the best person, not a smaller one--and duties not as closely tied to the physicality portions of frontline-soldiering would seemingly benefit most from such (where men would dominate in such physicality areas because testosterone is a hell of a drug).

 

[almostinsane]

Be able to serve in the military? Psshhhttt. Women should be the only gender allowed to serve in the military because of the sheer amount of monetary-savings and effectiveness that could be garnered! Instead of needing all the tanks, carriers, warplanes and artillery of the present male-dominated forces the world over rely on, all a women-only-military country would need is a few dozen light infantry divisions, basing to house them in disparate locations, and some studious bookkeeping so each division's personnel all get their baby-inspection by General Nature in a similar period...
With that? The host country perpetually has enough capacity in any single light infantry division of distinctly uncomfortable women to victoriously take-on any opponent. The US invasion of Guatemala would look like an extended and arduous affair compared to the devastation which could be wrought upon the lands and military of an enemy nation by a division of PMS'ing women with basic military hardware!


In seriousness, provided women can perform to the same standard for the role/service as their male compatriots, certainly they should be able to serve.

I've seen no convincing, hard argument against the present system where both genders serve in the same units (though one might exist). Presuming an argument does exist against that system, I'd question why sex-segregated units in broader application wouldn't be the answer as opposed to wholesale elimination of women from all military service (the argument-theme of 'A man will endanger self/unit/mission to save a woman' seems like it would be dulled significantly if it must be expanded to saving an entire battalion/etc. of women--and to an extent, such a system would also even limit how much damage differing standards might do to cohesiveness and the like...But *shrug* hard to speculate on).

Even presuming sex-segregated units are somehow argued against, I see no coherent argument against women serving in logistical, support, or other secondary duties that modern militaries require in order to conduct operations. A larger candidate-pool for jobs seems like something ANY organization would want in terms of being able to find the best person, not a smaller one--and duties not as closely tied to the physicality portions of frontline-soldiering would seemingly benefit most from such (where men would dominate in such physicality areas because testosterone is a hell of a drug).

I don't disagree with anything you said. However, the Left seems intent on turning the military into a social justice project where women are held to different standards and the military must advance women rather than seek to match the right person with the right job.

How can we separate women being in the military from political agendas? Already, they are forcing the Navy SEALs to change their creed to be gender neutral: Navy SEALs change official ethos to be gender neutral, remove ‘brotherhood’ and more

 

[ShieldWife]

I'll quote myself...

For some of you, my little diatribe about women in combat may look familiar.

Women have a vitally important role to serve in defending their nations - giving birth to boys. Female in the armed forces are inferior to men in every regard and are held to much lower standards. They’re just there to LARP at being soldiers. Ironically, in Western nations, women would rather play military LARP than actually do something which will protect their nations and culture, which is having babies.

I don't think that they should let women in. The problem with holding women to lower standards than men should be obvious. If they hold women to the same standards then barely any would get in (presumably, if the standards are high enough no woman could pass them) and so you would only have a tiny number of additional soldiers for the massive added headache of a sex integrated military. Where women are going to get butthurt because they overheard some guys talking about sex, guys hit on a girl or date her and all the drama that entails, the girls get pregnant, they need two sets of bathrooms and medical care to accommodate women. Speaking of medical care, the women who pass will likely be on the low end of passing and women in the military are far more likely to have physical ailments such as injuries during training, women's bodies just aren't as tough and are less likely to hold up to the physical demands.

So what are you getting for all of those problems? A tiny handful of subpar female soldiers who can just pass the minimum standards.

Some claim that women have superior G-force tolerances. This is not correct. Men actually have greater tolerances to G-forces, especially when correcting for height. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3753357



Also, men have significantly better spatial reasoning abilities than women, which would help with piloting. If we're concerned about G tolerance, we should have short male pilots, not women.

Also, women aren't as physically capable for non-infantry roles. How do I know? Because the physical standards are so much lower. If non-combat roles had the same physical requirements for men and women in the U.S. Military, I'm confident that most of the women wouldn't be there. Does the military really need so many more people that they should lower physical standards so much? If they do, why not lower male physical standards too? Then you'd have that many more recruits to choose from.

Look at the increased injury rate for women during training. This is despite the lower standards. http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/ArmyMonographonInjuriesinMilitaryWomen.pdf



Now, what about this little fact? Unplanned pregnancies may be on rise in military - CNN

Every year 11% of active duty female service members have an unexpected pregnancy. 11%! These are women who need to be shipped home and given pay and free medical care for a year while their bodies get fat and out of shape. 11% every year. How much is this costing our military in money and preparedness?

I could go on if you like.

The military has women because of political correctness, not because they are a benefit.

Of course, everybody is probably already typing furiously to say that there are women who can meet and exceed the male standards. You know a girl who can run 2 miles in 8 minutes, can bench press 400 pounds, is an expert markswoman, has 3 Congressional Medals of Honor, and has voted for Republicans in every election since Abe Lincoln. Everybody knows that girl and brings her up when ever the topic comes up of women in the military. The problem is that such women are very rare and to get her, how many women are you also getting who can't meet the male standards or even get close? To get her, how many women are you prepared to have get pregnant on Naval ships? How many rapes or cases of sexual harassment are worth her? How many lowered standards are worth her? How much negative PR is worth her when a female soldier gets captured and gang raped by the enemy?

There are mountains of problems with allowing females in the military and the benefit is only a small number of women who can meet the male standards, or a larger number who can't meet those standards.

Sure, we can say that we will force women in the military to take birth control, blow off sexual harassment complaints, treat captured women the same as captured men, hold women to the same standards as men in every way. Yeah, could we do that? Maybe so, but that isn't the world we live in. We live in a world where we bend over backwards to accommodate women and that is what happens when you let them into the armed service. If we were a society that didn't care about bending over backwards to accommodate women, then we would probably just admit that it's not worth it to let any women into the military.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I'll quote myself...



Of course, everybody is probably already typing furiously to say that there are women who can meet and exceed the male standards. You know a girl who can run a mile in 8 minutes, can bench press 400 pounds, is an expert markswoman, has 3 Congressional Medals of Honor, and has voted for Republicans in every election since Abe Lincoln. Everybody knows that girl and brings her up when ever the topic comes up of women in the military. The problem is that such women are very rare and to get her, how many women are you also getting who can't meet the male standards or even get close? To get her, how many women are you prepared to have get pregnant on Naval ships? How many rapes or cases of sexual harassment are worth her? How many lowered standards are worth her? How much negative PR is worth her when a female soldier gets captured and gang raped by the enemy?

There are mountains of problems with allowing females in the military and the benefit is only a small number of women who can meet the male standards, or a larger number who can't meet those standards.

Sure, we can say that we will force women in the military to take birth control, blow off sexual harassment complaints, treat captured women the same as captured men, hold women to the same standards as men in every way. Yeah, could we do that? Maybe so, but that isn't the world we live in. We live in a world where we bend over backwards to accommodate women and that is what happens when you let them into the armed service. If we were a society that didn't care about bending over backwards to accommodate women, then we would probably just admit that it's not worth it to let any women into the military.

if we lived in a world that didn't care about image, everybody would build a whole bunch of nukes and would tell their enemies "Punch me and the human race dies." Funny enough we were like that for a time and inspite of all the political paranoia it was one of our most peaceful time peroids but an eternal cold war is not near as appealing to our imaginations especially to politicians.

Personally and maybe this is disgust and depression talking, but I'm at the point where I am a trial by fire. You want something? fight for it, if nothing and no one stops you, then bask in your glory and plunder but if you are weak to the point you remain a failure, too bad so sad. More that and football at 11:00.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Yes, if they are qualified and won't abuse their female privilege and so on and so forth.

It should add value to the military of a country not detract, only reasons for doing this and fairness and justice which would require holding the same high standards as men, and going down harsh on women trying to malinger using their biology, and of course more meat for the grinder.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Yes, if they are qualified and won't abuse their female privilege and so on and so forth.

It should add value to the military of a country not detract, only reasons for doing this and fairness and justice which would require holding the same high standards as men, and going down harsh on women trying to malinger using their biology, and of course more meat for the grinder.

it may encourage our women to be less wimps, who in turn may raise less wimpy children.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

IF a girl can do it, let her rise on her own merits. Don't lower the standards though. As far as crushing instincts, need I remind you polygamy was once the norm? It's not impossible if you have the stomach to go through with it.

Polygamy, even with steep social and legal penalties, still happens at a tremendous rate. What is a survivable problem for society is often an unnecessary weakness in a military.

Yes, if they are qualified and won't abuse their female privilege and so on and so forth.

It should add value to the military of a country not detract, only reasons for doing this and fairness and justice which would require holding the same high standards as men, and going down harsh on women trying to malinger using their biology, and of course more meat for the grinder.

it may encourage our women to be less wimps, who in turn may raise less wimpy children.

Being in active military service cripples women at an order of magnitude higher rate than it does men. Asking a woman to be a soldier is a fundamentally different proposition than asking a man to be a soldier, the risk is enormously higher.

We do not need every body we can get, that is definitionally why we have standards.




Women (Read: Everyone) should be given military training, but they should not be used as soldiers.