This is a bizarre excuse: because the men might be demoralized by learning that women poop and sweat.
Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.
Oh, horrors! Marines are psychologically delicate and would be deeply traumatized by the presence of a woman who might see them poop, or worse, might have to witness a woman pooping.
Then there’s the usual hygiene argument.
When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.
Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation’s military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?
I have big news for the Marines: women are animals, just like they are; they are hairy sweaty mammals, just like they are; in the absence of opportunities to groom and clean themselves, they get filthy, too.
I am surprised that Marines can be comfortable with the fact that other people are blood-filled meat sacks who can be blown apart and mangled and killed, but that their morale would crumble if they learned that women have sebaceous glands and colons.
Ryan Smith, the author of that piece, must be a real wimp.
Enjoy. No doubt there will be more. The cold weather this last week has been murder on my hands. I can barely type.
lee coye, pretty much all the angst you’re suffering was suffered when women were allowed to be cops.
(You think I should share your tears for the passing of another manly male bastion?)
Lee, can you say “Hi” to JohnTheOther for us?
Got a citation on that?
Well, you are assuming that stringent standards are necessarily better, but if the standards don’t actually match very well with the on-the-job requirements then it’s not strictly so. In other words, you’re also begging the question with respect to standards.
No analogy ever does. By definition.
assumption #1: the only reason the current standards are being changes is “inclusivity” #2: the current standards are beneficial to US defense.
given that some of them were written not because they accurately reflected what was needed, but were an easy way to exclude women, neither assumption is actually warranted. This is basically the same stupid that whines about concerns for diversity being a way of diminishing quality.
Oh, “a bit sexist” quoted for redundancy…
Once again, I refuse to accept any blame or responsibility for actions of people who aren’t me. That’s the first time in this thread I’ve called you sexist. And note your selective quoting: I said “makes me think you’re a bit sexist.” Expressed as an opinion.
You got someone actually seriously listening to your argument and trying to understand it better. Doesn’t seem like the best time to go back to being an asshole.
Sneering doesn’t change facts. If the military physical standards are not in fact related to the job (not ‘battle-tested’, that begs the question, see Red Tails above) then they should be optimized so they don’t keep out job-capable women. There’s plenty of history for discriminatory physical standards:
Referencing Ricci v. DeStefano, pdf link
Oh, starting on the article, lee coye. This is interesting:
When you said “one qualified” it sort of seemed to me you were implying only one qualified. But one out of two would be 50%. Whereas:
This article doesn’t really seem to be the slam dunk for your argument that you’re implying, but I haven’t finished it yet.
daniellavine:
Let me be helpful. From Wikipedia:
(Clearly, 69% is but a tiny minority)
Right. First, no one is talking about lowering standards. Now, the standards aren’t necessary. Let me give you folks a clue: the physical fitness standards aren’t tuned for the day-to-day, they’re in place to prepare the troops that need it, eg front-line infantry, for those times when every little bit helps.
It’s not just a job.
Just because it’s your first poo toss, doesn’t make it any less redundant. If you want me to be grateful that you’re engaging, why is my addressing your points fairly and responsibly not enough? Oh, and “back to being an asshole”? I’m an AVfM commentor (shiver me timbers), what did you expect?
Mark Twain, take it away:
I’m not arguing against “higher standards are always better” (though it is quite arguable), just pointing out that you’re begging the question just as hard as everyone else. Your tough guy military quips probably aren’t impressing anyone, incidentally.
Actually, I think you can make most of the arguments you’ve made without being sexist — this is exactly why I didn’t accuse you of it. It’s only been these sorts of one-off lines like “tiny minority” that make me think you really do believe women are inferior to men.
1. You haven’t really been addressing my points fairly and responsibly.
2. Despite (1) I tried to stop being an asshole to you and would appreciate the same courtesy.
On the other hand, you didn’t respond with evidence of any kind.
That is because it is all just ranty rants.
lee coye, perhaps you should not have used Israel as an example. ;)
I feel fucking invisible! Let’s try this again.
@lee coye, crypto-MRA and barely coherent bullshit artist:
What kind of “physical and emotional attachments” are you talking about? Stop being so Chernobog-damn obtuse! More importantly, what kind of “physical and emotional attachments” that can happen between men and women, but NOT between men?
Again, do you think it’s sensible to pander to the feelings of bigots when recruiting for the military – or ANY job for that matter?
You’re dodging the question.
What’s so important about AMERICAN SOLDIERS that makes women a risk for their unit cohesion, as compared to OTHER SOLDIERS? In case you don’t know, those other countries with wimminz in their armies also fight and die just like your beloved Marines.
Do you think American women in particular are unfit to be soldiers?
Do you think American soldiers are unfit to work with women?
If the answer to both questions is “no”, what is it, then? State clearly. No euphemisms. No weaseling.
And yet, you’re using the same fucking argument against women.
Same.
Fucking.
Argument.
The “inherent differences between men and women” have been invoked as a way to keep women out of engineering, driving, piloting, math, science, the church, politics, administration, space exploration, (certain kinds of) manual labor etc. etc. etc. for FSM knows how long.
And yet, they have been wrong each time.
Can’t you heed your own lesson? Do you want to stay at the wrong side of history until it’s too late?
Useful background info (short article) on 8 other countries with integrated combat roles:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/
And so on.
He’s not exactly an unbiased party there, is he?
ditto. c’mon folks, I’ve already explained why it’s “reasonable” to say that including women will make American fighting units worse, when it didn’t do that for other countries’ fighting units.
oh, he probably thinks gays would cause the same problems if they start being open about their gayness. from one of his first comments (emphasis mine):
do note however that in the case of openly gay soldiers, it’s “it’s not clear as yet that this is a valid concern”, while in the case of women apparently it already is a valid concern, even though the evidence for either is about the same.
lee coye, still waiting for you to back up the “tiny minority” stuff. Someone else adduced some evidence it was false. You dismissed that without offering any evidence of your own. For some reason your glib denial did not satisfy me. Can you actually make a case for “tiny minority” that isn’t just pulled out of your ass?
fuck. emphasis fail. again:
Women occupying 69% of the roles available in the IDF doesn’t mean that they constitute 69% of the bodies in the IDF, or the military generally. It is a misleading use of statistics to claim that this 69% figure establishes that it’s not a tiny minority of women who qualify. In point of fact, “women currently make up 3% of the IDF’s combat soldiers.”
Women occupying 69% of the roles available could be true whether those roles were composed entirely of women, or had a single woman in each role. Hence, the Mark Twain quote.
Let us contemplate again the saga of Ginmar, just as an object lesson in Lee’s dishonesty:
First she was ignorable because she wasn’t responding to Lee’s points.
Then she was ignorable when she was off-topic.
When Lee said that folks here shouldn’t opine because they have no experience in combat, it was pointed out that Ginmar had.
No, Lee says, Ginmar hasn’t.
Eh what? was the response. Of course she has. Unless you think she’s lying.
No no, says Lee, he meant that Ginmar has not had experience in integrated combat units like the ones he’s talking about.
Of course, since those units don’t actually exist yet, nobody has had THAT experience.
Probably Lee meant that Ginmar hadn’t been assigned to a combat unit, being that she’s a woman and women have been barred from such units up til now.
He’s really bent on the idea that being in frontline combat is this mystical experience of brotherhood that can only be understood by those who experience it.
Sounds like a religious person describing a “spiritual experience.”
It’s a nice trick. Anyone except the tiny minority of men who have served in designated combat units in the American military can be handwaved away. “You just don’t understand!”
Laughable.
Sexism is the logic-killer.
not even “being in frontline combat”, since that actually happens to women. “being in a frontline combat unit” is what’s special and magical.
Since women have joined the IDF’s combat units, has there been a documented decline in fitness of said combat units?
Does the fact that 97% of women either don’t qualify for or aren’t interested in serving in combat positions mean that those 3% ought to be excluded from the jobs they are doing? (Hint: that was your exact argument, that the unfitness of a majority of a given demographic is justification for discrimination against all members of that demographic.)
From the horse’s mouth: Statistics: Women’s Service in the IDF for 2010, 25 Aug 2010.
(Emphasis in original)
actually no, not even that. it’s “being in an USAmerican frontline combat unit”. the frontline combat units of other countries don’t count, because they’re already weak:
Right, good point.
There’s so much wrong, it’s hard to address it all. Can’t be done in one measly post.
Oh! I meant to mention this. Behold the combat codpiece:
Best bit? It’s unisex.
Is the USian military really the world’s most “effective” fighting force or is it just the best-funded and most technologically advanced?
No. They “ought” not be excluded, as I’ve made plain I don’t know how many times. The IDF is one experiment, and it seems pretty successful. I’m no expert on the IDF, and again, perhaps it’s just nationalism, but this is like comparing co-ed high school soccer teams to the world cup.
Yes! Because Manly Men! Brotherhood! RAWR!
So? Diversionary tactic. What difference does it make how many women qualify? Does that somehow justify eliminating ALL women who wish to serve from serving as they desire?
So Lee, can you stick to an argument?
You’ve repeatedly bounced across the sexist spectrum in this thread. You can’t seem to decide whether the problem is that there are “urges” that need to be fulfilled in Front-line combat that women might somehow make worse or something, or the problem is that women might become less fertile and therefore less ideal as incubators if they saw combat, or maybe women aren’t as good in “front-line combat” which you seem to be using a fetish to ward off reasonable points like “Women are already in combat”. So can you choose which argument you make? Is it the Misandrist argument that men are apes who can’t control themselves, the chauvinistic argument that women should be in the kitchen and not fighting, or the Misogynist argument that women just aren’t as good as men?
Anecdote (I know it ain’t data):
One of the women I work with is a US Army veteran. She was a truck driver. She was involved in two firefights, one of which lasted four hours, during which time she acted in the capacity of light infantry. She also had one truck destroyed by an IED. She is a disabled veteran retired due to service-connected disability. Her husband, an 11B, never fired his rifle in combat, never fired his crew-served weapon in combat yet, because he was in a unit that saw combat while he was present, he has the CIB. She is not eligible for the CIB as she was not in a ‘combat unit’. So, would she have seriously disrupted the small unit cohesion of an actual combat unit? If so, why? If so, why are US men so different that they cannot function in the presence of US women?
see? there it is again: other countries don’t count, because they’re already weak and probably womanlike. it’s only the manly USA fighting force that will be affected, because clearly the other soldiers were already failing at Teh Brotherhood, which is clearly a uniquely American thing, and singlehandedly responsible for making the US military the most awesomest EVAR
John, that’s the best you can do? What about this one:
SEVENTY PERCENT!!!! That’s like all of them. Oh, that’s one BN? Wait, so the IDF isn’t just infantry, and is composed of the sort of support billets that women already occupy in the US military?
Gee…
Which is true, Lee? Which represents your ACTUAL opinion rather than your bullshitting?
This?
Or this?
(My emphasis)
I await with bated breath your determined ignorance of this contradiction.
Also, I’m using THAT tone of voice, haha! Now you have no choice but to turn off your cerebral cortex. Dance, puppet!
Lee you give magical status to being in a “Frontline Combat Unit.”
Justify this.
She got the CAR, though, yes? You don’t get the CIB unless you’re in the Infantry, hence the name.
That’s the question.
Even if a given stat is 3% women, that’s 3% of women… currently. As more women gain experience and rank, take on leadership and eventually training roles, and serve as role models for kids now (and counterexamples for purposefully oblivious manliness-worshipers like the current specimen), those numbers will only go up.
I’m looking for military recruiting budgets to start funding girls’ and coed sports teams. Oh yeah.
lee, you’re getting it that women are hardly insignificant in the IDF, contrary to your initial claims.
(What you apparently don’t get is that modern war is a combined forces operation — you’re stuck in a medieval mindset of bodies clashing and individual martial puissance)
QFT.
Also, salient feature of medieval mindset? Sexism. Go figure.
All the evidence so far points to the answer being “no.”
Which raises another question: why does Lee continue to think that this is an unsettled matter?
Answer: Lee is sexist.
Not to start a completely irrelevant fight here, but I read that to the former infantryman sitting next to me, and he laughed and said “Maybe if they were fighting in the Arctic with lots of air support.”
Hm. Perhaps I was wrong about excluding all men from roles that rely on individual performance, since it’s certainly possible that some men (or conversely some women) can qualify despite their biological disadvantages.
Maybe if who were fighting in the arctic?
Wow. Two more separate instances “but this is DIFFERENT!”, and a “no true soldier”. Racking up the fallacies like nobody’s business!
Do we have a bingo card with multiple instances of “it’s different when I do it!”? We need one.
Actually, they’re going down. Do you guys read your own sources?
“Camaraderie”, in that case, being well understood as “camaraderie between white, straight, cis men, and fuck everyone else”.
@547 – The reference was to your claim that the US Marines are a superior fighting force than the IDF. The former sarge sitting next to me said “Maybe if [the marines and IDF] were fighting [each other] in the Arctic and [the marines] had air support.”
I know [many] Americans believe that the US Marines are the mightiest fighting force ever, but that’s just another arguable data point in the massive faithball that is American Exceptionalism.
Is that all you got, lee coye? “Well, it’s working so far, shouldn’t mess with tradition!” Guess what, that argument has been used against women before as well. It failed the field test each time.
Do you want to be on the wrong side of history?
The men who qualify as astronauts do not have any “biological disadvantages.” They are small and able to handle high pressure and rapid acceleration. If they were not then they would not qualify.
Similarly, the women who qualify as combat soldiers do not have any “biological disadvantages.” They are strong and fast and have met whatever the other relevant criteria are. If they were not then they would not qualify.
These “biological disadvantages” exist only in the aggregate. The characteristics of a group should not be taken as a yardstick to judge an individual that belongs to that group (as long as we’re talking about un-chosen characteristics like possession of vagina or stamina in long-distance running <–yet another area where women outperform men, in aggregate).
Gawd, you are dumb. *sigh*
given the fact that he hangs out at AVFM, it’s likely he wants to make sure history reverses itself so he won’t ever have to face this problem
lee coye:
Your admission that men have biological disadvantages is duly noted.
Jadehawk:
Perhaps he’s watched too much Band of Brothers.
Do you have any sources? *checks the magic eight ball* “the answer is no”.
OH, and Lee, since you have no sources, your OPINION is *FOOF* dismissed as fuckwittery. Still nothing to support your bigotry/sexism…
Indeed, isn’t it liberating to just admit this stuff? Careful, though, this is a one-way street on feminist blogs like this one.
Oh no, he’s onto us and our secret plans for world matriarchy!
WOMEN ARE SUPERIOR. DOWN WITH MEN.
Unless we’re formulating policy with regards to a group, in which case you can use the yardstick to swat down those pesky “unnecessary” physical requirements. You see, it’s not sexist if you’re changing the requirements because they’re “unnecessary” anyways, rather than because we all know (but won’t admit) that changing those standards is the only way you’ll get any number of women to pass. I’m sexist for noticing the double-speak, but Panetta isn’t sexist for using that yardstick like a patronizing ceremonial knighting.
Funny how that hasn’t happened yet…
lee coye:
And I’ve gone all the way, baby!
(You know you can, you know you can… ;) )
Ouch. Sorry people. The first two paragraphs are supposed to be quoting lee coye, three and four are me responding, the fifth was tagged correctly, and the last p is me.
fixed
Heck, one of my posts linked an article he could quote-mine for stats.
…It’s in the middle of an article explaining why the stats are BS, but he could at least make an effort.
Jadehawk –
But this is DIFFERENT!
How, we’re still waiting to find out. … *crickets*
Well, um…3% is pretty damning. I’m not sure what you would accept, though, if not that.
Yes, two volunteered, one made it. I’m impressed, SOI is no joke, and according to Sally, those standards were designed to keep women out. Patriarchy: preparing our nation’s infantry in the most sexist way possible, stringent physical standards.
Nope. You’re mixing me up with someone else.
How is 3% damning, anyway? The point is that if women were barred, those units would have 3% fewer eligible candidates to choose from. How does that benefit anyone?
The arguments of size really make me laugh. Physical size and musculature have much less to do with who will come out on top in a physical altercation than skill and smarts. In today’s battle scenarios, physical size has even less importance. A smaller physical presence can actually be an advantage if you give it any thought.
Apologies.
It’s damning in context. It’s not damning in a vacuum.
Unless you fight in full combat gear, at which point a minimum physical presence is required to even move, much less move tactically.
Actually, not so much. If you bother to click the link at the little citation tag on that wikipedia factoid you’ll find a press release that reads as follows:
So due to the unequal treatment between men and women — differing service times — we have a difference in 30% between the number of women who qualify and the number who serve. “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
From the arguments you’ve provided thus far, the vacuum exists primarily between your ears.
The great part is that the 3% number of combat troops is hiding the fact that 51% of the career officers are women. Of course, that’s just the same proportionality as in the general population. Doesn’t get much more equal than that.
I shan’t hold my breath waiting for you to explain what context renders 3% participation by women in a field only recently opened up to them is “damning.”
Argument by assertion.
Still doesn’t answer the question of how many qualify(since we don’t have the numbers), and I couldn’t find whether that means qualify as in passed the initial barrage of measurements/medical examination, or qualified as in passed the training.
Noted that you ignored the bulk of my comment. What you offer here is also a fail in that size alone is not a requisite.
Can you link these figures? I would assume that 51% refers to all billets in the Israeli army, but absent links. . .
Until you provide links for your fuckwittwery, you can’t complain about us. Either put up or shut the fuck up like a person of honesty and integrity would do. But actually, you are way beyond that point, so anything and everything you say is *FOOF* dismissed as fuckwittery….LOSER.
Oh, and I think the initial report that I linked was wrong, looks like the two women who signed up for IOC both dropped out:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-womem-infantry-officers-course-101512/
Still, though, very small sample size.
hm. we might have to forbid women from serving in combat units because their presence might disrupt unit cohesion, but women aren’t going to qualify for these combat units even if allowed?
that’s some reasoning.
Here, this looks promising. I’m going to read it tomorrow, gotta crash earlier tonight.
Enjoy!
It’s the source for the 3% figure from wikipedia, as I said. And it’s “career officers and reservists” so you can crow about how they’re probably all in the national guard:
http://www.idf.il/1086-14000-EN/Dover.aspx
You’re right, none of these numbers really tell us what proportion qualif, though due to the shorter term of service and a few other factors I think the 3% figure hugely lowballs that number.
Another article on the same site:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/01/army-physical-standards-key-for-women-in-combat-012413w/
So they ARE in fact developing new task-specific standards.
Oh, and the young woman seems to have dropped out for a medical reason. Simple bad luck…or perhaps a mysterious lady problem?
Current stats from the armytimes article:
Surely the IDF has a softball team
Checked the link. Here’s the summary of the executive summary:
Promising indeed.
LOL. I also meant to give you credit for the unrequited love bit when we were talking about sociopaths, that was quite good.
The article from Lee’s 586 is well worth reading – it’s a 2009 UK-based review of combat effectiveness reports from many other countries that have women in their militaries, some of which (like Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, and New Zealand) allow women into some or all combat roles. There’s lots of interesting information, but for the moment sample this report from the US:
lee coye:
Well, the USA certainly has.
(Linkies — so tricky!)
those must have all been men in non-combat units. if they were in frontline combat units, they’d know the special bond of brotherhood that would be destroyed by the presence of women. obviously.
John Morales-style [meta]
Sometimes I wonder how people here are so accurately able to judge character on the basis of so few posts. Fortunately, the lee coye’s of the world manage to answer that question quite effectively.
[/meta]
Carry on. I’m just bemused by the Lee Coye Dance Of Avoidance. Softball? Seriously?
*Apologies to John Morales for misappropriation of his tags.
This debate in 2003 runs a similar course to our own, even adding some points to either side that I hadn’t thought of. Also well worth reading.
In particular, they deconstruct the “same argument against blacks” very handily. Enjoy!
[meta]
lee coye, you are kidding yourself.
What you consider well worth reading is hardly motivational to me, nor is how much you don’t know of particular interest.
All this shows is that you’re both lazy and out of ideas.
(If you really had any points from reading that, you should be using them rather than vaguely claiming they exist)
Ok, I’ll bite:
Almost. They don’t focus on pee so much, but the very first opening statement is here reproduced below for entertainment purposes only (emphases mine):
That’s David Gutmann, Emeritus professor of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences at North-Western university Medical School.
How you think that debate is going to bolster your position boggles my mind. Nothing but nothing screams a failure of critical thinking more than evoking the image of a horde of teenage girls blown away by artillery! Not to mention the reduction of Woman to Womb. And that’s just the opening statement. When challenged, Guttman’s very next statement:
I could go on, but the irony meter on my desk is starting to smoke…
Tag fail. Bah!
that is the supposedly “brilliant” argument? he’s squicked out by uteri on the battlefield, because magic of childbirth?
*facepalm*
Use of the word “womb” is always a sure sign.
and “the human womb”?
It is not some individual’s uterus?
It is incubator to all mankind?
Well, I also enjoyed this part from Guttman:
Funny, based on all those advertising campaigns and media coverage of the military, I thought we were aiming for cool, disciplined warriors who could react to battlefield conditions with alacrity and intelligence. Though at least he acknowledges that wimminz can totes be brave. Obviously, bloodshed is part of war, but I was under the impression that being able to decide when to shed blood was important, too.
But Guttman does have a point… yeah, I’ll say it: women have no place on the field in the movie Braveheart.
I’m really going to have to spoon-feed this stuff?
Ugh. And we’re right back to one of the main pillars of misogyny from thousands of years back. Yay.
What designation do all of us who have chosen to not use the magickal womb get?
Not Real Women, I expect, Caine. Huzzah!
No.
We’ll be fine.
Especially if you never, ever, comment here again.
Ever.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
*goldfish impression* Awwww fuck no. Now that little passage is obscene. My body is not the bearer of any capital letter platonic concepts, especially not fucking “Mystery”.
And they wondered why I was so thrilled with the idea that my ladyparts might be malfunctioning and need to be cut out.
la tricoteuse:
We shall be the true
mutilated malesfemales of Aristotle, then. Which would make us supremely fit for combat duty. Ooopsies.Ugh. Yes, women aren’t human beings with their own ideas or thoughts or plans. They’re just life support for the all powerful baby machine. And, oh, don’t worry about killing off all those men in war, because it only takes one man to knock up loads of women, right? That’s the thinking here? Because the only way women’s lives are more valuable to the next generation than men’s is if men are reduced to little more than sperm donors.
This shit is offensively stupid to every flavor of human.
Consider this a nudge:
In addition, much is made of women’s performance in the recent “wars”, yet little is made of the disparity between a nation engaging a militia(and a disorganized one at that):
On that “trope” of unit cohesion, in addition to the gleefully quoted poll of men’s opinion of women in combat roles (not women’s opinion, one wonders why):
But please, finish your crowing about wombs.
@ Mellow Monkey:
Why yes, yes it is. Don’t take my word for it!
Let women serve = destruction of society. Gotta love this stuff, particularly when it’s in the context of advocates for allowing women to serve in combat explicitly state they expect the number of women actually serving to be relatively small (my addition: particularly when it comes to total, what, national reproductive capability?). That, and as Ms. Bruce of NOW ably responds:
Oh, and lee coye? You spoon fed me a great deal of dark entertainment, thanks!
Gee Evidenceless FUCKWITTED IDJIT, your inane OPINION is *floosh* just been given the appropriate consideration it deserves, which is being flushed into the sewer unseen by human eyes. Come back when you grow up and realize nobody gives a shit what idiocy you think is important….
What the fuck is wrong with these people? Women are not some kind of inscrutable, mystical being.
and they say feminists are misandrist. O.o
hear that ladies? your duty is to repopulate the world after wars. which would be impeded if we allowed as many of you to die as we let men die. because something something demographic winter?
so the argument here is that if women joined, not enough men would join, because the main reason for joining is that they won’t have to be around women?
I fail to see the negative side of fewer sexists joining the military.
sexual harassment and rape are “human nature” now? besides, didn’t we just establish that women in the military keeps the woman-haters out? and as far as I see, the prevalence of rape culture will solve itself once the sexists mentioned above no longer join because the military will stop being a harbor for their women-hating.
women are apparently a resource, not people.
So yeah. two raging misogynists who can’t see women as anything other than breeding stock. what a reliable source. [/sarc]
——–
I loved this line tho, from one of their opponents:
And that is, obviously, a rational assessment of their worthiness as soldiers, not the result of sexism. No siree.
Funny when compounded with this:
Or maybe they were hostile and didn’t want to say it out loud at first?
guy who led this discussion, Jamie Glazov, has apparently written a book called “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror”
David Guttman, the dude with the womb obsession, has written a number of articles, with such awesome titles as “Obama’s Muslim Daddies” and “Why the Palestinians Don’t Want a State”, as well as an article called “Against Gay Marriage” in which he claims the following fascinating things:
Re: my unrelenting “machismo” from earlier in asking how many of you are offering to sign up, and later clarified to indicate that opening these roles to women will obligate them into those roles as men are today (equality, baby), perhaps we might visit this summary of the opinions of enlisted women (at least until NOW stopped asking a question they didn’t like the answer to).
Lets be clear here: you’re advocating for “modified” standards based on experiences fighting a pathetically under-provisioned, unorganized, technologically abyssmal enemy. You want standards that have the documented result of leaving co-ed units woefully inadequate in terms of training and efficiency, across the board. You’re advocating for a choice that less than 10% of enlisted women are interested in having (i.e. 90% don’t want women in combat roles), a change that will entail forcing women into those roles at the same rates as men (but not you, of course).
And you’re all focused on the fact that someone said “womb”.
Another sexist OPINION by fuckwitted idjit Lee Coye is trotted off by the Pullet Patrol Hazmat Squad and *FLOOSH* given the proper treatment for the terminally stupid post. Funny how sexists cite sexists and claim they aren’t sexists, but have legitimate concerns they can’t find academic citations for…
Well, I composed a very long response. Here you go Lee. The word “womb” isn’t mentioned once.
Take cover, a wall of text follows!
If you’re going to quote somebody who cites a source, sometimes it behooves you to actually … look at the source. You do identify as a skeptic, yes?
DISCLAIMER: I’m on a computer with crappy software, and the study linked is a pdf that I can’t select text from. Every blockquote that follows is a transcription, and thus all typos are mine. (If I’d known this response was going to metastasize, I would have updated some software. :P). Additionally, all emphases are mine.
Must be the women, right? I’m sure only the women markedly decreased in proficiency. I mean, there’s just so many of them in the service that they’re dragging down everything, right? Or… we could conclude that unit cohesion and combat readiness are being undermined by men, too.
That said, I’m sure you’re all over the next conclusions of this report, lee coye:
To me, this sounds like a damning indictment of the military leadership in general. Perhaps you should redirect your energies to fixing these problems, no? Women in the military don’t exactly sound like the greatest thread to unit cohesion and combat readiness, which is what you explicitly claim to be concerned with.
Anyway, that’s really an aside to the current discussion. Back on topic:
So there’s that. Literature review tends to undercut your assertions, here at least. Keep in mind, this is your source. I don’t have to look for more, this is the reference you intend to support your position. It contradicts you. Directly. Or do I really need to explain that if a phenomenon is not universal, it doesn’t cover 100% of situations? Maybe I do! In some units, women have not affected unit cohesion.
Anyway, it’s worth noting that the trope that women FAIL AT EVERYTHING ZOMG is directly contradicted by this report, to wit:
It’s almost like the CSIS report thinks (some) women can serve in combat. Not only that, one of your favored interlocutors claimed that women just fail so much. Fail fail fail. And yet, they don’t, from the study he cited.
But wait, lee coye, there’s more!
Would you like to comment on the issues of leadership affecting cohesion and morale? It seems to be a significant issue. MUCH more so than this non-issue at hand. Though I’d be interested in the perceived double standard thing. They don’t go into much detail in the sections that I read (it’s a very long document, maybe they address it elsewhere).
In closing, they go on to say:
Do we have a trophy for understatement of the thread, yet?
P.S. It’s actually a really interesting report, read it at CSIS directly.
P.P.S It’s fun actually being present during a live comment thread.
;-)
So the conclusion, that in most cases, the inclusion of women was detrimental to small-unit cohesion is to be discarded on the basis that it’s not universal? This is the damning portion of the conclusion that we should pay very close attention to? Un-fucking-believable.
This in conjunction with A) the data you cited above about the lowered readiness and efficiency observed by the military, and B) the undeniable reduction in fitness and training standards since the inclusion of women in these units; reductions that Panetta is looking to bring to front-line units.
Yes, drop the standards to allow women to pass, and women pass. Magic.
Sure, a worthy discussion. Not the discussion we’re having now, but absolutely worth discussing. Perhaps another time?
Much, much better than your previous response. Thank you.
Citation needed it is magic. Otherwise OPINION is *floosh* given the proper treatment it deserves, which is the single finger salute while the sewage system gets a workout….just like with everything said to date by the sexist pig.
No, the conclusion you were supposed to draw is that including women does not a priori result in a detrimental effect to unit cohesion. By the way, the latter part of that sentence is sometimes referred to as your argument. See the entire thread for references.
Also, you could have responded to the parts about leadership playing a much higher role in gender- and race-related problems. I see you completely ignored that — but then, your concern for morale and unit cohesion appears to be highly selective.
It’s like talking to a brick wall (which we all know women couldn’t climb, amirite?)
Lee, a question (or three) for you:
If women do pass any test/training/whatever that assesses skills and abilities related to the tasks and challenges they should expect to face in any given military position/unit/whatever, and unit cohesion suffers because of the attitudes of the men towards the women who’ve joined the unit, how would you address that situation? What conclusions would you draw from it? What would you do?
Fine Lee, whatever. It’s possible that somehow, somewhere, having some women in some front-line combat unit will decrease “unit cohesion” and whatever because women pee themselves and menstruate and have uteruses and are weak and slow and whatever, even though some men do all these things and many men are weaker and more leaky than some women.* But I see, it’s totally different when it’s a woman being weak or leaky than when it’s a man being weak or leaky, so women should be kept out. And also women and men totally can’t get along that way because reasons.
There. Now you can go back to your internet home and circle jerk with the rest of AVfM over female soldiers being gang-raped by the enemy. (Gang rape totally doesn’t happen to female soldiers now.)
*So, there are ways to stop menstruation and to improve stress related incontinence, but I’m unaware of any way to deal with nocturnal emissions. How have we allowed cis men to go into the field for so long with their
gross bodiesspecial hygiene requirements? Surely this must cause huge problems. Plus, did you realize that cis men have external genitals!? They could get their balls shot off. We’re sacrificing the Vitality and Potency of our Nation by allowing men in battle! Obscenity, obscenity I tell you!OT
Nerd:
I like “floosh”!
/OT
I could have responded to the perceived (i.e. opinions in the aggregate) problems with unit cohesion, problems that are tangential to the discussion we’re having at present, or I could respond to the “team of scholars” that “has analyzed five studies” on the actual topic under discussion.
Funny how I went with option B.
Indeed, skewed towards relevance. I don’t deny that other factors may impact unit cohesion, nowhere did I claim that every problem with unit cohesion is women’s fault. What I find highly interesting is that you would rather talk about opinions and perceptions when they favor your case, while substituting a conclusion for a caveat in rejecting mine.
Ask Panetta. Apparently they can’t, unless we make it shorter. I think that’s pretty fucking patronizing, what about you?
lee coye:
I’m at a loss. You’re going to side with perception over a (possibly flawed) study? I apologize, I thought you might recognize that perception is bad foundation to rest solid arguments on. Bad studies are equally bad, but you haven’t exactly cited anything beyond what I was able to refute you with.
Also, cite the brick wall/Panetta thing. Now. Go.
Well everyone, we have to grant him this one. Right away he said that some of the problem could be the gays: (from 184)
Incidentally, how far does this reasoning go Lee? What if the best way to cohere a unit was to have them, say, mutually torture an outsider or haze each other to the point of disfigurement or occasional death? Is it worth it? Do you like living in Omelas?
That’s an excellent question, but it is a bit loaded. The implication of your drawn out qualifications for “pass” are one of the things at issue. I said at the outset that if women can pass the current physical requirements, and successfully complete the training, and maintain the same routine training tempo we currently expect of men (in front-line units), then the only question is will there be an impact on unit cohesion.
There are two ways of going about the potential problems, and indeed two ways to perceive those problems.
First, the perception. There are two categories of problem that a co-ed unit faces: legitimate (though formally banned) romantic interaction (which is going to happen, get over it), and it’s effects on unit cohesion (jealousy, favoritism, etc.); and illegitimate “romantic” interaction, to include rape (or false accusations of same), sexual assault, coercion. Additionally, pregnancy makes between 5-10% of females in any unit undeployable, and in the day of contraception, can’t be blamed on men.
The first approach to these problems is bottom-up negative reinforcement: sexual harassment seminars, disciplinary action, or (in the case of romantic attachments) forced reassignment of either party. The second is top-down: desegregate, or just kick out the men with functioning sex drives and hormones (for legitimate romantic interactions), or kick out the men with low-empathy/impulse-control (for illegitimate romantic interactions).
It’s a complicated issue, and any options has drawbacks. Insofar as you’re talking about “sexist” attitudes, i.e. men not wanting to integrate for various reasons, I think most of them will either leave on their own or just never sign up. I mean, it’s easy to look at this one-sidedly, and say “bah, fuck them, they’re sexist if they don’t want to serve with women”. However, this ignores the fact that many men, myself included, join elite or semi-elite military units for the atmosphere, brotherhood, and uniquely male-orientated space that they embody. This is where men can be aggressive, competitive, impolitic, bawdy, and unabashedly masculine. Attributes that may not best serve you at a coffee shop, but foster the kind of attitude that puts men willingly into harms way. It’s also a place where men can learn to face that side of themselves, channel it, and express it in a positive way; an opportunity that, at this point, exists nowhere else in society.
Take that away, by changing the environment to one more suited to women, and men disconnect, both from each other and from the system (i.e. leadership). I think a lot of the changed standards have changed the atmosphere in co-ed units, and this is from interacting with them myself. It becomes “just a job”, for both sexes, so you get the kind of cohesion that one might find at an office christmas party, at best. That’s unlikely to be affected much, since there’s not much there to begin with.
I was hazed, and beaten, and I still have a few scars. I hate to be cliche, but if you can’t stand the heat…
Your perceptions, not those of intellectual people without presupposed biases, so *FLOOSH*, your OPINION is given what it deserves, a quick trip to the detoxification plant….
There is one for those without sexist biases, and then there is your sexist biases. So *FLOOSH*, your OPINION is sent where it belongs, with the sexist pigs.
And if can’t stand the reality, shut the fuck up.
Um…You’re siding with perception. The ONE study (countering five analyzed by experts) cited “perceptions” that ” Leadership was…the primary factor of morale”. That study, the RAND study, was a survey. You do know what a survey is, yes?
Right, except the analysis of experts. Nothing else.
oy gevalt.
Why are we keeping this person around?
Your aren’t an expert, except in sexist pigism. You have no authority as an expert. You are biased, so your OPINION is *FLOOSH* sent to the toxic waste center for decontamination.
Shall we mention again that currently, if you are a woman and you join the military, you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting raped by your colleagues?
So, no, not too sympathetic to the “I just loves mah buddies and our happy male bastion!” argument. Your bastion ceased being male already and your masculine camaraderie is costing lives and happiness and years of psychological counseling and yes, unplanned pregnancies.
A figure that includes false accusations, any form of sexual assault from rape to verbal harassment, and no doubt a hefty “unreported” inference to pad out the fearmongering. No link, though, so who the fuck knows, but it sure sounds good.
To be weighed against the loss of efficiency and cohesion that will be acutely felt in the event of a war against a first class foe, and has already impacted readiness and efficiency negatively. Losses that, if the J. Lynch cautionary tale is any indication, have already put women into far, far greater danger. A war that won’t happen, even if it does, because reasons.
But even supposing that figure is accurate, you want to now force a very small number of women into some of the most high-stress environments on earth, where they will be heavily outnumbered by males, secluded for weeks and months at a time in the wilderness or desert, and…what? Tell the men not to rape? Whatever your views, it doesn’t work. Full stop.
But again, no biggie, cause it ain’t you going into that. Social Justice > collateral damage.
Sally, Lee has already informed us that he doesn’t believe those statistics. I’ll look for where, but I distinctly remember it.
It’s critical that he get to be “bawdy and unabashedly masculine”, which apparently means beating the shit out of the new guy and laughing about rape. Or whatever. (Feel free to explain what “unabashedly masculine” means in your own words Lee.) That’s way more important than all that other stuff.
See I was under the impression that the military was supposed to be a defense force and that it’s role as drum-circle-with-rifle for insecure manly men was supposed to be kept unspoken.
To Lee, so disfiguring the new guy is in as a cohesive strategy. Is it okay to torture prisoners? Gang rape civilian women in combat zones? I’ve heard that that sort of thing is very bonding. *hurk*
Ah, yes, got it. 428
Heh. See, I was under the impression that women have lady parts issues that keep them from being hygienic in the field. Notice my quick concession. I’ll await yours.
Disfiguring? I’m curious, what do you think happens in war?
No, but that doesn’t seem to stop the enemy from doing it. Shall we consider lifetime psychological effects of being captured and gang-raped by our enemies? Or only when Joe from Boston does it? Which rape is “legitimate” rape?
What. do. you. think. happens. in. war?
@646
Sally never linked, never responded to that, and apparently thinks I’ve forgotten about it. Second time she brings it up, still no links, and now..apparently doing the silent thing again.
Alright Lee, you’re so right. The military is not a professional defense force. It’s a club for insecure men to work out their masculinity with other insecure men while shooting brown people. Now I’m really confused as to why my taxes should pay for this. I mean, if you need therapy, you need therapy, but I’m not sure why we as a nation have to fund training academies and tanks and stuff for you to get it.
I was also under the impression that it was supposed to be the other guys (aka “the enemy”) maiming and raping our soldiers. Now I realize that it’s supposed to be our soldiers in our professional military maiming and raping each other.
don’t think I’ve ever seen a better argument for keeping folks like lee here from wanting to join the military. The world would be so much better off if the US military weren’t populated by people who thought the point of a national military force is aggressive warfare, rather than defense.
Show we are wrong with third party EVIDENCE. Your OPINION is *FLOOSH* toxic waste.
Maybe professional groups are not where you guys should gather for mutual masturbation? Maybe the rest of us expect better of you?
With regards to the ‘lady part issues’, didja know that there are forms of birth control that can also stop periods? le GASP!
When I was newly graduated from highschool the marines wanted me. At least until they found out how severe my asthma is.
At age 12, I ran a half mile in 3:33, mostly unable to breathe, just to see how well I could actually run it. I normally jogged/walked it, and once I crossed the finish line I was unable to get much air into my lungs and was whistling more than breathing. The P.E. teacher almost called an ambulance for me and told me to not *run* the half mile ever again.
I regularly heft around 100 pound dogs.
I have picked up 300lb football jocks at college and walked away with them.
I’m 5’6″ but can kick someone 6′ tall in the face.
If I was so inclined to go kill other people because I was *told* to, and I didn’t have asthma, I would certainly have been able to stand up to the hardships of the job.
The coast guard is a professional defense force. The Marine Corps is a tight-knit association of professional killers.
Lovely reality bubble you live in. Lets hope no one has any sharp objects.
@Feline
But you see, you’re apparently wrong that the military is a professional organization. Lee says and he’s clearly an expert. Don’t listen to any other soldiery people.
“I was beaten to within an inch of my life when I was a child, so any child of mine is gonna learn to fear my belt…”
Heard it too many times, will never be anything but complete bullshit. You superfluous shithead.
For twelve miles? Fifteen? Then fight at the end?
War in a nutshell. Kicking taller people in the face.
Compared to the bubble of self-delusion and sexism you live in? Which is why your OPINION, which is all you have to blather about with, is *FLOOSH* treated as the toxic waste it is.
But Jadehawk, if the US military weren’t an aggressive invasion force, where would Lee work out his daddy issues with the people who beat the shit out of him for fun? Don’t you care about MEN!?
unit cohesion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_lai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
Right, on the one hand, we have an adult abusing a child for no reason. On the other, we have adults preparing one another for an environment where a beating would be preferable to the hike before the battle, much less shrapnel, gunfire, and potential torture as a POW.
Same difference.
oh, it’s not that at all. you see, lee and his buddies have done unspeakable things to protect our freedoms, which is why the rape and internal violence and exclusion of women is acceptable, no, necessary.
he did it for our freedoms, you see.
but I’m the one living in a bubble.
lee coye: I’m headed off to more interesting pursuits, but the RAND study was only one thing I excerpted from the larger document. You’ve done a great job of missing that the other stuff was from the study you provided a link to.
Decline in morale was directly linked to leadership by multiple studies and analyses. In the document you linked to (albeit indirectly — but you can’t quote people approvingly without approving of their sources, as well). You can’t possibly be this unwilling to face the facts of your own linked sources, can you?
Skeptic ho!
(By the way, I’m informed that questioning the abilities of people to skeptically question sources hinders blog-comment-cohesion. My bad.)
I like how Lee ignored the rest of my post, and purposefully missed the point that I, despite a severe physical limitation, am stronger than many men. I also like how he ignored the portion where I stated the Marines actively wanted me, up until I mentioned the asthma. I like how he also appears to think that average guys straight into basic training are supposedly carrying 100lb packs for 15 miles on their first day or something.
So to answer you Lee: If I did not have asthma and I had the training to strengthen what I already have (no, I don’t work out at all), sure. I absolutely think I could lug a 100lb pack for 15 miles and then fight.
@ #645
Well, that’s your first mistake. The US military hasn’t been used to defend America since the War of 1812. Since a disproportionate number of volunteers are economically disadvantaged, the military of today has become an institution of the have nots of society waging wars on behalf of the interests, usually corporate interests, of the haves. This is one problem with an all volunteer army. Another problem is that war involves killing and maiming large numbers of people. In my opinion, someone who is eager to volunteer to kill and maim other people, is someone to be very wary of, not someone to hand advanced weaponry to and blithely send off to do this.
We should dispense with the volunteer army and institute a fair and equitable draft, men and women, all income brackets, all classes of society, no exceptions. If you can meet a bare minimum, physical and mental, in the right age group, you are eligible. One side benefit could be that the American people might look more closely at overseas adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then why would the military reduce the physical requirements for women? Why did feminists sue to have NYC firefighter’s physical requirements reduced because it was intrinsically sexist? Why is Panetta calling for a reduction in the physical requirements of front-line units training?
I personally think it’s patronizing, and damaging to the overall effectiveness of the military. Will you be the first person to agree with me?
Reverse the questions, why should the requirements be so high? Of course, your UNEVIDENCED OPINION is toxic waste to be *FLOOSH* treated and disposed of properly.
@tomh
I mean, I know all that. My point in 645 was supposed to be that the stated purpose of the military is not an invasion force, group therapy for manly men, and a system of class segregation. Like, we all know it de facto is, but they’re not supposed to say so out loud. *looks pointedly at Lee*
*rolleyes*
Reality:
IOW, the test was changed specifically to make women fail. And when it was changed back, the NYFY didn’t get worse, and the female firefighters did just fine on the job, despite the increased burdens of sexual harassment and other forms of hostile work environment.
@Nepenthe
I’m tempted to start ignoring you like I have Nerd, but I think, despite your bizarre style of arguing, you at least seem genuine.
In response, taking what you say seriously, I think we are talking at cross purposes. Same with Tomh. What you appear to be arguing for is the political and social functions of the military, whereas I’m more focused on the killing and training bits. Before I go further, though, is that a fair distinction here? Do you agree that these are separate spheres of discussion, or is it your opinion that the political and social functions of the military are the military in the only relevant sense?
Thanks.
and this? also not actually true:
“gender neutral standard” merely means removing artificial barriers like the 1994.
A test that men passed. Kind of the point, here. You’re arguing that a small minority of women can qualify for and pass the current tests, and as such should be inducted into the front-lines of our nations military. It’s one or the other, buttercup.
no, honey. the point is that the women didn’t have to sue to lower the standard, as you falsely claimed.
they can. different argument, honeycakes.
no, it really isn’t, sugarplum. two different issues, therefore two different issues. d’uh.
Every other physical standard in the military where women were allowed to enter, from cook to com, has a separate standard for women. In some cases, the entire standard is set at the women’s standard. In all cases, they said it wouldn’t change. It did, it will, because when making a “career” available to women doesn’t result in a sudden influx, the powers that be either open the door wider (drop standards), or start pushing women through the door (AA), or both (usually both).
What? Rephrase please?
Either I’m in an altered mental state or you accidentally a whole word or phrase somewhere in there.
Still no evidence from Lee Coye, ergo his OPINION is *FLOOSH* dismissed as toxic waste. Funny how he can’t move his argument forward. He will never be seen as the authority, just the fuckwitted sexist idjit. Real authority require real evidence, and the concept he could be WRONG. Which he is.
Shitface, hazing is not some sort of advanced psyops training.
Mind you, assuming that you’ve even been near a military base is far friendlier than I’d care for.
No men passed the test?
None have yet.
No, it really is the same issue. This pattern of changing standards and training is universal in the military, wherever women are tested. From the very first test at the recruiting office to the PFT annuals for fitness reports. These standards weren’t artificially raised, though they have gone up in the male-only units since WW2.
on a different note:
clearly, to only keep the very best of the very best, only 17-26 year old males should be allowed. women and geezers should be banned, and all men should be instantly kicked out on their 26th birthday.
;-)
*patpat*
keep on telling yourself that.
And, apparently, as you’ve decided to ignore me. Care to address the points above? The source you linked to indicated that women in combat units didn’t necessarily impact unit cohesion; in fact, it indicated that other sources were much more detrimental to what you claim to be concerned about.
Your rebuttal … lacked substance. You know, beyond the arguments that refute you, which you indirectly referenced by citing an absolute idiot as evidence. Mind you, an idiot you cited approvingly. Mystery of Woman, for fuck’s sake.
You left:
Why would I argue with someone who’s (supposedly) leaving the discussion?
@680
Still higher requirements for the over 40s crowd than women under 26.
What part didn’t you understand?
You aren’t discussing. You are preaching. You have nothing but OPINION, and can’t be wrong. Same as any preacher from the pulpit on Sunday. Your message is toxic waste fuckwit.
you’re really incapable of realizing when someone is making fun of you, aren’t you.
I generally don’t assume that other people expressing their views are jokes, even if I think what they are saying is laughable or stupid. It’s called assuming good faith. If you enjoy abusing that assumption, and casting those who make it as idiotic, you’re going to have a hard time getting people to take you seriously in the future. A result you would have no one to blame for but yourself.
evidence suggests otherwise, but rest assured that I take this warning verwwy vewwy seriously.
Yawn, Lee, still no evidence, so your preaching is *FLOOSH* disposed of where it belongs, in a toxic waste system. Your OPINION is trash.
@685
The whole thing. I literally can’t parse any of your questions.
It’s legible, coherent, and in the form of a question. You’re going to have to be specific.
I’m not arguing for the political and social functions of the military. I’m arguing about them.
K. Wev.
It’s called the “internet.”. You know, that place where someone can leave tonight and come back tomorrow. If we were in an irc chatroom, sure but… really? My needing to go make pasta primevera does not mean I’ve left the discussion. In your words:
Address my arguments, please. I might take as much as 8 hours to respond to them (because some people require sleep, don’t you know.).
For emphasis, I remind you that you linked to an argument in which someone cited the Mystery of Woman.
Please respond to that. That was the pure essence of my original post.
That answers that question.
Do you hold that the political and social functions of the military, which you are arguing about (according to the first question), are the only considerations at hand in this discussion. What seems to me to be yours, and tomh’s, point is that how our politicians utilize the military, and how the military fulfills certain social functions in society, is the only consideration in terms of integrating women into front-line roles.
Holding that opinion, as you appear to do, would explain why you find my appeals to unit cohesion and effectiveness to be pointless digressions. They would be, if that’s all the military is. If we’re going to have a discussion about integration, we can discuss it from the perspective of a political or social force, or we can discuss it from the perspective of a force trained to kill, and kill efficiently, when necessary.
For the first discussion, it’s eminently relevant to argue about how the “haves” use the “have-nots” (mis)use the military to their own nefarious ends, or why the capacity to kill efficiently should take a backseat to the egalitarian considerations of equal representation of women in all roles. For the second discussion, and the argument I’m more or less putting forward, the efficiency of the military as a large, complex killing machine is of primary concern. Integration, in the context of that second discussion, is justified, or not, in terms of it’s net effect on the function of a killing machine.
I think the first discussion is irrelevant, because whether the military is a killing machine, or whether it’s the equivalent of a stuffed animal collection, the political or social functions of the military don’t justify the military’s existence in the first place. If we’re simply concerned with those functions, the military is a stupendously expensive, incredibly dangerous, and ultimately useless tool.
I tend to think we need an efficient, powerful military for many reasons, but all of those reasons presuppose that the military is a killing machine first. It is a tool for killing our enemies. If you don’t think that is it’s primary function, or you don’t think we need a tool like that, arguing for integration is not the best use of your time. You should just campaign to have the whole complex dismantled, and give the money saved to any men and women who would have served.
Fair enough.
I don’t accept that argument, I never made that argument, I never endorsed that argument. It was the first paragraph of a 10 page debate. I did, however, quote three separate arguments from that debate that I do endorse, and that I have made in other forms previously.
I don’t feel the least bit obligated to defend an argument I don’t agree with. Pick an argument I did make.
I think that we need an efficient military to defend our nation from aggressors. End point. I do not accept that we need a military in order to bolster your and other men’s apparently extraordinarily fragile sense of masculinity. If you need that, form a fucking drum circle, do some primal screaming, and don’t waste the money of the taxpayers and the lives of the “enemy” and your fellow soldiers.
I don’t believe the government should be involved in a contract called “marriage”, but I campaign to have everyone access marriage because I’m a realist. I think the US will dismantle it’s military once we have a force of intelligent flying pigs protecting our borders. As such, I will campaign for the military, like all parts of society, to allow entry to anyone who is capable of performing the tasks required of them.
Your whole series of posts is an arument for your sixism. You have been preaching your sexism. There is no debate as you can’t and won’t allow yourself to be convinced you are wrong. And all you offer is your OPINION, which, without evidence to back it up, is *FLOOSH* flushed into the toxic waste system to be cleaned up. You can’t put up, you can’t shut up. All you can do is keep saying the same things over and over. Like any godbot preacher on Sunday.
lee coye:
So, then: your argument is that women doing the killing will hamper the killing, therefore no women. Because women can’t kill. /yeesh
I don’t want to misrepresent you, but fortunately I can quote you:
Women kill quite efficiently in combat situations. It’s documented in the link I gave earlier. Er wait, sorry, it’s linked in the debate YOU linked.
Also, given the demands placed on the military these days (cf nation building), your insistence on people being able to kill seems oddly misplaced. You don’t win hearts and minds by shooting indiscriminately.
Harnessing natural male aggression towards a positive male identity, in service to a (once) noble task, seems ill-served by your perverted view of masculinity. What do you think masculinity is in a sexually dimorphous species, a species plagued with internecine conflict?
As to the rest, I agree with the plain, literal meaning of your words, but I suspect we disagree on a deeper level.
When you’re wondering, in the future, why I ignore your comments, go ahead and read this mangled version of my argument you’ve unceremoniously placed into my mouth.
it’s hardly a positive male identity if it requires raping your fellow soldiers.
Natural male aggression…
Would you please shut the fuck up, you uncivilized dullard.
Some of us are capable of acting like fucking humans, you intellectual cul de sac!
Ah, lee coye, you’re right, I misinterpreted your argument. Let me rephrase:
Your argument seems to be that a small number of women doing the killing will hamper the men from killing. Because men are easier to condition to kill. And women will interfere with that. Because women can’t be bloodthirsty. Because they’re women.
You approvingly quoted a similar argument (see previous comments), which I obligingly linked to and provided excerpts from. I’ll also point out that you continue to focus on women, despite the fact that the study your exemplar linked to found that leadership was doing far more to disrupt unit cohesion than any woman could possibly effect.
As far as I can tell, you’re seriously arguing that because leadership can’t cope with demands, we should exclude women. Have you heard of the term ‘scapegoat’?
And on that note, I feel it noteworthy to indicate that I’m going to bed, but I will check comments here in order to respond to lee coye. Since, y’know, taking a break from a comment thread seems to invalidate response. /yawn
Oh, please. You first. You’re the one who’s been promoting an excruciatingly expensive, segregated institution devoted to it, so you tell me what it means to be “unabashedly masculine”.
[OT]
lee coye:
The ability to produce sperm.
This from the manchildren getting their panties in a twist over reducing women to wombs, an argument I don’t even agree with. Please, lecture me more about my insensitivity.
Devoted to it? Where did I say this? Still, though, you talked about my fragile masculinity, so I’d like to hear what you think masculinity is, and why my version is fragile. Yours, presumably, isn’t. I assume this is through your role as a feminist lapdog?
No. Last warning. If this really is the best you can do (and I don’t think it is), that’s pretty sad. Look, you wanna pin that one on me, quote me making that argument.
Because it’s not just a few soldiers doing it, as seems to be the case in wider society; no, it’s all of them. That’s how you pass the final test in boot camp, doncha’know?
Actually, human behavior encompasses even behaviors you don’t approve of, which includes, but is not limited to, aggressive victimization, both on an individual level and in global conflict over resources/politics/religion. This, among many other reasons, is why I advocate for a powerful, efficient military focused on killing our enemies. When that bad apple(or bushel) comes knocking, tell him or her to “act like a fucking human” and see just how far that gets you.
Yawn, our bully preacher is back preaching his evidencless gospel, which *FLOOSH* is sent to the toxic waste facility where it belongs. Until the preach can allow for being wrong, it is preaching, not discussing.
Lee:
Are you suggesting that this “human behavior [we] don’t approve of” (and what a patronising and simplistic way to portray opposition to toxic, harmful, discriminatory behaviour) should not be discouraged, but rather actively encouraged in certain circles (ie, the military)?
Who are our enemies, by what definition are they ‘enemies’ rather than just people we don’t approve of, why do we have to kill them, and why can’t women do it as well as men?
My eyes, they don’t stop rolling. Lee coye swallows militaristic macho-jingoism hook, like and sinker.
Nobody is equating men with penises, but rather, masculinity. Why? Because we don’t give a fuck about masculinity – whatever YOU think that to be. Most people here aren’t convinced such a thing is meaningful.
Another set of great questions, but again, that’s basically the entire debate, plus a host of other geopolitical concerns that would constitute a hopeless digression from the topic of this thread.
I think we can probably parse most of that with a simple assumption negotiation, but I’m still waiting on a response from you to my comment at 634. Would you mind, terribly, at least commenting on that first?
Right, because every sexually dimorphous species, ever, has inculcated sex roles that roughly run along warrior/nurturer lines. Nearly every society(even small tribal ones) to ever succeed over it’s neighbors has fielded it’s men, not it’s women, on the field of battle(when given the choice). This, according to you, is a meaningless history that says nothing at all about the masculine end of the human spectrum of psychology. It’s difficult to know where to begin, frankly, other than a high school history textbook and a highlighter.
It’s interesting to point out, also, that on one hand, feminists like yourself make a lot of noise about the aggression of men, while on the other hand, when you want women in combat, you pretend it’s some massive conspiracy by men that the male psyche is better suited to engaging in aggressive behaviors. Something about cake seems appropriate here…
fascinating.
almost surreal.
This is to equate masculinity itself with “harmful, discriminatory behavior”, a false equivalence that speaks volumes about your conception of men in general. Now it’s perfectly true to say that fostering aggression in some “circles” is problematic (like kindergarten), but to extrapolate the negative effects of aggression in those circles to imply that it’s “bad” everywhere is to fail to understand the purpose of the military in the first place. Unless you can stifle that sort of aggression on a global scale, stifling it in our own defense structure is a fucking stupid idea.
With regards to rape: It is the top brass who are drawing the connection between having the most prestigious and difficult jobs in the military designated as male-only, and the epidemic of rape in the armed services.
Masculinity is an invented idea that can mean almost anything. In this case, Lee is using it as an excuse to use the statistical correlation between biological maleness and size, strength, and aggression to discriminate against women.
As Leon Panetta said, maybe only a tiny minority of women will make it. So? The point is that everyone has the chance to try.
And I notice, Lee, that you keep on saying that women will be “forced” into those roles. People objected to that terminology, and then you explained that what you were talking about was that you have to follow orders in the military, and you don’t always choose your own job. But then you went back to saying “forced.” That’s dishonest.
That’s my emphasis, BTW.
By this logic, the U.S. Army should be training suicide bombers. Why aren’t we? Would that be a good idea? What about organizing rape camps of enemy women? Why don’t we do that? Obviously we haven’t succeeding stifling any of those things on a global scale.
So, we’ll start organizing rape camps of enemy women because the militias in Congo and Rwanda won’t stop doing it, and then everybody will keep doing this forever, because until everybody can do it, nobody can.
Sexism: the logic-killer.
It’s not invented, unless you think all the other species that evince masculine traits did so only after sitting around thinking sexist thoughts. Second, size, strength, and aggression are precisely the traits that contribute to success in human conflicts, and that’s why nature selected for them over, say, the characteristics of Marmosets.
I’ve fielded two responses to this, and you’ve inadvertently fielded your own. We can wave our magic wands all day long and shriek about rape, but the sad fact is that some men just don’t give a shit. Inserting a tiny minority into a larger group, no doubt populated with some small number of don’t-give-a-shits is doing those women a disservice.
It also ignores the multitudinous reasons that most segregated units, eg IDF, field a mixed force that is roughly equal parts men and women, especially in ground combat roles. Romantic bonds, unrequited or otherwise, just do threaten the cohesion of small units. Here again, you can shriek all day long about professionalism or what-have-you, favoritism will tear a unit apart.
What is the difference between being forced into a job, and being placed into a job you didn’t choose?
Oy vey. Fine. Here we go:
Lee:
Which of course invites the question “what would cause the impact on unit cohesion?” Right?
1. A unit that allows gay men will face the same problems of romantic interaction (and in fact I’d be very surprised if a unit that didn’t technically allow gay men did anyway).
2. Jealousy and favoritism are not the exclusive province of romantic interactions. They happen already.
3. Firstly, fuck you for minimising rape to “illegitimate ‘romantic’ interaction.” Secondly, rape is the fault of the rapist, not the fault of the presence of the victim.
4. If a female soldier gets pregnant, and wants to continue serving, abortion is an option. If she wants to keep the baby, she leaves active duty. Where’s the problem? Also…you know men can use contraception too, right? Not exactly all on the woman, that. But your bias is showing. As usual.
I don’t see a problem with any of these things, apart from the implication that functioning sex drives means they can’t resist the sexing. You military dudes are supposed to be super disciplined, aren’t you?
I especially see nothing detrimental in kicking out the men with low impulse control, as it seems disadvantageous for military operations in general, never mind that rapists should probably not be given free reign to rape via the excusing of their poor impulse control.
1. That’s mightly naive of you.
2. Why is this worse than making the women unwelcome? If they don’t want to join/stay because they don’t want to integrate, maybe they don’t care enough about defending their country (if that is indeed what they’re doing) to tolerate the presence of women. So good riddance to ’em, right?
Aha. This is the real point, isn’t it? You’re pissed off at the bitches invading your Manclub. You realize that this is bullshit, right? You want mantime, there are ways of doing that without excluding half the population from serving their country in the way they want to and should have the equal right to do, provided they’re up for the job. Which they would be if they got through the training.
Apart from the last bit, which is vage and meaningless until you specify what you mean by it, those are all qualities that can be and are shared by at least certain populations of women, and not shared by certain populations of men.
What constitutes expressing this in a positive way, and in what way are women exempt from this?
by which you mean…?
That would be their own damn problem if they threw a tantrum because boo hoo the women are invading our manclub. That doesn’t sound very mature or productive, and not at all the kind of behaviour I’d want in the people I’m supposed to trust to (apparently) defend my country, whatever that task may entail. Grow a spine, I’d say to them.
I wonder if anyone else who comments on this blog can address this bit. I suspect it’s bullshit, but I’m not in the military so I hesitate to make any such statements. I will say that if men can’t bring themselves to form close bonds with their fellow soldiers simply because their genitals are the wrong type, they need to grow the fuck up and work out what’s important. If it’s the boys’ club, rather than the defense of the country (etc), then they’re the ones in the wrong place, not the women.
Ready to address my post here, yet?:
Me (la tricoteuse) @711:
Academic studies as well as testing in the field show that yes, “masculinity” as typically defined by the average person in today’s society, is toxic and dangerous, even for men.
It’s not necessary to create a culture of impunity for bullies and rapists to have a successful military.
If this is all a joke to you, why are you commenting?
Front-line combat isn’t a fucking job. You keep comparing the two like you need basically the same traits to tighten a gas line as you need to stick a bayonet into another person’s body.
lee coye @ 716;
‘Masculinity’ is not a singular phenomenon that exists as some inevitable expression of inescapable biology; it is important not to conflate cultural expressions of masculinity with the physicality of biological maleness. As an example, a trans man can be entirely masculine without having been born into a biologically male body. There are many different ways in which the social construct of masculinity can be performed, and the dominant construction of masculinity in our society is extremely toxic. It hinges on a highly provblematic tendency to define masculinity in opposition to feminity, and place masculinity as superior in most regards. Thus, men are stereotypically expected to be assertive, and as a result women are expected to be passive. Men who are less assertive are demeaned as insufficiently ‘manly’ or ‘masculine’, and women who are more assertive are seen as treading on the toes of masculinity as society defines it, and so are reviled as ‘pushy’ orrepugnantly ‘domineering’ in a fashion considered by dominant societal norms to be ‘unbecoming’ of a woman – this attempts to define the assertiveness – and the associated characteristics of self confidence and strong will, all of which are generally seen as positive attributes in our society – as the sole domain of men.
This is bit one of many such toxic false dichotomies that paint women as inferior to men and demonise women who fail to ‘live down’ (as patriarchal society ranks these htings) to those social expectations – men are strong and women weak; men are technically and scientifically minded but women are better at softer, more ‘nurturing’ pursuits (that patriarchal society views as being of lesser worth); the male domain is the public field that includes access to social and political power, whereas the female domain is that of the private – homebound and out of public sight and mind, men are the active desirers of sex and women the passive providers, etc, etc.
Also, the military may requie a certain level of the preparedness to inflict harm in a battlfield environment in pursuit of one’s duties, but what is required is the capacity to remaion calm under pressure and make the right decision at critical points – uncontrolled and undirected aggression is what can all too easily lead to warcrimes, and aggression toward unarmed civilians and your own fellow service personnel is not merely unproductive but actively dangerous..
There is a difference, and it was explained to you before. Bah. Now I shall have to search for it, just to demonstrate your amazing, and apparently continuing dishonesty. If you didn’t understand the explanation for the difference before, why didn’t you say so? If you disagreed? Why didn’t you say so? You let the matter drop and then try to do this slippery maneuver again.
Ah yes, here it is.
Please proceed, governor.
Lee:
You’ve yet to demonstrate that the traits required to stick a bayonet into another person’s body are somehow exclusively (or even mostly) male.
Then again. you do keep jumping around with regards to your reasons why women are somehow not suited to combat. Is it physical ability, apparent natural bloodthirstiness, “unit cohesion”, what? We’ve addressed all of them. The only leg you appear to have left to stand on is “waah I don’t want women in my manclub” and that’s a shaky fucking leg you’ve got there.
Hi Greg.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but what you’re saying is that, in some cases, masculinity is done badly. Sure, “uncrontrolled and undirected aggression” is a bad thing. That’s not the sort of environment the military is fostering; rather the opposite. Aggression tempered by discipline, honed in a team environment, and directed towards those forces in the world that exist, whether any of you want to admit it or not, and want your stuff, your life, your labor, and don’t want to pay for it.
Arguments aren’t like master keys, some work better against some responses than others. If you would stick to one subject, I would stick to one argument. I’m engaged with 15 or so people here, and everyone has a different reason why I’m wrong. Each of those reasons requires a different perspective.
If you really took this seriously, you would be more concerned about the irrational biases clouding your judgment. I was demonstrating the flaw in your argument via reductio ad absurdum. It’s a legitimate form of debate.
Do you disagree that that particular piece of logic, if universally applied, could lead to complete barbarism and suffering on a scale we’ve rarely seen? If so, why? Explain your work.
Or the ones whose stuff WE want. Of course.
In any case, any reason women can’t do this disciplined, directed, team-worky aggression thing?
Lee… you failed to address ANY of mine. Or rather, you didn’t wanna. I was addressing YOUR points, which were many, hence the different arguments.
You’re the one who started with the idea that women are somehow ill-suited to frontline combat. You gave various reasons for this, mostly choosing new reasons after your original ones had been addressed. You haven’t explained how women would have a negative effect on unit cohesion, or at least how it’s their fault if cohesion suffers because men don’t want them there. At least not until you admitted it was a Manclub thing, that you resent women invading what you consider your Manspace.
I suspect that’s really your only reason. As I said, it’s not a fucking good enough one to exclude half the population from fighting for their country, should they have the desire and ability to do so.
If I’m wrong, give me a better reason that hasn’t already been dismantled.
This is to misunderstand the idea behind job placement in the military. The risks associated with front-line combat units are separate from those associated with rank-and-file military service, the service that, until recently, was the only arena women could be assigned to. Asking military women whether they would like to be in frontline units returns a resounding NO, because they know full well that they’re not interested in those risks. Signing up for the military, and risking being assigned to a front-line unit, when women are less able (yes, even individually) to manage those risks as men do, is a relevant change to the risk dynamics for women.
Put simply, most women don’t want to be in those roles, and opening them will invariably “place” (if you prefer that to force) those self-same women into those roles. This is why many women opposed suffrage, until it became clear that they wouldn’t be subject to the draft.
I wrote you an essay in 634 that you haven’t even acknowledged. This is rich.
Please proceed, governor.
Citation please.
It’s a rhetorical device designed to cast the argument being made as absurd if you take it to logical extremes. Merely urging that we foster aggression to face aggressive opponents as a proven strategy doesn’t entail that we should adopt any and all tactics any opponent might use, ever, on the same basis. Failing to take a proven strategy seriously, by saying we should just ape our opponents by that logic, is to turn a legitimate point into a joke to discount it. Perhaps a nice debate tactic, but not very honest.
@737
=> 621.
This strategy is proven? As in, proven to be a better strategy than being less aggressive than an aggressive opponent in all cases? I’d be interested in seeing that paper.
How do you draw the line between aggressive tactics that the enemy uses and we should, and ones that we shouldn’t? And what is the connection between aggressive tactics and the aggression levels of individual soldiers? Is there some sort of testosterone osmosis between the higher-ups who make those tactical decisions and the front-line soldiers who carry out those tactics?
Lee. I addressed every damm line of that mess in my 721.
You’ve got a backlog building up.
@740
You don’t understand the military, or combat, and every word you write on the subject just reinforces that ignorance. There’s nothing calm, cool, and rational about charging a machine-gun nest, or urban warfare. It’s controlled ferocity. Running a risk-reward assessment under fire is up to the unit commanders, not the individual marines.
Yes, echoing Greg, uncontrolled or undirected aggression is a potent force of destruction that is as likely to backfire as to further mission objectives. Please notify the Marines, because they apparently don’t know this already…
@709
I dunno. Try here:
LOL. Hey, anyone want to give Lee here a tip about why I’m secure in my masculinity and role as “feminist lapdog”? But really, you first. You’re the one who brought up the specialness of masculinity, both explicitly and through your “women can’t relate to men that way, it’s just not the same” whining.
@741 (721)
I missed it, sorry, slipped under my radar.
Not to the same degree, which is why I both brought it up as something that could be a problem(in 54), and expressed skepticism that it would be much of a problem.
Men who don’t hate women are probably less likely to commit war crimes against them. (Yes, raping the civilian population is considered a war crime, not the victor collecting their spoils or “boys being boys”.) There’s a net positive. While gang rape may be good for internal cohesion*, nothing really turns the occupied population against you like the mutilated bodies of women and children.
And before you protest, rape and murder have been used to foster loyalty in troops since time eternal.
Lee:
1. Have you demonstrated that standards are actually being lowered in a way that is or would be detrimental to a unit’s effectiveness because it allows people in who aren’t up to the job?
By which I mean the following:
If activities related to joining a particular unit require, say, the ability to carry 30lbs of weight for a certain period of time, but the tests require people to carry 50lbs, it is excluding people who are capable of carrying the amount needed for the job. If this is the case, and standards are lowered to allow people who can carry 30lbs of weight, which is all the job requires, but not 50lbs, then technically this is a lowered standard but not one which will have any effect on the ability of successful ‘applicants’ to perform the necessary duties of the ‘job’ so to speak.
So. Have you demonstrated that this is not the type of “lowering of standards” you’re talking about, that in fact the standards are being lowered in such a way that would allow in those who are ill-suited to the challenges they would face in the course of performing their duties in such a unit?
Or is it, as others have pointed out happens in other situations (the example of firefighters was used by, I think, Sally), a case of inflating the requirements to well above that which is necessary to do the job with the express purpose of keeping women out who would be able to meet the challenges of the job but not of the testing process?
2. The modifications in behavior and speech being demanded are what, exactly?
3. If the mere inclusion of women in combat units is driving wedges between people, in what way is this occuring and in what way is it unavoidable? In what way is it the responsibility of the women? In what way is it not a case of men needing to grow the fuck up and act like adults who can work alongside women without whatever wedges you’re talking about? If the men are not disciplined enough (we agree that discipline is important in the military, no?) to perform their duties responsibly in a co-ed unit, maybe they aren’t suited to military life after all. I do, in fact, think that letting in good female soldiers is more important than keeping bad male soldiers, so yes, I would say good riddance to the ones who can’t hack it. It’s not about being woman-haters, though they may be that. It’s about letting that get in the way of the job they’re there to do. If they really can’t put that bullshit aside, they don’t belong there.
As for the rape issue, what you ARE doing is saying that keeping women out of situations where men (on their OWN SIDE) might rape them is more important than making it clear to the men that such things will be met with harsh penalties.
As for driving away men in droves, what we want in a military is people who are committed to fighting for their country. If their commitment to having a man-only space is greater than their commitment to fighting for their country, and women who ARE committed to so doing will take their place, then yes. Let the men who can’t handle their manspace being infiltrated by icky women be driven away. If we have to choose between men who are less committed to the real purpose of the military than they are to the manspace, and women who are more committed to the purpose of the military than said men are, the only way to justify keeping the men is if you are arguing from the point of view of keeping the manspace at the expense of the commitment to country. This undermines your argument about efficacy against the enemy. If that were really your goal, you’d happily invite women who were prepared to fight alongside you, rather than alienating them in the name of your manclub. Your priorities are showing.
*Here I am of course only talking about men and women who meet the standards of the skills required for the job.
I’m sure this resource will prove to be useful.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/think-women-haven-t-been-in-combat-situations-already-the-history-of-crossdressing-soldiers-2013012
h/t Skepchick
lee coye @ 729;
I fear I expressed myself poorly in my last post, and in more than just the innumerable spelling mistakes.
The important part is the reason why masculinity is done badly in so many cases – it relates back to the way in which society defines masculinity and seeks to impose conformity with that definition, a phenomenon that the military is in no way immune to.
But isn’t that precisely the point? Even if it were possible to demonstrate that all male recruits had a higher innate capacity for aggression than all female recruits (and I don’t believe this is even the case), it seems to me that raw aggression is not actually what military service requires. A preparedness to employ limited and proportional force as part of a disciplined military unit in a combat environment (in those cases where the use of such force is deemed unavoidable without compromising the mission at hand) certainly requires good judgement and a calm evaluation of the situation while under pressure, but not necessarily a high level of aggression. I see no reason why women with the same level of training should not exhibit the same capacity for discipline, teamwork, good judgement and the carefully considered, proportionate application of force as men.
I simply have not seen any evidence that leads me to suppose that there is some insurmountable obstacle to women possessing the correct mindset for military operations.
There is the point that our own Western cultures have quite the nasty history of taking whatever we want by force – and all indications are that we continue to do so to this day with regard to things like access to natural resources in some parts of the world – to consider here. Many people around the world would contest the depiction of our military as purely a defensive force protecting our societies and citizenry from unprovoked aggression, and they would not be unjustified in their position given the events of the last couple of decades.
If they were working in a packing plant, this would make some sense. They’re not, the demands of a combat environment are dynamic and often extreme. I don’t think anyone (but a few of you here) would contend that a combat environment, in the context of a front-line unit, is anything but the most extreme environment imaginable.
Take arty, for example. Yes, in most cases, all you need to do is lift a round up to the breech. Combat isn’t most cases. The ammo tips, the truck breaks down, and this is why they made the requirements carrying those rounds over rough terrain for some distance, tasks failed 100% of the time by women who attempted them, and 70% of the time by men. We set standards, and training regimens, not for the everyday, but for the moments that make or break the fight. This is why I keep stressing that this is not just a job, with tasks that can be neatly laid out in this manner. You don’t need to be able to “do the job”, you need to be able to do the job when all of reality conspires to prevent you from doing so.
Another example: a fallen comrade. He needs to be moved, his gear distributed, and the fight continued. This entails that the 100lbs of gear normally billetted to each marine would increase by 20%, roughly. Perhaps you lose a starter in your vehicle, blows out or falls out, or gets shot out, and you have to replace it on the move (I did this off route 1 at dusk). You hitch the vehicle with a 300lb V-hitch, and crawl your happy ass up under the engine and, with the vehicle being dragged, bouncing over rough ground, bench press an 80lb starter into position so someone with a wrench can secure it. That’s not a “day to day” task, but it is what characterizes these environments. You don’t get awards for shit like that, because that’s your “job”.
If a woman can’t accomplish those tasks, then what? Have the men do it, right? I’ll let you mull over why that’s a problem.
Again, agreed on most of it, though I think you discount the mindset required for certain tasks in the infantry. Still, this is a valid point, I don’t know of any evidence to rule out that fact either. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to rule out most women, though, even in the self-selecting group that signs up for the military. There is only so far we can drift from our mental structure, despite the fevered dreams of social deconstructionists.
A political point I’m unlikely to contest with much force, frankly, but I’ve argued previously that this paradigm doesn’t speak at all to the sorts of situations faced by our nation’s military in, say, WW2. Given the history of our species, I think it’s an irresponsible optimism that declares our days of facing down first class enemies to be over. When that day comes, we would be poorly served indeed for making drastic changes to readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion; we only ever need it when we need it, and if we don’t have it because we didn’t train for it, it’s too late.
You haven’t demonstrated that women cannot.
And if you never know what you’re going to need to be able to do, then how IS suitability for a position assessed? If it’s a series of related tasks and you say “we’ll take the top 100 performers” and some of them are women, where’s the problem? If it’s a specific standard (which accurately reflects the needs of the position) and some of the people able to perform to that standard are women, where’s the problem?
If it’s a situation where the assessment asks more than the ‘job’ requires (or asks for things that have no bearing on the job) for the express purpose of excluding women (as others have argued and you haven’t actually directly addressed that I’ve seen), what’s the justification for this?
People join the military for a variety of reasons, national defense is one, but even the women who sued with the ACLU, and kicked this whole thing off, justified it by virtue of the career opportunities being denied women. If I’m speaking plainly, I don’t want that type of person in front-line either (thankfully, none of them plan on joining these units). However, the bare fact that that is ONE reasons they might cite, as men might cite a male space, doesn’t mean that I can declare their priorities so skewed as to be disqualified.
There are many ways to serve your country. Men have precious few niches left in which to do it in a way they want. Why are their choices less important?
If the standards remain unchanged, and if women can perform at those standards, then we look at unit cohesion. See how this works? If you’re going to use conditionals to bypass one argument, I shift gears to another. Instead of demanding that I prove no women can meet these standards without lowering them, why don’t we just have women meet the standards? That’s what I’m advocating: Change nothing about the physical requirements, and run the experiment with those women who can hang.
Because their choices in this case hinge upon the exclusion of half the population based on gender. That is not a valid reason to exclude women.
And plenty of men go into the military for the career opportunities, or the college money. Why are you happier to have them there?
You haven’t addressed the possibility that the physical requirements are set at an inflated level for the express purpose of excluding women. What of that?
Uh-oh. So career-oriented people are a problem?
How are you going to weed out those career-oriented guys? Or is recognizing that advancement in the ranks happens faster when you serve in combat only a problem when it’s women perceiving that fact and acting on it?
If the desire to serve in frontline combat is so non-existent, then who are these women who want to join it because they want to be promoted?
How about that citation?
751 is only the most recent time I’ve responded to this. I keep responding the same way. Maybe you’ll be the first to see it?
this is like 72 straight hours now of lee coye and his units over here.
fascinating.
I provided it, in 621. Did you click the link? (Hint: it’s the blue text).
What exactly is a niche in which men can serve their country in the way in which they want? What are the niches where they can serve, but not in the way they want?
Why are their wants even important? Isn’t service the point? How is it service if you refuse to do it unless it’s tailored to your particular needs?
You haven’t demonstrated that that is a justification for artificially inflating the requirements. If the requirements take that type of scenario into account in their assessment criteria (adding, for example, 20% above the normal weight you have to carry to make sure you can hack it in such an emergency), then obviously lowering the standards would be detrimental. But you have not given any proof that this is the case. You haven’t addressed what others have said about artifically inflated requirements which are set higher than will ever be necessary for the express purpose of excluding women. Only THAT type of standard-lowering (undoing the inflation, that is) has ever been proposed, as far as I’m aware.
Because you’re asking them to, in some cases, sacrifice their lives for their country. If they can’t do that in a way that appeals to them, they’ll sit on their bean-bag chairs eating cheetos and let the womenfolk do their girrl power thing.
One of the clearest examples I’ve ever seen of “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”
It seems apparent from your many posts that *you* are unable to let go of your dearly held beliefs despite all evidence demonstrating those beliefs to be mistaken or flat out false. Extending that inability to the rest of the population is called “projection.” I doubt the successful gender integration of other military forces in the modern world, such as Israel, can factually be referred to as “fevered dreams of social deconstructionist.” This is again projecting your demonstrated and unfounded bias on others who you feel threaten your manspace.
Why is it more important for the men to have FUN than the women to HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES THE MEN HAVE?
You aren’t making anything like a good case for this. It all boils down to “waaah we want our manspace” for you.
Why should we, the civilian population, give a shit? This is the same whine that accompanies any sort of gender or sexual orientation integration. “We have so few places left to be ourselves, we have to keep the non-WASP men out of the country club.” It’s one thing when the special people’s club is private and privately funded, it’s another entirely when you expect us, the population at large, to support your club.
Why do you expect me to financially and politically support an organization that I’m a priori excluded from based on the whinge that people like me make places for people like you unspecial just ‘cuz? If you want to keep people like me out, form a men-only drum circle, as I’ve said.
Yes, oh brilliant one, the reason I’m “secure in my masculinity” is that I’m a woman. I mean, I guess I’m a little butch, but still, woman who’s faced a lot of shit in her life for no reason other than than being a woman. I’m really okay with being a feminist. The “lapdog” thing was low though. Lapdogs are an abomination unto nature.
I submit that 751 lays out a case for why the requirements are what they are, and aren’t tailored for the day to day. If you reject that case, tell me why, but stop pretending I haven’t said anything about it.
Don’t bother, do the job yourself. Young men don’t owe you a fucking thing, boyo, so don’t be surprised when they tell you to pound sand.
Look at all the shits I give:
If men decide to drop out of life because they can’t have their extra special, taxpayer funded, killing machine manly man drum circle, that is not my problem, nor is it any other person’s problem but theirs.
You actually haven’t. You’ve laid out a case for why the requirements are high, but you haven’t set any sort of an upper bar. I mean, what if two troops are injured? That could happen, so the carrying requirements should be higher. What if three? That could also happen, so raise the requirements. “Anything could happen” is, without a bit more thought, a justification for infinitely high requirements.
What a terrible loss.
No. Your example made a case for adding an emergency 20% to the realistic everyday requirement. How far above the realistic everyday requirement is the assessment requirement?
So…the only way the taxpayers who fund your manclub can have a say in how your manclub is run is to join up? Fuck you. You are fucking (over)funded by us, you damn well don’t get to pretend to be above our input, and you CERTAINLY don’t get to put your desire to fart without women around above their desire for equal opportunities. You have no case.
It will be, once you realize that the number of women replacing those men is miniscule. Then we get the draft. Yay…
You feminists said the same thing about marriage, and got everything you wanted out of a marriage contract. One problem: it’s bloody hard to find a man to sign it, ain’t that right, sally?
@Rey Fox
That was exactly the correct response. *applauds*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry I missed the citation at 621. It does say that only 10% of women thought female enlistees should be assigned to the front lines involuntarily.
I’m not seeing much in the way of evidence that the survey was stopped BECAUSE the surveryors were displeased with the responses.
I note that in discussion about the upcoming changes, much has been made of how the past 10 years’ of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has changed attitudes. There are references to women performing combat duties but not getting credit for it, and being ineligible for advancement to certain positions because of that. I’ve been looking but haven’t yet found any surveys asking that specific question that were done since 2001. But I’d be surprised if there were none.
There’s a good deal of ambiguity here. Perhaps we should clarify.
Are all combat positions assigned involuntarily, or only some? On what basis are the involuntary assignments given, and why is the lack of choice more of a problem for women than men?
Men and women have been serving side-by-side in the military for quite a few years now. Where’s the mass exodus of men stomping their little feet because their boys club has been invaded? Does actual evidence *ever* influence your “fevered dream’s?
lee keeps on using “men” as if it were synonymous with “raging misogynist”. how odd.
1) One hopes that the number of whiny manchildren like you in the military is dwarfed by men who don’t hate women.
2) If that’s not the case, well oh golly, I guess we won’t be having any more wars of Empire. I’m just so, so sad. Alert us all when the British sail up the Potomac again.
When one gets over the sheer revolting-ness of them, it’s sort of fun to play with MRAs. They’re like toads; poke them long enough and eventually they’ll piss all over the place. The misogynist poison always squirts out in the end.
This pisses me off, frankly. I think, however our discussion comes out, that everyone should receive the recognition they deserve, for the job they’ve done. The fact that this wasn’t happening is a travesty, and an embarrassment, for the military and the nation.
All are. You (now) list three preferences, but the military (or at least the marines) has final say on where to put you. I didn’t get any of my preferences. Shit happens.
It’s more of a problem for women because of the nature of these environments, and all the reasons we might put forward for why putting women into these environments involuntarily is a bad idea. Reasons that women, being very smart cookies, recognize (and explains their opinions on the matter a la 621).
wasn’t that exactly the same argument about letting gays serve openly? that the dudely dude-men will leave in droves?
Aside from the fact that it doesn’t seem to be happening, I’m still failing to see the drawback of the US ending up with a military that has fewer raging homophobes and misogynists in it.
Gee, you are kind to think he can progress at all. I suspect he will be like one of those who resigned after Truman integrated the Army in protest. He’ll be sitting on the sidelines as the unit accommodates the changes and comes out stronger and more professional….
In a society where now less than half the population will ever get married, and 2/3s end in divorce, coupled with article after article bemoaning the lack of marriageable, “mature”, men willing to “man up”, calling it misogyny is comical. Mens’ choices are irrelevant, according to you, and you actually believe it until they start making choices you don’t like. Then they’re making the wrong choices, and by gosh, they should just suck it up.
They’re not, and I suspect the army’s recruitment problems, in contrast to the Marine’s lack of them, might just be a symptom of the “mass exodus” you’re talking about.
lol.
don’t know where this shortage is occurring, but it doesn’t seem to be anywhere around me or any of the women I know.
also, interesting that lee thinks divorces and lower marriage rates are mens decisions
Projection.
I’m amused. Please show me all these feminists bemoaning the lack of marriageable men. To make it relevant to me personally, please show me all of these radical feminists bemoaning the lack of marriageable men. The NYTimes style section is not, as you might previously have though, a journal of feminist theory.
Note also that you didn’t talk about a lack of marriageable men, but that men wouldn’t get married at all because reasons. Given your slip of the mask I assume that you think it has to do with “divorce rape” or something like that.
Among those in my acquaintance, it’s more women than men who actively choose to remain unmarried for many good and valid reasons. Where are all these articles you refer to? Cosmopolitan or the Fundie Times? LOL
It couldn’t have anything do with the US continuing involvement in pointless wars. No, must be the intruding wimmens.
Way way WAY overfunded. Granted, most of that goes to contractors.
There! Lee, if you’re so upset that your manly man-space is being taken away, you can work for a private security company. Apparently they’re totally above the law; you can do whatever manly man-things you want without worry.
He could even build a tree house, invite all his little friends, and put a sign on the door that says “No Girlz!”
Given that 60% of college graduates are now women, the pool of “marriageable” men for that demographic is shrinking every year. We can all pretend that love conquers all, but surely there’s one or two realists in this thread?
They probably even believe those reasons, some of them, especially if they’re radical feminists. I’m not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole (the reasons, not the feminists…though not the feminists either, frankly).
Bah, I was about to say that. All his arguments depend on “men” meaning “Real Manly-Men”. For instance the hypothetical big guy who can bench-press a starter – what if he can’t fit under the damaged vehicle where a smaller person could? Or if the big guy gets hurt and needs two comrades to carry him to safety, where a smaller man or woman could be carried by just one? Muscle mass isn’t everything, and that assumption insults all the actual military men who aren’t two-meter bodybuilder types. Navy SEALS for instance average about 5’8″ and train for stamina more than power. Overemphasis on muscle power is a typical hypermasculine stereotype; so is putting too much value on aggression. (edit: So is conflating “marriageable men” with being higher-status than the women, as in #792.)
There’s a reference in the report Lee cited back at #586 (and hasn’t mentioned since, as far as I can tell) that hypermasculinity’s only associated with cohesion in all-male groups. In mixed groups unit cohesion is decoupled from hypermasculinity. Apparently Lee’s arguing that cohesion in combat units depends on hypermasculinity (sexism, hyperaggression, hazing, etc) when actually HM looks to be an indirectly related property of cohesive groups that happen to be all-male. Why? Because according to the cited overview of the data so far, as long as the leaders of mixed military units don’t permit sexism within them, unit cohesion stays the same; but hypermasculinity decreases.
That report again:
“Women in Ground Close Combat Roles: The Experiences of Other Nations and a Review of the Academic Literature” produced for the UK military in 2009. PDF link
Specifically I’m citing the report summary in 4.20.3 and research in section 5.3.
Hilarious. So, asking them to sacrifice their lives = perfectly fine. Asking them to sacrifice their fun bro times with their bros = unconscionable.
Apparently Lee holds “masculinity” (whatever that means to him, he never did explain) more dear than life itself.
Only rank misogynists think that “I wouldn’t fuck you” is an effective insult.
Ah, the inevitable meltdown. “You bitchez are just sad because there’s no manly men for you to marry. I know this because all bitchez want to marry men. You’re deluded if you think that domestic bliss isn’t what you want. You’re all so so sad that you don’t get to spend time cleaning up cheeto stains from the men who dropped out of life because you wimmen decided that you’re suddenly real human beings! And it’s all your fault. *foot stomps*”
I’m… I’ve never been this hurt before. I thought that you would make sweet sweet love to me Lee. I thought we were going to get married and that I would wash your BVDs and that we’d have lots of manly sons. *weeps*
What exactly is the point here? Women are mean for not marrying people who aren’t educated to the same level as them (more realistically, of course, they often meet their future spouses at university)? Women are mean for taking up more than half the university places? What?
Incidentally, I wouldn’t normally presume to speak for the other, more regular commenters here, but I can pretty confidently assure you that you won’t find people here talking about anyone needing to “man up.”
I didn’t mean it as an insult, but it’s undeniable that a radical feminist is less appealing to men in general, especially the sorts of men they tend to be attracted to. The last thing I’m going to do is hitch my wagon to some girrrl who thinks she has every right to bail on her responsibilities at the drop of a hat, or who thinks that the entirety of societies problems are due to men. I love women, just not a fan of feminists.
The point was that if you remove the incentives that appealed to men for certain roles, i.e. marriage or the military, they tend to decline the privilege of partaking. In the case of the military, that’s a problem precisely because so few women are interested in taking on those roles.
So lee coye actually believes that all women want to get married?
Oh, so you didn’t mean it as an insult, you just thought it was incredibly important to report to us what you find appealing in a sexual/romantic relationship?
Well, I’m sure we were all dying of curiosity! What’s next, a discussion about your sexual hangups or your fitness strategies? I can’t wait. This whole women in the military thing was getting boring.
quoting myself for clarification:
Then the problem of involuntary service becomes even more pronounced, and suddenly a “choice” is now an “obligation”, and if integration in front-line units results in a loss of efficiency, that obligation begins to carry with it a terrible price.
Is that why you keep ignoring me when I reply to you on topic, like in 781?
I think the vast majority of both sexes are very interested in finding someone they’re sexually and emotionally attracted to and settling down, maybe raising a child or three. None of you are interested in that?
Only in your sexist mind. There are no problems for integration of women into front line combat except those you imagurfacure, giving us prima facie evidence of your lack of rationality in the subject, which makes your OPINIONS *FLOOSH* nothing but toxic sexist waste to be disposed of.
Try starting with the idea you can be and are wrong….
I dunno Sally, I’m pretty damn intrigued about in what kind of men I’m interested in. I’d really like to know.
I’m also interested in finding out how I often refer to myself as a “girrl”. And which responsibilities I believe I have the right to bail on at the drop of a hat. And how I’m definitely heterosexual.
All very interesting things. I’m listening Lee.
*bats eyelashes* *looks on in eager anticipation*
Not higher status, though an argument could be made, but equal status. College graduates tend to want to marry other college graduates. This isn’t some bizarre MRA talking point, just ask a college graduate.
Yes.
What has this got to do with marriage?
Regardless of what it is I want, what I DON’T want is for my choices to be restricted just because a.) I have a vagina and b.) Lee thinks that the majority of people who have vaginas don’t want the things I do.
Again we’re back to the “If most of them can’t then none of them should be allowed to.” Only now it’s “Most of them don’t want to so none should be allowed.” The reasoning is equally fallacious.
Sexism: the logic-killer.
that’s ass-backwards. the trend for college educated women is actually going up. they’re becoming more likely to get married than in the past.
lol. oh yeah, the poor radical feminists, pining fo rthe manly men who reject them.
lee’s divorced from reality; probably because she was a radical feminist, too, so he had to reject her. :-p
Can be was conceded at the outset, and repeatedly since then. Maybe you missed that? Or perhaps you missed the part where we all, more or less, agreed that we don’t have the information to say I am wrong.
Y’know, the first half of the thread?
amazingly enough, you can do that without getting married. you can also do that with getting married and then getting divorced again.
Alpha males, Nepenthe. I hear that’s a thing. Supposedly we’re all attracted to them. Whatever they are.
If that was the totality of my argument, absolutely. I think that if most can’t, and other reasons exist that may, or may not (depending on the evidence), be detrimental to more important concerns (I know, nothing exceeds social justice, but one must try), then it would be a bad idea to integrate.
I think it was established that your “support” for Panetta’s decision was really concern trolling.
Your face is different but you’re really all the same
I have to teach you a lesson again and again
So you admit you have no problem building your arguments on fallacious reasoning. It’s fallacious, but it’s okay, because these other parts of the argument are valid, see?
Sexism: the logic-killer.
You haven’t demonstrated that these “more important concerns” will be harmed by the inclusion of qualified women, or that if they are, the exclusion of said qualified women is a better answer than the exclusion of the troublemakers.
Equally amazing, men aren’t interested in half-assed commitments like that. Moreover, study after study demonstrate the deleterious effects of single-parent households on children. So even if a third of single mothers weren’t substituting the government for a second parent, the children of single-parent families are manifold more likely to fall prey to a slew of social problems.
This still misses the point of my bringing it up in the first place. When men look at a situation that has higher costs than benefits, or which holds little to no benefit to them in the first place, they look elsewhere. Women do this too, of course, this isn’t a bash on either gender. It’s a response to the “who gives a fuck about what men want” argument.
I can’t, so I support integration to test it out.
All 3.5 billion of them.
50% of an argument is fallacious 100% of the time. Fuck off.
Sally, are those the ones with the bright red buttocks or the ones with the elaborate call that includes mimicking a camera shutter? I can never tell.
Oh please Lee, please tell me what kind of men radical feminists are attracted to. I need a good laugh today.
And I wouldn’t touch your idea of an alpha male with someone else’s ten foot pole. Not. My. Idea. Of. An. Ideal. Mate. By any stretch.
Again, I don’t like to speak for others, but I suspect this blog isn’t exactly populated by the Ladymag target audience. So your “women just want to find a MAYUN to marry and make babies with and they’re lying if they say they don’t” bs really isn’t going to fly. Some women here want that. Some men here want that. Some trans people here want that. Some of each don’t. None of us (I think) believe that either wanting to or not wanting to is more correct.
So saying I’m concerned that doing X might have a negative impact on Y, but lets try it anyways, is just concern trolling?
Sexism: the logic-killer.
When you have zero evidence for X having a negative impact on Y, which you admit is the case, then yes. That is the precise definition of concern trolling.
Note also the fallacious conflation of “unmarried” with “single.”
I can’t, so I support integration to test it out.
You can’t, but you’ve spent two pages arguing about why you THINK it won’t work anyway, and eventually admitted that it’s just about your manclub thing.
If you support integration to test it out, then why all the half-assed reasons to think it won’t work?
If you have those reasons (wrong-headed as they are) why are you willing to risk them by testing it out?
who the fuck are these “men” you’re talking about. none of the men i know believe in the fairytale of “marriage is forever”, and none believe that the only meaningful relationships are those that last forever and/or are certified by the state.
false dichotomy, honeycakes. also, the effect only works on single-parent vs. happy marriage. divorces are better for unstable homes.
interestingly enough, that’s statistically not true. men across a number of countries are more interested in marriage than women are, and more men than women think married people are happier/better off than unmarried people. looks more like it’s the women who are “looking elsewhere”
pumpkin, just because you are incapable of telling the difference between “men” and “raging bigots”, doesn’t mean we can’t. We certainly don’t give a flying fuck about what the bigots want, so if they prefer to not join the military or get married because they have to deal with women as equals, that really works out better for everyone. Men in general on the other hand aren’t all raging bigotted assholes, and won’t react the way you project on them. Especially not in the long run.
Whoops. Wrongtag.
Wait… so men aren’t interested in making babies with women they aren’t married to. So… where did all those single parents come from?
Yes, now that marriage is starting not to resemble the purchase of a live-in maid and Real Doll for men, they’re no longer interested. I must go get some artificial tears so that I can weep both for these poor men and the unlucky women who never get to marry them.
Who said alpha male? Further, I said both men and women desire these unions, but it’s steadily losing the appeal for men (and there are many reasons for this).
Stupid women who get themselves knocked up all alone because it’s all their responsibility. Duh.
sperm theft. d’uh.
that’s still backwards. if anything, it’s “losing appeal” to women faster than to men.
I kinda want to know, too.
… the fuck did I just read?
You’ve kind of wandered away from anything resembling a point, haven’t you, lee coye? Hang on, I need popcorn for this.
I’m interested, tell me more.
I said alpha males, Lee. I was just guessing. Please do explain to us the type of men we radical feminists prefer to bone.
Whoops. Sorry. I got the wording from Sally, but considering all your talk about masculinity and the sort of behaviour you’re ascribing thereto, I could probably extrapolate from that something that would pretty closely resemble the widespread concept of the “alpha male” as an ideal. You said something about men (by which I guess I assumed you meant your type of hypermanly man) not being attracted to radfems, and radfems being attracted to men who aren’t attracted to them.
I extrapolated. I may have been wrong, which I guess I’ll see when I refresh.
*And actually, I’m not even a radfem. But I suspect what you call a “radical feminist” is just a garden variety feminist.
Fat, insecure, poor, unhygienic slobs.
FWIW, in my experience, “it’s undeniable that a radical feminist is less appealing to men in general”, this is true.
It is a feature, not a bug. Okay, it’s more of a nice bonus then a feature. But still, very true, very nice.
It’s the little victories that make the fight worth it.
How long ago were you discharged?
from Gubernskaya, Z. (2008). Changing Attitudes toward Marriage and Children in Six Countries. :
*”traditional” here refers to how they answer on questions about importance of marriage, whether it should be lifelong, whether unmarried people live empty lives, etc.
**meaning all countries in this study: US, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, UK, Ireland
lol.
and so… you say that these slobs are “especially” not attracted to radfems? and on what do you base the assumption that this is the type of man that makes radical feminists all tingly?
this is ridiculously fascinating.
Remember earlier, when you said something about how I can’t tell when someone is making fun of me? Riiiiiiiight back atcha, buttercup.
Thanks for the info on marriage, though, very interesting.
’06.
dude, i don’t know if you’ve noticed, but no one here has been taking you seriously for quite a while now. this is just entertainment by poking at the toad now.
Phew, sorry for the delay in response Lee, but I was busy furiously masturbating to the ideal man you described.
I was so hoping that you’d give a serious answer, but I suppose no one can eat enough to spew endless amounts of bullshit.
oh, so you too have a poster of Comic Book Guy hanging over your bed, then?
So, which arguments has Lee tossed out so far:
1. Ladyparts leak! Gross!
2. Most women can’t carry a lot of weight, therefore all women should be excluded from combat, much like most men are relatively tall and heavy and therefore all men should be excluded from flight duty.
3. Unit cohesion!eleventy! Also the reason that we should exclude the gays.
4. Defense capacity!
5. You silly ladypeople and feminist lapdogs aren’t volunteering!
6. Fertility!
7. Special man place!
8. Aggressive manly nature!
Any others that I’m missing? Any that weren’t thoroughly taken apart, stomped on, and buried?
Mmm… Comic Book Guy. The arrogant pedantry. The rude and judgmental nature. *sighs* I’ll be in my bunk.
Oh. I was hoping for…something.
*sigh*
Looks like my first extended troll-kicking has fizzled out unsatisfyingly. *prods* :(
[meta]
la tricoteuse, relax.
lee cove is a manly man, surely he won’t just run off with his “tail” between his legs?
(I mean, it’s not like manly men are cowardly cowards when it comes to verbal combat, right? ;) )
Maybe he’ll come back if we all stroll away, whistling nonchalantly, and hide behind a tree or something so he thinks we’re gone.
Looks like it’s taking the others a little longer to recover from their orgasms. I’ll wait.
lee coye, your passivity becomes you.
Missed this:
Aside from my own experiences, we can add the performance of J. Lynch’s ill-fated encounter with an organized enemy, and a similar non-segregated unit’s encounter with the same degree of competition.
You’ll have to bug Pat for the source, he declined to link.
This is to be placed in contrast with the study I helpfully linked earlier, and the example of one BN in the IDF. Oh, and a survey that indicates men are enthusiastic about having more women in the ranks (at least until they’ve served with them).
Jessica Lynch, and the same studies that have already been addressed? Right. Let’s not forget, not only do you not have evidence to support your “concerns,” all the assumptions underlying these “concerns” are based on sexist assumptions, long since debunked, about the nature of women and men.
So yeah. Definitely concern trolling.
Many years ago I was an infantry soldier during the Vietnam War. I was 5’6″ and 130 lbs, which is average height and weight for a woman. I was expected to carry a ruck, four canteens, a weapon, and miscellaneous things, some of which went bang, and hike for hours in mountainous jungles, often in high temperature, high humidity conditions. I was able to do that.
Since I have dangly bits between my legs, lee coye will probably accept this. If he was in the military then he saw other small, light men carrying their part of the load. He just doesn’t believe that a similarly sized woman could function in that environment.
That’s so cute.
It’s like visiting a second reality. You said something(anything) about it, ergo, false.
I mean, still with the concern trolling, after noticing that the vast majority of women don’t want these roles opened(cause fuck ’em, most men want them in these roles). Still ignoring my rejoinder to your questions about the differences following that realization. Still blah blah sexist blah blah, like that has anything to do with it.
It’s kind of like watching an engine try to run with water in the fuel. You get a nice head of steam going, I respond, and bam, water in the lines and you sputter off for ten comments about lalalalala he’s sexist isn’t this so fun lalalala. Then you get serious again, assert by fiat that this monkey-see-monkey-do routine has some sort of validity and all my arguments have been flattened. I respond, water in the lines, and the backup singers take it away for a dozen comments.
No comment on my characterizing your “ideal bone”? No comment on involuntary service? No comment on the studies?
Nothing of substance. Again. When you get that water out of your lines, I’ll be waiting.
I believe they can, but you passed the physical standards required to get in. Why can’t they? They haven’t changed, your emo ass did it, what’s the problem?
lee coye, you’re an object of fun because (as I’ve already noted) every one of your objections was made in regards to women firefighters and women police.
(I also noted you’re running scared because the last of the male bastions are crumbling. Heh.)
See, sally? The backup singers are at it again, and you’re nowhere in sight.
Gee, who would have thunk such a “hero” would stoop so low. I doubt if concern trolling appears in the “hero” handbook.
From my comment at 623, which did indeed include a link:
I’m not sure if you’re trying to prove a point with that, since the CSIS study your approvingly-linked debater referenced went on to note, in some details, that leadership failures were strongly implicated in unit cohesion problems, and in fact, units with the best leadership had the least (or even zero!) impact from seeing dem uppity wimminz.
The poking it with a stick fun seems to be dying down, but let not my linking be questioned!
[OT]
Phoenix Program
(A proud tradition!)
Well Lee I missed a lot of this but I’m glad you’ve finally started to be true to your feelings. You’ve made it clear it was never about the strength of the military and all your raging Misogyny. It took you a couple days to finally show your true colors, but I never doubted you could be true to yourself. Now Flounce you magnificently hateful person back to AVFM and serenade them with tales of how you stuck it to the mean ol radical feminists.
More seriously Lee, I’m a guy and every time you talked about what “Men” believe you also said something completely contrary to what I believe. But then again I’m just a “mangina” right? Yeah, Jadehawk was completely correct.
You’ve said nothing of substance for days. But then, that requires more than your misogynic OPINION, and the OPINIONS of similar fuckwitted idjits. Funny how you never, ever, cited real impartial EVIDENCE…Loser…
Aw, he’s sad that I didn’t respond to his comment about my the men I desire, who reject me all the time. That’s sweet.
As I noted, Lee, your “concerns” have been dealt with, several times in some cases. You have a smidgen of evidence that the presence of women hurts unit cohesion, but you are far more concerned about this than the must more prolific evidence that the strongest factor in unit cohesion is leadership.
Classic concern trolling: ignoring the real problem in favor of drawing attention to a fake problem, and disguising your true motives for asserting it’s a problem. Yup.
Your comments clearly reveal that you’re sexist, and that your irrational prejudices are the real reason you’re raising your “concerns.” Not only that, but you have revealed yourself to be a hypocrite: you couch your concerns in the language of patriotism, yet you say you’re willing to run a risk that, by your own estimation, could severely damage the military’s ability to defend the country (let’s not get into the really not-at-all defensive role the military plays these days). Either you don’t believe your own hype about the “concerns” you have, or you’ve been lying all along about how deeply you care about the integrity of the armed forces.
That’s really all there is to it.
FWIW, I do know some such men.
‘Course, they tend to be fundamentalist Christians who think that their masculinity 100% depends on women submitting to them so abasely that a woman giving him directions to a place he’s never been but she has is potentially threatening to his god-given headship.
Also, that should really read like this:
Lee Coye:
So, your issue is that a private first class who was (IIRC) a mechanic on her first tour was unable to do the duty of a more experienced infantryman?
Um…
(Also, I’m gonna point out that the media-hype version of what she went through and what actually happened are kinda not the same)
Incidentally, I’m gonna toss out a pair of names: Lori Piestewa and Shoshana Johnson. Care to comment on them?
@ SallyStrange:
Mildly disconcerting to have you quote me then address Lee, but I got over it rapidly. :)
Said it upthread, but I’m still rather impressed by the speed with which the commentariat here picked up on … certain themes, but then, I guess you all have a lot of practice.Though commenting at AVFM is something that certainly takes away potential benefit of the doubt…
Esteleth, why are you confusing the poor man by talking about women who aren’t cute, white ladies? He’s clearly having enough trouble as it is.
@Patrick
It’s sort of like listening to opera. Once you’re familiar, you can pick up the “bitchez ruined marriage!” motif or strains of “superiority through bench press” through the rest of the orchestra.
Y’know, I just realized something.
Lee Coye complains about a few well-known incidents of female soldiers not being “good enough.”
In the same thread, he is told repeatedly of a documented problem whereby female soldiers struggle to be recognized for their deeds.
Might these two facts be connected somehow?
Also, if PFC Lynch is representative of all female soldiers, then I’m just going to say that all male soldiers are genocidal maniacs. Because William Calley was. That is how that works, right? Pick one, declaim that they are “typical” and go from there?
No. A mechanics unit is being compared to a mechanics unit, both with roughly the same experience, both facing a moderately well-equipped force. The difference between the two was the well-documented reductions in training and fitness standards for co-ed units. The co-ed unit got destroyed, an Lynch captured. The all-male unit…didn’t. It’s far from a large sample, but it’s about the best we’ve got in this era of glorified police work.
There are a lot of things we could say about each unit. The all-male unit was marines, the co-ed was Army. Perhaps the leadership of the co-ed unit was shit, or the leadership of the all-male unit was top notch. Perhaps the enemies faced by each unit were not similar, or one just got a lot of lucky shots. There are a lot of games we can play to make the comparison favorable to our point of view, it might even be fair to say my interpretation is a game, but it does present a prima facie case against co-ed units, and clearly demonstrates what is at stake in these discussions.
I didn’t say it was Jessica Lynch’s fault. I’ve pointed to training and fitness changes that threaten the readiness and efficiency of our military, by changing the overall fitness of units that have to accommodate the (apparently) reduced capacity of women.
short lee coye:
NO! NOT THE MARINES! I NEED MY TREEHOUSE FREE OF COOTIES!
lee cove, can you explain how fitness helps when one is in a vehicle which runs into an ambush?
fix’d to account for arguments answered:
firefighters, lawsuits, see above
fairness in leadership is salient, see above
And in this idealized world where military effectiveness is measured in joules and combat units compete via arm-wrestling and tugs-o-war, and possibly flexing contests, those arguments might have made sense.
(Heck, excessive upper-body mass actually reduces an individual’s carrying capacity…)
Pteryxx: even if you thought those arguments had been answered, why do you think it’s productive to just point that out, rather than facing the arguments that haven’t? Your entire response deals with a single sentence of mine, in one of my longest posts to date.
Service-wide standard modifications in all integrated units because women couldn’t pass the tests is not like NYFD “artificially” raising the standards, stop being delusional. The people that know what they’re talking about (even Panetta, for the moment), opposed them then and oppose them now. The training is designed for encounters where you cannot rely on air/fire superiority, where it often does come down to the most brutal of human contests.
Two mistakes are made here. The first is to assume that the standards were “artificially raised” in the military, a claim that bears no resemblance to reality, and has steadfastly been un-cited from the moment it first emerged to now. The second is to assume that our recent “adventures” in Iraq and Afghanistan give us anything like an accurate picture of what human conflict will look like in the future. You don’t train for the easy ones, you train for the hard ones. Get that through your thick fucking skulls.
Yes, do see above, where I conceded that leadership is one factor in unit cohesion. The bare fact that it’s one factor does not mean that all other factors are thereby irrelevant. It’s also a non-starter in a discussion about this, because, while improvements in leadership can offset integration, merely admitting that there is anything to be offset is to endorse my argument.
Of course, irrespective of the quality of leadership, if soldier A is held to a lower standard of performance than soldier B, but A is afforded the same pay, rights, privileges, and promotion opportunities, soldier B will resent soldier A. Men who can’t handle the training tempo are booted, pure and simple, because to reward them for doing less than everyone else is the quickest way to a rift in a unit.
You’re an idiot. No one can sustain “excessive upper-body mass” and maintain performance in training. The mass gets burned off. We ran between 5 and 8 miles a day(as a warmup) during work up to one of our deployments (really for all of them, but this one was intense), and nobody does that while keeping “excessive” anything. The calorie calculations defy physics.
Right, as opposed to the “real” world where it’s a civilized game of backgammon that determines the victor. Not arm-wrestling, but arm-breaking; not tug-o-war, but martial maneuvers that utilize similar muscle groups.
The best fighters in the world train for the hardest fight they’ll ever have, why do you bobble-heads think the military should be any different? Of course there is an upper limit, you tune the training to the best you can milk out of the best human minds and bodies out there. If some of those minds and bodies are female, fine, but don’t fuck with the training or fitness standards.
I support Panetta’s “experiment”, but I oppose feminists who want to drop the standards to accommodate more women; I oppose MRAs (and support military women who are against it) who want to force women into these roles (robbing them of the choice to serve in billets they are more suited to); I oppose feminists who want to change the atmosphere of a successful military tradition for social reasons(potentially alienating more men than there will be women to replace them); I oppose MRAs who want to see more dead women alongside the dead males as a function of equality.
Gifs of small women hefting large men.
Made me think of you, Lee.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/truth-about-little-women-carrying-big-wounded-men-combat/61495/
SallyStrange
Do these little women contain vaginas?
hmmm?
Well, do they?
QED
Chigau –
Yes – therefore sand! Infections! Dirty!
You are right. Women shouldn’t be in the military.
Ah yes, the (helpfully) erect wounded. This is a very important response, as it is the perfect pirouette to an argument I didn’t make. I’ve done the fireman’s carry, I know how easy the standing lift is. Let me refresh your memories:
They’ve got gear to grab, they’re probably not standing. Most men can’t perform standard infantry tasks, so lets use our brains a little here and wonder, with a little sophistication, why small girls executing the fireman’s carry isn’t even a halfway decent response to my argument.
How many marines are you redistributing said fallen comrade’s gear among?
Maybe my math is flawed, but it sounds like five (if 100lbs of gear increases 20%, it becomes 120lbs? So you’re dividing the fallen dude’s 100lbs of gear five ways, no?). So…what…six guys in a unit?
Usually four in a fire-team, meaning one down will split the gear between 3 (pack, rifle/SAW, spare barrels, etc.). You don’t have time to do a lot of gear redistribution, so 20% is a lowball estimate. One guy gets an additional 180-200lbs, one gets 60-80, one gets 30ish, and you’d rotate that around if you’re moving longer distances.
The reason why people are sceptic or against women joining in combat is because just like with fire-fighters, police or similar jobs women will be exempted from the minimum physical requirements for whatever reason feminists can produce. They will be given lower standards and as such lower the effectiveness of military ability
Still waiting for evidence for the claims that women can’t hold their own in real life situations. All I see is excuses/concerns from macho sexists on why they are sexists. People are very good at saying “these standards should be met”. But are those standards realistic, or do they cut out too many people who can really do the job to keep the old-boy system running? The latter is usually what is reality.
Why not keep raising the standards even higher? Let’s accept in only people who can pull a truck with their teeth! Now that’s standards!
truthvsfeelings –
There are almost 900 comments on this post. Did it occur to you to maybe read them before saying something that stupid, just in case it was addressed?
P.S. Tell it to Israel. Asshole.
Lee:
So. If there are four guys in a team, and two are wounded, each guy would be capable of carrying 200lbs of weight plus the wounded guy? Because otherwise aren’t you banking on a maximum of one guy being injured?
-la tricoteuse
read some way to many to read all though
Also I like Israel they do it right, I simply stated why people are sceptic about it and how I think it’ll happen
Also what’s the point in insulting people really grow up
-la tricoteuse
read some way to many to read all though
Also I like Israel they do it right, I simply stated why people are sceptic about it and how I think it’ll happen
Also what’s the point in insulting people
Finding “asshole” more objectionable than “wimminz cant militry cuz weak. Femnist destroying army” isn’t what I’d call mature.
fuck lag
ok so my comp os acting up atm so its not showing my post then its duplicating it, also i didnt say women are weak I said that they wont be held to the same physical standards and the reason why I blame feminism for it is because thats who complains until the standards are lowered
And yet another notch on the belt for being able to diagnose a commenter’s type by their ‘nym.
I swear to Pete I commented a minute ago, something to the effect of “uuurgh read the commeeennnntssssssss *huffs*” and saying something about how very much I admire all of you who’ve been dealing with this for bloody ages, as I’ve only really been commenting here the past couple of days (apart from some odd random drive-by commentfests once in a blue moon over the past few years) and I already want to reshape my skull with the help of the nearest brick wall.
Something like that.
Are these realistic standards, or unrealistic macho standards? You haven’t proven they are realistic, only implied that they are. I, and a lot of us here, don’t think/feel they are real-life realistic.
And therein lies your fail.
Provide evidence to demonstrate that the standards actually correlate and are predictive of effectiveness. And take note of the historical record of how the standards have varied wildly with time.
You are indeed. At some point, you have to dig in and wait for support(vehicles/other units), or a medi-vac. As I said, there is an upper limit:
I would add to that the observation that if you don’t, your enemy will.
I find it genuinely hard to believe that you are skeptical of the link between training and fitness standards, and combat effectiveness.
Clarify, support.
truthvsfeelings
translation: I can’t be arsed to actually read the conversation up to now, so I’ll just vomit a whole load of unevidenced tosh which has already been spewed and dealt with multiple times upthread. And despite the fact that this particular little bit of drivel has already been spewed and dealt with multiple times upthread I still expect people to curtsey and tug their forelocks and pay attention to ME ME ME because reasons and also I are a speshul snoflak.
.
truthvsfeelings (and yes, Josh, this one really does wear its arse on its nym) – this is unconscionably rude of you. Now go back upthread and read, and then see if you have anything to say that has not already been spewed up and dealt with multiple times.
Having written a good portion of this thread, I don’t think he’s risking thread regression here:
This is basically what we’re on about now. Why don’t you tone down the tribalism and simply accept his comment as a comment.
Current military servicemen are required to carry 120 lbs of gear into battle, this ranges from medical supplies, ammo, food, water, ect. Would these supplies not be necessary for servicemen that may go days without being able to resupply and even more necessary in emergencies were resupply is not possible. While I am unsure if current standards are too high as there are medical reports of soldiers developing medical conditions from packs, I am sure that these supplies are necessary and currently there is no reliable way to carry this equipment other than the soldiers themselves. Also regardless if the standards today are too high they do need to be met and not modified because of gender as has been done in many other areas
Does.Not.Compute.
If they are too high, they don’t need to be modified?
i said possibly to high and yes they would need modification but because they cause medical problems not bc someone complains about them
Or, y’know, for both reasons. But it IS interesting that you interpret “pointing out unreasonable standards which were artificially inflated with the express purpose of excluding women” as “complaining.”
By “interesting,” I of course mean “entirely predictable and despicable.”
Who the fuck are you to decide what is and isn’t proper. If they are too high for medical reasons, they are too high period. And you haven’t provided evidence that the standards are proper and realistic, just given your OPINION it is the case. Your opinion isn’t EVIDENCE.
You know, if those three-quarter-size women were allowed into battle, they might have to take about a quarter less medicine, food, and water. (And if they were smarter in their use of ammo, maybe a quarter less of that, too.)
[I digress, though.] Lee cove … you’ve basically presented this as a combination of the free-rider problem with a whiff of Faustian pact.
Women serving in the US military get to free-ride training, overseas travel, university, blah, while relying on men to do the actual fighting.
Men serving in the US military accept this as the cost of maintaining some sort of hypermasculine bonhomie in their exclusive units.
Fair?
Line breaks. It’s 40 years since the \r \n wars broke out and I still can’t do them. *sigh*
@912
I started writing out a long clarification post, but realized I was just rehashing a lot of stuff I’d already said previously. To be honest, your comment was a real kick in the ass, because I need to collect all this stuff into one coherent document at some point, as I had planned to do (but keep procrastinating).
I don’t say women are free-riding, not because they don’t (just serve with some of them, and you can’t help but draw that conclusion about most), but because it’s not fair to assume all will or do. I’m being generous, here, in assuming that whatever women we find, they will all put forward the same effort, accomplish the same work, essentially “carry their own weight” so to speak.
The problem is, whether or not they can actually do so, the reduction in standards and training that inevitably result from integration (despite how patronizing that is), causes resentment from the other soldiers and marines, and ends up reducing the unit-wide training. This point dovetails with the current conversation, as we appear to be in disagreement over whether reducing training standards to the lowest common denominator is, or is not, the best way to train the best fighting force we can. I would have thought such a nonsensical argument would be self-defeating, but here we are.
As to the “hypermasculine” trope, there is some evidence to suggest that male-bonding in particular is an essential part of team-building for combat units (and our long history as a species speaks to the genesis of that ritual). There is some evidence to the contrary as well, which I helpfully provided in 586. The jury is still out on this as a matter of scientific fact, of course, but my own experience in both environments suggests that the sort of unit cohesion in all-male units is a different animal from that in co-ed units, stemming from romantic interactions, resentment over double standards, misbehavior that cannot be settled in-house, increased training injuries to women, and pregnancies, in the latter. Co-ed units more resemble an above-average office environment, complete with the “it’s just a job” attitude infecting the normally vibrant esprit de corps that characterizes the more intense, all-male units.
Noticing these things is akin to being sexist, but I firmly hold that there is quite a lot more on the line (no pun intended) in a front-line unit.
Does that clear it up?
Yes, phallus-shaped hazing paddles have been found with male skeletons in some of Homo sapiens‘ earliest known burial sites, along with clay tablets inscribed with what appears to be rudimentary pornography.
lee coye:
Well, duh. If combat units are all-male, then bonding necessarily means male-bonding.
(Sure, back in the day people grappled and punched and clubbed and stabbed each other, so bigger was better. These days, pointing the reticule and pressing the ‘fire’ button works wonders)
Yeah. You’re stuck in the past.
Hi. Life isn’t a video game. Thanks for playing, though.
Samantha Bee of the Daily Show takes on war zone bromance. It’s hilarious, and it’s about all Lee deserves: laughter and ridicule. Nope, life isn’t a video game but that doesn’t change the fact that size isn’t necessarily correlated with strength nor with the ability to perform the multitude of tasks necessary to maintaining a modern military.
Nope, not at all. Your unevidenced OPINION is *FLOOSH* sent immediately to the toxic waste center to be stripped of misogyny and other fuckwittery. You presented no third party evidence, which is the same as not posting. What part of you need to supply third party EVIDENCE in order to have an opinion worth considering don’t you understand? Your opinion will never, ever, be evidence. Especially after everything you have said to date is dismissed for lack of evidence?
Right, but strength is correlated with strength.
Correct. Without modifying the standards, the would certainly be women that qualified(though fewer), and would serve no doubt honorably and ably, in many roles in the military, including numerous combat support functions. I’m granting this for the sake of argument, whether or not I accept it, because we’re met here discussing a particular class of unit; namely, the front-line units, tip’o’the spear kind of folks.
Are you deliberately missing the point, or was Sam Bees’ consistently doing so just that infectious? I’m a little confused, though. You said women weren’t being recognized for their valor in combat, a claim I accepted because I’d heard it elsewhere, but GI Jane there listed out a few that had been recognized. I’m starting to wonder what you meant.
This is how, once the US Marines relieved the UK’s Marines, they … um .. made Afghanistan safe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMCoUeD78aM
.
just as you are deliberately not showing evidence and only presenting your sexist opinion which *FLOOSH* is disposed of unread. Citations are your friend. Try here, or shut the fuck up like a person of honesty and integrity would do…Which should be every soldier….Put up or shut the fuck up….
Nerd, you’re wasting your time. The only time jackass provided a citation with actual data attached, the data didn’t agree with him. Since he’s clearly incapable of even basic reading comprehension, let alone evaluating and understanding evidence, he’s literally incapable of actually having an informed opinion on any topic at all.
Would you mind putting this observation into some sort of argument? I can’t for the life of me discern the relevance.
Sorry, that was somewhat offtopic.
[offtopic]
Sangin is interesting. The Brits spent 2-3 years (and many lives) carving out an area of control, but apparently, not well enough, so they were relieved by the US Marines.
http://milesamoore.com/2010/12/12/us-humbled-in-bloody-sangin/
So they go to a strategy that you see in the first three minutes or so: blow shit up and bulldoze the remains. It’s a very direct and palpable application of force, I’ll grant you, but to me it seems to be lacking that that heartsy-mindsy thing …
Anyway. That’s Sangin.
—
[ontopic]
20 miles away in Nahr-e-Saraj, the newly-relieved Royal Marines (and attached forces from the Army) are in action.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/female-bomb-disposal-expert-dies-2270679.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/27/afghanistan-troop-deaths-mod-report
… which beg two questions: first, in a world of “attached” soldiers, is there such a thing as a single-sex “unit”? And second, in a world of asymmetrical warfare, is there a “frontline” anymore, in which the fighting should be restricted to men?
—
Anyway, *shrug*. They’re not stupid, they’ll figure it out.
Lee, if you want evidence, you provide evidence. Or you are nothing but hypocritical asshole. Which apparently you tacitly admit to being…
PZ better double tap when he shoots this zombie.
While these are both interesting questions, it still doesn’t answer the original question of relevance. But to stopgap the begging:
1. Yes. Attachments to a unit are not “part” of the unit. In one of the articles I linked, the female captain suggested an FEC attachment, which would operate like any other support BN, but attach like corpsman with their own combat loads and duties. This would be to facilitate searching female detainees, “heartsy mindsy” bits (if we’re assuming men are incapable of this); allowing women to “serve” on the front-line, significantly reduce or eliminate integration difficulties, and could be composed of far fewer individuals than front-line units, thus accommodating the likely lower numbers of women able to qualify into those arenas. They would have to keep up, but they could do so without having to submit to the interchangeability of the infantry model(which is how corpsman operate now).
2. Not exactly, but that’s not the point I”m making. I don’t suggest that women can’t fight, or don’t do so when necessary, only that integration into front-line units is probably a bad idea for reasons that have to do with the operation of the unit as a whole. Persisting in framing this as an argument about individual performance is grossly missing the point.
There are political, moral, and social reasons to reject my arguments. There are no practical reasons, however; no one has yet identified a benefit to be gained, even potentially, to offset the potential and the documented reasons not to do so.
lee coye:
Not until they start running out of bodies, anyway.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/07/marine-no-women-officers-volunteer-infantry-course-070212/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/25/few-female-marines-step-forward-for-infantry/?page=all
They’re gonna have to start signing up, and completing the training, before we can claim this as a reason. The training has been opened, experimentally, for 8 months or so. Apparently a grand total of two signed up for the most recent, and both washed out relatively quickly.
What’s interesting, though, is that this experiment was run in anticipation of a series of recommendations to Panetta about women in combat roles, including front-line positions, and despite the near-absence of interest, and lack of success, he went ahead and approved it anyways. One wonders if it was purely a political decision, based on the fact that denying would be unpopular, and opening them would be inconsequential, since few will ever volunteer and of those who do, none will pass.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/28/2-women-take-first-steps-to-front-line/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
We’ve got two more for the next class, out of 90 eligible. I wish them all the best.
Oorah!
lee coye:
One wonders why you oppose them having the opportunity since you think they can’t do it anyway.
Not many women are signing up for the army (geez, I wonder why, considering it’s full of men like lee coye), so let’s forbid the courageous few from even trying.
Such impeccable logic.
Henry V?! Act 4, Scene 3:
Much better! ;-)
Oh! I’d never noticed that before: “household words”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_Words
You learn something new every day.
@933
I like my quote, it better captures the impending challenge, rather than remembrance of the deeds after the fact. My one-way ticket to your postcard.
:D
LADY MACBETH
What beast was’t, then,
That made you break this enterprise to me?
When you durst do it, then you were a man;
And, to be more than what you were, you would
Be so much more the man. Nor time nor place
Did then adhere, and yet you would make both:
They have made themselves, and that their fitness now
Does unmake you. I have given suck, and know
How tender ’tis to love the babe that milks me:
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums,
And dash’d the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this.
MACBETH
If we should fail?
LADY MACBETH
We fail!
But screw your courage to the sticking-place,
And we’ll not fail. When Duncan is asleep–
Whereto the rather shall his day’s hard journey
Soundly invite him–his two chamberlains
Will I with wine and wassail so convince
That memory, the warder of the brain,
Shall be a fume, and the receipt of reason
A limbeck only: when in swinish sleep
Their drenched natures lie as in a death,
What cannot you and I perform upon
The unguarded Duncan? what not put upon
His spongy officers, who shall bear the guilt
Of our great quell?
MACBETH
Bring forth men-children only;
For thy undaunted mettle should compose
Nothing but males. Will it not be received,
When we have mark’d with blood those sleepy two
Of his own chamber and used their very daggers,
That they have done’t?
LADY MACBETH
Who dares receive it other,
As we shall make our griefs and clamour roar
Upon his death?
MACBETH
I am settled, and bend up
Each corporal agent to this terrible feat.
Away, and mock the time with fairest show:
False face must hide what the false heart doth know.
Your OPINION is irrelevant to any rational discussion. Since you won’t shut the fuck up, and have been constantly shown you are wrong with evidence, you seem to think aggressively getting in the last word is required for you to keep up your fee-fee. Which will never happen.