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.
I’ve got news for Ryan. You know that melodious chiming sound you sometimes hear, when a woman walks by? You know, the one that sounds like a special effect for magic on old shows like Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie? You know how—just for an instant—all the colors around you brighten and the air smells like pink bubblegum?
That’s women farting.
This reasoning is similar to that brought up by someone in the “Douche defends douching” thread a while back. Did you know that women have periods? Oh no! Really, that sort of thing is icky and it doesn’t belong in the military. After all, men have a difficult enough time staying clean, you really can’t add that sort of thing.
Yeah, Smith. Suck it up, Marine!
If the woman could shoot better, negotiate better, plan better etc. than the man she replaced, then obviously the answer is “more.”
Opportunity costs, dude – they are the secret to understanding life.
I will always remember a Second City routine I saw at least 20 years ago.
Two women soldiers on guard duty, talking about how the brass were thinking of allowing men into combat roles again. One said, “Can you imagine going on a mission with a man reading the map? Please!”
The other kept saying “Men: no threshold of pain. Useless f***ers.”
My wife used the latter for years after.
Actually, PZ, it’s even stupider than that. From the article:
He’s saying that it would be traumatizing to have to be naked in front of the “opposite” (I hate that) sex, and that to do so would cause irreparable harm through violating societal norms.
This is a soldier whose job it is to violate societal norms in the most grotesque ways possible by killing humans and splaying their guts all over the sidewalk. Talking about trauma from nakedness.
Depraved.
Any guy who has ever had a relationship (and i’m not counting weird stalkers) with a woman, knows they fart. They piss. They shit. They get smelly when they sweat. Just like us guys. It’s almost like we’re the same species.. It seems this guy either thinks that marines are eunuchs or he’s projecting his own idiocy onto them.
I’m a guy and I wouldn’t want to be packed into a tin can with a bunch of people and have some other guy (male or female) taking a crap inches from my face. I also wouldn’t want to stand around naked and scabby with a bunch of other men, much less with a mixed gender group. Perhaps having women in combat units would compel the military to treat all soldiers better, provide better facilities to address the “complete lack of sanitary conditions,” that sort of thing. I doubt it, but you never know.
My conclusion is that men are too delicate for service in the military, except maybe for a few specialized areas where their greater physical strength outweighs their psychological delicacy. So men should be limited to being privates and hauling heavy objects. Women, being more robust, are more suited to the higher paying and more responsible positions of leadership.
Robro:
Well then, it’s a mighty fine thing you have a choice as to whether or not to be in such a situation. Women would like that choice too, if you don’t mind.
Caine beat me to it, about the recent troll who complained that women were more filthy because of menstrual blood.
That douche defends douching was one contentious thread.
I think the main reason that women should not be allowed in combat is
cooties.
We can’t have our brave male soldiers getting cooties.
that would be disastrous.
and yucky
But Rev., there are cootie shots!
See, cooties lead to cootie shots which means more cost.
Case closed.
Well, except for my wife, who only sheds fairy dust and angel food cake, and smells like flowers.
Women can’t serve in combat roles.
If that happens, MRA’s can’t moan that’s it’s only men who gets professionally killed in wars.
It’s a feminist conspiracy to kill all the MRA’s talking points! What about ze menz1!1
(On a side note – I always forget – is it !1! or 1!1?)
If women are more filthy because of menstrual blood, that says to me that they are more ready than men to deal with the filth and blood of combat. Practice makes perfect, you know. These assholes can’t even follow their own idiocy to the logical conclusion.
Aside from that, I wonder how many female soldiers use the birth control pill that limits menstruation to 4 times per year? I assume most would find that extremely convenient.
Robro, I’m less concerned with the loss of privacy and unhygienic conditions than I am with the possible obligation to murder other human beings.
That would make me a wee bit uncomfortable.
The author isn’t a wimp. (Nor a wuss, for that matter.) He’s a romantic. Just like the Victorian era poet who married and on his wedding night beholding his wife naked for the first time, he realized that women have pubic hair – and was so disgusted he couldn’t proceed.
It was all those polished marble groins of Victorian nekkid female statuary that had, one gathers, led him down the primrose path.
Perhaps an even better term for the author of the quoted nonsense is “a delicate shy violet.”
Frog:
You can go without one at all anymore, which I imagine would be a high choice for women in the military.
Hey: It worked well enough in Battlestar Galactica………………
Oh, wait. That was science fiction.
And the Marines are the few and the proud.
This really boils down to simple bigotry based on outdated social taboos. And just imagine if the male ego were no longer in sole possession of The Macho!11!Eleventy
Of course we can’t have women in the military, they’ll insist on wearing high heels instead of combat boots, wearing pink instead of camouflage etc. “Bayonet charge? But my nails haven’t finished drying!” Hopeless. (the preceding statement was ironic)
But serious talk, there’s an MRA image floating around from the invasion of Normandy that has the words “male privilege” added to it, seems that they didn’t know there was a ban on women going into direct combat.
See, I prefer to dodge the argument altogether by simply pointing out that some of the most effective militaries in the world (e.g. Israel) have already taken the leap and it’s not a problem. We don’t need to debate whether allowing women to serve in combat will have a deleterious effect on morale, because we already know the answer: It won’t. Every woulda-coulda-shoulda argument becomes irrelevant in the face of hard data.
Yeah, because the military, and the troops who carry out the orders, never violate societal norms. Like, oh, not killing people. Not walking down the streets of town with automatic weapons, hand grenades, and tear gas grenades. Or not destroying an entire city block with an FAE because a sniper might be in one of the buildings. Or destroying an entire village to deny support to another group of people. Or forcing a person to run in place, roll in place, run in place, roll in place until they throw up. Yup. The military is always cognizant of, and fully in accord with, societal norms.
Caine — Not only do I not mind, I’m all for it. I supported the right of women to serve in combat during the Vietnam War…or should I say the right to get paid for serving in combat, because women have been serving in combat roles for a long time, perhaps forever, just not getting the pay.
PZ — I agree wholeheartedly, and I have my Vietnam Ware era CO status to prove it. The fellows argument is as ridiculous for men as it is women.
It also shows a rather remarkable ignorance of history, when one looks at the role women played in the French (and other occupied countries) resistance.
Another thing to keep in mind is that women have been serving in combat for a long while, but at non-combat pay and without the valor awards being available because they legally couldn’t be “in combat”. This goes a long way to easing that injustice, I hope, with the eventual rising on ranks these brave women deserve. Being in combat is a serious plus for advancement in the ranks that women have been denied.
With veterans killing themselves everyday, coming home physically and mentally maimed, it is so insulting to men in the armed forces to suggest that seeing a woman poop might cause them irreparable harm. You know what causes irreparable harm? Getting shot or blown up. The military expects that sacrifice of soldiers. If he can handle that, I think he can handle seeing naked women outside the context of his sexual desires.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone “naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn” gives a flying fuck who’s watching them.
Bring on the “pressure washers”*!
*I assume this means ‘hose’.
Sorry, Jamessweet. We may have data from other countries showing that combat effectiveness is not deleteriously affected by allowing women to serve in combat roles but that data does not apply to the United States because American Exceptionalism! Dontcha know that data from other countries (how to educate, how to keep healthy, how to help those in need) don’t apply to the USA! USA! USA!! USA!!!!?
Translation “menstruation is icky and I’m scared of it”. I believe that this argument was also used as to why women could never be astronauts…
… even as Valentina Tereshkova was orbiting around the earth, years before Sally Ride would take her first shuttle ride.
Or doing the shooting and blowing up, or just seeing the shooting and blowing up and the aftermaths.
(emphasis added)
But that’s absurd. If we paid any attention to the examples of countries who had tried things before us and based our decisions on data then we’d have gun control laws, pay equity laws, parental leave laws, socialized medicine… we might even be doing something about global warming!!
WHERE WOULD IT END?
@ 25 jamessweet
I’m pretty sure that most western militaries allow women in combat – the US has been the outlier, just as it was about allowing LBTG folks to openly serve.
On another note, when is the US military going to do something about the super-macho rape culture they’re poisoned with? The horror stories about US soldiers (and mercenary companies) rape other US soldiers are appalling. (All the civilian rapes are appalling as well, of course, but that’s not my point.)
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/speier-military-rape/index.html
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/04/08/at-war-with-ourselves-sexual-violence-in-the-military
I’m less concerned with the loss of privacy and unhygienic conditions than I am with the possible obligation to murder other human beings
It’s not an “obligation” it’s a “choice”
sebaceous glands do not secrete sweat. Sebum ≠ sweat.
/physiopedant
And that’s why there have never been women nurses tending to wounded soldiers.
I have to admit I actually like this piece. It’s like an anti-recruitment brochure.
Why shouldn’t women serve in the military? For starters, what kind of society or civilization allows their women to play GI Jane? Sounds like the Obummer government would shed few tears to enable the breakup of the family unit in a society that is already dysfunctional and going downhill fast. I fully respect women and they should have equal rights. But I believe women, and well as men, are being misled believing they are actually defending the frontiers of their nation by joining the military. More like defending the global banking cartel. Well if women really want equality, this time they’re going to get it in spades if one of them should happened to be captured in a Muslim country. And why does PZ Myers take a quote from the target-rich Moron Media? What a waste of time.
Let’s fight to get conscription extended to include women, so we can have a 50/50 representation in the military. Who’s with me?!
One that views women as human beings and not slaves used for breeding?
What’s also noticeable is the complete lack of interest in the living conditions of the Iraqi women and men whose basic public services and any semblance of security in their homes were destroyed in this invasion.
warispeace: Please stick to the topic. The position of “no one at all should be in the military” may be a valid one, but as long as we have a military, the question of how to handle gender disparity within it is the topic at hand.
—————-
Relevant but not directly on-topic: Yesterday Dr. Ruth Westheimer tweeted about how she was a sniper in her youth.
dumbest thing I’ve read all day.
Sure you do you little warrior for equality you.
#40 and #41
what was that wooshing sound?
Ruth Westheimer. . what a bad-ass.
Ogvorbis:
“Their” women? You mean as in “their” belongings? Aren’t you the rancid delight. Women are human beings. Shocking, I know. As for what kind of societies allow women in their military? Most of them, fuckwit.
Josh:
Seconded.
I heard that in a Wicked Snow Queen voice, a la, “Care for some Turkish Delight? “
@Marcus
#37
Well, it’s their choice to join a military (at least in US and other countries without conscription), depending on which part of the military they joined, they better have a reasonable expectation that they MIGHT have to shoot someone.
@warispeace
#40
Not sure if sarcastic or not…
Caine….
warispeace
Caine:
The quoted part was warispeace, not me. I responded to it but did not create it.
Infantry duty appeals to aggression, competition, physical fitness, and marksmanship (and in most cases a latent desire to kill people). If there are women out there with all those attributes and desires, and can meet the physical requirements, I’d rather have them in the military than loosing that aggression around town.
It’s my understanding that the risks of poor hygiene are higher for women, regardless of menstrual frequency. It’s not about “seeing” women pee or some such nonsense, rather, the concern is whether female biology will present a liability for the female during the sort of duty only infantry/shock/special troops endure.
Another concern is sexual politics. You can sneer all day long about men controlling their emotions, but the simple fact is that sexual frustration, jealousy, and even irrational devotion can cause disastrous rifts in units that can ill afford them, especially in units composed almost entirely of 18-19 year olds. That it’s obviously not the woman’s fault is irrelevant, unit cohesion is essential for mission readiness, and anything that harms one harms the other. For this and other reasons, I think frontline integration is a bad idea, especially for small tactical units.
That said, As a former marine myself, I say let them at it. I suspect this will be more like a belt-notch for feminism than a new career choice for many women, but since the wars are pretty much played out I don’t see why we can’t have a go at it. If the turnout is anything like when the IOC opened it’s doors to women(i.e. dismal), then all this pushback is just much ado about nothing.
warispeace – The issue isn’t whether women are in combat. They are, and they have been for quite a while. For example, there were considerable numbers of women in combat zones in WWII and in roles that resulted in them becoming casualties. However, because of the ban of women serving in “combat roles,” they don’t get paid the same for their risk that men do. In other words, this is the glass ceiling in action.
I would bet that Tammy Duckworth, who lost both her legs when her helicopter was shot down in Iraq and is the new Rep from Illinois, was not serving in a combat role when she was injured.
So much for the supposed stoicism and toughness of the manly marines. Afraid of girl cooties? Bunch of crybabies.
@Josh
#47
Also check out Soviet Union in WWII.
They’ve got a lot of female snipers.
Whenever someone said women can’t be in military because they’re too soft, I point to Soviet Union in WWII, specifically to Lyudmila Pavlichenko.
Speaking from some experience in combat, women can easily be just as effective as men in most combat roles. The only role where I’d hesitate to allow women is LRRP where each member of the small team has to carry alot of weight for long distances. There I’d have to have a woman wanting to do that job prove herself on a one to one basis. Frankly, I’d have had trouble with that. In general though, there is no rational reason women can’t do anything else, they already fly choppers into combat situations and, given the current state of warfare, everywhere is a combat zone. There are no front lines or rear areas. Past time to get with it.
Rev. BDC:
Oh, right. I suppose I must report to the ministry now.
Ogvorbis, apologies! I was responding to you in another thread, and…oh, I fucked up. Sorry.
Your understanding is incorrect.
I’m involved in wildland firefighting. Out in the woods, working hard for long shifts, being in the same clothing for days, no showers, no latrines, and yet women do quite well. So where is your data to support your ‘understanding’ for women soldiers?
Damn. I had no idea Marines were so weak and untrainable.
Is it completely and totally outside the realm of possibility that women, officers and enlisted, want to make a career of the military? That some women want to be on the front lines because that is what they want to do, not because it will be a ‘belt-notch for feminism’? What, those poor little dears don’t actually know what they want and are being manipulated by the evile feminists?
I’m a veteran. When I was in (20 years ago), the “big deal” was gays in the military. The arguments voiced in the media against gays serving in the military were just as unrealistic as those being used against females in combat roles. Troops would be demoralized, discipline would break down, they’d be a distraction in combat, etc. I’m sure the same arguments were used against integrating African American soldiers into white units back when my grandfathers served. But among us, all that really mattered was “Can they do the job?”. I’ve served with plenty of males in the military who were shiftless good-for-nothings who couldn’t be relied upon do perform their duties even when not in combat. I’ve also served with females who I would have been glad to have by my side in combat. So long as female soldiers in combat roles are not held to different (i.e. easier) standards of physical fitness, job performance, promotion, assignments, duties, discipline, hygiene, etc., they will be a welcome addition among the ranks of combat troops.
It happens.
Just keep your appointment for the Spanking Couch.
@lee coye
#54
Concerns that, more likely than not, can be solved by medical advances.
@PZ
I found the perfect response!
Note: Replace gays with women, same argument.
Unless they let in men who can’t carry that weight, I bet there is a lot of testing done before a person is admitted.
Ogvorbis:
Oh, c’mon, you knew there’d be an authentic ManlyMan™ along to mansplain the whole situation to us sooner or later. I’m surprised it was later.
It seems she was – flying a helicopter (which she’d chosen to go into, according to WP, because it was one of the few combat options for women). But your point stands, and that’s not to mention civilians in war zones…
One further thought about the conditions described in Smith’s article: This is exactly the kind of degrading and dehumanizing treatment imposed on people in the military, particularly in combat, that can nudge them into dehumanizing other people (the “enemy”) to the extent that they commit atrocities.
We are going to be damned happy that we have women in combat roles when the Witch King of Angmar leads the fell armies of Mordor against us.
@bubba707
#58
The main point is that the military should treat women just as men. If the women can pass all the physical and psychological tests that the men took, then there should be no reason why she can’t “join the club”.
Not sure about LRRP, but I would believe that if a task is sufficiently tough, they would have a screening process right? Well, if a women can get through said screening process, then let her do it!
1. If one takes the idea of equality seriously then the justification for conscription — that there’s at times an obligation for a citizen to defend the homeland — then it applies equally to women. Even if one considers this obligation a bum deal — and perhaps justifiably so — it’s a principle thing. Not least because any woman seeking equality in any other aspect of society will be told to shut up and sit down because she doesn’t have a draft card. There’s also the fact that the justification for women being exempt from the draft — that they’re such charmingly delicate creatures — is itself pretty anti-equality.
2. If you’re against the draft then you’re against the draft. You probably won’t find too many arguments around here. Since we’re only shooting for equality of opportunity the 50/50 representation thing is a non sequitir. In the absence of conscription everyone would have an equal choice of whether or not to join the military. In the presence of conscription that is not true — men may potentially not have a choice in the matter. Hardly egalitarian.
Snarky comments assuming everyone shares your values are usually…not a good way to convince anyone of anything.
I remember the hysterics against the idea of gay men serving in the military when Clinton was elected. I tried to argue in favor of the idea once with a few friends when I was in high school (one was a devout Catholic and a devout Ditto head, the other was raised as a Pentacostal) and they literally shouted me down, insisting that gay men would be looking at other dudes naked in the shower and that just would not stand.
I tried to point out that if a gay soldier sexually assaulted another soldier, then that would be something to get upset about, but that’s already against the law, and with all the homophobia going on, I doubted that many would try that out of self preservation. Since then, I’ve learned that the US military has an absolutely shameful record of covering up and excusing sexual misconduct of all kinds, particularly those committed by men against women (fellow soldiers as well as civilians), so maybe the problem is all those heterosexual men, not the women or the gay men.
Anyway, this guy’s exact argument is the twin of the “oh noes teh gays will be looking at my pee-pee in the shower and they might be enjoying the view which is gross and wrong and should not ever happen” only twisted around to focus on the author’s fear and loathing of women rather than gay men.
bubba707:
Well, you see, women come in all sizes and strengths, just like
human beingsmen.they better have a reasonable expectation that they MIGHT have to shoot someone
They might be placed in a position in which they have a choice whether or not to shoot someone.
One of the ways that human beings are manipulated by the militarists is to place them in situations in which they have the “choice” to kill others to survive, or to die themselves. But this does not somehow make those choices OK. When you read accounts of warfare, you’ll often see soldiers say something like “I had to kill him, he was shooting at my team-mates.” Well, the problem is that if a soldier and their team-mates have been dropped into someone else’s place in a war of aggression what is happening is they’re shooting back at someone who is trying to defend themselves. In other words, the aggressor is justifying killing their victim by the fact that their victim tried to defend themself. F’in sweet.
Marcus, the topic here is about sexist attitudes towards women in the military. If you want to discuss other aspects of war, take it to Thunderdome, please, rather than derailing yet another thread which is supposedly about women. We really don’t need to be shoved to the side in this conversation too. Thank you.
Whenever someone said women can’t be in military because they’re too soft, I point to Soviet Union in WWII
Yes. Many women crewed T-34s including in combat. So perhaps an answer to those men who are concerned that a woman doesn’t have as much physical strength is, “Then let her command the Abrams.“*
There was a unit of Soviet scout pilots that the Germans called “The Night Witches” – they were some fearless badass indeed; they flew these ancient biplanes that belonged in a museum not a battlefield.
(* Soviet tanks require pretty serious physical stamina to operate. A buddy of mine collects old tanker gear and he was showing me his Soviet stuff from WWII – apparently you pretty much acted like a marble in a can, when the tanks went over stuff and in combat there wasn’t a lot of time to pick a gentle path. So instead of making tanks with more comfortable interiors or suspensions, they padded the tankers. So instead of whanging around in there, it was just meaty thumps. Solution!)
Stated as if they are immutable laws of nature, rather than often grossly unjust social constructs that can and should be changed.
So was the maintenance of the ‘societal norms’ that surrounded and sought to justify slavery. Many people pushed back against the civil rights movement on the same basis that it violated important ‘social norms’. The official designation of homsexuality as a mental illness up until the Seventies was also very important to many people who didn’t want to deal with the fact that gay people simply had a different, but equally valid, sexual orientation, and would rather institutionalise them and forget that they existed. Denial of marriage equality today is considered vital by bigots to the defence of one of the most influential social norms of all – marriage. The maintenance of socially madated gender norms lies at the heart of misogyny, including those forms that kill women by denying the access to proper health care and abortion services.
The maintainence of societal norms that confer social privilege is always important to those who benefit from that privilege, but even if those who possess such privilege actually are more numerous (rather than simply being the more vocal and visible in society) this is still no reason to maintain toxic social tropes that foster discrimination. Unless one’s goal is the creation of an oppressive tyranny of the majority, that is…
So blowing people into a bloody mass of shredded meat and bodily fluids is just an aspect of the job that you live with, but having to perform a natural bodily function in front of another professional soldier who happens to be a woman, or witnesssing the reality that women are actually people with bodily functions that do not differ over much from those of men, is ‘humiliating’ and ‘traumatising’? Talk about toxically inverted priorities.
He clearly has a low opinion of the professionalism of his former fellow military personnel if he doesn’t think they can handle something so comparatively banal. Should people who are so weak willed (according to Smith) really be given combat training and armed with military grade weapons?
I wonder whether ths talk of being ‘traumatised’ by being confronted with the reality that women are living beings rather than ambulatory statues, along with all the other ridiculous arguments against women in the military, doesn’t hide a far simpler reason for the opposition that links back to gun culture.
If the gun is a penis substitute central to the type of toxic masculinity that defines itself through a capacity for violence, then seeing a woman – one of the ‘lesser’, disempowered ‘sex class’ in the eyes of those who buy into such a misogynistic culture – in possession of a firearm and the training to use it – not in theory but in practice, not in rare, extreme cases but in day to day operations, and with the full endorsement of the military system that was formerly a preserve of toxic, patriarchal definitions of masculinity – might be very threatening to such a person’s sense of self, social privilege, and intenal concept of their own masculinity. To them, a woman being taken seriously in what they view as an eternally a male role is very frightening indeed, but they know that saying that openly tips their hand, so they fabricate increasingly bizzare excuses why women are unsuited to frontline military service.
Sorry, Caine. You’re right.
Sure. So in 2100 when China invades and we have to use the draft again, we’ll be totally set to have equal conscription rates.
Sure, or do you prefer a 50 percent draft capacity in the face of the scarecrow danger with a skin colour of your choice?
notfromvenus @79
Such bravery, willing to fight for equal responsibility and sacrifice for women 100 years from now.
SC
I know the outline of her story (from the election), but was Duckworth serving in a “combat role” as defined by the DoD when she was injured? I find the language in WP and elsewhere ambiguous on that point. Obviously she was in combat, but that doesn’t mean the DoD considered her technically in a combat role. I’m sure you know how the DoD can slice and dice terminology. This particular ban has been in place for 20 years, so it’s possible she trained for a combat job and did a combat job, but still wasn’t eligible for the pay of a combat role. Or, I suppose there could be some sort of exception to the ban.
Lachlan:
Cupcake, you have no room to talk. You have yet to say one intelligent word on the topic of women since you first set foot here. You didn’t even manage to notice that this post is not about the draft, fuckwit.
Months, not days, and often in NBC suits (moreso now, thanks to “medical advances”). I’m no doctor, nor a woman, so I’d accept that I might be wrong about that concern (or that medical advances could alleviate that).
Marines are humans, just like the rest of us, with all the weaknesses and natural instincts and proclivities we find outlets for in various ways that aren’t accessible to marines in theatre. Even if you suppose that it’s all “socially constructed”, 13 weeks at age 18 isn’t going to reverse the previous 18 years of “construction”.
Thank you #29, for being first to note that women are already serving in combat.
This may not be common knowledge, but surely Ryan Smith is well aware. Since he never indicated that he wanted those women removed can I just assume that he wants to keep women from the good paying jobs, career paths, etc…oh, and of course that whole nekkid thing.
Gnumann:
Surely you didn’t expect intelligence from someone with the nym “notfromvenus”? ;D
Caine @ 83
Why of course it’s not about the draft! It’s always about providing choices and opportunities, but never about responsibilities.
Lee:
Oh goody, it’s ‘rape nature’, not ‘rape culture’. You’re wrong. So, tell us, do all those marines start raping one another, given their weaknesses and natural instincts and proclivities? Because if that utter shit is true, that’s what would be happening.
As for that “socially constructed”, why yes, it is. And perhaps those who lead the military could act like fucking adults and address the problem of men raping and do something constructive, like tell them it’s not okay to do that. Golly, this shit is so hard.
:eyeroll:
Caine, I wasn’t talking about rape. I wasn’t condoning, excusing, or explaining rape. I wasn’t thinking about rape, I wasn’t alluding to rape, I wasn’t making rape jokes.
Read what I wrote, what I was responding to, please. It’s a short thread, how about 10% more effort, eh?
You’re wrong.
You can apparently teach a man to murder in cold blood, but you can’t teach him to respect* women.
*no, not that kind of “respect”, you fuckwit who wants to answer with something about chivalry and men not wanting to see women pissing/wounded/naked/in combat being respectful, or some crap like that
-Golda Meir
If a Marine cannot stop zirself from raping, ze does not belong in the Marines. Full stop.
nightshadequeen:
I expect that if the military stopped turning a blind eye to rape in the military, addressed it and fully punished rapists, why, rape culture in the military would change! *gasp*
And the sanitary reasons you give for why women cannot be in combat are exactly, to the letter, the same reasons women were told they could not work on Type 1 or Type 2 handcrews. CDF, NFS, NIFC, NPS, BLM, and all the other agencies with wildland fire responsibility were wrong. So are you.
@Lachlan
You do realize that there’s no conscription in the US or the UK or any other English-speaking country (excepting, bizarrely, Bermuda,) and that there hasn’t been for at least 40 years – right? Yeah, men in the US have to register for the Selective Service – but at this point, it’s pretty much an empty gesture (and I’d be fully in support of ending the requirement.) In the very unlikely event that the draft were to be reinstated any time soon, there would be some massive social upheaval and there would almost certainly be many calls to include women.
In other words, I certainly can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised if many here would fully support both men AND women being drafted – if such a situation were to arise. Of course, I personally strongly oppose anyone being conscripted, male or female.
I know there are still (unfortunately) some developed countries that still have male-only conscription (like Norway, Austria, Switzerland, etc.) – but they’re not forcing anyone to serve in international combat zones, so the danger for the average conscript is very, very low. Instead, they go through military training (or some alternative civil service) in their home country for 6-12 months and then move on with their lives. Yeah, it sucks that such an institution still exists in developed countries in this day and age – but the biggest problem isn’t that they don’t draft women, it’s that it’s a fucking waste of time for a vast majority of those who are conscripted. To make it worse, it’s a waste of time that legally perpetuates gender roles and inequality in places that sometimes pride themselves on their egalitarianism (not that women don’t still face many more inequalities in those countries, both governmental and societal.) That’s not somehow a condemnation of feminism – instead, male-only conscription is yet another example of patriarchy hurting both men and women. But the answer isn’t to start drafting women – the answer is to eliminate conscription entirely, except (perhaps) in the cases of the most dire national emergency (and in that case I’d fully support drafting both men and women.)
@Lachlan:
I already explained the “moral responsibility” perspective to you. Apparently you missed it because you’d rather trade insubstantial jabs than actually take a principled position and argue for it coherently?
Caine:
Crikes! I didn’t look at the nym really (that’s the reward from being a bad gnu and not addressing them I guess).
Also, I was too busy sniping at the subtle racism to notice.
Wait, is Lachlan pulling out this “men can’t help themselves they’re sexual predators by nature” bullshit?
Because that’s one of the most misandristic arguments I’ve ever heard.
Sorry, that was lee coye arguing that men are more like vicious animals than thinking, morally competent agents.
Regarding LRRP, I did say I’d have had trouble with that. Each candidate has to pass the training and screening. When I said letting women do that job would have to be decided one by one that’s the same way men qualify. If a woman wants the job and can meet the same qualifications have at it. It’s a tough, demanding and hazardous mission I’d never want. I also stand by my comment on there being no rear areas anymore. The whole war zone is battlespace now. That’s something Vietnam should have taught our leaders who still dream of fighting WW II style. Women will be a major asset in combat, have been a major asset in combat zones and will always BE an asset in a combat role.
Daniel:
That would be Lee, not Lachlan.
Yes, it is, however, it’s a standard anti-women in X argument, along with a standard rape apologetic. If the subject weren’t so serious, it would be amusing how much they miss that such arguments make them misandrist. (For all you ManlyMen™ out there, that means Congratulations, you’re a man hater!). The whole notion that men are mindless beasts who will rape anything that moves is an incredibly insulting one.
bubba707:
Okay. So why did you have to post that qualifier about women, if each candidate has to pass training and screening? Please think about why you did that.
Which is true for every single job in the military. There is no way I could become a helicopter pilot because of my eyesight. There is no way I could have gone psychowarfare because there is no way in hell I will ever throw myself out of an airplane.
Some of the comments on this story at WSJ are examples of “harumphing”. Kipling is being quoted.
The problem with those quoted in the original post, not to mention with some of the commenters, is that America is seriously f*cked up about sex. PZ is correct to point out that humans are hairy, sweaty, dirty, defecating animals, but thanks to what’s laughably referred to as “judeo-christian morality,” people have been taught that to see a naked human body is something they need to be ashamed of, and to fear in some unexplainable way. (I’ll leave out the part of that “morality” that teaches that women just aren’t as good as men in SO many ways.) If people—and particularly soldiers—were sexually sane, they might *like* looking at the naked body of whichever gender they’re attracted to, but it doesn’t have to go further than that, and such looking doesn’t have any universal consequence of any sort. It’s just a hairy, sweaty, dirty, defecating human body just like their own. And rest assured, familiarity WILL breed contentment.
Scottlesch:
Oh my. Talk about irrelevant.
What’s proposed is that they won’t be. Throwing up these superfluous disclaimers tends to have a well-poisoning effect – it suggests that what’s being disclaimed is a serious proposal that should be argued against.
He must be from Uranus.
thomasmorris @ 95
It’s not really relevant that we don’t currently have conscription. As you point out, the US still has Selective Service, which is male only, and is a very strong indicator that if/when conscription is reinstated, it would continue to be male only. I don’t hear anybody crying inequality about this fact, which is really my point. It’s not necessary to wait until the brink of war to challenge this. We could be challenging it now, but nobody is, and I am shocked about that!
For the record, I’m not against the draft. It’s a necessary constraint on freedom at times of war. I am simply pointing out that equality is not always about gaining power, about getting rights and freedoms. Sometimes it’s about gaining responsibilities. Oddly though, your average feminist tends to focus more on rights and freedoms bit.
daniellavine @ 96
Perhaps it’s my testosterone-damaged brain, but I really can’t see where you explained anything at all.
So, you have no problem with rampant rape apologia, but can’t say the word “fuck” straight?
You might want to look at your ethical priorities. They’re pretty wonky.
So…Lachlan, I guess you missed the bit on this very thread where at least one person said that no draft is better, but if draft, draft for all? Or are you too busy working yourself up into a lather over imagined responsibility-shirking by Ebil Feminazis ™ to actually address what actual people are actually saying right in this actual thread on this actual topic?
I don’t suppose you have any data to support this? That feminists are only interested in rights and freedoms and not in the responsibilities concomitant with full citizenship?
Huh? Here is my comment:
Notice I’m talking about perfectly acceptable behavior, the sorts of behaviors that occur in all walks of life. I’m not saying men are going to rape ’em. Men, and women, will drive themselves to distraction over one another, especially in the 18-20 age range. These are kids straight out of high school.
Again, though, I’m offering these concerns back-handedly, as I’m in favor of Panetta’s decision. However, I think that a certain proportion of women who sign up for any billet in the service should be placed in the infantry, just like men today. The only way to really see if the problems I describe are salient is to put women in these positions and see what happens.
markkernes:
I sense a personal issue. Do you think, perhaps, we should work on getting to the point where women in the military is seen as normal first?
Women have been put in combat positions in the military of other nations. The only reason I can think of that it might be a problem in the USA is because of, oh, rape culture? The toxic hyper-masculinity of the endemic Abrahamic patriarchy in the culture of the US? And here you are making the claim that men will not be able to handle having women in a combat unit, but that has nothing to do with US culture now, does it?
Ogvorbis:
Oh please. If you don’t remember Lachlan, do a ctrl+f for his contributions in this thread.
I do remember this commenter. I am giving Lachlan rope with which he can hang his misogyny for all to see.
la tricoteuse:
This one. For the record, I’m against conscription, full stop. I think a military force should be a willing force. However, if conscription was re-instituted, it should be applied to all.
Ogvorbis:
Ah. Carry on.
Caine, I posted the way I did for 2 reasons, because that’s the way selection is made and to eliminate any notion of preference. I’m sorry you’re so prickly as to assume it was intended negatively.
Lachlan:
Do you have any data (peer reviewed studies, position papers, what have you) supporting you assertion that feminists are only interested in rights and freedoms and not in the responsibilities concomitant with full citizenship?
Caine:
Same here. And I suspect most people on this blog, and most feminists, would agree at least on the last point if not the first..
@Lachlan:
If you can’t comprehend a simple, straight-forward argumentthen it’s rather more likely you never had a brain to damage in the first place.
bubba707:
I’m prickly? That’s the result of your thinking? Holy Rats. Dude, you’re the one who said you’d be worried about women doing one specific job and you’d have to take them on a one on one basis, because women. Then you say each candidate has to pass screening and training. There was no reason to have a qualifier about women as that’s the case.
I wanted you to think about why you had to add that qualifier. Obviously, it did no good.
bubba707,
It was hard not to interpret negatively. Why single out women there at all?
You’re fine with women in the military.
But you would hesitate in having women in that particular unit? You singled woman out here and you didn’t even make it clear that you wouldn’t want women that can’t handle it, but any women at all.
Uh…no. Normal, socially acceptable male-female interaction is a departure from, and arguably more powerful force than, the esprit de corps fostered by military units. This isn’t about rape, or rape culture, or sexual violence of any kind. Are you familiar with the idea that males and females interact in sexual ways that aren’t amenable to explanation by “rape culture”, where neither party is being “victimized” by the interaction?
Of course, it’s an irrelevant point anyways, bringing up rape culture, because there isn’t a culture in the world that can’t be painted with the same brush.
Caine wrote:
I disagree. For one thing, if our leaders’ sons and daughters were subject to being drafted I think they would be a lot less likely to send and keep troops to places like Afghanistan at the drop of a hat.
@lee coye:
I am sorry for the egregious misunderstanding although I don’t think some bullshit about teenagers and hormones actually trumps the moral arguments for equality before the law.
Lachlan:
FFS, you were wrong about that, get over it. Would it make you feel better to know that Aristotle concluded “for the female is, as it were, a mutilated male.”?
Fixed that for me into something understandable.
@Lachlan:
Uh, I did just that and explained why in the post you described as not explaining anything at all.
Any reasons I shouldn’t just write you off as a troll at this point?
tomh:
I don’t. There’s a long history (pretty much all of it) of the military being a homosocial preserve and a proving ground for masculinity. A whole lot of men still buy into that shit, even when it comes to their sons. I imagine they’d indulge in jingoistic, patriotic pride crap when it came to their daughters.
tomh,
Ha. Because they wouldn’t all (or at least most) mysteriously develop some illness that prevents them from serving in combat. They’d get a nice cushioned seat to watch the bloodshed on a screen.
Wasn’t there another blogger who did a post about the transitions a mammalian brain goes through when exposed to testosterone who was accused of actually claiming that all men have brain damage therefore feminism?
But your claim is that men and women cannot serve together in combat units because men and women will experience sexual politics within the unit, though you did point out “[t]hat it’s obviously not the woman’s fault . . . .” which means, to me, that you think that men are incapable of interacting with women as human beings, as coworkers, as soldiers. Which sounds like part of rape culture and the patriarchy to me. Oddly, other nations do not have this problem. Does every other country have a cult of hyper-masculinity? Does every other country, including those that allow women in combat units, embrace wholeheartedly the Abrahamic ideal of the dominant male?
Or is there some other reason that you think makes the US completely different in terms of how men in the military will be able to deal with women in combat units?
tomh @ #126
I wouldn’t be so optimistic. Who’s to say that “our leaders’ [drafted] sons and daughters” won’t be tucked away in a desk gig in a military base away from major operations (either within the U.S. or in places like Germany or Japan)?
Nor do I. This is why I’m in favor of integrating women into all roles in the military, and yesterday. However, if defense capacity suffers, I think all the moral indignation in the world shouldn’t deter us from reverting to male-only service. Lets run the experiment, though, before coming to conclusions. I’m merely pointing out where I think the problems may lie, to give voice to those who are thoughtfully opposed to the idea, rather than women, as PZ et al have assumed.
Could be worse. Could be that old “but but but women might get raped if they’re captured!” shite, or the UK’s favoured “seeing a woman injured or killed would be too demoralising for men!”
@lee coye:
Tell me more. Define “defense capacity” and how it’s measured. Preferably cite some historical precedent. This sounds an awful lot like “Well, we’ll humor you precious little ladies…for now!”
On the contrary, I think men and women are incapable of interacting with one another as soldier’s only, absent the myriad ways in which co-workers/friends/neighbors have to divert that propensity. That is my hypothesis, having served in frontline combat units, in combat, for nearly two years.
Lachlan, #108
Sorry I didn’t yet read below this comment but I just had to quote the literal translation of the French version of L’Internationale (by Pete Seeger at the link):
“They say no Rights without Duty
We say no Duty without Rights”
Now, you can all carry on and I’ll go back at reading those comments.
Beatrice, might I suggest reading the comment in its entirety? I did not close that door to women.
But in the military of other countries, they are capable of this interaction. What makes the US exceptional in this regard?
bubba707,
You singled them out for no good reason. That’s the first thing
Then:
A woman would have to prove herself just as a man or more?
And then you say that you would have trouble with that . I’m not sure which that that is, but it sounds like that would be “[woman] prove herself”.
That is my hypothesis, having served in frontline combat units, in combat, for nearly two years.
So, based on a personal anecdote from an all-male situation, you’ve formulated a hypothesis on how an inclusive unit would perform? How clever of you. Unfortunately, folks round these parts are not too keen on argumentum ex rectum…
All hail borkquote! First sentence in my last is not sucked from my own teat…
Ogvorbis @ 120
Oh, that was a serious question? Really? That’s as silly as me asking you for peer reviewed papers demonstrating that feminists care about equal rights and not special rights. Where is the evidence?!
Regardless, the general opinion of feminists isn’t particularly relevant (though admittedly I did bring it up). There’s two issues here. Firstly, there’s a small part of the military that women aren’t able to choose to serve in. The second is that only men are forced to give their lives in defense of their country. The fact that the former issue is a bigger deal than the latter tells me a shitload about the attitudes of society towards women and men. How could the Patriarchy let this happen?!
@lachlan:
Oh fuck off, you’re not interested in having a real discussion about anything. You haven’t even taken a coherent position on anything.
Instead of dwelling on the effects of these situations on women, perhaps Mr. Smith should be wondering why the best-funded military on Earth can’t figure out how to provide basic sanitation in the field.
Naked Bunny with a whip:
Spending money on making soldier’s lives easier, safer and better? Instead of making bigger, badder weapons? What are you thinking?
Oh dear.
Yes! Feminists really hate that.
Yes! Feminists really hate that.
Because Patriarchy is awful.
Shaky start, but it’s nice to see you recognise Patriarchy as the root of both issues. You’re learning!
“Nature, mister Allnut, is what we are put on this earth to rise above.”
– The African Queen, Katherine Hepburn playing an evangelical character responding to Humphrey Bogart playing a, uh, ‘crusty’ small river-boat captain.
It really is amazing how much religionists despise the putative creative work of their deity. Much if not all of their moral repertoir issues from this constitutional disdain of nature and the nature of the animals that populate it, such as themselves.
Why, one is left to presume they unconsciously resent their god for putting them in such a compromisingly unclean situation.
No wonder christers refer to themselves as wretches.
I thought they did that because they were the most persecuted group on Earth, with the possible exception of white heterosexual cisgender men?
Fred Salvador @ 149
Shh, let’s wait and see how long it takes for somebody to demand peer-reviewed evidence for this claim! It won’t be long now. I’ll hold my breath.
Ah yes, the Patriarchy works in mysterious ways.
How? As noted, we have an all volunteer military. You keep bringing this up as some sort of argument. Since it isn’t true, you’ll have to try again.
Lachland
That would make you a citizen of Bermuda – yes? It’s not very factual even then you know. Non-combantants are very frequently called upon to die in various ways during war.
Lachland – let me put it to you in quite simple terms:
If we assume draft isn’t up for discussion (it really isn’t, I doubt you find many pro-drafters round these parts), there is no fucking way you can solve the latter without solving the former. It’s a fucking prerequisite.
Of course unless you want to go down the traditional route and stick women in the middle of the battlefield without any training whatsoever.
@Lachlan:
C’mon, buddy, establish some credibility here. Why did you claim that no one thinks selective service registration is an example of gender inequality when I affirmed such a thing just a few comments earlier?
Better yet, state a position and make a reasoned argument supporting that position. You could even cite some evidence, though apparently you don’t put a lot of stock in that.
Judging by your style of argumentation/trolling, you’re not a particular deep thinker nor the least bit clever or funny. Is there anything at which you’re the least bit competent?
Not ‘mysterious’ exactly; it’s easy enough to spot if you wipe your eyes once in a while and try not to let it subsume your common sense. Women are to be obsequious cattle; men are to be disposable drones. That’s why feminists hate it so much – and why MRAs should too, but instead choose to deny it’s existence.
What, all these comments and no reference to Swift’s The Lady’s Dressing Room? Celia, Celia, Celia Shits!
The article’s full of stupid before it even gets to the effects of the presence of women.
Jeez, you’re attempting a blitzkrieg and your troops are incapacitated before they even get to the fight?
WTF? Antiseptic diapers, Loperamide, something.
*refreshes*
Naked Bunny with a Whip:
Ha! Or, that, too.
Where the fuck have these trolls been? Women have been in combat this whole last while, thanks to George W. Funny thing happens when you confront one of these assholes in real life, though: no “support the troops” crap then, it’s all “you’re lying,” because they just can’t it.
As for combat itself, your training kicks in. You know what’s really traumatic, though? Being betrayed and stereotyped by one’s country.Kind of like what the trolls are doing.
I notice the trolls aren’t eager to take on issues that would actually help women.
They’re not afraid new closeness in the trenches will harm women or men. They could and would use it. What they’re afraid of is that men and women will get along just fine.
Yours being based on…what, exactly? The IDF’s Caracal BN? Yes, I formed a hypothesis without having hard data. Lock me up, Sherlock.
Lachlan:
Not unless you have blinders on. It’s a pretty straightforward hierarchy.
Within a patriarchal system, women are to benefit men and the state via their labor, sexual availability and reproductive potential.
Within a patriarchal system, subordinate men are to benefit more powerful men and the state via their labor and the expenditure of their lives.
Women as reproductive machinery are the mirror image of men as cannon fodder. Both serve the same ultimate purpose of bodies for use.
@lee coye:
I am honestly curious about how you’d like to define and measure “defense capacity”. Bear in mind that if it is subjective or gameable it will be gamed by the many…umm… traditionalists in positions of authority in the military.
I do not mean to side track or de-rail this thread but if and when China invades the United States they will be landing at our international air ports accompanied by their lawyers and accountants to examine their markets and investments and go to the many tourist resorts available to them.
I was listening to a discussion of women in the military on the radio today and was utterly appalled by the argument against it. He (surprise surprise it was a he) did not even have the facts of training and qualification as they are today right.
uncle frogy
Beatrice,
I think that that refers to LRRP itself. The way I read it, bubba707 is saying that he would have had trouble doing it because of how tough and demanding it is, so, um… now imagine a delicate, delicate woman doing it? Inconceivable! Would have to prove herself! (Never mind that men have to prove themselves, too.)
…
You’re right. It is hard not to interpret it negatively.
This sentence “Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion.” from his article has a familiar ring to those of use who supported the end of don’t ask, don’t tell.
qwerty:
These same reasons keep getting recycled. Depressing, isn’t it?
I imagine it’s pretty familiar to the segregated troops pre-1948 too.
‘Cause since Obama repealed it, the argument is invalid? Do you even know what “unit cohesion” is, and how it’s fostered? Do you know what it feels like? Ask any small unit service member who leaves the service and re-enters civilian life, that bond of trust is utterly alien to the general populace. Citizen to gov’t, employee to employer, neighbor to neighbor, it’s not present because it’s not necessary, or even possible in those relationships. It’s a contrast that goes a long way towards explaining why veterans have such difficult adjusting post-service.
I’m all for these changes; I’m out of the service, so it’s win-win so far as I’m concerned. Either nothing changes, and the military retains it’s effectiveness, or effectiveness tanks and our troops start getting smeared by more effective forces, and this experiment ends in tears. Sometimes it takes the blood of thousands to make a point that no argument can carry. I hope you’re right, but I’m doubtful, and it’s not because “da womynz R inferior”.
But hey, smear on; snark is cheap when it’s not your life on the line. Show of hands, which of you is volunteering for frontline duty?
Thought so.
qwerty:
Oh c’mon, you know gay men are just like women!
:eyeroll:
lee coye
Ah. The Show Stopper.
You win.
The door is over there.
Oooh, the display of Macho, Macho Man! Scary.
So, you can’t make a valid argument and this is your solution? Your brain needs more exercise.
I don’t need to be a service member to recognize that unit cohesion is threatened not by women trying to do their jobs, but by bigoted men who believe the patriarchal hype about women not belonging in combat and acting on their belief to undermine, harass, or otherwise alienate the women in their unit.
It’s the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT as with black soldiers and with gay soldiers. If the presence of either threatens unit cohesion, that is not evidence that black men or gay men cannot be soldiers. It is evidence that some soldiers are racist or homophobic. Remove the racists and the homophobes and everything will be homophobic.
Ditto for women: if unit cohesion suffers, then that’s evidence that there are sexists who don’t see that they have to leave their sexism at home to do their jobs. THEY are the ones not doing their jobs; THEY are the ones who should lose them. Excluding women from combat because “unit cohesion” is just saying, “I think we should prioritize making misogynists feel welcome and comfortable among their comrades over making women feel welcome and comfortable among their comrades.”
Correction:
Derp. Stupid brain.
What exactly does this have to do with any fucking thing?
No. It’s not.
I was doing some idle Googling, and found this article.
It discusses the opinion of Martin Dempsey,
this totally non-military armchair warrior-d00dthe Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on the various side effects of lifting the ban on women in combat.Specifically:
I do think it is more complicated than that, but I do think that Dempsey may be on to something.
Explain to me how it is different.
On the one hand, we can’t let black people in, because the white soldiers won’t be able to relate to them, and unit cohesion will be disrupted. Also, racist stereotypes about black people’s intelligence.
On the other hand, we can’t let gay people in, because the straight soldiers will be constantly worried that their gay squadmate is totally checking them out. Also homophobic stereotypes about LGBT people’s sex drives.
On the other hand, we can’t let women in, because the men will be constantly worried about female cooties and all that feminine sexual allure. Also sexist stereotypes about women’s needs of hygiene, pampering, weakness, intelligence, etc etc etc.
@lee:
Specifically how is it different from the situation with integrating black soldiers? Can you see why “No. It’s not.” would be an unsatisfying rebuttal?
If “unit cohesion” was indeed an argument used against integrating black soldiers, how is it different with women?
Because at least those black soldiers being integrated in the 40’s were men and had penises?
Because as we all know, a penis is essential if you’re going to be handling a rife and saluting.
Daniel:
Black soldiers had penises. Apparently, penises are absolutely crucial to soldiering.
Goodness me. I guess you have settled the matter then. There are zero similarities between “We can’t let gay men serve because it would disrupt unit cohesion” and “We can’t let women serve because it would disrupt unit cohesion.”
Good thing you were here to set us all straight. No pun intended.
Of course they are. If you don’t have one, how can you pull off this little exercise like in Full Metal Jacket [youtube link with...er...self-handling]? Without a “gun”, no one could remember what a rifle is!
Let me preface my response by saying, again, that I’m supportive of the integration. Lets run the experiment.
That said, I do think the argument is different (and no, it’s not about having a penis).
I think the argument against different races in combat units was wrong, and based on an unjustified race-inferiority belief that was prevalent well-beyond the 40s. I don’t think anyone has a problem with gay service members, only openly-gay service members, but it’s not clear as yet that this is a valid concern. I think much is made of the precious few years following the repeal of don’t-ask don’t-tell, such an experiment requires time, but then, I do hold the sort of open trust and camaraderie that characterizes successful combat units over the feelings, even rights, of a few. There are very serious, very bad, very organized forces in the world that will absolutely tear a unit apart if there is a crack to be exploited. Not all cracks are caused by gays, or would be caused by women, I don’t even think most are, but it’s just one more burden to bear.
In just one example of the difference, the unit-cohesion argument against female integration isn’t based on inferiority/intelligence/hygiene. I do think women have hygienic needs that need to be addressed at the outset, and while fixable (in principle), shouldn’t be swept under the rug as irrelevant. That has the potential to do women a disservice later in life. Other health-related concerns are grounded in sexual di-morphism, and are simply empirical questions that we can’t answer a priori (another reason to run the experiment).
Insofar as the actual concerns for unit cohesion a la women, I do think it’s necessary to recognize that young men and women are highly sexually charged, and this has the potential to create severe problems within co-ed units attempting to foster the same degree of esprit de corps that has traditionally bonded male units since the invention of the spear. All you have to grant is that a sexual dynamic may be, or is, more powerful a force than unit bonding. I don’t think I’m going way out on a limb on that one.
That’s not to say the argument is the end of discussion, and many historical exceptions provide a cogent response (eg women pilots). In the course of future-history, we may look back on views like mine with moral opprobrium, shaking our heads at the naive sexism that sought to rob women of the opportunities they so fervently desired. I accept that possibility, but my concern is not deterred simply because I might be wrong.
So while these and other concerns aren’t enough to justify opposing Panetta’s decision, and I don’t, the men and women whose lives are on the line deserve our careful consideration of the cost-benefit analysis for every proposed change to the SOP of an active military unit. Even if that consideration can be construed as sexist.
…he went on a date and she expected him to pay?
Lee Coye, I was reading during the leadup to the DADT repeal that some general type did an anonymous poll of the enlisted and asked their views of DADT and openly-gay soldiers.
The response?
“Well, [rank] So-and-So is gay and we all know it. And he does his job. So who cares?”
Apparently, many of the younger military types have a view of sexual orientation that leads to shrugging. They don’t care if Pfc John Doe has a picture of a man or a woman in his wallet. They care if he does his job. They see it as a total nonissue, more or less how most of them see Midshipman Mike Smith’s skin tone as a nonissue.
Incidentally, would you care to address the quote I stuck in 177?
Who gives a shit what irrelevant fuckwittery you think, or rather don’t think. Presupposition all the way down. And you know that….
First of all, this:
Betrays ignorance so profound that it raises the question as to why any of your opinions should be given any credence. You realize that it’s okay to say “menstruation,” these days, right? Big news: menstruation is now optional and there’s no evidence that menstruation suppression leads to any negative health outcomes later in life.
Second, you’ve done nothing to explain why the “unit cohesion” argument is valid when it comes to women but not when it comes to black men or gay men.
Third, you have not explained how this alleged hygiene issue would affect unit cohesion. Men can’t handle women washing their menstrual cups? They would get mad that women take more time in the bathroom? Freak out because there’s a packet of tampons on the shelf? Yet more evidence that men are too psychologically delicate to serve in combat missions, then.
It should be. It should be because you are a massive part of the problem, hindering the solution. As Esteleth pointed out, younger people aren’t carrying the same baggage, so they simply won’t have the same problems you envision.
What you advocate is literally as old as the hills. For as long as we’ve had a history, the overriding opinion of men has been that it’s not only necessary to keep men and women segregated, but that terrible, terrible things will happen if you don’t keep women confined to specific areas. It’s fucking nonsense and it seriously needs to die.
If you want to be a dinosaur happily rolling about in sexism, have at it. Stop trying to infect others with it.
Sally Strange:
Seriously. It’s blood. If blood is going to bother you, then I think you may have chosen the wrong place to be.
I don’t care either, but that doesn’t mean that raising the issue out of concern for the safety and effectiveness of our nation’s military is invalid, simply on the basis that it’s not nice or progressive. I’d also point out that a poll of service member’s attitudes on a given issue doesn’t really answer the question of cohesion and effectiveness, nor does it address the issue of women in frontline positions. There is a world of difference between a COM BN and an INFANTRY BN.
Sure, though I didn’t see that as a response to anything I said.
Absolutely, and if the primary concern of a COMBAT unit was something other than combat effectiveness, he’d be on to something. It’s not, and I don’t see how this is relevant. It seems to me that sexual assault in the service is a separate, but no less important, issue.
Perhaps, since I didn’t refer to menstruation, I wasn’t talking about menstruation?
Well, OK, if you say so.
Good thing I didn’t claim that, then, right?
Precious. This would be the mobile bathroom/shelf infantrymen carry in their rucks? Please, lecture me more about frontline service.
Why do you assume I was talking about frontline service? Yes, I understand that there are times when soldiers have access to neither bathrooms nor shelves. Your point, please.
Also, please explain how “unit cohesion” is valid for women but not for gay men or black men.
I view the “problem” to be individuals and groups intent on harming Americans, and the “solution” to be the most effective fighting force our nation can field. You apparently view this as a social justice exercise.
Try this on for size: I agree with your moral position, but I’m skeptical of the practical results. Roll around in that, how about.
You still haven’t given any good reasons for your skepticism. Potential for urinary incontinence and some vague references to “unit cohesion” (and a continued refusal to address why that’s relevant in the case of women but not black/gay men, which you’ve been asked to do at least twice) are really all you’ve got?
Perhaps next time you should be more specific about which vague health concerns might impact “unit cohesion.” It’s usually menstruation. Incontinence, huh. That’s a new one on me. Actually, I just saw an article with a headline announcing that military women experience unplanned pregnancies at a rate twice as high as non-military women. That’s a concern, too. But neither of these things is helping me understand the unit cohesion argument.
The word “hygienic” (or any variation) does not appear in the linked article.
I await an answer with Sally Strange.
Also, why do you keep ignoring the fact that menstruation is optional? Also, no bathrooms? So what? You really think a woman who has opted to keep menstruating can’t handle being away from a bathroom? *snorts*
Actually, my view is that by excluding women (or any other random group) from the opportunity to choose and qualify for military service, we are making our military less effective than it could be by depriving ourselves of the service of thousands of eager, dedicated, fit soldiers who happen to be women.
You, apparently, are operating under the un-evidenced assumption that NOT excluding women from certain job will DECREASE the military’s effectiveness.
Hey, congratulations: you’re sexist! Or, in case your delicate man fee-fees are hurt by the prospect of being identified as a heinous moustache-twirling villain, perhaps I should say that you are doing sexism by basing your arguments on this false assumption.
Check out the link. He’s talking about the fact that women sometimes pee themselves. Which I’m sure men never do.
It’s not about a moral position, ffs. I’m not the one wallowing about in sexism, flailing about for any excuse whatsoever to exercise that sexism. That would be you.
“Potential for incontinence”? Hahahahahahaha. Yeah, okay. Golly, however did women throughout history manage without bathrooms? Dude, before I got old and my spine started to crumble, I used to mountain climb. I climbed while menstruating and I even had to take care of the standard needs, like peeing! Guess what? There aren’t any convenient bathrooms on mountains when you’re climbing. No showers, either.
You haven’t given a reason why we should care about your inane and anachronistic attitude. You can’t give a cogent reason, as there isn’t one. Just your presuppositions….
What problem? There is no problem except in your delusional mind. All presupposition all the way down. Look at your why. You just don’t want a real army due to your prejudices…
Sally Strange, I checked.
Heavens no! Men never, ever leak in any respect whatsoever. Nope, they are immune to that sort of thing.
Okay, Lee. Would you say that looking at other highly professional, highly effective armies that happen to have integrated LGBT members and women into their combat units would be relevant?
Like, say the militaries of the UK and Israel?
I can just see it: militarily-mandated kegel exercises for EVERYONE! Shape it up, soldier! Squat and give me twenty!
It’ll keep the guys from shitting themselves, too.
Esteleth:
Ogvorbis already tried this, way upthread. Didn’t work – the U.S. is different.
Yup, and when you understand why that’s not a problem for the unit cohesion argument, you’ll stop pestering me about this. Seriously, all of you, 184. Like, nao.
Again…I’m in support of integration. Leaving aside the naive view that the military is just a numbers game, as though it would be any better with an influx of more people, the phrase “who happen to be women” sort of prejudges the argument in the first place.
Your point? Ergo…what? You call it a “false assumption”, but you’re in precisely the same evidential position that I’m in. Lets run the experiment, and see what happens!
What, peeing?
Seriously?
Trufax story time: Ages ago, I went hiking. One of the four-thousand-footers.
When I got on the trail, I was mildly constipated. And then I learned the effect hiking has on one’s bowels (to wit: it loosens them).
So, I did what I had to do.
That is, I took a shit on the side of a mountain in New Hampshire.
And I am not only a civilian woman, I’m one of those weaksauce weaksauce lesbian pacifist limp-wristed liberal types.
I’m pretty sure a soldier is capable of taking a shit in the field or pissing her pants if she had to.
Not without proper citation, otherwise there is not difference except his personal prejudices.
You are a sexist bigot, otherwise, you would have shut the fuck up twenty posts ago without the ability to continue rational arguments. Your arguments are irrational…
Which do you think should be the null hypothesis, that the inclusion of women who meet the qualifying criteria will affect unit cohesion and overall effectiveness of the military, or that the inclusion of women who meet the criteria will not affect unit cohesion and overall effectiveness?
Also, for my position, there is evidence: the inclusion of women in other militaries has not damaged the effectiveness of the UK or Israeli armies, so far as we know.
So, no. You are wrong: I have evidence for my assumption that including women will widen the pool of potential applicants (unless you are also trying to take issue with basic math) without damaging the military’s effectiveness.
You have no evidence for your assumption. Yet your assumption is that women will be less able to fit into the military, will not be able to do their jobs as well as their male counterparts, or SOMETHING that will, as you say, possibly decrease the military’s effectiveness.
If you sincerely believe this then you must have some mechanism in mind beyond “They pee way too much.”
Private First Class Robert “Lucky” Leckie. Marine. Pissed himself throughout his stay in Cape Gloucester during WWII.
He was awarded five battle stars, the Naval Commendation Medal with Combat V, and the Purple Heart, then went on to write thirty works of military history.
I guess when you’re peeing yourself in battle with a penis it’s different.
UK:
Women may now join the British Armed forces in all roles except those whose “primary duty is to close with and kill the enemy”
Israel:
The Caracal BN is the most prevalent example of this 2001 change, representing an experiment in progress.
Perhaps it’s just latent nationalist fervor, but I’m confident that a Marine infantry BN would clean the IDF’s clock, frankly. The question is not “do they field a co-ed force” but whether that force is as effective, more effective, or less effective, and what impact it would have on the US military tradition that has established itself as the worlds most effective fighting force.
The question you have to ask yourself is: Is the life of a marine/soldier/seaman more valuable, or less valuable, than the option for some women to serve in front-line roles? Ten lives? A hundred? The cost of a loss of effectiveness is heavy, just ask an insurgent.
Lee, How about you try to get this through your head:
Women in the US military are already serving in combat units. They have been for years.
This ruling acknowledges what has already been happening and recognizes it.
Which has effects – a woman soldier who does something in the field or has something done to her can get the recognition she deserves – whether that is a medal, help from the VA, or a court-martial. Right now, female veterans struggle with all these because “women aren’t in combat situations.”
If you truly believed that including women in combat roles could actually put soldiers at risk, you wouldn’t be willing to experiment, as you say, to see how it turns out. I conclude that you are a rank liar and a misogynist. There’s no other reasonable explanation for your willful stupidity and your dishonesty.
Lee
If you claim to be in favor of Integration what’s the problem? There must be some reason you’re here shitting up a storm.
Oh you are quite the misogynist, aren’t you? Since your attempt to tether women to a bathroom didn’t work, let’s go with this one. Women already serve in combat. They have been doing so for many a war. Tell us, exactly, how many men lost their lives due to these women serving in combat, please.
Where the fuck is this coming from other than your prejudices? WOMEN HAVE BEEN IN FRONT LINE ROLES FOR YEARS. You are not arguing from rationality, but from your emotions.
Also, please note:
Here, you attempt to explain away the evidence I have for my assumption that including women in combat roles will not damage the military’s effectiveness. Thanks for the info about the UK army. If you are correct then women in UK are in a similar situation as American women: can serve in military, already getting shot at, but can’t advance as much and excluded from some jobs. Your point about the IDF is just nonsensical. The question is not which military can kick the other military’s ass (though it’s quaintly macho of you to put it in those terms), the question is, did including women in combat roles damage the IDF’s effectiveness? Clearly the answer is no, otherwise the IDF would have reversed the experiment (unless you are accusing the Israeli government of being as bleeding-heart silly as you think we are). So: ONE data point to back up my assumption, and ZERO points to back up yours.
You still haven’t explained why “unit cohesion” is a valid argument for women but not gay or black men.
You haven’t answered my question about what you think should be the null hypothesis WRT the question of the impact of women in combat on military effectiveness.
You’re a dodger but you’re not artful.
MM:
I
Yes, right. A good soldier doesn’t let a little pee get him down. This doesn’t apply to women, it would seem, because they lack the magical penis. Perhaps if all women carried a strap on…
The problem is that Lee is concern trolling. He’s not actually in favor of integration. That, or he was lying about his belief that including women in combat roles MIGHT POSSIBLY SOMEHOW damage the military’s effectiveness enough to cause needless deaths of American soldiers.
You really don’t get it. Do you think Panetta’s timing was an accident? It will be at least a year before the first female passes IOC, or even SOI, giving them tops 8 months in a mostly domesticated Afghanistan. The rates of sign-ups when they previously opened IOC were abyssmal, with zero graduates. It’ll be a year or more before they agree to “modify” the standards for women.
So yeah, I’m less concerned about potential deaths due to short-term effectiveness losses. If a problem arises, it will most likely arise in the next decade, and hopefully we’ll be conflict-free during that time.
combat unit =/= frontline unit.
The kind of bullshit that should have been fixed unilaterally by a ‘bird with balls. Issue the award, and let the politically motivated higher-ups get caught taking it away from a deserving service member. I’d protest. For the rest, I fail to see how not recognizing the sacrifices and struggles of female service members is solved by putting them in front-line units. It seems like the first can be fixed in a sane military without the second.
In an insurgent-filled landscape with no set front line, define the difference.
If a woman out on patrol (and yes, they goddamn go on patrol) gets shot at and shoots back, is that “combat”?
So, you were lying when you said that you’re in a state of pure uncertainty vis-a-vis the effect on the military’s effectiveness.
Tell me again why a liar should have his opinions listened to?
Nor do you.
Prima facie evidence you are prejudiced and a sexist. Time to acknowledge YOU have the problem, and YOU need to deal with it.
Not yet. Also, it’s questionable whether the IDF is the gold standard for effectiveness. A muddy puddle isn’t noticeably muddier for the addition of another spud o’ mud. (cue “omg lee thinks women r dirty”)
I think the null hypothesis should be that there will be no impact on effectiveness. YOUR null hypothesis should be the opposite. I mean, just for the record . . .
This isn’t about getting shot at, everyone in the military gets shot at. Even people not in the military get shot at. That’s a red herring, really. The bit about advancement is one that’s given me pause, frankly, but I still think it’s not as important. That’s still putting the career of a few women against the effectiveness of a nation’s defense. Obviously a clear win for the career if there’s no change to the latter. The exclusion angle is a tautology. Clearly, excluding them from some jobs will exclude them from some jobs…
Sally Strange, the UK military does allow women into one of their special services:
The Special Reconnaissance Regiment (UK)
A state of pure uncertainty? That’s what you’ve gotten from my comments so far? Am I really that incoherent?
All I’ve gotten from your comments is that treating women equally is bad, because pee.
Maybe you should recalibrate your arguments.
Delusional thinking.
Why? Your prejudices don’t effect our conclusions.
You haven’t shown any detriment to the effectiveness. Just presupposed it like any sexist bigot….
FFS, can you not read? Women already serve in combat. This is not acknowledged however, and as a consequence, women are denied combat pay and the services provided for most combat veterans. Not only are you a dyed-in-the-wool sexist, you’re stupid as a dirt clod too.
Seeing as you seem to flip-flop between “I am -for- integration!” and “Women in combat will be a liability”, yeah. Incoherent.
If you’re for equality (“integration”, as you call it), then you agree women are equal to men in a military capacity and, being held to the same standards, will perform their duties equally well.
If you think women are a liability in certain military situations, you cannot possibly agree with the first premise.
Which is it?
Sophia
women have hygienic needs
This overrides other concerns.
Sophia:
I imagine that integration and equality are two very different things in Lee’s world. I’m sure he’s fine with integrating women into service, hey, stick ’em in the kitchen and make sure they’re never 5 feet away from a bathroom.
The problems have been outlined, somewhat comprehensively in 184, tangentially in the links in 192. Yes, I’m “concerned” that certain billets will be ill-served by integrating females, and partly that females will be ill-served in those roles. However, I don’t have “hard” evidence, and I’m persuaded by the moral argument for allowing women into these billets absent that evidence. Indeed, allowing women to choose those billets is the only way to obtain such evidence in the first place.
That is why I’m both in support of integration, but defending my hypothesis that it’s going to be a problem.
Does that clear up my “storm shitting” comments?
Yes.
Any other simple questions with one-word answers? Much easier than trying to parse your self-contradictory assertions.
Chigau:
Oh, RIGHT. I forgot, I’m unclean. I should really shine up my old leper’s bell.
Caine:
Yeah, I get that feeling too. Sure, give those complaining women a token position, keep them happy. Just don’t let them do anything actually important, because everyone knows that those dirty, dirty women simply can’t survive away from a clean bathroom for more than a week or so.
No, not sexist at all. *eyeroll*
No.
Because now we are left to wonder what kind morality leads to the willingness to needlessly risk the lives of military service members on the off chance that he was wrong about it “being a problem.”
What kind OF morality, even.
It’s not a moral argument. Are you religious? If not, what’s your hang up with this moral business? It’s easy – either you think women are human beings with a right to autonomy and agency or you don’t. Which is it?
No. There is no need for your inane, emotional, and conflicting comments. Try shutting the fuck up.
Sally Strange:
We’d have better luck arguing with a broken brick.
The morality of someone who does not hold the potential cost of a decision over the real inequality of a policy. Your, and others, inability to parse the distinctions I’ve made is something you need to take on board introspectively. The risk is real, but it’s a risk only, and it’s relevant to point out that I’m the only one who hasn’t turned this issue into an opportunity to make jokes.
You all need to grow up, think deeper, and cease being so enamored with the sounds of your own voices.
Lee, do you consider yourself a skeptic?
If so, why are you not able to bring your skepticism to bear on this issue? You’ve presented a series of self-conflicting arguments. You have ended by defending a hypothesis that has zero evidence backing it up. You are even on the verge of recognizing that it’s irrational to believe that having women in frontline positions won’t actually damage the military’s effectiveness, otherwise you wouldn’t be willing to grant that it’d be okay to try it for a while. Yet you cling to the idea that women in frontlines would damage the military’s effectiveness.
This is not rational.
It’s sexism. Sexism isn’t rational.
No, it’s not. And repeating it over and over again won’t change that fact.
Repeating it over and over again will, however, highlight how unable you are to recognize your own bigotry.
Gee, I could say the same about your shallow sexist and emotional thinking. Why don’t you do the introspection needed to be a full human being…
Yes, instead you decided to BE the joke. Well done.
lee coye
You should know that, in these parts, that was a clear, resounding, admission of defeat.
Says the person who has posted non-stop, who is willfully obstinate when it comes to thinking and is still swimming in bigotry and sexism – should have thought and grown your way out of that a long time ago, eh, Lee?
Instead, you choose to cling to bigotry and ignorance. We aren’t the ones with a problem here.
In before “but I was just responding to you all!”
Ugh. Another correction:
Clearly I need more sleep.
I wonder how old* men effect combatisitude?
*over 25 years old
@lee coye
Just spell it out like a normal human being, FFS. From what I gather, you’re saying that women and men having romances or doing the hanky-panky in the camp will be a problem. Sorry to break the news for you, bub, but men are perfectly capable of doing that between themselves.
In the end, your argument boils down to “well, bigots don’t mix well with everyone else, so we should prioritize the bigots and remove everyone else”. Why not just remove the bigots? Then you have a much larger pool of potential recruits and keep your precious unit cohesion to boot.
Fuck, I don’t really like the conscription based military we have here, but it’s still better than the version that thrives on isolating itself from society.
unit cohesion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair
Quoted for fucking truth.
Fred Salvador – Colonialist:
Yes, you’re right, that’s what I was once given to understand as well. Then again, on who’s authority do you suppose the white heterosexual cisgender patriarchy are acting? One of the many logic glitches that must be in play inside the religious mind (SHRIEK) might stem from a nagging subliminal suspicion that the Supreme Persecutor ultimately responsible for All Things also and purposefully fashioned their predicament behind the scenes, Wizard of Oz-wise. (You know, Mysterious Ways and all that rot…a Playful Imp who keeps His created toys guessing as well as wretched).
I agree a patriarchy of white heterosexual cisgender men who assume the authority of the deity is excepted from the torments and persecution meted out to their flock. Nifty little set-up they’ve got there.
Cultural or physical, whether fabricated by human intentions or not, its all got to be environment prescribed by natural laws, ironically fashioned by what appears to be a rather sadistic two-faced creator-deity who doubles as a rescuer, who gets jollies out of placing his ‘chosen folk’ into situations that forces them to worship him in order to alleviate their suffering and teases them with an ‘option’ to gain salvation from death. (He couldn’t help himself – he evidently needs a constant supply of fresh penitents to toy with). In the real world that actually counts, the patriarchichal god-proxy knows just how to keep their wretched flock and their wimenz under their domineering thumb (they are possessions, you know…slaves), by the convenience of acting on the behalf of the Ultimate Persecutor…only they know what is best for them…OR ELSE, of course.
I didn’t intend to veer so far off topic. I merely wanted to suggest how strongly this particular cultural meme as pointed out by PZ’s post may be aided and abetted – if not chiefly orchestrated – by religious poison, a reigning cultural force…even to the extent that it impinges on a disquieting proportion of the atheistic community. Oh yes, we’re all slammed together in the same environmental stew and are condemned to interact within it. And after all, most atheists come from religious stock in terms of ‘upbringing’. Yet, as we have abundantly seen in the last few years, it is sheer folly to imagine that just because one declares an ideological independence that purports to divorce them from a particular cultural sector, that that sector doesn’t continue to color the thinking of the non-adherent in myriad subtle but potentially significant ways. As PZ has repeatedly emphasized, atheism must suggest more than a mere dictionary definition, or that person is ignorant of just how vulnerable they are – how much they are in fact potentially directed by – that which they think they are free of.
anchor – I’d like to QFT that whole comment, but I won’t for reasons of space.
So. Goddamned. True.
I would really like to push back on the assertion that the US military is “the best.” The best at what? Killing stuff? Most militaries seem to be pretty good at this. Have the best toys? Undoubtedly. Be the best at determining which targets are military and which targets are civilian? Not so much, as we’ve seen from the widespread “collateral damage” of the current operations, as well as the numerous cover-ups of same. The best at not creating splash damage? I think the rape victims of Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as the rape victims within our own military) would beg to disagree.
What I think this really gets at is values. What do we want our military to be and represent? Should it be about close-ranked dudes playing with big toys? Or about thoughtful people who make good decisions? Because those two value systems make a radically different type of military. It isn’t enough to say “We want a military that wins” without first defining what constitutes winning.
In fact, it’s not really off topic at all, if you think about it. It’s the same patriarchal thought pattern that assumes ‘environmental differences’ make women inferior in certain situations. By nature, women have biological limitations, therefore it’s perfectly fine to exclude us from all sorts of stuff and say it’s not sexism, it’s just nature.
I don’t feel like combing through lee’s bullshit to quote and stuff, but women in combat? Long, long history there. And this is a very, very partial list.
Uh, no, you’re gathering was a failure. Of course, this “version” of my argument is much easier to dismiss. If only I had a word for this. . .
Apparently, ignoring nonsensical accusations that carry no rational weight doesn’t deter you all from persisting in hurling them like a monkey hurls it’s poo, so let me be blunt. You’ll have to get your hands a hell of a lot dirtier with the shaming and shunning before I dignify such drivel with a serious response. Insults and accusations aren’t arguments.
Well, it’s not a fact, but neither is it’s negation a fact. The idea that every country but Israel is cognizant about the details of front-line combat (including the UK), including thousands of commanders of those units, somehow doesn’t lend any credence to my hypothesis, but the IDF fielding one co-ed batallion for the span of a decade is conclusive proof that there’s no risk. This is skepticism, to you.
vaiyt (#254)
Exactly. Even if we were to entertain for a moment that that risk to combat effectiveness was real because the thought that treating women soldiers as equals makes some dudes so overwrought that unit cohesion deteriorates, why is that an argument for keeping women from serving in combat units? Why, if it’s the dudes who can’t cope, should “solution” be to let them have their way and make the women sacrifice their own careers? That makes no fucking sense.
If the risk is real, there are other options besides capitulating to the prejudice of dipshit dudes. For instance, put in serious incentives for them to overcome those prejudices. Like, make it very fucking clear to the dudes that unit cohesion is each dude’s job and if they can’t figure out how to do their job, they do not get to stay in a combat unit and they do not get promoted. Ever. The stupid ideas dudes have on how to interact with women will continue to be a “powerful force” if clinging to those ideas is not subjected to serious consequences.
Strawman arguments rarely do.
Which is all you presented. Nothing of substance, just your emotions, presuppositions, and prejudices.
Hi, Lee,
If it’s not the hanky panky, and it’s not the menstruation, and it’s not the rape, what is your argument?
Lee Coye, if you can’t accept the possibility you are wrong, you are preaching, not discussing. And you have been preaching, not discussing…
evilisgood:
Peeing. Also, good men will die! Tens, hundreds, thousands! Because women be distracting and shit. They disintegrate unit cohesion, which is held together by penises.
Lee, diddums, I was in combat, and you’re full of shit. I see you’ve deployed all the usual concern troll arguments: OMG, women and their
cootieshygiene!, women will get male soldiers killed because they’re icky and inadequate, women just can’t do the job.Women have been in combat since Desert Storm, where the press didn’t know how to deal with it and some brave women got punished by Neanderthals like you. In this war? Women are better in the gun turret because we have a lower center of gravity. The 82nd has female medics the same size as the guys, so you can stuff the whole, “OMG, women can’t pull a 3000-lb. troop with gear from downrange!” crap. Neither can or do men, for that matter. The two-man carry exists for a reason, and nobody gives a shit when it’s a guy doing it. The thing is, you’re invoking shit that either isn’t required of men, or isn’t a realistic concern either. It’s mens’ reactions to men that you’re concerned with, and if they can’t handle dealing with over 50% of the world’s population as equal, they shouldn’t have access to firearms and explosives anyway.
What this is all about is the idea that there should be mystery and bullshit separating the genders, that some magic will be lost if men have to deal with the fact that women shit and fart. Did I miss the part where you said you were downrange in Georgie Boy’s wars? Because if you are I’ll be damned if I can figure out how you missed the tents in Wolverine that were coed, which meant that you’d have realized that gender is not the real segregation is, but snoring is. When the shit hits the fan and you’re worn out from eighteen-hour-days(if you’re lucky) where sleep is the subject of your fantasies, gender is not what you care about. Nor should it be.
If troopie can’t handle that women shit and piss, then he can’t handle most of modern life and needs to get the fuck out.
People are freaking out over the usual crap, but I’ll say again what I say above: the Elaine Donnellys and Ryan Smiths and all those concern trolls aren’t worried about women being wounded and getting raped and dying. What they’re worried about is that barriers will come down and men and women will get along just fine, and that further, men and women will have new respect and admiration for one another. Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria!
I remember some horrible butterbar in an winter exercise barging into our tent after we’d all bunked down for the night, shouting that we needed to get up and separate by gender. As one of the master sergeants said in the dark later, “We’re adults.” People separate the genders so they can maintain this idea that in the most basic way, there’s biological differences between humans that matter, when in fact there really aren’t—-and they don’t.
lee coye (#265)
I was paraphrasing you, you silly man. Let me quote you in #54: “That it’s obviously not the woman’s fault is irrelevant, unit cohesion is essential for mission readiness, and anything that harms one harms the other. For this and other reasons, I think frontline integration is a bad idea, especially for small tactical units.” And in #135: ” However, if defense capacity suffers, I think all the moral indignation in the world shouldn’t deter us from reverting to male-only service.” In #138 you say, ” I think men and women are incapable of interacting with one another as soldier’s only….” which you justify in #184 by claiming, “Insofar as the actual concerns for unit cohesion a la women, I do think it’s necessary to recognize that young men and women are highly sexually charged, and this has the potential to create severe problems within co-ed units attempting to foster the same degree of esprit de corps that has traditionally bonded male units since the invention of the spear.” And you refer to unit cohesion in #168 as a “bond of trust.”
So, whether you care to admit it or not, what you are, in fact, saying is that dudes can’t relate to or treat women as equals because women have vaginas which makes dudes so overcome with the imperative to treat women as vagina-bearers that it gets in the way of forming bonds of camaraderie and trust. And, even if we don’t blame women for that, we still let the women pay the price, rather than taking the more logical and consistent step making the dudes who are the cause of the loss of unit cohesion pay the price instead.
Oh, and, by the way? Fuck you for acting like it’s unreasonable to be indignant over that.
Gosh, that’s all I’ve got! Look, if you can’t read, I’m not going to spoon feed you.
Looked for my arguments in there, came up dry. Co-ed tents? Holy shit, how wrong I was. This is totally about hanky panky, and seeing women pee.
I seriously can’t tell if this is just projection, or stupidity. Or projecting stupidity. 184 => go.
Deepity! Deep thoughts. It’s like a fucking bigot koan.
Dude, I was being nice and asking you to clarify. Piss up a rope, you condescending fuck.
Perhaps it would not be too much of a burden to provide a link to the comment which you feel best explains your objection, and the evidence for this risk, whose existence is neither factual nor non-factual.
That was a joke, by the way. Of course you won’t, because you never did make such a comment.
It seems that lee coye really is the most dismissive little assclam .
We can read, cupcake. You seem to suddenly not have a point, despite the flailing.
Why, exactly, do you think the inclusion of women in front-line units might be detrimental? Also, how?
It’s not sanitation, it’s not distraction… Where are those goalposts again? We’re all looking, but they’ve been moved around so much we’re just not sure anymore.
This has sort of been mentioned, but it needs emphasis: unit cohesion in the military is probably already suffering on account of the fact that one in three female service members are sexually assaulted. The vast majority are sexually assaulted by their colleagues and comrades.
Men are also sexually assaulted more often in the military than out of it. And the military is just as victim-blamey and denialist towards them as well.
The culture of toxic masculinity in the military harms both men and women. Being a warrior, being a soldier, is not a gendered activity. Or it shouldn’t be. The military will not be able to deal with its rape crisis until it integrates this information at an institutional level.
evilisgood:
Oh, only women pee.
Uh oh. Now I have a very different version of Only Women Bleed in my head.
Sally Strange:
QFT. Esteleth and I also made this point, but apparently, it’s a strawpoint.
Lee,
I’m sorry. Maybe that was uncalled for. Let me try this again. You mentioned hygiene, with regard to incontinence. It was shown that men sometimes piss themselves as well, even during war. You mentioned “sexually-charged” and then denied that hanky-panky was the issue. Please clarify your argument. How, if women and men sometimes are dirty, and if hanky-panky is not the issue, might the inclusion of women on the front lines damage unit cohesion?
I’m fielding the hypothesis that, in a particular class of military units, normal sexual dynamics have a reasonable potential to undermine the already tenuous esprit de corps that characterizes, and enables, the effectiveness of those units. Not all combat units, not most combat units, particularly front-line units. The folks that already have a helluva a lot on their plates when it comes to getting jobs done that no other units can do, at a level no other units can operate.
I also am aware, and have attempted to make you good people aware, of the potentially crippling effect the rigors of a frontline unit’s daily grind will have, on average, for more women than men. This would be due to the sexual dimorphism that is plain as day to anyone with a functioning pair of eyes. Muscle deterioration, loss of dexterity, and even the potential loss of fertility are risks not faced by men, or not faced by men to the same degree.
Yes, I may be wrong about this, and this, among other reasons, is why I support integration into these units. I’m apprehensive, but I’m better persuaded by the moral argument for equal opportunity than the potential risks to the effectiveness of these units. Lets run the experiment; lets see the evidence. We are at a time in our conflict cycle that we can afford to be a little reckless.
I’m also less concerned about the impact of this change due to the evidence, from both the IDF and our own previous experiments at opening these roles to women, that given the choice, not many women are going to volunteer anyways. Of those who volunteer, not many will make it. It represents a low-impact change on the broader scale, even if it would present high-impact changes to individual units.
What is forgotten in all this moralizing is that opening these roles to women doesn’t just provide them the opportunity to risk their bodies in this manner, but will actually obligate them into these roles. If you’re familiar with recruiting procedures, you’ll know that the Marine Corps has final say on what your MOS ends up being, and more than a few lusty young lads end up in an 03 billet who didn’t choose. If the risks are greater to females than males, it’s hard to see how it’s equality to shove women into those roles. Perhaps, though, the Corps will treat them special.
Caine,
Full bladder
All of the time
Wipe your urine
Can’t find a rhyme
And you there down on your knees begging me please
Come watch me peeeeeeeeee
Oh, damn you, evilisgood!
;D
Here’s how the effectiveness “testing” goes: if the units with women ever experience a drop in effectiveness, blame the women and go back to using solely men. Then the effectiveness can drop all it wants and nobody will think men are the cause! I say that’s pretty fucking convenient, don’t ya think?
(before any of the usual suspects complain: this exact same pattern has been used against women in other jobs before, and still is. A man sucks at driving/math/programming/engineering/science, but women suck at driving/math/programming/engineering/science)
The fuck?
That’s how it goes in the world outside of these particular units, because most employers don’t give fuckall about their employees, and don’t spend the kind of time and effort required to understand, on a fundamental level, where the weaknesses lie. Because the margin of error is nowhere near equivalent, and the price of mistakes like that is nowhere near as steep. If any environment can truly put sex differences to the test, and either shelf them as antiquated or amplify them as salient, it’s a highly trained front-line unit.
Ginmar:
You’re a woman. You can’t lecture a man on combat duty, therefor you are a shrill, hysterical, er, ranty ranting non-person.
lee coye (#282)
And, other than that you are only hypothesizing this for a subset of combat units, how is any of that different from my paraphrases? Just admit I didn’t strawman you and come to terms with the fact that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.
You’ve certainly asserted a lot of shit in the vaguest manner possible, but you can’t seem to get specific or back it up. Also, really? You want to keep women from the choice to take certain jobs because their ovaries might be at risk? (That right there, you clueless wanker, is classic sexism.) If fertility loss were actually a concern, it should still be left to each woman to decide whether she wants to risk it.
It’s hard to believe you’d actually look at the evidence from such an experiment when you’ve tried to ignore all the evidence so far that demonstrates how you’re wrong. You’re just like a fucking anti-vaccinationist who insists we need to do large-scale vaccinated vs. unvaccinated trials before we can conclude that vaccines are safe and effective.
Good lord! Not… muscle deterioration! Not loss of dexterity! Say it ain’t so!
Seriously, WTF.
Yet opening these roles to women doesn’t necessarily mean that every woman in those roles will have “chosen” it, just as men don’t always choose them.
I provided two links so far, and I’ve received nothing but a vague gesturing towards the IDF, or accusations of bigotry and sexism. I’m not being vague, I’m providing some support, and I’m in favor of integrating to serve the cause of equality and allow us to obtain more evidence.
How the fuck am I the bad guy here?
Sally Strange:
I have a feeling we’re going to run the gamut of bodily ills from peeing to stroke. Not that any of that happens to men. Nope. Oh woman, thy name is frailty, eh, Lee?
You did strawman me, but your second response was a lot closer, so I responded. Yes, I’m talking about a subset of combat units; namely the subset that Panetta recently opened to women. Welcome to the conversation.
http://infertility.about.com/od/researchandstudies/a/fertility_exercise.htm
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/84/6/1892.full
First page google search.
And yet I notice diddums here hasn’t come within a ten-foot pole of addressing one fucking thing I said.
Tit for tat, pal.
Define “Normal Sexual Dynamics”. How can “Normal Sexual Dynamics” undermine unit effectiveness? Why would normal training and professionalism somehow break down by the presence of a woman? You’ll need to be as specific as conceivably possible here Lee, when you shifted from “Women cause problems” to “Women cause problems in FRONTLINE UNITS” you shifted the goalposts. Either you nail down EXACTLY what you say or we can safely ignore your bullshit, shifting the goalposts is an incredibly dishonest tactic.
Oh thank you for condesplaining to us poor foolish people about the crippling effects that the poor wimminz have on the frontlines. BTW if it is as plain as day to anyone with a functioning pair of eyes then it should be reported in medical literature right? Don’t worry, I’ll wait for you to go get it.
So you support integration because you are willing to concede you are not omniscient. How humble of you. Also WHAT moral argument? Oh and as for running the experiment its been done. Women do just as well as Men with the same training and abilities.
Oh yes, how moralistic of us to believe women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. Our bad. Also what does “Obligate them into these roles” mean? Um, if a qualified person wants to choose a military career what right do you or anyone have to say no based only on race or sex or orientation? And why bring up “Lusty young lads”? Is that relevant? I can only assume you mean bad dogwhistley MRA bullshit with that line. Also before you act all sanctimonious about how the poor Wimminz need to be kept out of danger perhaps you should a) Stop being a sexist asshole and b) actually demonstrate that the risks ARE greater to females and males. Oh and if by some miracle you found reliable Science saying women are at greater risk then men I WOULD STILL BE IN FAVOR OF FULL EQUALITY because there’s no reason to be a chauvinistic asshole who feels they need to decide what a woman can and can’t do. That’s a very sexist patriarchal attitude.
How the fuck am I the bad guy here?
When it squirts like a goeduck, and lies inert on the sand like a goeduck…
You’re a sexist asshole. You’re also intellectually dishonest. First it was “Women harm combat cohesion”. Then it was “Women harm combat cohesion BUT ONLY IN FRONTLINE UNITS”. Then it was “Women have health issues in the military”. Now it’s “Women might be FORCED INTO JOINING SO WE NEED TO PROTECT THEM!”, nevermind there are better ways then “Everyone without a Y chromosome should be excluded by default”.
@lee coye
Well, if I didn’t understand your argument, you should try being clearer. I said it was the most I could parse from your obtuse and euphemism-laden “argument”.
First: what are you calling “normal”? Since you’re worried about men and women mixing together, I presume you mean “heterosexual”. In which case, fuck you.
Second: what you’re positing isn’t even an hypothesis, because it has no data to start off from. It’s merely conjecture. You won’t convince many people around these parts if all you have is conjecture.
Stop trying to play the white knight “protecting” women from the risks of actually doing what they chose to do. Women don’t need that kind of “protection” that takes agency away from them. Take it and shove it in the orifice of your choice.
You say that with one breath, and with the other keep citing reasons why you think it shouldn’t be done. Just pick a position and stick with it, damn it.
(if the post is in duplicate, that’s because my connection fell right when I was posting)
Sure, Lee. We’re so unreasonable to think you’re sexist, just because you seem to think that women should be discouraged from choosing their career over their potential future fertility. It’s sooooo weird that we think you’re sexist, when all you did was suggest that women should be excluded from combat units because of incontinence, muscle deterioration, and loss of dexterity, while studiously ignoring the obvious fact that these things affect men as well. We’re so MEAN for thinking that you’re sexist just because you refuse to consider the possibility that toxic masculinity might actually be a source of far greater weakness than the presence of 2 or 3 women for every 10 guys.
We are not moralizing. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE MAKING THIS A “MORAL” ISSUE, you flaming doucheweasel.
We keep trying to introduce the radical notion that women are human beings into that bony structure of yours that supposedly holds a brain.
I’m not interested in sticking to you limp little points, seeing as how you’re a troll anyway. Have you yet accused women of not being able to hump their gear? How about flapping your hands in a panic and declaring that women will cause men to put themselves in danger to save them? ‘Infections’ show up yet?
So: other people have already addressed your issues. The fact that I can speak from experience in a way you can ‘t is enough to leave you fleeing with your tail between your legs.
Come on. Look. How’s a dude gonna shoot straight when there’s tits to look at? srsly.
(btw, Lee: as we used to say in North Jersey: I got a ‘unit’ for ya right here)
Shorter Lee:
Sure, sure. Let the broads into combat. BUT YOU’LL BE SORRY! I totally support equality, because even though stupid bitches fuck everything up, I still support letting them prove it in practice.
Hearing loss is a pretty big problem coming from long term military service too. Lee just want’s the girls to be able to hear his requests for sammiches and beer, ’cause you know, it would be totes distressing for them if they couldn’t serve him properly. /pointless sarcasm. ‘Cause really, there seems to be no point in being anything other than sarcastic towards Lee.
From my first comment, in response to the “goalpost shifting” accusations:
Right, next accusation. Sexism/bigotry/meanieface-poopiehead. These aren’t arguments. Last thing I’ll say about that, for those of you responding with comments wholly composed of these banalities (you know who you are).
No. I said they do not affect men to the same degree, and more men than women are unaffected entirely. It’s right there in black and white.
You’re simpleminded for thinking that calling me “sexist” constitutes a valid argument, worth taking very, very seriously. I get it, you don’t like me, you don’t like what I’m saying. Move on.
You speak from experience, but what you’ve said so far has nothing to do with what I’ve argued. That’s not my fault, and I’m under no obligation to pick through all your misrepresentations and confusing, pointless ramblings in search of a point worth taking seriously.
That’s hardly “supporting” it, is it? You’re willing to accept it, but you clearly don’t want it to happen.
Stick to your principles. If you truly believe a change of policy is likely to result in significant risk to troops, then make your case and stand in the face of the opposition. If you don’t actually know if it will or not, then stop making so much goddamn noise about it.
But what bothers me more is your earlier phrasing:
Which reads as “I’m safe, so now is a great time to make changes that (I think) will get troops killed. Screw those guys, I can use their deaths to prove a point!”
If the above passage is what you really think, then you may just be a sociopath.
You’re actually unlikely to get much argument from anyone about either of these two points (my numbering).
What’s missing is the implicit third point: those women who do volunteer, and do make the cut, are by definition fully qualified and capable of performing the role. The current policy is discriminatory because it excludes all women, even those who could potentially be more capable than successful male candidates.
Is the Marine Corps so incompetent that it would deploy women in roles for which they have not demonstrated fitness (to the same standards as men)? If not, what is the increased risk?
Is the Marine Corps so incompetent that they accept men who are suitable for non-combat roles, then deploy them to combat roles anyway? If not, why is this a special concern for women?
Then again, maybe you should just fuck off.
Go back to jersey and ask your mom for a better joke. I’d ask her myself, but she’s all business with me.
The fact that you think that “You’re being sexist” is not an argument shows how fucking useless you are.
“Sexist” is a descriptor for a particular brand of irrationality.
So pointing out you’re a sexist asshole who has absolutely no evidence to support their sexist assholery somehow isn’t a valid point anymore? Because so far you’re a sexist asshole who has yet to provide any good reason to oppose integration.
Also I did indeed fuck up with the Frontline Integration bit. You are correct, I take responsibility for being wrong. Now you have to actually demonstrate some reason to oppose frontline integration.
Lee, your whole argument is that women can’t do the job and mens’ feelings about them matter and should be indulged. Then you vomited a whole bunch of vague crap about women. I addressed that. And I addressed it from the perspective of a woman and a combat veteran.
Right, like that’s going to happen.
This confuses me. When did commenting on a blog post constitute “making so much goddamn noise”? Is it just preferable for you that everyone who comments be in agreement, or be certain of their position? Can I not voice an academic dispute about a relevant issue? Quite a lot of calls to shut up so far, perhaps you can explain why that is.
Well, I explained previously why the timing is fortuitous for such a change. You’ll have to track that down yourself, since you’ve stumbled onto this one a little late with a lot of storm and fury.
I’ll answer this and your later two queries together. This is why I agree with Panetta’s decision, over my own apprehensions. I’ve outlined those apprehensions already, caveats in place. As to men and women being put into roles they didn’t choose, I think the fairness of this rests on whether men and women face equal risks of bodily harm in the normal course of their duties in particular units. Whether they can make the cut is a secondary concern, frankly, over whether they would be choosing to enter those units or not. There’s always the option of just flunking the intro, but that’s as likely to get you booted from the service as reassigned to another billet. My only point was that opening those billets to women doesn’t necessarily entail that in all, or even most, cases women would be afforded the choice. If there exists a disparity in risk, not having the choice wouldn’t be equal treatment.
@lee:
Shorter version: other jobs can afford to hire silly wimminz because “mistakes” like that won’t cost lives like in the army. *rolls eyes*
No.
No.
Not remotely tempted to take you seriously. This isn’t helping.
No. Other jobs can afford to blame women for mistakes they don’t make, or cite women for mistakes made by men, because A) they don’t give a shit, and B) they’re too blind or lazy to tell even if they did give a shit.
: 0
my Mom?!
: 0
@lee:
And what are you for ignoring the REASONS why we think you’re a sexist fuck?
@lee:
That doesn’t follow from your argument, or from mine for that matter.
I mentioned women being judged IN GENERAL from their individual performances, while men are rarely, if ever, subjected to the same. It wasn’t about misplaced blame, but about stereotype.
Here’s a handy dandy comic explaining how it works.
Our entire (Western) society does it all the time. Why do you think the army would be immune? Because people die in it? Oh, yeah, that sure worries the people who set the policies. I’m sure they shed tears of black liquid sorrow for the plight of the common soldier. *snicker*
Okay now I’m confused Lee. Once and for all: What are your arguments against Frontline Integration?
That’s funny, because the military does this all the damn time, at least when it comes to sexual assault. If the military can’t afford to do this, why are they doing it?
lee coye (#291)
I didn’t choose to have a mass of scar tissue in my left cheek, but I did choose to undergo the surgery that left me with it in full knowledge that scarring was a risk. Same principle.
You’re being so euphemistic that no one can tell what you’re referring to. I mean, maybe you think talking about “whether female biology will present a liability” or “normal sexual dynamics” crushes any ambiguities, but, back in reality, it’s vague as fuck. Your support? Is massively inadequate, but I do not have the time to go into why tonight. Others have tried to point out some of the problems, and if you want to get more details on what’s wrong with them, try asking directly. (Though, I will say, if you want to protect women from incontinence, you better never get one pregnant.)
Maybe, just maybe, it’s how you say things like: “Not all cracks are caused by gays, or would be caused by women, I don’t even think most are, but it’s just one more burden to bear.” But really you mean women (and gays) should be the ones to pay for things they didn’t cause. That’s just one sexist refrain in your entire sexist opus. And just last comment I pointed to your “think of the ovaries” bullshit as classic sexism. Here’s the thing, honeybun: most sexists don’t think they’re sexist and you’re no exception. Simply declaring that you’re not sexist ain’t good enough outside the confines of your own skull. (Also, see omnicrom’s post at #299)
(#293)
Like all whiners who cry strawman, you can’t be arsed to point out what you’re taking issue with. By the way, my second response said the same thing as the first with only the addition of some context for how dudes fail to treat women as equals. Maybe you could pinpoint what you’re objecting to while I get some sleep.
Sleep sounds good. I’ll try to address Lee’s links at #294 tomorrow.
‘Night, Horde!
omnicrom:
That’s been asked many, many times. There aren’t any reasons or any evidence, just a gut feeling that it’d be a bad idea for some reason.
THAT IS SEXISM. That gut feeling? Ingrained cultural bias, no real reasons. Pretending it isn’t, pretending you have good reasons to fear equality, that’s the same sexism. Fuck, it’s not that goddamned hard to see.
There’s wilful ignorance here too, though – comments 176 and 287 really hammer it home: This is different. It’s not bigotry when I’m/the military is doing it.
Yes. It. Fucking. Is.
I’m currently reading Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice by Jack Holland. Every single piece of stinking, rancid garbage Lee has dredged up from his smegmarmalade filled brain was firmly in place from early history. I’m only up to CE 390 and I’ve seen his reasoning over and over and over.
Y’know, I always find it interesting that people can natter on endlessly about how not washing is apparently deadly to women and could *gasp* destroy their potential fertility, yet no one, no one, ever points how men’s reproductive organs spend the majority of the time outside their abdominal cavities where they have little natural protection and could be quite easily damaged. I mean, I assume protective gear is used, but still, the female reproductive system is a hell of a lot better protected against non-fatal physical trauma. Yet no on says a word about the risk to the fertility of male soldiers. No one suggests that a man isn’t fully equipped to make the decision to risk his own future fertility. No one argues that a man’s fertility is so valuable that he must be protected from himself. Could it be that that maybe, just maybe, that’s not what all this fuss is about anyway???
(Related gripes – The implication that military service gave the author of the article lee coye links to PCOS… Sure, and vaccines cause autism. Who needs medical research when specious reasoning from a person trying to find something to blame for their misfortune will suffice! And man, wow, I never knew that vulvas developed so vastly differently from penises/scrotums that they simply rot without modern bathing facilities. It’s pretty amazing that we’re so different from all other animals that human females would suffer a higher rate of death from genital infections than their male counterparts without regular bathing when this isn’t observed in any other known species. It is just really impressive how quickly human females have managed to evolve, developing all these special physical inadequacies over the short period of human civilization, and all while men managed to avoid such a development completely! It’s almost… well, unheard of. Seriously. Unheard of.)
hamsterWare:
There isn’t a *snort* big enough in any ‘verse for that piece of idiocy. I sympathise with anyone who has PCOS, I had a small taste of it once, when I developed an idiopathic ovarian cyst. However, stress doesn’t cause it nor does military service.
Given how recent regular bathing is, in light of history, it’s a wonder there are any women at all, isn’t it? Surely, womankind must have been endlessly on the brink of dying out, what with the need to be ever so close to a bathroom, both for that constant peeing we need to do and the requirement of very clean genitals at all times.
Why do we speak about the military like it’s just another career, and that empty-headed egalitarianism should take precedence over effectiveness? It should not. If it’s true that putting women on the front lines results in a reduction of effectiveness (wholly apart from the abilities of individual soldiers), then the right thing to do is not allow it. If it makes no difference (again, apart from individual competence), then still the standards must not be changed expressly to allow more women into front line combat roles. If the latter is the case, any woman that makes the cut should be allowed on the front line. There’s nothing more to it.
/stating-the-obvious
Do you think that women in general are intellectually capable of understanding these risks? Are they qualified to make decisions concerning their own long-term health, or do you think that men should decide for them?
45.
@Rev. BigDumbChimp
24 January 2013 at 12:10 pm (UTC -6)Link to this comment
“dumbest thing I’ve read all day.” Your name is the dumbest. What an intellectual you are you. Blow it out your ass chump.
You’re not being noisy because you “commented on a blog post”, or because you disagree, and I’m not asking you to shut up. You’re being noisy because, despite stating that you totally support women’s integration into the military, you keep offering an endless stream of reason’s you think women should not be fully integrated.
You support women in the military, BUT hygiene issues and female biology is a liability.
You support women in the military, BUT their presence will cause sexual frustration and jealousy.
You support women in the military, BUT their presence is bad for unit cohesion.
You support women in the military, BUT men & women are incapable of “soldier-only interaction”(?)
You support women in the military, BUT their integration in other countries apparently shows nothing.
You support women in the military, BUT they might end up infertile!
So many buts. Sir Mix a Lot would be proud.
If you support women in the military so much, why is it that every one of your comments argues against the idea? If you do support them, it would make sense to stop with all the opposition. If you don’t support them, stop pretending that you do. But claiming support while contradicting yourself with negative arguments is really just making noise.
Yes, I know you’ve claimed that the apparent wind-down of hostilities makes now a good time for the change (indeed, you claim that it’s the reason for the timing). But that wasn’t what you originally wrote, and doesn’t erase your earlier comments.
Again, you appear to be reasoning that women shouldn’t be able to make that decision for themselves.
It doesn’t even matter if women face a slightly increased risk over men; as long as each recruit is made aware of the known risks they will be facing, it’s their choice to sign up.
Have you seen anyone here asking for a relaxing of standards to boost numbers of women in the military? No? Why bring it up?
What an ignorant loudmouth you are. You haven’t said anything intelligent since you arrived. Just attitude and slogans.
I have poked my way through this thread, and I might have hit on why there’s misunderstanding and why Lee believes they are being strawmanned:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point is less about the actual physical effects on women in frontline combat units, than it is about the perception, by their comrades, of these effects.
Am I right?
The thing about that issue is that you’re living it: a bunch of people, including women, is telling you it’s not really that big a deal, and that women can and should be allowed the same opportunities and responsibilities as men in this circumstance.
The entire problem with esprit de corps vanishes in a poof of sense if people stop digging their heels in when presented with the idea that women can, and do, function perfectly well in a combat environment (at least, to the extent that anyone can be said to do so).
In other words, the problem you’re worried about only exists because people like you are worried about it.
Of course, I could be way off about what you’re saying, and you could be saying that women themselves actually generally unfit for combat duty. If so, you’re not being strawmanned.
Says someone who uses the oh so witty portmanteau “Obummer” to reference the president and suggests that he hopes for, or wouldn’t be unhappy about, the break up of the family.
It’s just just stupid all the way around.
And as far as that, I’m traveling to the Dominican Republic all next week so there is a good chance of some of that happening.
So you may get your wish.
So you’ve got that.
I think a fitting question is: Why should men be forced to serve when we aren’t?
I just don’t feel women in the military will be equal to men while the recruiting system has such disparity between the two genders. In fact, I often wonder why so few women demand equality in regards to compulsory conscription.
Figured I’d take this bit on:
First, this is an example of benevolent sexism: Rationalizations that supposedly protect women’s health by limiting their opportunities constitute a form of discrimination.
Second, ‘potential loss of fertility’ has been an excuse for barring women since time immemorial; for instance education and even learning to read supposedly would harm women’s ovaries, thus they were kept out of higher ed during the Enlightenment (remember this next time someone asks why there were no female Galileos).
Third, there’s already evidence that men’s fertility is at risk from aspects of military service such as radiation and toxin exposure. (So men should be barred from piloting and space travel then?) Also, men’s fertility can be damaged by exposure to heat, which doesn’t affect women’s fertility.
But nobody tries to claim men should be kept from certain jobs because their fertility might be at risk.
For roughly the same reason so few men demand better research into male breast cancer – it’s a largely theoretical problem. (Though breast cancer in men actually happens and ought to get more research and awareness, IMHO. Compulsory conscription past having one’s name on a list? Not so much.)
…And to make the juxtaposition even more surreal, men exposed to toxins because of military service may be at increased risk of breast cancer. (But they weren’t drafted!)
I don’t know how it works in the US, but in some countries, men are forced to enlist when they reach 18. It doens’t mean they’ll be recruited, but the government decides who is and who isn’t. My son was recruited two years ago.
Women, on the other hand, don’t have this obligation. We’re free to enlist if we want, but we don’t have to.
@lee coye:
It’s simply not reasonable to assert that the dozen or so people reading and failing to understand your arguments are failing to understand as a result of a failure on their part. Every time someone tries to address one of your arguments directly you respond with something like: “OMG that is so totally not what I’m saying!” At some point you’ll either have to clearly explain your argument if you want to make any progress here.
Specifically how would integrating women into front-line combat roles hurt combat effectiveness?
It’s also hard to take you seriously because you’ve ignored some pretty valid questions. You refer to front-line integration as “an experiment” so I explicitly asked you what are the criteria by which the results of the experiment can be determined? What is the relevant measure of “combat effectiveness” that you believe should be applied? You need to be able to answer that question if you’re going to seriously assert that equality before the law should be revoked on the basis of the outcome of such an experiment.
@Lachlan:
How would we determine whether or not the first is the case?
Why should the standards not be changed in the second case? You assert it without providing any rationale. Not much of an argument there.
@lee coye:
Regarding the sexual dimorphism argument, you do realize that some women are bigger and stronger than some men, right?
So the obvious question here is: if, say, 25% of women are stronger/tougher than 25% of men (honestly I think i’m being a little generous to men, here — fatigue and physical pain set in much sooner than real exhaustion and so willpower and high threshold for pain can make up for a LOT of muscle mass) then why should we have laws in place that ensure the 25% of men that are not particularly fit for military service can take on roles that the 25% of women who are very fit for military service cannot?
Do you think it might make sense to determine assignments by demonstrated capability rather than gender? It’s hard to see why you would believe such a thing unless your problem really is with women in traditionally male roles and not with the vague, incoherent problems you’ve been unable to explain in such a way that anyone can understand what they are.
debora@337:
Yes, I made the same argument just a few comments after the first time Lachlan said no one was making that argument and just a few comments before the second time Lachlan said no one was making that argument.
debora @ 341, you’re right – that was US-centric of me. *In the US* only men are required to register, and there are penalties such as loss of student loans if you don’t; however the US has not actually used this list to draft anyone since 1973. Which is why it’s a silly argument coming from MRAs here, especially while they’re claiming women are incapable of military service in the first place.
I think *if there is conscription* then it should apply to all genders, with the caveats that all genders should have equal opportunity for both advancement and recourse of grievances within the military. There’s not much point in advocating for women to be conscripted if they’re also going to be held back and risk rape by their fellows.
Don’t get in. It’s actually a much higher percentage of men who are deemed unfit, and many of them don’t even sign up to be disqualified. Sexual dimorphism isn’t reducible to physical size, though.
Yes, which is why I support Panetta’s decision. People here have understood the problems, and have asked for evidence. Evidence we can only obtain by having women in these roles. Again, why I support Panetta’s decision.
Beatrice, when I said I’d have trouble with that I meant I’d have had trouble qualifying myself. I don’t know why you’re trying to start a fight with someone who pretty much agrees women are fit for full participation, but this is enough for me. Any more and just assume I don’t give a shit what you think.
@debora
#337
Perhaps conscription should include both men and women IF it’s ever chosen.
Letting women serve, in addition to provide equal opportunities to women, provides two further advantages.
1. Less likely for conscription to happen due to larger pool to draw volunteer soldiers from.
2. Less likely for conscription to happen due to 100% of population being potential subject of conscription.
Now, since we’re talking about military… and if you want an argument completely devoid of emotion or of any humanity…
Pregnancy lasts for 9 month, or about 40 weeks.
Further assume that it takes 1 man 1 week to impregnate 1 woman.
Further assume/given that man and woman have identical capability.
That means that a population of about 1:40 ratio between men and women can maintain the maximum possible population growth assuming “proper” social mindset (lots of propaganda and brainwashing).
So if ones’ goal is to maximize their population’s recovery after a war, one would logically be more inclined to heavily skew casualties on the men side of the population in order to get near that 1:40 ratio.
…
And that’s why you don’t do min-maxing in real-life, it gets to some horrifying conclusions.
IF there is an evidential basis for thinking that the objections you raised were valid, Lee, THEN your support for Panetta’s decision makes no sense.
IF you think Panetta’s decision was the best one, THEN you must recognize that any evidence suggesting that the various concerns you raised were valid is thin to non-existent.
IF you recognize that the evidence for thinking that the various concerns you raised were valid is thin to non-existent, THEN you must admit that focusing on them over and over again is nothing but allowing your sexist prejudices to influence your thinking about the matter.
@lee coye:
*sigh* Obviously we can discount those who can’t get in at all. Change my argument to “25% of women who are deemed fit are better than 25% of the men who are deemed fit…” This doesn’t change the substance of the argument at all. Please respond to the substance rather than refusing to address the substance because of an irrelevant nitpick.
Who has understood the problems? Every time someone tries to say “so your problem is X” you respond “no X is a straw man”. You have NOT made your objections clear. This should be pretty fucking obvious from the fact that about a dozen people have had roughly the same interaction just described with you.
You’re still apparently refusing to explain what you’d regard as evidence.
@lee coye:
One more time, buddy: how do we measure “combat effectiveness” to determine whether or not the “experiment” is a success? Rather hard to imagine you’re arguing in good faith if you don’t have sense of how to answer this.
OK.
We don’t. The requirements for front-line roles disqualify over half the population on height and weight alone. The shape of your feet, any medical condition, injuries during the training, psychological barriers, all conspire to eliminate mass quantities of the population. They’re not filling these roles with “men” for penis’ sake.
@lee coye:
Again, the fact that there are minimal requirements has no bearing on the fact that even considering only those that meet the minimal requirements, some women will be superior to some men. It is also irrelevant to the fact that under the current system, those women who are superior to some men are effectively penalized for being men.
You are still failing to address the substance of the argument, focusing on the irrelevant point about minimal requirements.
Are you intentionally dodging the substance of the argument or are you sincerely having trouble understanding the argument?
This is evaluated by unit commanders, based on unit cohesion, adaptability, and teamwork. And, clearly, completing the “mission” at low-no cost. This can be simulated to a degree, but sometimes only really gets tested under fire.
Lee Coye, if you aren’t a presuppositioinal sexist you should be arguing in good faith. Which means you can be wrong is aways a possibility, or in your case, likelyhood. So what is required for you to be shown wrong? And is it reasonable to the average regular here arguing with you? So far, you have been shown wrong seven ways from Sunday. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, “you just can’t handle the truth”.
. . . To which I again point out that I’m in favor of the decision to open those roles, despite my reservations.
Why are you clinging to those reservations? On what basis do you consider them valid? If you don’t consider them valid, why hang onto them so stubbornly?
Correct, and if/when we obtain that evidence, I would advocate for reverting that decision.
Thin, yes. In some cases non-existent. The only way we’ll get that evidence is by running the experiment. So. . . Panetta’s decision is the best one.
Or perhaps bringing them up because there is a great deal at stake, rather than just using an opportunity to flex my sexism.
There is nothing at stake. The experiment has been run and is over. You can’t acknowledge that fact, and keep moaning about the results which weren’t what you wanted them to be. You have had your say. You have nothing more to add but your sexism.
Are you sure? I mean, there is clear and positive evidence that NASA did exactly this for decades when recruiting astronauts. As it turns out, the sexual dimorphism between men and women renders women somewhat likelier to meet the criteria for being an astronaut. Yet NASA ignored their own data and excluded women from their pool of candidates for missions to space. Essentially “for penis’ sake.”
How would you be able to tell whether the military has been doing this? Why are you so sure that they have not been?
Isn’t their reversal of their decision pretty clear evidence that the military decision-makers THEMSELVES have come to the conclusion that their previous exclusion of women from combat roles was essentially “for penis’ sake,” and the concerns people had and have about women in frontline positions are not valid concerns?
You say you need evidence, but you already made your mind, as evidenced by your hand-wringing about “risks” and attempts at knighting for the poor fragile wimminz. You don’t want evidence, you want excuses. Fuck you, doucheweasel.
Women have been going into space since the ’80s.
Not if you think the timing is significant.
There is nothing at stake, at least, not with regard to the concerns you have raised (or appeared to raise in the eyes of us, your poor incompetent readers). The fact that you continue to insist that anything is at stake is evidence that you refuse to free your mind from sexist prejudice.
@lee coye:
So what you’re saying is the only evidence that would qualify would be the subjective opinions of unit commanders?
Can you see why there might be a problem with using that sort of “evidence” to determine the outcome of an “experiment”?
Now, I’d like to back up a bit because you still haven’t been very explicit about these “reservations” of yours. Exactly how do women in front-line units threaten unit cohesion? Can you give an example scenario of how that would happen? And can you explain why you think this would only apply to front-line units? You’re quick to say front-line units are these special unique things but you still haven’t explained how.
You’re very strongly giving a sense that you’re not in favor for that decision because it’s egalitarian but because it will finally prove to those uppity women that they’re just not fit for front-line combat. Can you see why? Your reservations don’t factor into this particular argument because by the premises of this argument the women in question are demonstrably superior soldiers than some of the men in question. Another way of saying this: why do you have reservations about putting the superior soldiers on the front line only in the event that those superior soldiers are women?
This is especially salient considering the fact that your “proof” would in fact consist of the subjective opinions of unit commanders some of whom may not be as “enlightened” as you are (LOL).
The data showing that women were superior, on average, to men, with regards to the requirements for space missions, dates back to the 1950s.
I don’t buy your idiotic contention that military leaders seriously believe that having women in frontline positions might pose a serious risk to the safety of the troops, but decided to test it out anyway, but in a time when there is LESS (not zero) active combat happening, no.
You brought this up in an attempt to make it seems as if the military leaders share your asinine and predictable (to anyone who has paid the slightest attention to cultural misogyny) “concerns” about including women in frontline combat positions. There is no evidence that they are thinking this. Yet more evidence that your objections are grounded in nothing but irrational bigotry against women.
And men have been since the 50’s, genius.
You’re just assuming this without running the experiment. If performance improves, than the lives NOT saved by not integrating before now, or waiting to integrate, are at stake. If performance declines, then the lives lost due to that decline are at stake. If nothing changes, but longterm health concerns cripple the women who do compete in these arenas, then those women’s livelihoods and welfare is at stake. If nothing changes, and there are no long-term gender-specific deleterious effects, then yes, nothing is at stake. But we don’t know which it is, and calling me sexist isn’t going to resolve the question.
Incidentally, the requirements for being a fighter pilot are similar to those for astronauts. Yet fighter pilots continue to be disproportionately male. Hmm. Why is that? It couldn’t be “for penis’ sake”, could it?
Not unless the question is, “Why does Lee continue to cling to outdated and transparently false ideas about the possible problems posed by including women in frontline combat positions?”
In that case, “Lee is sexist” does very neatly resolve the question.
Neither would the sort of “evidence” that you’ve proposed to use to resolve the question.
Are you suggesting that the decision whether those women’s livelihoods and welfare should be “at stake” ought to be made by anyone but the individual women in question?
These are different conversations, different challenges, different concerns. I’ve never been a pilot or an astronaut, I don’t know much about those jobs or those environments, and I have very little to say about them. If it’s true that women are better suited, then we should have more women in those jobs than men; if men are disproportionately unfit or unsuited to those tasks, we probably shouldn’t have any men in those roles.
You’ve also never been a woman but that doesn’t seem to have stopped you from having a fair amount to say about their capabilities.
Putting women into the roles in question wouldn’t resolve it? Are you daft?
Once again, opening those roles to women doesn’t entail that every woman put into those roles “chose” it. That is how it has been for men the whole time, always with the draft, and still with the methods of recruitment. However, that aside, the military does make these determinations absent consent; it’s not solely the choice of the recruit. Indeed, joining the military consists of abdicating many of the rights a citizen enjoys, including in many cases the right to choose jobs. So in that context, yes, the decision is made of necessity by individuals other than “the individual woman in question.”
You’ve never been in a front-line unit, yet this fact hasn’t stopped you from opining either.
My emphasis. You are wrong.
No, we should have fewer men in those roles, in proportion to the percentage of men who meet the requirements.
Why should we bar SOME men from getting a certain job at which they might excel, just because MOST men wouldn’t be able to do it?
The reasoning is just as fallacious, regardless of which gender you apply it to.
Then you can listen when the data do the talking. Women have been kept out of space and piloting jobs that they were BETTER suited for than many men, SOLELY because of sexism. (And if a woman pilot or astronaut spoke up, you wouldn’t dismiss their account as a ranty rant, right?)
Ginmar has, but you ignored her.
Whoops, copypasta error. I meant to quote this:
*facepalm*
Maybe Lee would accept the NASA data if Ginmar posted it while appearing in full uniform with certification of competence from a suitably male commander…
Fact of the matter is that women have been at or near the front lines since at least the Korean War–not by design, but the front line was so variable, it often overtook them in forward bases and hospitals. And women have borne the stress of combat roles since the American Civil War–often assisting to hold down men during amputations (remember, this was before anesthesia). And women have been in de facto combat roles since the first Iraq war. This just changes designation.
And none of this even considers the fact that women have performed just as well in combat as men in the IDF and many European forces.
If mission capability is harmed by men, or men are disproportionately prone to, say, blacking out, or disproportionately harmed by the job in ways that women aren’t, it’s an unnecessary consolation for a few that puts the entire enterprise in peril. In that case, you would ask: what’s more important, space exploration or the career choices of a few men?
If we have that kind of evidence, we shouldn’t be sending men into space.
It’s not about individual performance.
It’s about your performance here, with a grade of “F” in logic, and grade of “A” in whinging about irrelvancies. You have no point, and haven’t for days. Otherwise, it would have been front and center with the evidence, not opinion, to support it.
Why is it better to exclude the whole gender, rather than to have stringent eligibility requirements based on specific needs for the job, which some men and some women will meet? Why exclude the men/women (depending on which scenario we’re discussing here, space travel or military combat) who DO meet the requirements simply because some will not? Your argument makes no sense.
Lee calls ginmar’s first comment a “ranty rant” and then says he won’t even take her remotely seriously. But he’s not sexist or anything guys.
Dude, I’ve met C programmers with better communications skills than yours.
PUTTING WOMEN INTO THE ROLES IN QUESTION WOULD ONLY RESOLVE THE QUESTION IF YOU HAVE A WAY TO MEASURE THE RESULTS. YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN A MEANS OF MEASURING THE RESULTS BESIDES THE SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS OF UNIT COMMANDERS. THIS IS INSUFFICIENT AS AN EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE.
This is the third or fourth time I’ve explained this to you. Get it yet? And you’re asking if I’m daft? You’re apparently just about illiterate.
Please cite any instance where I’ve made a specific claim about front-line combat.
The question here is “why not?”
Let’s try this again. I know you’re barely able to read but I still feel there must be some way to reach you.
Let’s say we have ten soldiers. Five men, five women. Putting them through the ringer, we find the most effective half of these are: two women, three men.
Your position seems to be that instead of putting the five best into combat we should put the five men into combat. WHY?
(By that line of argument, nobody should be sending living organisms into space at all, since they’re terribly adapted for it. Sheesh.)
Actually, just about all my interaction with you has been trying to goad you into coherently stating and defending your position. I’m just about convinced that you’re incapable, but I’d still like to see you try to find where I’ve made any specific claims about front-line combat.
calicocat@389:
I was pretty shocked by that considering he dropped the “I don’t see you guys signing up” bit. Seemed like he’d have a little more respect for veterans of the US military.
No, she hasn’t. Also, her rant was off-topic.
“icky and inadequate” doesn’t even come close to anything I’ve said.
What does that have to do with front-line integration? What does that have to do with unit cohesion for these particular units? What does that have to do with the rigors, not of a few firefights, but the sort of training and operational intensity that front-line units engage in?
Nothing.
Responding to the quotes in the original post by PZ, presumably.
Uh, no. I hope that’s the result, and I’ve said this previously (even previous to ginmar’s post.)
Not in the rank-and-file military, but quite plausibly at the highest levels of combat readiness, and in the positions that 99% of the worlds military bars women from.
And once again, you completely fail to explain why you think this is so or why anyone else should.
argumentum ad populum?
Sorry, my 396 was in response to this:
How so? It seemed pretty on-topic to me.
God of the Gender Gaps.
My goodness, you are stupid.
No. The fact that there are a minority of men who qualify means that those men’s participation will not harm the mission. MEN are disproportionately prone to blacking out; that does not mean that ONE INDIVIDUAL MAN who is NOT that prone to blacking out should be denied the opportunity to do the job.
Based on evidenceless sexism at the highest levels. Which you defend, making you a sexist. You have no point, just sexist whinging. Time to show us you know how to retreat.
If I were you, daniellavine, I’d be tempted to keep copypasting this:
until lee addresses it.
Just to bring the conversation full-circle, wasn’t one of the reasons women were denied access to the space program the (purported) difficulty of designing a catheter?
This isn’t just PEE. This is ZERO GRAVITY PEE!
Yes, she has.
Argument by contradiction! I guess it IS a thing!
You have evidence Ginmar is lying? If so she is a remarkably consistent and persistent liar. I have seen her commenting across many message boards for, oh, about five years or so now. She doesn’t always talk about her military service but when she does it’s always consistent.
Why do you assume she’s lying about her experience? Why are you such a fucking shitheel?
@lee coye:
We know that you think it’s not about individual performance. At least for those who aren’t white men.
Specifically, Lee won’t accept Ginmar’s first-hand account, as a combat veteran, of unit cohesion, much less the counterexamples she presented of women performing just as well as men and alongside them (in #270 for y’all following along) but Lee WILL (theoretically) accept the estimations of unit commanders at the very highest levels… coincidentally, the levels that women so far have been barred from and are therefore unrepresented in the group Lee will listen to. Very convenient, that.
@LeeCoyne
15% of the Canadian armed forces are women. 2% of combat roles are filled by women. Women have been in combat roles 1989, with the exception of submarine service, when women joined in 2003. (And oh! The outcry! They hotbunk on submarines, donchaknow. Very close quarters!)
We don’t have a large military, but that hasn’t stopped us from being on the hotseat in Afghanistan for the last decade+. Menstruation and urinary incontinence or whatever your problem is and all. Unit cohesion is pretty damned good, thankyouverymuch, possibly because the male soldiers don’t seem to feel the need to rape their female counterparts at the rates you’re seeing in the US. And yes, the women meet all the same standards as the men.
So take your doubt that American women could perform as well as the rest of us and shove it. If there is a problem with “unit cohesion” you solve it. You don’t do it by babysitting prejudices, you do it by having the brass and sergeants making it 100% clear that that behaviour will not be accepted. And following through when the first few douchbags don’t listen.
@lee coye:
Gentlemen, we present lee coye the totally-not-sexist. “Well, women have been kept out of armies since ever, so there must be something to it”. Guess what, shitstain, women have been kept out of MOST EVERYTHING since ever, and that’s been shown again and again to have no evidence behind it.
Why do you think the Army is more special than piloting, science, engineering, medicine, space exploration, high-end sports, politics, administration, professional education, and so on and so forth? Why do you think only they are true evaluators of performance and unhindered by the sexist bullshit that pervades our ENTIRE society? Try to give a straight, clear answer.
*sigh* No. She really hasn’t been in the units that have been closed to women until Panetta’s decision. No women have. Go chase the quotes before calling this goalpost shifting, I specifically responded to the claim that ginmar had been in one of these units.
There is a difference between these types of units, a difference that is incomprehensible to an outsider. She’s been in combat. Super. So has half of Africa. There’s a difference to be understood here, if you’d get past the urgent need to be snarky.
And with those units now open to women, I will continue to accept the estimations of those commanders. oh ehm gee.
oh god, missed this one.
Being in the army has nothing to do with being in the army, and going to war has nothing to do with going to war. Gotcha.
wondering called it at #407.
Sophistimacated Theology of War?
So you have a reason but you can’t explain it because it’s “incomprehensible”.
Given your performance so far it seems rather more likely that you’re simply not articulate enough to explain it.
Try anyway. What is this magical difference? If it’s so fucking relevant then you should be able to draw some kind of causal narrative to give us some idea of what your fucking problem is.
@Pteryxx
Aw, thanks! My first time ever being complimented by a regular poster. I feel like I hit a milestone.
/allaboutme
Yeah, ’cause “combat roles” are what this discussion is about. Also, it’s refreshing to see a discussion on FTB that has nothing to do with rape, turn into a discussion about rape. Such a radical departure from the normal way of things. . .
@Lee Coye
Seriously? You don’t think rape rates in the US military have any effect on unit cohesion?
FUCK YOU
Sign up. Experience it yourself. If you’re right, and I”m wrong, it’s there to be discovered. Alternatively, ask some veterans of these units about it. Try listening to men’s experiences.
Do try to bear in mind that you haven’t really established a lot of credibility; you’ve given no one any reason to trust your say-so in the least. So if you’re going to try to convince someone of something it’s not going to be enough to say “it’s incomprehensible, just take my word on it.”
You don’t get to ignore as many arguments and objections as you have and then use that kind of “argument”.
I’m starting to get a little confused as to what you’re doing here at all. Really look back at your arguments and ask yourself if you’d take them seriously if you weren’t the one making them. You’ve really said nothing sufficient to convince anyone of anything. Your argument really boils down to:
“Women are undesirable in some but not all combat situations. I cannot or will not explain the difference between those situations in which they are and which they aren’t; you’re just going to have to trust my manly military might on this one. Also, hygiene.”
Let me guess: “Strawman!” If it’s a straw man then explain your fucking argument because you clearly haven’t done a very good job if you’re still being “misinterpreted”.
Or, we can go back to this:
Of 10 soldiers, 5 women and 5 men, the best are found to be 2 particular women and 3 particular men. Why is it better to deploy the 2 men demonstrated to be less effective soldiers than the 2 women demonstrated to be more effective soldiers?
Bear in mind this is just a thought experiment being used to eliminate the “sexual dimorphism” argument. You have several (weak) arguments against integrating women soldiers into front-line combat and you still have not really explained the “unit cohesion” one. TRY.
Trying to, buddy. I’m actively asking you questions to try to understand your position. The fact that you’re failing to explain anything about anything really isn’t my fault. I’ve been pretty patient with you.
God of the gaps: a type of argument from ignorance fallacy, in which ever-shrinking gaps in (usually scientific) knowledge are supposedly evidence (for God’s existence).
God of the gender gaps: a type of argument from ignorance fallacy in which ever-shrinking gaps in women’s achievement are supposedly evidence for women’s inherent unsuitability.
Totally not a sexist! Totally different than asking all-white units about black men’s fitness for combat, or all-het units about gay folks’ fitness for combat.
@wondering: …I’m a regular? >_>
/impostorsyndrome
Wait, let me back up again. Are you trying to convince me of something here? Does this seem like the sort of argument that would convince me of anything?
And if you’re not trying to convince anyone of anything, why are you posting here?
If you’re going to try to get people to acknowledge your position is correct or at least plausible you really need to be willing to argue for that position. Otherwise you’re essentially just trolling.
And I can tell it’s not your intention to troll, but I’m having trouble understanding why you would state a position and then fail to argue for it even when invited and asked to argue for it. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
“I insist on believing X thing which I refuse to actually explain to anyone in any useful detail but I’m going to keep asserting it anyway, because reasons. Also all your arguments against the thing I’m refusing to explain are just proof you don’t understand the thing I won’t explain to you. So I’m right.”
Yes, lee coye, that really is how you’re coming across.
Oh, it’s easy enough to understand what Lee’s saying: He’s saying that all those ‘lusty young men’ all het up on adrenaline from combat, just won’t be able to restrain themselves if they’re around wimmenz. Basically he’s very coyly playing the ‘rape nature’ argument while insisting he’s not. When you realize that, like most apologetics of this nature, his argument is fundamentally dishonest and two-faced, everything snaps into place.
OT:Pteryxx, you’re definitely a regular; you kick ass on a regular basis in way more places than I ever manage.
Lee Coye desparately wants to be seen as the AUTHORITY on the subject. But, without means to show it has that authority, it doesn’t have it, and its arguments merely sound as whiny and self-serving sexism. He will never be seen as the authority in this subject due to blatent sexism. The same problem the Slymepit has. He may as well pack it in.
Questions Lee needs to answer to himself:
1) what was your goal posting here?
2) how well are you acheiving that goal?
3) if no success, why are you still posting here?
I have, actually, and it’s only been quoted twice (so far as I can tell), yet both times it’s misconstrued as somehow a justification for sexual assault or something. I have pointed out the difference, and that part of my argument is just ignored for the space of a dozen comments, until someone, like yourself, adopts this patronizing tone of being “patient” and “listening”, and demands I re-explain the same fucking thing all over again.
I’ll quote it, you’ll reinterpret it as condoning sexual assault (as you have before), and a dozen comments later you’ll be shedding crocodile tears for my incoherence. Even supposing I could somehow “get” you to consider my argument, it’s not important to you because A) it’s probably not going to be a problem (according to no evidence) and B) who cares about it anyways, shouldn’t we be more concerned with egalitarian norms? and C) that’s sexist, therefore shut up about it.
I’ve had a bucket of laughs with this discussion. Some of the shit ya’ll come up with is pretty darn funny, and when I point out where you totally jump the shark, there’s almost never a recognition. Correction forgotten, back to attack mode, then you make the same mistake ten comments later. It seems to me that any further contribution on my part is going to be just rehashing the same things I’ve already said in response to the same nonsense misunderstandings that keep cropping up, sprinkled with insults, accusations, and incessant calls for my silence.
Of particular note has been the repeated attempts to inject rape, and rape statistics, into this discussion. I’ve ignored most of them, because aside from being comically irrelevant and grossly inflated, I agree with the position that sexual violence is a serious problem, and itself deleterious to morale and unit cohesion. What you all hope to accomplish by persisting in bringing it up is pretty clear: he’s sexist, so he’s probably a rape apologist, so he’ll probably say something stupid about rape and we can dismiss him. Rape-talk is just one of the many ways you’ve tried to fit me into a mold for easy packaging, and rather than casting me in a negative light, it just shines a bright light on how narrow-minded and cultish your collective responses to disagreement are.
This is further reinforced by the fact that I can respond to five comments by five consecutive commenters by quoting one of you. One bobble-head gets a (not so) bright idea, the dogpile begins, I point out why it’s either not relevant, not a fair portrayal of my position, or why I agree with you, and suddenly you’re all mystified. Then another five comments about how sexist I am. Rinse and repeat.
Many of you have absolutely given as good as you got, and I’ve had the opportunity to put my ideas to the test. For that, I’m glad I came and spoke up. We’re nearing 500 comments, and I’m more than a little tired of this. So, thanks.
Rape has no effect in unit cohesion, you see, because the reasons are too sophistimacated for us civilians to understand.
Or maybe because the people evaluating “unit cohesion” are the same kind of misogynistic baloney craftsmen seen everywhere else, and they value the well-being of bigots and rapists more than their victims’.
Damnit, I was trying to make a meme with STOW, but yours is catchier.
ew, girlpee all over the cockpit
@lee coye:
And you talk about misinterpretation. Let’s reconstruct the argument, shall we?
You say that women have been kept out of the army because of legitimate concerns about unit cohesion. In response, you have been pointed out that the oh-so-rational-and-effective unit cohesion evaluators from your beloved army UTTERLY FAIL to take the rampant cases of rape into account. If rape has a negative effect on unit cohesion, as you say, then the authority and capability of your evaluators comes into question.
Your response is to whine about being called sexist and fill the troll bingo in one go. Congradulations, a winner is you.
Considering your lack of acknowledging your faults in logic, compared to minor stuff we said, you aren’t one to talk about this. Your shark was jumped almost every post where you wouldn’t/couldn’t respond to real and honest questions with evidence, and not personal opinion.
<_<
*goes to look up STOW*
@433: Sophistimacated Theology of War, 412.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/01/24/not-part-of-the-debate-club/
So is that the long-awaited
flouncemanly departure?500 comments, meh.
1. You already explicitly denied that it was about sexual assault. I took your word on this and have not repeated the accusation.
2. You very obviously did not clearly explain your position if so many people are so consistently misunderstanding it.
It’s something to do with lustiness. That’s as far as you’ve gotten so far. How does this lustiness impact unit cohesion?
A — I’ve explicitly avoided such arguments specifically because I don’t have the evidence at hand.
B — Cute, but I think moral arguments about equality before the law are actually pretty serious. You’ve suggested you do as well. Backpedaling now?
C — I don’t think I’ve accused you even once of being sexist; it does seem as though you are but that wouldn’t impact the validity of your arguments if you were making valid arguments in the first place.
If you still think you’ve clearly explained the “unit cohesion” problem then I suspect you’re “pointing out” is not really as on-point or as effective as you think it to be. You’ve very consistently misunderstood, misrepresented, and ignored a great many arguments. As a result, this kind of idiocy just looks like empty posturing.
I haven’t done that except for the one time I legitimately misunderstood your argument — for which I apologized.
I refuse to take responsibility for the actions of people who are not me. You have a problem with that blow it out your ass.
You had no ideas to test. There’s a reason no one here understands your argument — it’s because you still haven’t really provided one.
Look, here’s the explanation that got mistaken as being about rape:
That does not explain what the problem is. That intimates that there is a problem, but it dances around what the actual problem IS. You still have not articulated what the problem is, only that there is a problem. If you think otherwise, again, PLEASE point to the comment where you think you explained it better. The bit above? “marines are humans with weakness instincts and proclivities”? That’s not an argument.
Incidentally, I don’t think you really did any of those things. I think you said some arguments weren’t relevant or weren’t fair portrayals, but you stopped at saying it. You didn’t actually go the full step and demonstrate that you were correct. That seems to be your MO. I’m guessing you just don’t understand the difference between an opinion and an argument.
So Lee at 428 says his explanation of unit cohesion has been quoted twice but he won’t quote it again.
Lee if it was quoted then it’s purely by accident because no one knows your definition? And if it was quoted twice as a justification for sexual assault is it because we’re meanies or because you are HORRIBLY BAD at explaining yourself. The answer of course is YOU ARE HORRIBLE BAD AT EXPLAINING YOURSELF. My question at 321 still stands BTW, after a dozen or so posts of people asking very loudly for you to explain yourself it’s quite rich to talk about ignoring arguments.
Also you say you won’t quote it again because it will be reinterpreted as condoning sexual assault. So instead of taking this chance to explain yourself very clearly and apologize for the implication you whinge about being mean. Fuck you. I won’t stop being rude to you when you come off as hideously sexist and seem flummoxed that a chauvinistic attitude might come across as misogynistic. Oh boo hoo, people are “shedding crocodile tears” about your incoherence. We aren’t, I’m quite unhappy with your toxic mix of arrogance and bullshit. You’ve had more than a long enough grace period to explain and justify your argument and demonstrate you aren’t sexist, you haven’t so I’m going to call you sexist.
I’m quoting this because it’s perfect. You ask why you were recast as the badguy and admit that your argument is evidenceless, goes against egalitarianism, and is sexist. That is a frankly amazing and quite sickening lack of self-awareness. You come on here with an argument that by your own admission is sexist and groundless and you seem surprised that no one is worshiping your front line military wisdom? Fuck you.
The rest of your post is passive-aggressive tone trolling and bullshit. After nearly 500 comments I’m also quite tired of you Lee. Fuck off and stick your flounce.
Probably not. Noted.
I feel like I’m stuck in the “argument clinic” skit from Monty Python.
And so on and so forth, ad nauseum.
@lee coye:
You should also note the possibility that perhaps not all of the dozen or so people interacting with you are being reasonable and that you’ve perhaps simply failed to make a very good case for your perspective.
I’ve been really sincerely curious about this unit cohesion argument (mostly because I think your other arguments are not very effective). You’ve dropped a few hints but it’s still not quite clear.
As far as I can get: teenagers are horny, front line troops don’t have any outlet for biological imperatives, and so integrating women into front line units will lead to sexual relationships and concomitant conflict that undermines unit cohesion.
Bear in mind that’s pieced together from four or five little hints you dropped. You never actually stated the argument so clearly despite your many assertions to the contrary.
Am I on the right track here? Or is this yet another “straw man”?
Should say “unreasonable.” It is of course also possible that not all those dozen people are being reasonable, but that’s a bit beside the point.
@442
Roughly, yes. So far as “never actually” stating it clearly, I thought it was pretty clear in 54, 84, 112, and 124, where I distinguished it from sexual violence.
I wouldn’t put it quite as strongly as “biological imperatives“, rather, physical and emotional attachments that can, and do, undermine a uniform “brotherhood” of the sort that characterizes a particular class of combat unit. The problem I’ve noticed with laying this out is that, while i can get some recognition of the former phenomenon (physical/emotional attachment), without having experienced the second to the degree it forms and fosters a successful unit, it’s very hard to do much more than gesture vaguely at it.
It’s a bit like trying to explain love to a sociopath.
@444 Lee Coye
And yet the ‘unit cohesion’ of other militaries seem to function just fine with mixed gender units. What’s so special about the fee-fees of American men?
@Wondering – don’t bother. You’re the sociopath who doesn’t understand love.
And Ginmar doesn’t get it either because reasons.
And Ginmar is disqualified from talking about because she hasn’t experienced frontline coed units. Well, in point of fact, no Americans have, technically, but still the disqualification applies to Ginmar but not Lee. Because reasons.
And the reasons have nothing to do with sexism.
It’s not just a job, that’s what’s so important. The burden is immense, the margins are tight, and the missions are critical and dangerous. What’s so special about the fee-fees of American women, compared to that?
You know, it’s not like the US military is going out on a wayward never-before-seen limb here.
Quite a number of modern militaries, including at least one of the USA’s immediate neighbours, have had full integration of women into combat units for many years now.
Unit cohesion and effectiveness have not been notably affected.
This is what I was talking about in my longish post. I shouldn’t have to gratuitously clarify my analogies to avoid specious, self-serving misinterpretations like this.
I’m still waiting to see something other than your OPINION Lee Coye. You know, real evidence from legitmate third parties. Your unevidenced OPINION is *FOOF* dismissed as fuckwittery.
Yeah well, you shouldn’t substitute making assertions for making arguments. If you want respect then act like a respectable person.
And as for the so-called “standards”, well there is nothing sacrosanct about those either.
Qualification standards are nothing more than imperfect proxies for what really matters – operational effectiveness, and they change all the time, and with the times, and vary with need as well.
If you’re in desperate need for more warm bodies to plug holes in your lines, then an asthmatic 100lb weakling with a rifle is better than no one at all.
There was once a time when a critical standard for front line combat effectiveness was being rich enough to afford your own bronze breastplate. Not so much anymore.
In perhaps a decade or so more we will have powered exoskeletons that will let almost anyone heft thousands of pounds. Nor does it take all that much physical prowess to operate the joystick that controls a drone.
I quoted 84 TO you, it is not clear at all what you are trying to say there. But 54 was pretty clear. I missed it the first time and apparently missed it again when you quoted it in 112.
I’m still a little confused, though. It’s certainly possible for men to dislike each other intensely or to get into big shit fits and hold grudges. For all sorts of reasons. What are special about reasons relating to “gender politics”? This is exactly why people were asking you how this is different from integrating black troops. Raging bigotry could cause the exact same kinds of rifts that might be caused by sexual tension, jealousy, etc — correct me if I’m wrong here — and yet you insist that the latter reasons are very different from the first.
The really telling part here is in 54 where you said “it doesn’t matter that it’s not the woman’s fault”. It’s still not entirely clear to me how this is different from “it doesn’t matter that it’s not the black man’s fault that the other guys in the unit don’t want to serve with him.”
So this aspect of “unit cohesion” really does seem as effective an argument in the question of integrating black troops as it does in the question of integrating women — you still haven’t really explained how that’s not the case.
I’m also a little confused why your objections would apply to front line troops and not all troops. Yes, front line troops don’t have the option of finding a sex worker or something instead, but having the option is clearly no guarantee against sexual relationships, jealousy, etc. etc. And if such problems are really serious problems they’ll be serious problems in support roles as well as front-line roles.
Are you also insisting that the group dynamic for front-line units is different from support units in a way that is relevant to whether or not women should be allowed to serve in front-line units? If so, how so?
Finally, it would be really nice if you could come up with some concrete, measurable criteria by which we might determine whether letting women serve in front-line units hurts “preparedness” or whatever vague, abstract noun you choose to use. I still don’t really think the subjective assessments of unit commanders would cut it in settling this question. That sounds a lot to me like “you ladies can have equal rights until we men decide otherwise.” Which is an oxymoron since rights aren’t usually considered revocable except in the case of convicted criminals.
And of course, historically there have been military units that ENCOURAGED sexual relationships between frontline soldiers as a way of strengthening unit cohesion.
There is one thing and one thing only that ensures effective unit cohesion in combat, and that is skillful and effective leadership.
Everything else is fluff.
And this excludes women?
No one’s claiming anything special about the fee-fees of American women. What people are claiming is that the assumption you’re clearly making that women are unfit to deal with immense burdens, tight margins, and critical and dangerous missions is…well misogynistic and untrue. It’s hard not to read something like this and not immediately see a “woman are inferior” subtext to it. Can you see why that might be?
Can we talk about why Ginmar’s lack of experience with integrated frontline units disqualifies her from speaking on this subject but your lack of similar experience doesn’t, Lee?
Suppose my position on integrating white and black troops went something like this:
“Well, I think it’s going to seriously threaten unit cohesion. Guys on the front line have to feel like brothers and I think a lot of blacks and whites are going to have trouble feeling that way about each other. I mean, I know it’s not the black guys’ fault but let’s be realistic here. Anyway I take the moral argument very seriously so I do think we should try it out. But I do think that
whenif it doesn’t work out we should reverse the changes.”What would be your response, lee coye?
Classic question-begging. You assume the presence of women will undermine a unit’s ability to bear their burdens, operate within tight margins, and succeed in carrying out critical and dangerous missions.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along; you have no evidence for this assumption. The assumption is a sexist assumption. Your refusal to examine it, your inability to justify it: all evidence that you are sexist.
If the issue is that letting women into the ranks will lead to romantic/sexual relationships amongst the soldiers, then, um…DADT should not only not have been overturned, but the military should demand that every single soldier demonstrate that he is a Kinsey Zero.
Seriously.
Also, I find it hilarious that I (the woman civillian who would be laughed out a recruiting office, what with all my medical issues) have more faith in the professionalism of American soldiers (being able to see a female soldier as a soldier-who-happens-to-be-female, rather than as a potential-partner-who-happens-to-be-a-soldier) than Lee Coye.
In the ’40s? I think we’d both be visionaries if we discarded the argument. I’ve explained why I think the argument differs in this case, but I accept the charge that if I’m wrong I’m going to look as silly as my ancestors.
Quote me saying that.
Yet my null hypothesis is that it will not have that effect. This is akin to thought police, making a big deal out of me presenting a hypothesis that’s not popular.
Actually, it’s VERY popular in general, just not around these parts. The reason it’s unpopular here is that this is a feminist blog. And that hypothesis is based on sexist myths, not facts and evidence. So insisting on presenting it, in the absence of any evidence justifying that this is something that needs to be considered, is supporting and perpetuating sexism.
Stop perpetuating sexism. Unless, of course, you are a sexist and proud of it.
You are free to think whatever you want. And we are free to point out that your thinking is sexist.
So, sorry: no thought police. I guess you’re going to have to find some other cross to climb up on.
Yes, and I’ve explained the difference many times, and expressed assent that my explanations probably aren’t that great. I then gave an analogy for why it’s so difficult to explain.
Heres the problem: if there is a categorical difference between a highly effective unit and other, less effective units, there must be some measurement to distinguish the two. One obvious one is give them the same task, and evaluate their performance. Another is to pit them against one another. Another is to put them into combat, and evaluate their performance there. It’s difficult, however, to come up with an objective measurement. Such determinations are subjective by nature, as the battlefield is fluid and there are too many variables to control for.
You keep asking me for this, but just because I can’t provide that standard doesn’t mean all units are basically the same, and certain changes don’t result in changes to effectiveness/cohesion/etc.. Hence, I leave it up to unit commanders, who know what they’re about and will deliver an uncut assessment following integration. Should be interesting.
Jeez, still with the units?
(yeah, yeah, so’s my mom)
The reason it’s so hard to explain, Lee, is that it’s bullshit. That’s why the only analogy you could come up with was both tendentious and offensive. Sociopaths lack certain neural pathways. Non-military people lack certain experiences.
You accomplished this noble feat in the first 100 comments. Your persistence in bringing it up, as though it’s some sort of argument, is tiresome and smacks of attempts to shame me into silence. Probably works, too, on people that care, and this devil may care response provides you with the opportunity to exercise this tactic, while shielding you behind a lace veil of plausible deniability. It’s despicable and transparent, and the more you pry with it, the deeper I dig in my heels. I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice.
When I looked back I could only find where you said “No. It’s not.” and left it at that. Can you give me a comment number for your actual response?
As I explained previously, “Your arguments are based on sexist myths rather than facts and evidence” is indeed an argument, not a gratuitous insult like “poopyhead.”
But then, I would expect a sexist to deny this obvious fact. And yes, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Now THAT’S critical thinking, folks!
Ah, found it.
1. Some of the arguments against women serving equally are gender-inferiority beliefs, though they like to masquerade as arguments about “sexual dimorphism” and “hygiene.” I’ve noticed you completely fail to engage when I try to exclude sexual dimorphism as a valid argument.
2. Not all the arguments were based on race-inferiority beliefs. The unit cohesion argument was also invoked.
Actually it is — you yourself are citing hygiene and inferiority (you’re calling it “sexual dimorphism”). But it’s also irrelevant because the unit cohesion argument against black integration isn’t purely based on those factors either: it’s also based on the fact that distrust and bigotry between the races would cause conflicts that would undermine unit cohesion.
Since my argument was NOT based on inferiority/intelligence/hygiene but on the same sorts of interpersonal conflicts you assert undermine unit cohesion, this distinction is not actually relevant to the argument you are trying to rebut.
But since you’ve essentially admitted that your attitude in the 40’s would be roughly the same towards black troops as your current attitude towards women I’m not sure it’s worthwhile trying to press this any further. I am mystified as to why you think the distinction you’re making would be relevant to the argument I’m making, but whatever.
@467
184 was my first volley.
I’m speaking to you in THAT tone of voice.
Which means you’ll dig in your heels and be stubborn and refuse to engage with the content of what I’m saying, right?
Sweet. MIND CONTROL. Dance, puppet, dance! I can make you look like an idiot just by using “that tone of voice”!
That’s another unjustified assumption on your part, because unit commanders are just as likely to rely on false judgment due to sexist bias as anyone. Respected voices in the US military claimed gay soldiers caused strife to justify DADT, and before that they claimed black soldiers were incompetent and only fit for manual labor. The black fighter pilots in WWII were said to be useless because they had no air-to-air combat record when they’d never been assigned anything but patrol duty. (Lots of good reference info in Red Tails.) Their assessments will have to be inspected for sexist bullshit, like your arguments have been, for them to be credible about the performance of women newly allowed into these special front-line units.
Should have been your last. Your OPINION *FOOF* is dismissed as unevidenced fuckwittery.
I kept asking because you weren’t answering. If you had responded with something like this then I wouldn’t have had to keep asking. If you have a reason you can’t or don’t want to answer you’re always free to give that reason.
Yes, there’s no such thing as true objectivity. I think we’re all aware of that. Fact remains that if you don’t set formal criteria beforehand your results are useless — not “interesting”, useless. Such a situation essentially guarantees that the outcome will be whatever the “investigator” already believes it to be. You can go look at the literature on why double-blind studies are essentially the only trustworthy kinds in medical studies, it’s interesting stuff.
The point here is that if you let people like you who already seem to have pretty strong opinions about the experiment decide for themselves what the results are then they’re unlikely to find results that conflict with their pre-existing strong opinions.
tangent re “tone of voice”:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/01/interruptions-for-example/
Bernice Sandler’s WIS talk covers tone of voice among other disparities.
Lee Coye:
You insist that allowing women to serve in combat units would adversely affect combat readiness. Militaries in other nations have women serving in combat units and it has not adversely affected combat power or small unit cohesion. What is wrong with US males that we are unable to do what other nations can do?
lee coye, your problem is no problem; merely segregate the sexes, and voilà the sexual tension* vanishes.
—
* Well, apart from any homosexual tension, which you apparently discount.
I understand that it’s hard to describe, but often even if you can’t describe something it’s possible to compare it to something else along certain axes. I am honestly curious what you think the difference in unit cohesion between front-line and other combat roles might be. Even if it’s just “you know you’re going to be out in the shit for a week and you need these people watching your back every single fucking second” that gives me some idea of the distinction you’re trying to draw.
Incidentally, if I wanted to explain love to a sociopath I would say: “It’s like jumping off a 10-story building and knowing with complete certainty that instead of dying or being injured you will feel the greatest sensation of pleasure in your life upon landing.”
Ogvorbis@477:
He’s actually explained that he thinks front-line units are special in this respect but that he doesn’t feel he’s capable of explaining why.
Ogvorbis:
hypothesis 1: US men are extra-specially bigoted and can’t possibly function in integrated units
hypothesis 2: US gender bigotry is especially important, not like those other pussified militaries
—-
Oh heck, and I even forgot atheism. We have military officials claiming right now that atheist soldiers are untrustworthy, mentally unstable, and can’t be allowed to object to Christian indoctrination or else combat effectiveness. Justin Griffith’s whole blog is about this sort of thing – see Rock Beyond Belief in the sidebar.
daneillavine:
He does know, doesn’t he, that some military units in other countries have women serving on the front line? In combat units?
[meta]
Why is a Jenette Vasquez so unthinkable to people?
—
I’m becoming an old-timer, I remember when G.I. Jane came out.
silly oggie. the problem is, of course, that foreign men are not really proper males. they’re really more like women. so of course the quality of their military didn’t change, since it was already all girly and weak. American men OTOH are truly manly male men, and so mixing them with womanly female women will make them worse. If you allow co-ed fighting units, the US military will become as weak and sucky as the militaries of other countries already are.
see? it all makes perfect “sense”.
@470
re: 1+2;
Both true, but excluding dimorphism isn’t answering it. To the second, they were wrong, as I might very well be. I’m cognizant of that, and having learned from history, I support integration.
Not to deny that some tiny minority of women are capable of performing the tasks associated with these billets. Merely to point out that the vast majority won’t be so capable, at the same rates as men, and of those that are, more are likely to suffer short- and long-term health effects that would make opening these roles to women (and subsequently assigning them as per military recruitment protocol) probably a bad idea.
What has happened in the rest of the military is that the standards are “modified” to allow women to enter roles they would otherwise be unable to qualify for. Yet the tasks associated with these jobs aren’t modified, at least not from without, leaving women, even in far less strenuous billets, with a set of tasks that ask far more of them than they do of men. This disparity is immensely more pronounced in front-line units, where the tasks and tempo are tuned for the most capable men.
The ball is already rolling:
I suppose we can just agree to disagree that the character of dispute is, or is not, synonymous. I’m not standing in anyone’s way; indeed, I would have been intrigued to have been part of this experiment on one or more of my deployments (and not for the gutter-diving reasons some of you will now be foaming at the mouth over).
Sally Strange:
Well, your typing is all feminist and stuff!
That’s pretty good. You could even explain unrequited love as smashing into the ground and wishing you were dead. Of course, probably still not going to make much sense to a sociopath.
True enough. Put them in the fight, see what happens. Round and round we go.
Lee here is a poster on AVFM named Raykyn. I can tell by the gravatar image as it has the same hash on here and on AVFM. Among the choice quotes from Lee/Raykyn:
It’s fairly obvious he didn’t even come in good faith. At all.
lee coye:
So, military standards have been “modified” (not modified!) to allow women, and you find this vaguely problematic due to sexual tensions and their womanly weakness.
(‘Tis true the standard was that women were not acceptable, and now the standard is that they might be, and you fear that it will become that they are)
entirely unsurprising. considering the shit he’s been spewing here, it’s entirely in-character for him to hang out with a well-known hate group.
throwaway:
My, my. Well, that explains Lee’s continual attempts to put us narsty women in our “place”. Something he’s failed to do, repeatedly. :D
Goof faith requires the possibility he could be wrong. Since he can’t be wrong, his OPINION *FOOF* is dismissed as fuckwittery. He can be listened to once he stops preaching and starts acknowledging he is wrong.
Nope, and he didn’t even read the *previous* women-in-the-military thread, where this BS was debunked:
That presumes the physical standards accurately measure the needs of the job. They don’t necessarily, and in some cases *were designed* to exclude mostly women, by demanding high upper-body strength for instance when the actual job doesn’t need it. Physical testing should simulate the tasks of the job and not just a list of push-ups and similar.
The information about women having higher injury rates in training was answered, too – when women were given properly fitting equipment and the training TECHNIQUES changed (not the requirements) then the injury rate dropped precipitously. Those cites come from the Canadian military by the way, and I can dig them up from the other thread if necessary (though someone here will probably beat me to it).
See, the “tiny minority” thing is the sort of phrase that’s setting people off, here. Why a “tiny minority”? Doesn’t it seem the least bit reasonable that it might be a significant minority?
This sort of thing is far more indicative to me that you’re a bit sexist than any of your arguments against women serving.
It would be nice to be able to see some indication of how prevalent this is, how far the standards are modified, and how much more poorly women actually do perform rather than taking your word on it. I’m sure it’s the case but without some kind of quantification it’s hard to tell whether it’s a strong argument or not.
But again, I was trying to obviate the sexual dimorphism argument by pointing out that on a bell curve some proportion of women will consistently beat some proportion of men. I was trying to figure out why you’d rather have the inferior men watching your back as opposed to the superior women. “Unit cohesion.” Right, got it.
From what I understand, sociopaths are often pathological risk-takers because adrenaline-fueled exhilaration is an emotion they can experience. It’s actually why I picked the metaphor I did.
lee coye:
You insist that allowing women to serve in combat units would adversely affect combat readiness. Militaries in other nations have women serving in combat units and it has not adversely affected combat power or small unit cohesion. What is wrong with US males that we are unable to do what other nations can do?
Ahh, so now the standards are antiquated and unnecessary. How convenient.
John Morales
My favorite quip
Hudson: Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?
Vasquez: No. Have you?
‘snicker’
Born to laugh at typos.
It’s a tiny minority even in countries like Israel that use conscription.
quoted for redundancy.
Read the article. One of the women cleared the training. There’s no good reason to adjust physical fitness standards that have been battle-tested, and “inclusivity” is an alarming reason to start making changes to our nation’s defense strategy. That is, if you give a fuck about defense.
I don’t know much about sociopaths, really, it was a rough analogy and probably won’t hold up under scrutiny.