re: Women in Combat Arms: The Master Thread

quote:

---

Actually, it's stupid for the following reasons and these reasons are really irrefutable. 1)Training costs money. 2)There are limited training slots. 3)The rate of men who arrive at training with a shot of passing is not 100% but it is many multiples higher than the rate of women who have a shot. 3)Thus, every slot you give a woman is a slot you didn't give to someone with a SUBSTANTIALLY greater shot to not waste your money. Now, it would be one thing if like 80% of men could pass and 60% of women. But no. The numbers are a lot more like 90% of men can and about 10-15% of women can.(and that's probably a VERY optimistic take on it) From a resource use standpoint, it is more fricked up than a football bat.

---

quote:

---

Did anyone else hear Colonel Jessups voice while reading this? quote: People like you are the motherfucling problem. You'll never be in combat and you won't have to deal with the consequences of women in combat, but you give the notion of women in combat credence because you said the magic words "SOCOM." And you don't really feel that way deep down. Deep down you don't women women there but it makes you feel enlightened or some shite to say "Well, if the can meet the standards then they should he able to do the job."

---

quote:

---

If a woman passes all the tests, and is without a doubt better in all areas needed for the military job than one of the men on the team, would you allow her to take the job? This is NOT a simple question and I'll illustrate why. There were 19 women given slots to try and pass Army Ranger Training(100% failed). When filling training slots, the Army(or any employer) does not have unlimited funds to let everyone "try". As such, NORMALLY, said employer tries to give people a shot with a high chance of success. With that in mind, remember that 19 men who put in applications for that same course were not given a shot. Ranger school has a historical 50% pass rate. So, the Army now has about 9-10 fewer rangers than it could have reasonably expected had it selected the 19 men they overlooked. There are typically 11 classes per year. Hence, in one year the Army would have 110 fewer rangers in its inventory than it should. Over the course of 10 years, this would amount to a loss of an entire Ranger battalion worth of personnel. And THAT is why the Army should not be in the business of just letting a bunch of women "try".......

---

quote:

---

Obviously As for the rest of your post I honestly couldn't follow what point you were trying to make. I didn't understand how the whole team died because two people were fricking. I put the blame for that on myself and not on you. The entire point I was trying to illustrate is that it's about unit cohesion. The dirty little PR secret of the Iraq and Afghan wars is that most mixed sex units were absolute clusterfricks as far as cohesion and effectiveness go largely because the people in them couldn't keep it in their pants. It will happen no matter what you do. That absolutely cannot happen in line units; the examples I gave were just a very few of many, many things like that that have happened/could happen. It destroys trust, cohesion, effectiveness, morale, on and on. I know of not a single soldier or Marine who's been in a combat unit - liberal, conservative, moderate, socialist, reactionary - who thinks putting women in combat units is a good idea. Not one

---

quote:

---

So we should open training pipelines, assign additional cadre, burn training slots, modify living quarters, and waste money, just in case one comes along? That makes sense to you?

---

quote:

---

Sounds like the army fricked up pretty badly when deciding who to train. It was the best females the Army has to offer. You didn't make the point you were going for.

---

quote:

---

Because gender is a protected class So the frick what. It's already been established that Constitutional rights go right out the window the minute you sign the dotted line. Do you think Russian sub crews or the IRGC are going to take it a little easier on a mixed sex unit because they aren't as effective? Drill this through your fricking skull: it's not about fairness. It's about what makes the most effective fighting force in the world. War isn't fair. Combat isn't fair.

---

quote:

---

I don't know why any citizen who is ready, willing and able to serve should be denied. The "able" part is important. How exactly do you think the Armed forces determines who to accept when they show up to recruiting stations? Do you think they take everyone? Do you think the training slots are an unlimited resource? Do you recognize that it costs more to accept recruits who you know are less likely to succeed at a given MOS?

---

quote:

---

So when people ask why women shouldn't be on subs or combat units or any military unit really, we've given numerous reasons as to why not. -Adverse effects to unit cohesion due to sexual tension and pregnancy -They are physically weaker, even the best the Army and Marines had to offer couldn't pass the muster. -Financially unsound. Spending money on women who want to try even though there is a zero percent success rate. Money spent of god awful "training" telling me it's wrong to rape people. No fricking shite. -Women are more susceptible to PTSD and other medical ailments than men. They're body breaks down quicker and they are more easily injured. And after all of that we ask them "Why should women be allowed to do these jobs?" and they answer "Why not?"

---

quote:

---

What happens when 11% of females can't deploy because they conveniently get knocked right before shipping out? What happens when even more of them get pregnant on deployment because they can't keep their pussy in their pants? DI'd you know that the Navy spent billions modifying it's ships just to have female birthing and heads and even OBGYNs on the ship? Why the frick did we do all that. We don't need women As a matter of fact they are hindrance to every ship and unit they are in

---

quote:

---

for the sake of full disclosure, remind us all again why you think women shouldn't vote? Cause they are emotional creatures who vote for large social programs. The right to vote makes them feel empowered but it's all an illusion. They've simply replaced the security that a strong husband provides with the security of a large government. They also vote for things "for the children" that don't actually do anything for the children but it sounds nice. That's the caregiver side of their brain coming out. But none of that has anything to do with this thread. This post was edited on 6/10 at 8:41 pm

---

quote:

---

Petronio's explanation is clear and straight-forward. The long-term wear and tear on the body while in the infantry is pretty bad. I've had my own relatively minor issues, but I've seen legions of otherwise healthy guys just totally frick their bodies up. I don't know of anyone who has been in the infantry more than fifteen years who hasn't had at least one surgery. That doesn't even begin to delve into the morale and effectiveness issues (by far the most important aspect and being totally ignored by all), but the physicality is important nonetheless.

---