The General Political Thread

[Toffee]

You may not believe that women shouldn't be allowed to serve but the previous article you linked sure did present something correlating to that opinion. They decided to reference a supposed fact that mixed gender units have a poorer combat record than those of all-male units, without linking any evidence I might add.

You're right many women don't meet the requirements to be at the highest levels of the armed forces, but neither do many men. How many of us here could be a Navy Seal? I know I certainly couldn't be one. Maybe we ought to start encouraging those brave enough to want to protect our societies rather than constantly put them down. The article makes an obvious attempt to say that women perform worse than men in combat situations (even if it does not state it explicitly), which obviously will be true in some cases just as it will not be in others.

The second article that you linked might be one of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever seen. It could have been written by a TD reddit user. If women weren't capable of being in their units then they wouldn't have passed their training, the article even admits that officials have said this and yet it still goes on to accuse the American military of being some social justice warrior institution.

Furthermore, the article even makes a crass statement about the fact that women are promoted more than men, stating that it's obvious gender bias without any actual evidence that this is true.

I'm not saying that all women are up to the task. There is a higher female failure rate than men in regards to training. But that doesn't mean such heavy generalisations should be placed on women in the armed forces. I'm sure I could find many examples of exemplary female soldiers with a simple google search. The articles you have both linked carry a heavy bias.

[StevenChilton]

Women are not suitable for combat-period. Even if they're in the tiny minority who pass the strength and fitness requirements there's still the problem that their bodies are much frailer and do not cope as well with the nutritional and sleeping pattern stresses that personnel might face in combat.

Every military that has looked into allowing women into combat roles has come to the conclusion it's a terrible idea, despite huge political pressure for them to reach the 'right' answer. Naturally the politicians ignored the findings and pressed ahead with it anyway. You can read what the British Military found here (most of the key findings are on page 3):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf

Just face it, human evolution has not made women well suited to combat on both a biological and psychological level. That shouldn't be much of a surprise but apparently it is to some people.

[BabyJesus]

You may not believe that women shouldn't be allowed to serve but the previous article you linked sure did present something correlating to that opinion. They decided to reference a supposed fact that mixed gender units have a poorer combat record than those of all-male units, without linking any evidence I might add.

You're right many women don't meet the requirements to be at the highest levels of the armed forces, but neither do many men. How many of us here could be a Navy Seal? I know I certainly couldn't be one. Maybe we ought to start encouraging those brave enough to want to protect our societies rather than constantly put them down. The article makes an obvious attempt to say that women perform worse than men in combat situations (even if it does not state it explicitly), which obviously will be true in some cases just as it will not be in others.

The second article that you linked might be one of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever seen. It could have been written by a TD reddit user. If women weren't capable of being in their units then they wouldn't have passed their training, the article even admits that officials have said this and yet it still goes on to accuse the American military of being some social justice warrior institution.

Furthermore, the article even makes a crass statement about the fact that women are promoted more than men, stating that it's obvious gender bias without any actual evidence that this is true.

I'm not saying that all women are up to the task. There is a higher female failure rate than men in regards to training. But that doesn't mean such heavy generalisations should be placed on women in the armed forces. I'm sure I could find many examples of exemplary female soldiers with a simple google search. The articles you have both linked carry a heavy bias.

There is a link to mixed groups performing worse. The bolded, underlined text are links to studies/other articles that have links to studies . Although some of them dont work anymore so rip. And yes I am aware that the articles are heavily biased. The Daily Wire is a conservative site and both the articles are made by the same person. I guess i should have have mentioned that.

[Toffee]

Women aren't meant for the army, period? They can't cope with rough sleep patterns? Have you heard of being a mother? There are many women who can and do cope with the stresses (both physically and physiologically) on a daily basis who prove you wrong. Even your own articles show that men don't outperform them in 100% of cases. I think you can't see the generalizations you're emitting. There are many examples of exceptional female soldiers throughout history and in present day. Denying that is ridiculous.

[junedragon]

I say let women join so long as they are able to meet the same physical testing/performance standards as anyone else.

[Toffee]

I say let women join so long as they are able to meet the same physical testing/performance standards as anyone else.

Yeah this is my way of thinking too

[StevenChilton]

I say let women join so long as they are able to meet the same physical testing/performance standards as anyone else.

Yeah this is my way of thinking too

But it's not just about standards.

[Toffee]

I'm not really sure what you mean

[Theodin]

I say let women join so long as they are able to meet the same physical testing/performance standards as anyone else.

Yeah this is my way of thinking too

But the whole point of Steven's argument (from what I can tell) is that most women don't meet the standards and therefore don't serve.
I think it's about stress tolerance, too. On average males have a higher stress tolerance, and that's a necessity for combat. Advocating for women to be in the military because "it's 2017" (which I realize you haven't said and this is more of a general argument anyways) is both humiliating and degrading for men, women, and the military.

[Toffee]

I was more disputing Babyjesus' point that women aren't capable of combat as a group. Obviously some aren't, as many men aren't. Its condescending, rude and a massive generalisation to label all women is incapable when many female soldiers carry out their roles with pride and at exemplary standards.

[BabyJesus]

I was more disputing Babyjesus' point that women aren't capable of combat as a group. Obviously some aren't, as many men aren't. Its condescending, rude and a massive generalisation to label all women is incapable when many female soldiers carry out their roles with pride and at exemplary standards.

O when did i say that women are incapable? Literally fucking no where. I think you are confusing me with steven tbh.

I say let women join so long as they are able to meet the same physical testing/performance standards as anyone else.

I actually agree with this statement. Its literally what i said in every single one of my posts. The point of that article is to show that most women cant meet those standards, and that in order to "diversify and make the military more equal" the military would make it easier for women to join, which i am against.

[Toffee]

Yeah I did confuse you two, one of you change profile pic pls.
Didn't the article you link mention that the army said that they wouldn't be lowering standards? You can't say that they are when there isn't any evidence for it.

[BabyJesus]

Yeah I did confuse you two, one of you change profile pic pls.
Didn't the article you link mention that the army said that they wouldn't be lowering standards? You can't say that they are when there isn't any evidence for it.

Yea it did. But I just think in the future something like that will be done

[Toffee]

I doubt it. The army has always upheld their high standards and I don't see why they'd stop now

[StevenChilton]

The physiological and neuromuscular differences between men and women means it's a bad idea letting them serve. As I've said already, they're 2 or 3 times more likely than men to develop injuries according to the British military studies. Makes sense given we already know that in the sporting world female athletes have far higher incidences of injury than their male counter-parts.

Their bodies are also relatively poor at coping with nutritional and sleeping pattern stresses compared to men.