Toxic Feminism

[DiscoBiscuit]

1. She still got further than most of the men I know in my daily life. Most dudes don't even volunteer to try, not just for seals--but for the military in general. Some do and then don't make the cut. I've heard some of the lamest excuses in the world for not trying--like "I don't do well with people telling me what to do" and "I just couldn't lose the 5 lbs I needed to lose to enlist" and other BS excuses. She's more badass than most normal civilian guys who haven't done a lick of trying in that department. It's easy to sit back and criticize a woman for trying and failing... but when men out there haven't even tried themselves, I'd say it's bullshit to talk any shit. And even those that do, no man gets booed and looked down upon in such a snobbish manner when they cannot complete the training. Men have a far from 100% completion in NORMAL military training, and less in special ops like the seals. So why all the hate and anger that she failed? If it truly is biology, you wouldn't be so fired up about it--it would work itself out... no woman will finish the training, end of story, if biology is truly the major factor at play here. She is not the first person to drop out of SEALs training sessions... She is just the first of many women who will try.

2. We're all taught from a young age it's better to try and fail than to not try at all--so I don't see why it's 'fiction' that she tried her best, but knew her limits. It's a powerful thing to know your limits. She had a lot of pressure on her, and she made the best decision for her body and life. That's a mature, adult thing to do. I would expect that from any good soldier.

3. I really don't understand the snobby attitude about all of it. You're against women in combat roles, we get it. But as a woman who has done combat roles, talking to a man who has not, I can guarantee you I haven't ever once snubbed my nose at any man or woman who couldn't make the cut on any job (civilian or military) based on their gender alone, but rather the merit of their character. I'll always applaud someone trying and failing before I applaud someone backseat driving and monday quarterbacking thinking they know wtf they're talking about. I do believe biology plays a factor in situations like these--but I do not believe in stopping anyone from trying their best. If a rare woman with the ability to do this job comes along, I don't believe in limiting her because 'most' women couldn't. I don't see the seals lowering their standards for the sake of a woman anytime soon. If a woman passes, it'll be because she was a total badass.. like the men who pass.

4. Men seem super protective of jobs they don't ever do. Unless you were a seal yourself (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe you don't have military service yourself) I really don't see your opinion counting as much as those who do the jobs themselves. They let her try out. The military saw fit to bring that barrier down. I don't see why people who don't even DO anything in that realm are suddenly up in arms. If you don't like it..Feel free to join, work your way up the ranks, and get that decision changed. But you'll have quite a few women doing the same in the process. And I think, honestly, your time and talents are better suited elsewhere.

Was doing that on phone and couldn't get across what I wanted to. Was also a little drunk. Here is the important part of the article I wanted you to see.

In 2012, when the issue wasn’t even special ops but just women in combat, Marine Capt. Katie Petronio published a powerful essay entitled, “Get Over it; We Are Not All Created Equal.” She knew what she was talking about: Her body was broken by two combat deployments. Due to the time she spent in full combat load, she suffered numerous nerve damage and physical problems. “It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions.” For Petronio, that included permanent infertility, which she blames on her deployment.

I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

Both as a victim of the concept of an egalitarian military and a combat veteran, Petronio notes the non-gender discrimination within the Corps:

Marines who can run first-class physical fitness tests and who have superior [occupational] proficiency are separated from the Service if they do not meet the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. Further, tall Marines are restricted from flying specific platforms, and color blind Marines are faced with similar restrictions. We recognize differences in mental capabilities of Marines when we administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and use the results to eliminate/open specific fields.

In fact, a Marine Corps evaluation two years ago showed that all-male units greatly outperformed mixed-gender units in just about every capacity. The women performed their tasks more slowly, fired weapons with less accuracy, and sustained far more injuries during training than their male counterparts.

It’s not condescending so say that civilians don’t understand combat. Quite the opposite; it is condescending for them to pretend they do. Just as it would be condescending for a soldier to pretend to be an expert in theoretical physics, scratch out a particle accelerator on paper, and demand it be built. That women are demonstrably weaker, more breakable, have drastically less lung capacity, and even shoot less accurately—it’s all simply ignored.

If it continues to be, in favor of opening up these elite forces in the name of gender equality, the military risks lowering standards and ultimately, putting lives on the line.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Unless it can be shown that women in combat has no negative impact on unit performance in combat. I can not be supportive.

Diminishing the combat effectiveness of our armed forces is something I can't abide.

 

[Metamorphosis]

1. She still got further than most of the men I know in my daily life. Most dudes don't even volunteer to try, not just for seals--but for the military in general. Some do and then don't make the cut. I've heard some of the lamest excuses in the world for not trying--like "I don't do well with people telling me what to do" and "I just couldn't lose the 5 lbs I needed to lose to enlist" and other BS excuses. She's more badass than most normal civilian guys who haven't done a lick of trying in that department. It's easy to sit back and criticize a woman for trying and failing... but when men out there haven't even tried themselves, I'd say it's bullshit to talk any shit. And even those that do, no man gets booed and looked down upon in such a snobbish manner when they cannot complete the training. Men have a far from 100% completion in NORMAL military training, and less in special ops like the seals. So why all the hate and anger that she failed? If it truly is biology, you wouldn't be so fired up about it--it would work itself out... no woman will finish the training, end of story, if biology is truly the major factor at play here. She is not the first person to drop out of SEALs training sessions... She is just the first of many women who will try.

2. We're all taught from a young age it's better to try and fail than to not try at all--so I don't see why it's 'fiction' that she tried her best, but knew her limits. It's a powerful thing to know your limits. She had a lot of pressure on her, and she made the best decision for her body and life. That's a mature, adult thing to do. I would expect that from any good soldier.

3. I really don't understand the snobby attitude about all of it. You're against women in combat roles, we get it. But as a woman who has done combat roles, talking to a man who has not, I can guarantee you I haven't ever once snubbed my nose at any man or woman who couldn't make the cut on any job (civilian or military) based on their gender alone, but rather the merit of their character. I'll always applaud someone trying and failing before I applaud someone backseat driving and monday quarterbacking thinking they know wtf they're talking about. I do believe biology plays a factor in situations like these--but I do not believe in stopping anyone from trying their best. If a rare woman with the ability to do this job comes along, I don't believe in limiting her because 'most' women couldn't. I don't see the seals lowering their standards for the sake of a woman anytime soon. If a woman passes, it'll be because she was a total badass.. like the men who pass.

4. Men seem super protective of jobs they don't ever do. Unless you were a seal yourself (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe you don't have military service yourself) I really don't see your opinion counting as much as those who do the jobs themselves. They let her try out. The military saw fit to bring that barrier down. I don't see why people who don't even DO anything in that realm are suddenly up in arms. If you don't like it..Feel free to join, work your way up the ranks, and get that decision changed. But you'll have quite a few women doing the same in the process. And I think, honestly, your time and talents are better suited elsewhere.

I 100% agree. I don't like it that standards in the military vary by gender and age but that's what they are. I also don't like it if they bent the rules in Ranger School, but you know what? They do that for older/ranking males too.

Statistically this n=1 is worth absolutely 0 as proof of anything. She probably wasn't the only person to quit in pre-BUD/s. I don't know what pre-BUD/s is like but I do know that pre-Ranger can be as challenging physically (if not more so) as the first phase of Ranger School so it wouldn't surprise me if pre-BUD/s is still a challenge. People don't know what they're getting into until they're in it.

I've seen women that sucked at their job (and I've seen men that suck) but I've also seen some women that were great physically and could not only hold their own but surpass many men.

I've been through multiple selections, served as a special operations soldier, deployed/lived with/and fought with SEALs, and worked with women overseas and I fully support their ability to try out for any job in the military.

 

[Amargith]

Isnt that what is happening at present? Fieldtesting if women can double the hands on deck potentially and figuring out their limitations and potential benefits in this job - like in any other job?

Might as well give it a fair go without predicting the future in order to keep from tainting the results with unconscious bias, imho. She is just one data point, albeit an interesting one. Time will tell if she is an outlier or not and in what way

 

[Metamorphosis]

Unless it can be shown that women in combat has no negative impact on unit performance in combat. I can not be supportive.

Diminishing the combat effectiveness of our armed forces is something I can't abide.

There are tons of men that are a detriment to the unit that they're in, even in combat arms. We could cut out short men and bulky men too but the reality is that there are always the outliers that will surprise you or that have unique skills to bring the table. This is even more true for special operations where the current members are choosing who to let in. They're more than capable of deciding that on their own. The people that volunteered and are out there everyday putting in work don't care what you can abide.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

There are tons of men that are a detriment to the unit that they're in, even in combat arms. We could cut out short men and bulky men too but the reality is that there are always the outliers that will surprise you or that have unique skills to bring the table. This is even more true for special operations where the current members are choosing who to let in. They're more than capable of deciding that on their own. The people that volunteered and are out there everyday putting in work don't care what you can abide.

Well, lets have a look at statistics then.

But could all of this be because of a “Men’s Club” in the military? In fairness, American sports remained segregated long after it was apparent that blacks were certainly as qualified as whites athletically. But competition forced the owners’ hands. No law was required.

But here the great discriminator is biology.

A 1992 Presidential Commission report found that “the average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.” Moreover, “the average 20-to-30-year-old woman [recruit] has the same aerobic capacity as a 50-year-old man.” That’s important under any circumstances but in the forever war of Afghanistan, high in the mountains, peak strength and endurance means everything.

According to the Surgeon General’s office in 2011, “Army women are more likely to be disabled than men and are approximately 67 percent more likely than Army men to receive a physical disability discharge for a musculoskeletal disorder.” They’re more than five times as likely to suffer stress fractures.

Tremendously aggravating this disparity is the now-universal use of body armor in combat areas—not just in combat. At Camp Corregidor in Ramadi in 2006 we had to wear armor not just “outside the wire” (beyond the camp perimeter) but even within, because of mortar attacks that killed soldiers. The newest armor is lighter but still weighs about 30–35 pounds depending on the size of the wearer, and the helmet adds another 3–4 pounds. Counting all equipment, the Marine Corps puts the average combat load at 83 pounds. The healthy weight for a U.S. woman of average size is only 104-135 pounds. A friend of mine lost over an inch in height during his year-long tour in Ramadi. Later in Afghanistan body armor, normal load, and extra load that I carried as a photojournalist herniated two of my lumbar disks and ended my days of combat reporting.

How are women to handle this burden? Train harder? No. These people are already pushed to their limits and special ops are pushed beyond.

 

[Starry]

I do that too, go cold turkey on politics, sometimes I've had to go cold turkey on people per se but that's a different story, anyway, I'm a fan of JS Mill's understanding of what politics was or could be, I wasnt always, embarrassingly, in my youth I would have conformed to many of the opinions in the piece by Umberto Eco which I posted elsewhere, although I've always been left wing and civil libertarian for the most part.

I recently took the Big Five and it told me that I was a Libertarian which I thought was interesting. And embarrassing considering how little I truly understand about this party. Perhaps I should slowly reintroduce politics into my system but wow.

 

[kyuuei]

Was doing that on phone and couldn't get across what I wanted to. Was also a little drunk. Here is the important part of the article I wanted you to see.

That one women cannot, and should not, speak for all women and their physical capabilities and feelings regarding combat anymore than I should let the hippy that lives on the corner of the grocery store speak for all men.

She got hurt. She's butthurt about it. She wasn't able to do it. Instead of accepting that, she's trying to force other people to not even try and I wouldn't be surprised if she was paid a little on the side to publically talk about this in conservative realms. Conservative men cream their pants everytime they see her name. But she is just one woman--and there are 100 others that have successfully done those jobs ALREADY that can attest that she's laying down false claims. They apply to HER... but not to women as a whole.

Unless it can be shown that women in combat has no negative impact on unit performance in combat. I can not be supportive.

Diminishing the combat effectiveness of our armed forces is something I can't abide.

You're asking for the impossible because MEN are unable to do these jobs they are doing. If you need proof--go to the VA. See how many soldiers are applying for disability in their 20's and 30's--and While Still In The Military. These jobs are NOT designed to be done long term--and sometimes, not for any length of time. And yet, they are. By many.

Every time we allow a soldier that cannot do their PT test to continue in their job we are degrading quality. Everytime a soldier has to go to the range 4-5 times to qualify with their weapon we degrade quality. We degrade quality and combat readiness all the time--and for stupid reasons a lot of the time. The Military is run by human beings... and if we cut everyone that had a negative impact on the overall performance, we'd have 10 badasses and a lot of empty barracks.

Did you see the numbers for combat readiness in my unit? When I deployed to Iraq, and fulfilled a combat mission? Because I fucking guarantee you, without an entire squad of females to cart my fatass commander all over the place in that country we would have degraded combat readiness. We brought supplies, sick people, hurt people, back and forth and did all sorts of humanitarian work inbetween. My unit was not negatively impacted by us being there. And infact, the only reason we were not in the IP stations was the Iraqi culture--not because we weren't fit for the job. We were accommodating them, not making a decision based on our gender in our own squads. So, we were able to allow other men to go do those jobs without cultural upset by being there and capable of taking on security details. Every day I left the wire, and every day I came back because I did my job and my fellow females did their jobs.. and we did it well.

You don't get to determine what is combat ready or not. You have zero say in that. You don't get to say what is perfect for the military. So. You're asking for the impossible because you're too stubborn to admit that maybe, just maybe, the militay is going to make decisions best for itself whether you care about what those decisions imply or not.

I 100% agree. I don't like it that standards in the military vary by gender and age but that's what they are. I also don't like it if they bent the rules in Ranger School, but you know what? They do that for older/ranking males too.

Statistically this n=1 is worth absolutely 0 as proof of anything. She probably wasn't the only person to quit in pre-BUD/s. I don't know what pre-BUD/s is like but I do know that pre-Ranger can be as challenging physically (if not more so) as the first phase of Ranger School so it wouldn't surprise me if pre-BUD/s is still a challenge. People don't know what they're getting into until they're in it.

I've seen women that sucked at their job (and I've seen men that suck) but I've also seen some women that were great physically and could not only hold their own but surpass many men.

I've been through multiple selections, served as a special operations soldier, deployed/lived with/and fought with SEALs, and worked with women overseas and I fully support their ability to try out for any job in the military.

and this is why I heart you. Exactly this. At the end of the day, the war front has changed, it isn't going back to the old ways ever again, and the military is slowly adapting to accommodate that--because as it stands, women are doing the work and not getting credit for it because of the positions they're not allowed to hold... and worse yet, not even being trained to a certain standard because the presumption that they'll never hold those positions is there. I don't see why anyone would hold a woman back that happens to be able to out-perform some of the more average men out there--particularly when we are not that harsh to the men themselves.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That one women cannot, and should not, speak for all women and their physical capabilities and feelings regarding combat anymore than I should let the hippy that lives on the corner of the grocery store speak for all men.

She got hurt. She's butthurt about it. She wasn't able to do it. Instead of accepting that, she's trying to force other people to not even try and I wouldn't be surprised if she was paid a little on the side to publically talk about this in conservative realms. Conservative men cream their pants everytime they see her name. But she is just one woman--and there are 100 others that have successfully done those jobs ALREADY that can attest that she's laying down false claims. They apply to HER... but not to women as a whole.



You're asking for the impossible because MEN are unable to do these jobs they are doing. If you need proof--go to the VA. See how many soldiers are applying for disability in their 20's and 30's--and While Still In The Military. These jobs are NOT designed to be done long term--and sometimes, not for any length of time. And yet, they are. By many.

Every time we allow a soldier that cannot do their PT test to continue in their job we are degrading quality. Everytime a soldier has to go to the range 4-5 times to qualify with their weapon we degrade quality. We degrade quality and combat readiness all the time--and for stupid reasons a lot of the time. The Military is run by human beings... and if we cut everyone that had a negative impact on the overall performance, we'd have 10 badasses and a lot of empty barracks.

Did you see the numbers for combat readiness in my unit? When I deployed to Iraq, and fulfilled a combat mission? Because I fucking guarantee you, without an entire squad of females to cart my fatass commander all over the place in that country we would have degraded combat readiness. We brought supplies, sick people, hurt people, back and forth and did all sorts of humanitarian work inbetween. My unit was not negatively impacted by us being there. And infact, the only reason we were not in the IP stations was the Iraqi culture--not because we weren't fit for the job. We were accommodating them, not making a decision based on our gender in our own squads. So, we were able to allow other men to go do those jobs without cultural upset by being there and capable of taking on security details. Every day I left the wire, and every day I came back because I did my job and my fellow females did their jobs.. and we did it well.

You don't get to determine what is combat ready or not. You have zero say in that. You don't get to say what is perfect for the military. So. You're asking for the impossible because you're too stubborn to admit that maybe, just maybe, the militay is going to make decisions best for itself whether you care about what those decisions imply or not.



and this is why I heart you. Exactly this. At the end of the day, the war front has changed, it isn't going back to the old ways ever again, and the military is slowly adapting to accommodate that--because as it stands, women are doing the work and not getting credit for it because of the positions they're not allowed to hold... and worse yet, not even being trained to a certain standard because the presumption that they'll never hold those positions is there. I don't see why anyone would hold a woman back that happens to be able to out-perform some of the more average men out there--particularly when we are not that harsh to the men themselves.

The article focuses on tip of the spear special ops and units with primarily a combat focus.

What was the focus of your unit if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Metamorphosis]

Well, lets have a look at statistics then.

The average woman doesn't try out for special operations and if they do (or any average person) they don't get selected. It's that simple. I've known men in SF that were 5'2" and probably weighed ~130ish. If you compared a group of men in that bracket with your average man they would have a lot more issues to and be overall physically way shittier. These people are outliers. Are women more likely to be injured? Maybe, but that's part of the job. I have literally never seen a large airborne jump without injuries and half of my detachment had some kind of back or knee issue. If an individual can handle it and gets selected that should be all that matters. Let the selections do their job, not people with no experience in the field. I have personally seen multiple women run 12 miles in 2.5 hours with 50-60lbs of gear which is better than probably 80% of the military.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The average woman doesn't try out for special operations and if they do (or any average person) they don't get selected. It's that simple. I've known men in SF that were 5'2" and probably weighed ~130ish. If you compared a group of men in that bracket with your average man they would have a lot more issues to and be overall physically way shittier. These people are outliers. Are women more likely to be injured? Maybe, but that's part of the job. I have literally never seen a large airborne jump without injuries and half of my detachment had some kind of back or knee issue. If an individual can handle it and gets selected that should be all that matters. Let the selections do their job, not people with no experience in the field. I have personally seen multiple women run 12 miles in 2.5 hours with 50-60lbs of gear which is better than probably 80% of the military.

Have you seen a woman kill an enemy combatant?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm arguing that women shouldn't be door kickers, that is a very small slice of the jobs available.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Don't have anymore to say after that.

 

[Metamorphosis]

Have you seen a woman kill an enemy combatant?

Are you serious?

First of all, that isn't relevant at all, but yes I have seen it. What is the purpose of that question?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Are you serious?

First of all, that isn't relevant at all, but yes I have seen it. What is the purpose of that question?

Just curious. Don't know how frequently it occurs.

 

[kyuuei]

Just curious. Don't know how frequently it occurs.

It doesn't matter. Like I said, you don't get to decide if women should be door kickers or not. The reality is, you seem to know very little about the job, and what all it entails. Part of the reason this is changing is the time spent doing the job already, just without any official recognition.

There are plenty of stories of medic females returning fire, saving lives, etc. We've allowed women to march right next to infantrymen, doing the same damn things, under the guise of being a medic. You don't have to be in a 'door kicker' position to kick down doors. That's why the whole thing has to change, period.

It was the same with my job. Our unit, as a whole, the mission was to train the Iraqi police. So, most of our men? Went on patrols, stayed in one general area. As I said before, my job was PSD-- personnel security detail. I took anyone that didn't want to die, and carted them from our base to anywhere they wanted to go--Baghdad, Ramadi, etc. My job was no different from that of many male jobs, lead-truck gunner, and it is a legitimate front-lines combat position to hold.. but I held it under the guise of being military police, while doing zero police work myself in actuality.

This has been happening for a while, is happening now, and will continue to happen--whether you approve of it or not. Instead of trying to argue with people who have done the job already while pretending to want data and statistics as if they'll sway your opinion, try to think for one second on how you would feel if someone tried telling you how to do your job as if you weren't Already doing it. And imagine how dumb they sound when they tell you all the things they believe are why you just Cannot possibly do your job--and how much dumber it all sounds when they clearly have no aspirations or ability to do the job themselves. It isn't a hard position to empathize with.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It doesn't matter. Like I said, you don't get to decide if women should be door kickers or not. The reality is, you seem to know very little about the job, and what all it entails. Part of the reason this is changing is the time spent doing the job already, just without any official recognition.

There are plenty of stories of medic females returning fire, saving lives, etc. We've allowed women to march right next to infantrymen, doing the same damn things, under the guise of being a medic. You don't have to be in a 'door kicker' position to kick down doors. That's why the whole thing has to change, period.

It was the same with my job. Our unit, as a whole, the mission was to train the Iraqi police. So, most of our men? Went on patrols, stayed in one general area. As I said before, my job was PSD-- personnel security detail. I took anyone that didn't want to die, and carted them from our base to anywhere they wanted to go--Baghdad, Ramadi, etc. My job was no different from that of many male jobs, lead-truck gunner, and it is a legitimate front-lines combat position to hold.. but I held it under the guise of being military police, while doing zero police work myself in actuality.

This has been happening for a while, is happening now, and will continue to happen--whether you approve of it or not. Instead of trying to argue with people who have done the job already while pretending to want data and statistics as if they'll sway your opinion, try to think for one second on how you would feel if someone tried telling you how to do your job as if you weren't Already doing it. And imagine how dumb they sound when they tell you all the things they believe are why you just Cannot possibly do your job--and how much dumber it all sounds when they clearly have no aspirations or ability to do the job themselves. It isn't a hard position to empathize with.

The politicians get to decide and I will do my best to make my preferred policy preference a reality. You should do the same.

 

[Mole]

This is actually very beautiful Mole - thank you so much for it.

No worries. There are very few paradigm shifts, we find them in science and mathematics, biology, modern economics, modern medicine, and liberal democracy, are all based on paradigm shifts. And we do find paradigm shifts in society: against slavery, against child sexual abuse, and for feminism.

Paradigm shifts allow us to reorder our minds, and some of us react against reordering our minds, and are reactionary. But not much can stop a paradigm shift like feminism, once its time has come.

 

[Coriolis]

I don't really know what it's like over there in the west, but I think the reason that the methods of getting women into STEM are ineffective is because women believe that men are more suited for STEM so they don't really seriously consider it. There's no point in advertising about something to someone who isn't even considering it. Changing that isn't going to happen overnight. I imagine if there should be equal numbers of men and women in STEM, it might even take a few generations. This is why, I think meanwhile giving women special privileges isn't going to work because it only superficially addresses the problem. I do believe things are changing and are going in the right direction. I don't understand people's desire to push it. I think it has to happen naturally.

You are absolutely right about many women still growing up with the mindset that STEM jobs are geared to men, and yes - that is changing. At this point, we will do well just to prevent backsliding. Giving women special privileges is the wrong way to go. Re-evaluating our workplaces to find what really leads to productivity is a good place to start.

He was mocking the fact that you are waxing nostalgic about all the most positive aspects of historical feminism while ignoring the monstrously ugly incarnation of it that exists today.

When he can do something more constructive than try to mock, I will take him seriously.

It's funny how it's always the present day feminists fucking shit up for everyone. If only we could be as acceptable and subsequently appreciated as those feminists from the past...

Feminists are never appreciated in their day by those who oppose the idea of women having the same opportunities as men. That was true for the likes of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and is still true now.

Unless it can be shown that women in combat has no negative impact on unit performance in combat. I can not be supportive.

Diminishing the combat effectiveness of our armed forces is something I can't abide.

Same arguments were made against opening all specialties to blacks, and opening any to gays. Set the requirements for the position, and take whoever can meet them.

As for your article from Capt Petronio, it misses the point on several counts. First, it is anecdotal. Second, women are free to risk injury and even (heaven forbid!) loss of fertility in the military, just as men are free to risk serious injury playing pro sports. Third, as [MENTION=4939]kyuuei[/MENTION] already explained quite eloquently, the fact that some women do not have the physique to perform the duties that gave Capt Petronio trouble, does not mean that all women don't. Many men won't either. If the military is assigning soldiers - male or female - to positions for which they are not fit, the fault lies with the command structure, or perhaps poorly stated requirements, and not with the soldiers. In other words, truly incapable women can be excluded based on requirements alone, without considering sex.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You are absolutely right about many women still growing up with the mindset that STEM jobs are geared to men, and yes - that is changing. At this point, we will do well just to prevent backsliding. Giving women special privileges is the wrong way to go. Re-evaluating our workplaces to find what really leads to productivity is a good place to start. When he can do something more constructive than try to mock, I will take him seriously. Feminists are never appreciated in their day by those who oppose the idea of women having the same opportunities as men. That was true for the likes of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and is still true now. Same arguments were made against opening all specialties to blacks, and opening any to gays. Set the requirements for the position, and take whoever can meet them. As for your article from Capt Petronio, it misses the point on several counts. First, it is anecdotal. Second, women are free to risk injury and even (heaven forbid!) loss of fertility in the military, just as men are free to risk serious injury playing pro sports. Third, as [MENTION=4939]kyuuei[/MENTION] already explained quite eloquently, the fact that some women do not have the physique to perform the duties that gave Capt Petronio trouble, does not mean that all women don't. Many men won't either. If the military is assigning soldiers - male or female - to positions for which they are not fit, the fault lies with the command structure, or perhaps poorly stated requirements, and not with the soldiers. In other words, truly incapable women can be excluded based on requirements alone, without considering sex.

Anecdotal is an interesting way to characterize the data I presented female biology vs male biology. What happens when a female needs to oh I don't know drag a 200lb man out of a truck with body armor on. What happens when a female is faced with hand to hand combat in the field, I can think,of a million scenarios where the paucity of upper body strength and fighting prowess would be a near death sentence. Could Kyuuie beat me in,a fight?

- - - Updated - - -

I would beat her like a rented drum.