One of the First Women in the Infantry Will Be Discharged From the Marines

what would you think about having all female units for those who meet qualifications?

of course, segregating them would probably start a political shit storm.

That would be a grossly inferior unit, and not at all combat reliable. There's some valuable evolutionary and biological reasons why that's the case. Men are built for conflict. Women are not. Men are built for conflict frankly, because we are more expendable to a population than women are.
 
What about gay dudes?

The Theban Sacred band were the dudes that finally took down the Spartans in a pitched battle. Their organization? A unit of gay guys, under the premise that if you love who you're literally fighting shoulder to shoulder with in a phalanx, there wouldn't be snowflakes chance in hell you'd drop you're shield to tuck tail.
 
Nah, not in this case. I really don't understand what your implication is:

I think your original point was that people who are having an affair are in a bad mindset for combat. I countered with the fact that people who are being cheated on long-distance or getting divorced long-distance (both of which do actually happen pretty frequently for combat deployed soldiers) have a bad mindset for combat as well. I really and truly don't get your second point.

Let me try it this way. Would you run into a burning building to save a guy you just found out was banging your wife?What about run into enemy fire? Wouldn't you might even be tempted to take a shot and hope no one found out.
I was implying that the crew chief might not do a good job on maintaining the helicopter or he might intentionally sabotage the helicopter that the pilot was flying.

You may think to respond with these are soldiers and need to stay professional either way.

That goes to a broader point. These are teenagers. I enlisted when I was 18. Maybe they should maintain discipline but the burden is on the command to put them in a environment that gives them a chance for success.

Putting women out in the field is like assigning a alcoholic to work in a bar and blaming him for drinking.
 
That would be a grossly inferior unit, and not at all combat reliable. There's some valuable evolutionary and biological reasons why that's the case. Men are built for conflict. Women are not. Men are built for conflict frankly, because we are more expendable to a population than women are.

meh.

too much within-group variability in men and women to say such things imo.

on average, id prefer men to be my soldiers. but there are some weak ass men who wont be very good. similarly, there are going to be some badass women on occasion. why prevent them from serving? if they meet the qualifications, whats the point?

the men vs women expendability might have mattered more in ancient times. 2018 is quite different lol.
 
meh.

too much within-group variability in men and women to say such things imo.

on average, id prefer men to be my soldiers. but there are some weak ass men who wont be very good. similarly, there are going to be some badass women on occasion. why prevent them from serving? if they meet the qualifications, whats the point?

the men vs women expendability might have mattered more in ancient times. 2018 is quite different lol.

There's actually literature on the numbers. Just in terms of strength the top quintile of women are in the bottom quintile of men... so there's the influence of your in group variability. Then more importantly there's just the psychological differences. There's a reason you don't hear of ancient tribes' societies banding its women together to save men kidnapped during a raid, but the reverse being almost ubiquitous in tribal warfare.

Keep in mind, this is not a total person inferior/superior issue. All that's laid out here is that men and women are better at different tasks. Men are better at fighting by a wide fucking margin, and there are significant reasons, to the tune of millions of years of evolution why.
 
Last edited:
There's actually literature on the numbers. Just in terms of strength the top quintile of women are in the bottom quintile of men... so there's the influence of your in group variability.

yea ive seen those figures. there are no tasks for which they'd be suited? they seem to be good shots, for whatever reason.

Then more importantly there's just the psychological differences. There's a reason you don't hear of ancient tribes' societies banding its women together to save men kidnapped during a raid, but the reverse being almost ubiquitous in tribal warfare.

so what are the psychological differences? too much within-group variability to not pull some out of your ass. thats why psychological research generally doesnt attempt to tackle such questions today. its like comparing people with brown hair vs black hair. the variables are so large it becomes silly.
 
Let me try it this way. Would you run into a burning building to save a guy you just found out was banging your wife?What about run into enemy fire? Wouldn't you might even be tempted to take a shot and hope no one found out.
I was implying that the crew chief might not do a good job on maintaining the helicopter or he might intentionally sabotage the helicopter that the pilot was flying.

You may think to respond with these are soldiers and need to stay professional either way.

That goes to a broader point. These are teenagers. I enlisted when I was 18. Maybe they should maintain discipline but the burden is on the command to put them in a environment that gives them a chance for success.

Putting women out in the field is like assigning a alcoholic to work in a bar and blaming him for drinking.
Well I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that there's probably a rule that prevents husband and wife from being in the same unit, so I don't see that situation as very likely.

Secondly, why don't you just let the armed forces try and see if the situation is workable. Don't you think they thought of all these things before they made their decision about whether to let women into combat rolls?

Don't you think the data they've gotten regarding women in non-combat positions (which they've done for a long time now) has provided them with what they see as a workable framework for integrating the combat units?
 
Do you want to be in a unit where the pilot is sleeping with the crew chiefs wife? Are you going to feel safe flying in that helicopter?
They have never been in any situation that mattered
They have no perspective
They damn sure haven’t been in he military where it really matters
Stand by for dumb answer
 
Well I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that there's probably a rule that prevents husband and wife from being in the same unit, so I don't see that situation as very likely.

Secondly, why don't you just let the armed forces try and see if the situation is workable. Don't you think they thought of all these things before they made their decision about whether to let women into combat rolls?

Don't you think the data they've gotten regarding women in non-combat positions (which they've done for a long time now) has provided them with what they see as a workable framework for integrating the combat units?

There is no such rule. The Marines fought this change tooth and nail for years. Every study commissioned by the Marines said this would hurt combat readiness. The politicians forced this down on them
 
so what are the psychological differences? too much within-group variability to not pull some out of your ass. thats why psychological research generally doesnt attempt to tackle such questions today. its like comparing people with brown hair vs black hair. the variables are so large it becomes silly.

Women aren't as motivated to get into a fight or a war.... That also has a fundamental basis in the differences in sexual selection strategies between men and women.
 
There are a bunch of reasons that females should not be in the combat arms, at least not infantry. Strength is an obvious one. We used to do road marches with 42 lb rucks, but when we got to Iraq, my ruck was almost twice that. I don't see a woman getting far with a 80 lb ruck on her back. I bet she's not helping to carry the m60 either. Then we get into the hygiene issues. We'd be out front for 3 - 4 weeks, then fly back to get a shower and a hot meal. I'm pretty sure that women would have all kinds of problems showering that infrequently. Also, head injuries are a bigger problem for females. This has been proven in sports already. Women's basketball and soccer both have the same rules as mens, but the number of concussions is much higher. This is thought to be because of neck strength.

But sex is not something I think is an issue. When I was in desert storm, I knew a female MP that I would meet up with when we were in the rear. That worked out real nice for me.
 
Women aren't as motivated to get into a fight or a war.... That also has a fundamental basis in the differences in sexual selection strategies between men and women.

lol, some are.

you cant say "women are...." or "men are...." with almost anything psychological. on average you're going to be right most likely, but if even as low as 5% of women would make good soldiers, should we tell them to F off? why? if there are standards and they meet them, whats the point?

also, fighting hand to hand is quite different than warfare today, usually. the motivations and requirements are going to be different.
 
lol, some are.

you cant say "women are...." or "men are...." with almost anything psychological. on average you're going to be right most likely, but if even as low as 5% of women would make good soldiers, should we tell them to F off? why? if there are standards and they meet them, whats the point?

also, fighting hand to hand is quite different than warfare today, usually. the motivations and requirements are going to be different.

Look dude, there are deep seated, like limbic system level differences between the way women think. That's not a bad thing. In fact that's a necessary thing. And in the instance they're outliers you have the situations that @alanb brings up in the OP. Women do not belong in combat. Full stop. Our biology is fundamental to that reality. Or are you a biological denialist?
 
Look dude, there are deep seated, like limbic system level differences between the way women think. That's not a bad thing. In fact that's a necessary thing. And in the instance they're outliers you have the situations that @alanb brings up in the OP.

there are outliers. probably more than the 5% i gave you. why deny them if they appear to be good soldiers through training? give them all women's units.
 
there are outliers. probably more than the 5% i gave you. why deny them if they appear to be good soldiers through training? give them all women's units.

Because, as we covered even among physical standards the top quintile of women will be among the lowest fifth of men.... and that's ignoring the motivational differences. That's not a unit you want to send to take an objective. Face it women suck at combat. That's a beautiful and balancing thing.
 
There is no such rule. The Marines fought this change tooth and nail for years. Every study commissioned by the Marines said this would hurt combat readiness. The politicians forced this down on them
No doubt there are a lot of marines who didn't like this, but I don't think they'd be implementing the change if there wasn't something valuable to be gained from it.

The military is completely voluntary now and of those volunteers, how many are actually trying to join the infantry? I'm assuming the top brass was asking themselves if they had a potentially valuable resource, why weren't they using it.

If there was a draft that could change things I suppose, but I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.
 
I never been in military so Im not gonna pretend to be expert. But for guys who has been. Is there any difference in mens behavior with having women around? I have worked in men only places and with women and from my experience men seem to become more focused on work when not being around women.
 
Back
Top