PC/Equality Going too far?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I can't remember the exact conversation I had, but I was told one of the reasons women weren't allowed in close combat was actually psychological...for the men! Apparently, there were studies that men were more likely to irrationally risk themselves to rescue a fallen female comrade than a male one.

I have heard it too.

[Gerrard]

The army have to shower, sleep, go to the toilet etc. Do we now have to build new buildings for that? More money. In the field do we have to erect separate tents or buildings? Apart from more money does that mean more space? What protocols do we have to create in how we work with men and women together in those scenarios? Is that more administration? Do we really have to pay this extra money to get the job done when we could have done it just as effectively for less money and with less hassle?

...Do we try to keep them from seeing one another naked or going to the toilet, or do we try to train them to think counter to what comes naturally? How much time and money are we going to spend on that?

I would link to an appropriate Starship Troopers clip but it would be against Hexus rules!

I imagine there was a similar problem with submarines and the complete lack of space to adjust to this; however that appears to be no longer a problem.

[ik9000]

I would link to an appropriate Starship Troopers clip but it would be against Hexus rules!

I imagine there was a similar problem with submarines and the complete lack of space to adjust to this; however that appears to be no longer a problem.

As I understand it they still only have one shower block on ships/base camps etc but different timings for guys and gals. Source, BBC documentary on HMS something or other a while back and Camp Bastion more recently. Plus talking to a female army medic friend who's just returned from Afghanistan...

Interesting aside, from a Dragons Den no less, women have to camouflage their backsides so when they go for a pee they don't flash a white rear end like a rabbit's scut. Not sure of the comparitive costs of she-wee vs camou paint, but could be worth the investment....

I don't think logistics like showers etc of having women up front with guys is the issue - they've solved this already.

As clarification to my earlier post, I don't have a problem with women in the armed forces. I do have a problem with asking them to go front-line down in the mud fight for your life hand to hand stuff where they will be at an unfair disadvantage.

[jim]

Because a ridiculously hypothetical possibility, at best, isn't reason enough to go to the additional burdens and expense to support females in the field, especially when doing so can potentially compromise the squad's effectiveness as a whole. Compromises will inevitably have to be made to make it work, and compromising our front-line fighting forces will get more people killed. On balance there needs to be a net gain to enacting a policy, otherwise it's just stupid. Fielding a sexual minority (even if having marginally better survivability odds) is vastly more complex than just strapping on a backpack, sticking a rifle in their arms and kicking them out an aircraft over enemy lines. Determining physical fitness is just the basics.

On what basis is it a ridiculous hypothetical possibility?

And what would be the cause of "additional burdens and expense"? Maternity leave?

The net gain would be a higher calibre of recruit.

[herulach]

I really can't this unfair disadvantage in combat thing. I don't think anyones proposing an enforced 50/50 split in units. Nor do I think there are a maximum number of successful recruits each year (I know there's a fixed number of entrants, but I suspect they won't pass crap ones just to make the numbers up). So say at present you get 1000 men entering an infantry regiment after passing the same training. 500 above average ones and 500 below average. How does putting 490 above average men, 10 above average women etc make any difference to the average performance of the regiment. You've still got the exact same number of above and below average soldiers with the same skill distribution, and presumably variance in physical strength, marksmanship etc. Infact you've likely got a better cohort in the first place because you're drawing from a larger pool.

As others have said you've already got women on the lines, so camps etc will have separate showers - I don't know if they're in FOBs or not, but assuming they even have showers, a tent is hardly massive logistics.

There may well be sound psychological arguments about mixed sex combat units, but it doesn't seem beyond the wit of man to have single sex squads for example if anyone thinks that is a massive problem. On the other side of it you've got potentially huge benefits in peacekeeping situations, where I suspect there's a decent argument to say a woman may appear less threatening to civilians.

[aidanjt]

On what basis is it a ridiculous hypothetical possibility?

You posited a hypothetical argument that potentially the cream of the female crop could *possibly* best the lowest of the lowest males. I naturally refused to absolutely claim that it's impossible, in the same sense that I wont even claim that conservation of energy is absolutely and inviolably true for all time (despite the fact that successfully going against that convention is going to be, shall we say, non-trivial?), much less that. But that doesn't mean it's likely, the front line units have an abundance of very fit and capable men lining up, any men not even able to best a woman is almost certainly going to end up in support roles.

And what would be the cause of "additional burdens and expense"? Maternity leave?

Yes, maternity leave in the middle of a warzone is a problem. And then there's female specific field equipment, handbooks, and training that'll have to be developed and refined. New interpersonal stresses, conflicts, psychology and other matters which will have to be studied, developed, and adjusted for. Again, the front lines isn't the place for conducting flippant ideological social experiments.

The net gain would be a higher calibre of recruit.

Again, hypothetically.

[herulach]

You posited a hypothetical argument that potentially the cream of the female crop could *possibly* best the lowest of the lowest males. I naturally refused to absolutely claim that it's impossible, in the same sense that I wont even claim that conservation of energy is absolutely and inviolably true for all time (despite the fact that successfully going against that convention is going to be, shall we say, non-trivial?), much less that. But that doesn't mean it's likely, the front line units have an abundance of very fit and capable men lining up, any men not even able to best a woman is almost certainly going to end up in support roles.

I'm sorry, but thats a load of crap and you know it (or you're nigel farage). I'm pretty fit (certainly enough to pass the initial selection, don't know about the rest), but just in my office of about 50 people I know at least 3 women who are fitter than me, and at least 1 who is stronger by quite a considerable margin. Go down your local crossfit gym and see what some of the women can do.

You need to get basically any film ever out of your head when you talk about the reality of being an infantry(wo)man. Physical strength is important, but whilst a full kit is heavy, its not _that_ heavy (my backpacking gear comes in not far off the same weight) and actual hand to hand fighting is rare, thats why we stopped giving people swords.

Whether there are a queue of fit men lining up is irrelevant, if theres a better woman candidate she should get the job.

Yes, maternity leave in the middle of a warzone is a problem. And then there's female specific field equipment, handbooks, and training that'll have to be developed and refined. New interpersonal stresses, conflicts, psychology and other matters which will have to be studied, developed, and adjusted for. Again, the front lines isn't the place for conducting flippant ideological social experiments.

Again, hypothetically.

The frontlines already have plenty of women on them, and have for a while (I think since Desert Storm, but that might be wrong). This is about active combat patrol, which is a different thing. Also, you need to learn what flippant means.

Edit: Going by wikipedia, other major military powers with women in deliberate combat roles include: Canada, USA, Sweden, Russia, Norway, Ireland, Germany, France, Denmark & finland. Funny how none of them have noticed an issue?

[kalniel]

Right, first point - please notice that all comments here are based on/to do with letting women in as long as they meet the requirements. It's about performance. When we're talking about the military the whole thing should absolutely be about performance.

Agreed - so gender shouldn't be considered, just the performance.

It's massively expensive financially and although necessary, if the government can keep unnecessary costs down it definitely should. The military, whose purpose on the whole is to kill people and blow things up, should be constructed wholly along pragmatic lines. It's not about entertainment, extravagance, making money or anything else. It's about the most costly and dangerous and ugly aspects of life on earth. No more money or blood should be given than absolutely necessary just as no less money or blood should be spilled than absolutely necessary. Not enough money and blood spent to get its job done is just as wasteful as too much money and blood spent.

Now, that being said, the question for anyone or anything serving in the military - man or woman, young or old, plane or tank or rifle or ship - is rightly asked, does it serve it's purpose, can it do the job, and is it the best and most efficient way to do it, or can we do better? That is, what is the job at hand, what do we need to do it, how can we do it most safely. We're killing people and blowing things up and we're spending tax payer money and human lives to do it. We should spend absolutely no more than necessary and yet make sure we spend enough to get the job done.

I think everyone, this far, has agreed.

My primary contention in this thread, is that when it comes to the question of women serving in certain roles, this concern, this question, although paid lip-service is being ignored, worn down, or thrown out.

I think the opposite - to rule out potential assets based on nothing other than their gender is a massive waste of potential.

Please note the quote. What the man is saying is that even though we're talking about a small group of interested people we are still discussing making changes to accommodate them, and we're doing it because of a "message", an image, a point of political correctness.
That is my primary concern. That this whole discussion is taking place as a part of the wider 'equality' of women discussion, and while that's all good and equality for women should be pursued, the military - the expensive, pragmatic, get the job done, military should, in it's maintenance and the performance of its duty and structure, be free from this sort of pressure with the guiding line being, as above, getting the job done.

I don't think it is taking part on purely equality grounds - it's about increasing efficiency by making use of your countries assets and not ignoring an asset.

You see any changes made in the military in this way - for this admittedly small group - will, by the very nature of the military, be disproportionate.

I disagree - the changes to accommodate women have for the large part already been made. They are in the army already, this is just about increasing what roles they have.

The military, especially infantry, have to be ready to go and fight and survive anywhere, and whole arms of the military exist to create whatever support structures are necessary to get the job done. As I said, that job should be done as efficiently, effectively, pragmatically as possible.

Agreed, but irrelevant - gender has no effect here.

What should it cost - in money and lives and families - to kill a man or blow up a bridge? As little as possible. Now when you mobilise a force you have to feed that force, move that force, house that force, and maintain that force. You have to do it in often nasty, ugly scenarios. You also have to motivate that force, maintaining morale, even in some of the worse environments, most traumatic situations that a human being can experience. All of this in involved in everything the military is and does. All of this takes money and lives.

Agreed, but again, nothing to do with gender so irrelevant.

Yet for the sake of political correctness, we're talking about making changes.

Not agreed - it's not for the sake of political correctness.

Alright, fair enough, but here's a question - how much is that going to cost and what sort of changes are going to be forced on the way the military operates?

Very little.

The army have to shower, sleep, go to the toilet etc. Do we now have to build new buildings for that? More money. In the field do we have to erect separate tents or buildings? Apart from more money does that mean more space? What protocols do we have to create in how we work with men and women together in those scenarios? Is that more administration? Do we really have to pay this extra money to get the job done when we could have done it just as effectively for less money and with less hassle?

No - said buildings/proceedures etc. are already in place so that the women and men who already work together can do so.

How about the personal side of things? Yes the military is supposed to be a professional work environment. Let's not kid ourselves though. We're talking about recruits that are often young kids. We're talking about some very rough, unrefined men. The military isn't in the business of producing gentlemen. (I'm not talking about abuses - I know that's an issue - there's no excuse for abuse, it absolutely has to stop). What happens when we get men and women together in close quarters, especially younger ones? They might be soldiers, might be professionals, but they're also still human beings, flung together in harsh circumstances. Do we try to keep them from seeing one another naked or going to the toilet, or do we try to train them to think counter to what comes naturally? How much time and money are we going to spend on that?

None - they already work together in such circumstances.

What happens when the women get pregnant - which they do and will. Why are we paying that cost again?

What happens when a man becomes a father? Yes, there are a few months when a women's physical ability to do a a combat role will be compromised, but you know, men get ill and get injured too. You don't put troops in combat 365 days a year - having a greater pool of able troops to draw from overall will only be a good thing.

How about the morale of the men when women get killed?

Like they do already? RIP Channing Day and all the other female soldiers killed either in our forces or those around the world.

The debate rages on, but even if men can be trained to ignore what they might naturally feel and feel is right and noble otherwise, why are we spending the time and money to do that again?

I don't follow. Are you saying we shouldn't increase the size of the combat forces? That's a valid argument and one for another topic, but nothing to do with gender. If you're suggesting it costs a lot more to train a woman soldier than a man, then sorry, I don't believe you - please provide some evidence.

Then of course there are the physical standards people have been talking about. The primary argument is - why should I pay the same amount of money to train a soldier who will be less effective than another and reduce the overall effectiveness?

Why would they be less effective? Sounds like you're making assumptions. If the entrance test is correct then the effectiveness will be the same.

The counter argument is - but if they pass the tests, if treated equally, it's fine.

Yup.

I've tried to list a few of the unnecessary, disproportionate changes/costs that occur when you cater to that special few. However, in addition, the reality check is, that even in the tests which occur now, for other areas of the military, women are permitted to perform to a lower standard. It happens already. Yet the pressure is on to push it further, all in the name of political correctness.

Are you sure it's in the name of political correctness? Isn't it just that because at the moment women's roles are so limited they don't need the same physical characteristics in their tests?

Additionally, the minimum standards of entry aren't the whole question. When you're in you're expected to grow, to train, and more than that, when talking about being in the field minimum standards are the least of anyone's worries. We're talking about situations that can and will tax and challenge anyone and will do so at the threat of taking many lives. On the whole, men are, generally, going to have more physical 'upside' than women. When the crunch comes, men have more physical strength potential than women. Why would you spend a ton of money, and make a lot of lives depend, on a soldier who might not have as much potential through training and in any given moment?

Same applies for training weaker men. You don't - you assess and steer people into roles that suit them. Training a strong women might be a better use of money than training a weak man surely?

None of this is about women's rights or equality.

That's what I've been saying

The military should be free to be constructed in the most efficient way possible.

Agreed - artificial restrictions based purely on gender shouldn't even come into it.

What I find disgusting is, with as many lives are already wasted, the thought of risking extra lives, making tax payers pay more and potentially reducing the effectiveness of the whole thing (potentially affecting every life involved) unnecessarily because we think it sounds nice.

And I find it disgusting that we'd throw away a hugely valuable and efficient asset, deliberately disadvantaging our forces, purely on the basis of gender.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Agreed - so gender shouldn't be considered, just the performance.

So what happens if 80% of certain combat roles will be given to say black and caucasian males due to physical considerations?? Will there be an outcry by certain people it is sexist and racist and a quota based system introduced??

Plus under such a system I would be disadvantaged - yet I honestly don't care.

Heck,outside grunt roles,everything else in the military does not really rely on strength.

I disagree - the changes to accommodate women have for the large part already been made. They are in the army already, this is just about inc

Not entirely true. For instance in the US military which has had a longer history of having more women in front line roles(not necessarily the "grunt" ones),women were using male body armor. It actually did not fit properly due to the fact women have a different body shape and it lead to major issues. Only relatively recently in the last few years as specialised body armour made for women,has started to be issued in larger quantities.

I am not entirely this has been the case with our armed forces yet,but if the US army has had problems I doubt ours won't,especially considering how in many cases soldiers have had to buy their own boots,etc in the past since the ones issued started melting for example.

Plus your argument for "weaker" men are silly.

Weaker men would not pass the physicals in the first place for roles which require the strength.

The British army is not a conscript army - its a professional army. If you don't make the grade,well you don't make it.

[kalniel]

So what happens if 80% of certain combat roles will be given to say black and caucasian males due to physical considerations?? Will there be an outcry by certain people it is sexist and racist and a quota based system introduced??

No - for starters you don't muck around when it comes to combat. Quite the opposite - sending someone into combat who you knew didn't meet the requirements would likely be illegal. What you do however is make sure your requirements match the roles and aren't superfluous.

Not entirely true. For instance in the US military which has had a longer history of having more women in front line roles(not necessarily the "grunt" ones),women were using male body armor. It actually did not fit properly due to the fact women have a different body shape and it lead to major issues. Only relatively recently in the last few years as specialised body armour made for women,has started to be issue in larger quantities.

I am not entirely this has been the case with our armed forces yet.

Yes - the existing roles that women have in the army already requires body armour etc. Men come in different shapes and sizes too.

Plus your argument for "weaker" men are silly.

Weaker men would not pass the physicals in the first place for roles which require the strength.

Rather than being silly, that's proving my point. If you need phyisicality for a particular role then testing for it is the most efficient way of doing things, rather than making assumptions based on gender.

The British army is not a conscript army - its a professional army. If you don't make the grade,well you don't make it.

Indeed.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

No - for starters you don't muck around when it comes to combat. Quite the opposite - sending someone into combat who you knew didn't meet the requirements would likely be illegal.

Are you sure?? I can see this happening though. Maybe you are right,I hope.

Yes - the existing roles that women have in the army already requires body armour etc.

Body armor tailored to women especially. Show me links to back it up. It was not the case in the US army until recently and many women are still wearing body armor for men.

Army Tests Body Armor Made for Female Soldiers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1fKUOXIYQw
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2QX4SiZRb



In only the last year has body armor been issued to female personal in the US army tailored to fit them. Watch the video and what the soldiers say.

Even then that is only 600 sets sent to Afghanistan.

It means most body armor at least in the US army is poorly tailored towards females soldiers,which is dangerous.

It was causing problems for women as men are physically different.

Rather than being silly, that's proving my point. If you need phyisicality for a particular role then testing for it is the most efficient way of doing things, rather than making assumptions based on gender.

Your point is very silly though. Weaker men would not pass the physicals anyway,so its a daft point to make. If they pass the physicals they would not be weaker would they?

[kalniel]

Body armor tailored to women especially. Show me links to back it up. It was not the case in the US army until recently and many women were wearing body armor for men.

And men were wearing the wrong size body armour too. Getting the right kit is an issue, but gender is a minor consideration in the grand scheme of things. There is already a need for body armour for women. Having more women would increase the gains from economies of scale so unless you're arguing that there should be no women in the armed forces then increasing the roles for women would only be an economic advantage.

Your point is very silly though. Weaker men would not pass the physicals anyway,so its a daft point to make. If they pass the physicals they would not be weaker anyway.

That's what I'm saying - use the tests to determine 'weakness', not gender. I don't see why that's silly. If it's about getting the creme de la creme for an elite unit then just raise the requirements and pick the best, regardless of gender, and if a woman takes a man's place because she's better on the test then the unit is all the better for it.

[cheesyboy]

My primary contention in this thread, is that when it comes to the question of women serving in certain roles, this concern, this question, although paid lip-service is being ignored, worn down, or thrown out. Please note the quote. What the man is saying is that even though we're talking about a small group of interested people we are still discussing making changes to accommodate them, and we're doing it because of a "message", an image, a point of political correctness. That is my primary concern. That this whole discussion is taking place as a part of the wider 'equality' of women discussion, and while that's all good and equality for women should be pursued, the military - the expensive, pragmatic, get the job done, military should, in it's maintenance and the performance of its duty and structure, be free from this sort of pressure with the guiding line being, as above, getting the job done.

You're missing the point

The starting point for this is that the army attracts many more men than women in all roles.

The arbitrary gender restrictions on certain aspects of the Army acts as negative publicity towards women signing up to the army - it's giving the impression that your gender is an important aspect of how well the army perceives you can perform for them, regardless of measurable aptitude. This means that the Army is potentially (and likely) missing out on some very capable women doing roles more suited to their physical attributes than simply the infantry or special forces (which, in reality, very few women are going to be able to actually pass the requirement for anyway).

Besides, there's no obvious harm to removing the gender policy, since there will be no diluting of the pass requirements.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I disagree - the changes to accommodate women have for the large part already been made. They are in the army already, this is just about inc

And men were wearing the wrong size body armour too. Getting the right kit is an issue, but gender is a minor consideration in the grand scheme of things. There is already a need for body armour for women. Having more women would increase the gains from economies of scale so unless you're arguing that there should be no women in the armed forces then increasing the roles for women would only be an economic advantage.

Its nothing to do with size - its shape. Watch the video(which you appear to have not) - look at what the soldiers are saying.

Plus give me links to show that body armour for women in the UK armed forces has already been issued.

Your original statement is not entirely correct - since men have mostly dominated army roles and sadly women have not been as well catered for as they should be in militaries worldwide. Its a problem which needs to be rectified.

That's what I'm saying - use the tests to determine 'weakness', not gender. I don't see why that's silly. If it's about getting the creme de la creme for an elite unit then just raise the requirements and pick the best, regardless of gender, and if a woman takes a man's place because she's better on the test then the unit is all the better for it.

Yes,I agree,but like I said it will worry me if certain people use it to say the military is "biased" towards white/black men.

[kalniel]

Its nothing to do with size - its shape.

Men come in different shapes too. Are you a parsnip, leek, aubergine or beetroot?

Plus give me links to show that body armour for women in the UK armed forces has already been issued.

I don't know that it has. However it's irrelevant for this discussion because there are already women in roles that require combat armour. Adding more roles won't negate the need for body armour, instead it'll make it more economical due to economies of scale.

Watch the video - look at what the soldiers are saying.

That'll have to wait until the weekend unfortunately.

[directhex]

Again, the front lines isn't the place for conducting flippant ideological social experiments.

Yeah, they said those exact words about allowing gays in the US military

Man, the world hasn't been the same since the US army self-destructed due to flippant ideological social experiments