Former British Army commander says having women in the army 'will cost lives on the battlefield' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50688567] Maybe you should re-read it because I clearly state:[/QUOTE] I did, but that's what your first statements reeks of. You then go on to talk about an obviously flawed study as your proof.

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50688567]if a male sees a female go down in combat, you're going to have a natural reaction to actual try and save her. Then he goes down, which results in a cycle of causalities because of a protective instinct within us to keep the women safe.[/QUOTE] Humans aren't slaves to biology, especially not trained soldiers. Why do you assume that just because it's a woman being shot and not a man, everyone will blindly rush out and get killed too trying to save her? You don't really think men just think with their dicks, right?

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50688538]How many of you are actually in the military? Women have been a GRACIOUS amount of special treatment when it comes to serving in combat roles or joining the infantry, did you guys know that? Let alone the reason PFT standards for females is different because it was designed for them to succeed on their own biological limitations. Have I seen chick out do me in PT, yeah it's not something to be ashamed of, let alone if they can adhere to the male standard and WANT to actually serve in a combat roll, by all means. But they better be able to work just as well as your average male. You know the Marine Infantry Officer course has never been passed by a female, ever? So they made a version for females Marines, with females Marines helping set the test up for them. They still failed because they couldn't met the physical limitations. [editline]10th July 2016[/editline] We have a high standard for anyone serving in combat roles, it's fucking vital whether or not the Marine to your left or right dies.[/QUOTE] No ones arguing that women who want to join the military should be held at a lower standard, they're arguing that women who do meet the requirement should be able to.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50688583]So, we know that the Army already has lower standards and we know that the marines have set the precedent for lower standards. Why would it make more sense to assume that they won't continue with that precedent?[/QUOTE] Because every other nation that allowed women into combat changed them. And again, we're talking about [I]The UK[/I] here, not the US. The USMC fucking up here has no bearing on the Royal Marines or the British Army.

[QUOTE=ksenior;50688575]Oh yeah, because when his buddy goes down it's totally not his first instinct to save him :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] You're taught to continue fighting because trying to go out and be a hero can cause you to be a causality to. :pudge:

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50688297]uh uhh no of course it won't enhance shit, but to tell women that "sorry you can't be apart of this bc its too manly" to me is just sexist af if someone wants to serve for their country, regardless of gender they should be able to sign up and enrol [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] all im reading here "sorry, the army is for men"[/QUOTE] I'm not necessarily against women in infantry, I think we should let pragmatism and real-world results decide on whether or not they belong on the front lines, but this line of reasoning is really inappropriate for issues of the military. The military should value efficiency and strength, not people's hurt feelings over sexism. You shouldn't just wave away potentially life-threatening policy disagreements just because "its sexist af".

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50688297]uh uhh no of course it won't enhance shit, but to tell women that "sorry you can't be apart of this bc its too manly" to me is just sexist af if someone wants to serve for their country, regardless of gender they should be able to sign up and enrol [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] all im reading here "sorry, the army is for men"[/QUOTE] Well, the US marines study reads "The army is for men".

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;50688604]You're taught to continue fighting because trying to go out and be a hero can cause you to be a causality to. :pudge:[/QUOTE] See here: [QUOTE=hoodoo456;50688595]Humans aren't slaves to biology, especially not trained soldiers. Why do you assume that just because it's a woman being shot and not a man, everyone will blindly rush out and get killed too trying to save her? You don't really think men just think with their dicks, right?[/QUOTE] You're taught to continue fighting but that doesn't mean your first instinct [I]isn't[/I] to save your mate.

[QUOTE=Daemon White;50688465]We burned the White House down after eating all the food, we held Vimy Ridge in WW1, we were known as the "StormTroopers" in WW2 because we did not back down, and Canadian Snipers hold the longest confirmed kill. Not entirely sure of requirements, but I don't think it's light. We do have women in the military under various roles.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that all of those things happened before the 70's.. [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=hoodoo456;50688595]Humans aren't slaves to biology, especially not trained soldiers. Why do you assume that just because it's a woman being shot and not a man, everyone will blindly rush out and get killed too trying to save her? You don't really think men just think with their dicks, right?[/QUOTE] I've talked to a fair number of veterans about this (admittedly older veterans for what it's worth) and almost all of them have independently brought up fears that men will instinctively want to save a woman over a man. Humans [I]are[/I] slaves to biology. We're able to override that most of the time with conscious decisions, but our biology still influences us a lot. Don't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of preferential treatment on the battlefield.

[QUOTE=ksenior;50688536]The USMC (for some reason I need to point out [I]aren't British[/I]) chose to use lower standards while "proving" women shouldn't be in combat. That is not "proof" that standards will be lowered when e[I]very other Western nation[/I] that is allowing women in combat positions [I]has not[/I]. All of these facts were pointed out to Pretiacruento in the last "women in the British Army" thread but he chose not to respond.[/QUOTE] I left that thread, after providing valid arguments and sources as to why they weaken an army, just like this former SAS commander is suggesting. You didn't rip apart any argument, IIRC.

He's absolutely right, there's more than the USMC study to prove women are worse troops.

[QUOTE=Daemon White;50688465]We burned the White House down after eating all the food, we held Vimy Ridge in WW1, we were known as the "StormTroopers" in WW2 because we did not back down, and Canadian Snipers hold the longest confirmed kill. Not entirely sure of requirements, but I don't think it's light. We do have women in the military under various roles.[/QUOTE] You can't really use all those events as evidence when it was stated women were only introduced into the Canadian infantry in the 70s. None of those events are after that.

[QUOTE=srobins;50688621]I'm pretty sure that all of those things happened before the 70's.. [editline]11th July 2016[/editline] I've talked to a fair number of veterans about this (admittedly older veterans for what it's worth) and almost all of them have independently brought up fears that men will instinctively want to save a woman over a man. Humans [I]are[/I] slaves to biology. We're able to override that most of the time with conscious decisions, but our biology still influences us a lot. Don't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of preferential treatment on the battlefield.[/QUOTE] they brought up fears but that doesn't mean that their fears are proven. i don't believe humans are that confined to their biology either. i'm no biologist or psychologist but from what i understand human behavior is way more complex than just their biology. also, while they may [I]instinctively[/I] want to save a woman their training should kick in and remind them of how that could get them killed. i doubt humans were ever wired to use a gun or run towards enemy fire either; in fact i bet instinct would tell them otherwise but they still do it. that's what the training is for.

Are people seriously trying to argue that if a woman is able to pass the physical tests for men she still shouldn't be able to serve in the front lines because of a "biological instinct to save the woman"?

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50688991]Are people seriously trying to argue that if a woman is able to pass the physical tests for men she still shouldn't be able to serve in the front lines because of a "biological instinct to save the woman"?[/QUOTE] I don't think there's a biological instinct, but I'm accepting that there is a strong possibility of a cultural one.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50688991]Are people seriously trying to argue that if a woman is able to pass the physical tests for men she still shouldn't be able to serve in the front lines because of a "biological instinct to save the woman"?[/QUOTE] It's either that, or "military neckbeards". It's not unrealistic to think that.

I'm not willing to give my life to fight in a war I don't believe in, but if a woman wants to, why can't they? Just don't drop the standards and nothing changes.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;50689049]I'm not willing to give my life to fight in a war I don't believe in, but if a woman wants to, why can't they? Just don't drop the standards and nothing changes.[/QUOTE] Thats not how it works.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;50688991]Are people seriously trying to argue that if a woman is able to pass the physical tests for men she still shouldn't be able to serve in the front lines because of a "biological instinct to save the woman"?[/QUOTE] remember, if someone ignores all logic and common sense and blindly rushes into danger to save a woman: it's the woman's fault

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50688820]You can't really use all those events as evidence when it was stated women were only introduced into the Canadian infantry in the 70s. None of those events are after that.[/QUOTE] Canada had the [URL="https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0096352"]SWINTER[/URL] trials in the late 70's to see how much of an impact introducing women would have and it was found it had very little effect due to those admitted wanting to 'prove themselves' but got burnt out due to not feeling included in the force. I'm not sure how close the Physical test it is to America but Canada uses the same physical test for men and women and [URL="http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/zbb73/p510984.pdf"]women were 1% more likely to fail that portion of the aplication[/URL].

they had to lower requirements for women id rather have a strong man drag me across the battlefield than a woman with less strenght

[QUOTE=wystan;50688737]He's absolutely right, there's more than the USMC study to prove women are worse troops.[/QUOTE] The USMC holds women to different, lower standards than men. The British military's decision to allow women in the military [i]holds them to the exact same current standard as men[/i] and only 5% of women are expected to be physically capable of passing. If a woman can pass [i]the same physical fitness tests as men[/i], why shouldn't they be allowed to serve in the military in combat roles? What reasons are there?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50689229]The USMC holds women to different, lower standards than men. The British military's decision to allow women in the military [I]holds them to the exact same current standard as men[/I] and only 5% of women are expected to be physically capable of passing. If a woman can pass [I]the same physical fitness tests as men[/I], why shouldn't they be allowed to serve in the military in combat roles? What reasons are there?[/QUOTE] They are six times more prone to injuries than men, that'd be one of the reasons why. 4th page in the USMC study reads: [quote][B]Health and Welfare of Marines [/B] In addition to performance, evidence of higher injury rates for females when compared to males performing the same tactical tasks was noted. The well documented comparative disadvantage in upper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures. Research from various U.S. and allied military studies reveal that the two primary factors associated with success in the task of movement under load are 1) lean body mass and 2) absolute VO2 Max. Findings from the physiological assessment of GCEITF males and females conducted by the University of Pittsburgh’s Neuromuscular Research Laboratory include: - Body composition: Males averaged 178 lbs, with 20% body fat: females averaged 142 lbs, with 24% body fat - Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males - Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males - Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males - Within the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts ** 27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load. - During the GCEITF assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates were 40.5% for females, compared to 18.8% for males ** Of the 21 time-loss injuries incurred by female Marines, 19 were lower extremity injuries and 16 occurred during a movement under load task[/quote] So there you have it. There's no real reason why they'd allow infantry women that are 6 times more prone to injuries (thus becoming a dead weight) and at best perform just like the bottom-of-the-barrel percentile of men. Where is the real, tangible benefit?

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50689257]They are six times more prone to injuries than men, that'd be one of the reasons why. 4th page in the USMC study reads: So there you have it. There's no real reason why they'd allow infantry women that are 6 times more prone to injuries (thus becoming a dead weight) and at best perform just like the bottom-of-the-barrel percentile of men. Where is the real, tangible benefit?[/QUOTE] And that's from the USMC study. Are they more likely to be injured because they're held to less stringent standards than men, or is it just because they're women? If the anaerobic power of the top 25% of women overlaps with the bottom 25% of men, then clearly the women who fall into that overlap have enough anaerobic strength to qualify just as the men in the bottom 25th could qualify. The USMC study is flawed in relation to the UK's military [i]because the women weren't held to the same standards as the men[/i]. You can't say "women are more likely to be injured" when you have this enormous independent variable that wasn't controlled for at all. If they were held to the same standards, what would the differences be? If you control that variable, do these differences still exist? The benefit is not having gender segregation in the military and instead having it be purely meritocratic. Can you pass the fitness standards? Good, you're in. That is the absolute definition of egalitarian, even if less than 5% of women qualify.

Gee, some people will say anything to keep their boys only club. If a woman can preform the exact same tasks as a man she should be able to serve. Simple as that. If Canada can do it so can other nations; a soldier is a soldier.

People keep reverting to using the lower requirement tests as an excuse for not allowing women to serve even though the point has made several times over "if they manage to pass the REAL test, where's the issue?"

I've experienced women in the military first hand. In fact, they took in women just for the sake of having women in the military. And yes, they were generally smaller, weaker, and didn't perform as good as the men.

[QUOTE=Petrussen;50689472]I've experienced women in the military first hand. In fact, they took in women just for the sake of having women in the military. And yes, they were generally smaller, weaker, and didn't perform as good as the men.[/QUOTE] As far as I can tell, Norway doesn't have different fitness standards for men and women. Yes, on average, the women will be less strong than the men. But the ones who pass, will, on average, compare to the bottom percentile of men who pass. Why should men who just barely pass be considered capable for combat roles, but women that pass with higher scores than those men be excluded? There hasn't been a reasonable counterpoint that hasn't cited a flawed study based on two entirely different fitness standards. Nobody's saying women will be [I]more[/I] physically capable than the strongest men. There are absolutely biological differences that determine raw strength capacity. But let's say that in education, if a passing grade on a test was 85, and the average passing male score was a 95, why should a woman who gets an 88 be excluded while a man who makes an 86 be permitted to serve in a combat role? Wanting 50/50 gender makeup isn't even a part of this - it's about excluding perfectly capable women from roles where they score as good as or better than other men who are permitted to serve in those roles.

Don't confuse a realist for a misogynist.

Imagine the sensationalist news/political backlash when some women get captured by the enemy.