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

USMC report is bullshit. The Marine Corps had different physical requirements for men and women, and for that study picked women who did not have the same degree of training the males had. The British military does not have gender-segregated physical requirements, and neither do the Canadian forces. If there are women who can meet the rigorous fitness standards expected of men, there's zero reason they won't make good soldiers.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50695031]USMC report is bullshit. The Marine Corps had different physical requirements for men and women, and for that study picked women who did not have the same degree of training the males had. The British military does not have gender-segregated physical requirements, and neither do the Canadian forces. If there are women who can meet the rigorous fitness standards expected of men, there's zero reason they won't make good soldiers.[/QUOTE] "I don't like the findings of this report I didn't read that explicitly says women were screened for minimal requirements for males so therefore it's bullshit"

[url]http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/wisr-studies/USMC%20-%20RAND%20Implications%20of%20Integrating%20Women%20Into%20the%20Marine%20Corps%20Infantry%20Report.pdf[/url] This should be a good read. [quote]Although the United Kingdom was not required to review the issue of women in combat occupations again until 2016, the British Army made the decision in 2014 to bring the issue up for another review early because of the attention being paid to the issue in places like the United States and Australia. The results of the six-month review were published in December 2014. The study was overseen by the head of the army and found that there was no evidence that integrating women into combat units would disrupt the effectiveness or morale of these units.[/quote] The study examines other nations that allowed women into combat as well.

[QUOTE=wystan;50695259]"I don't like the findings of this report I didn't read that explicitly says women were screened for minimal requirements for males so therefore it's bullshit"[/QUOTE] epic zinger bro!!! too bad it does nothing to refute his points. oops.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50695444]epic zinger bro!!! too bad it does nothing to refute his points. oops.[/QUOTE] I mean, the fact he is literally wrong in his assumption of the study is enough to refute him. But if you or him read the study you would know that. oops.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;50691494]It's not just the physicality part, but the psychological part and that is way more damaging than someone not being physically strong. I'm not really accepting of the idea, but I think that there very could possibly be an issue with women in combat zones. Not because of their performance, but very much just them being women. It can be not their fault at all that they have this affect in those areas and our military is trying really really hard to make everyone act a certain way towards our female soldiers, but it is not rare at all for the morale of all the peers affected to dramatically change to a negative sense. I hate to say it, but it's a distraction and that is a much bigger reason why not to risk everyones performance and unity in those dangerous areas.[/QUOTE] oh jesus fucking christ men can be ridiculously weak as well

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50694896]And men dont get raped? just to be clear by some inclusionary definitions men get raped more then women in today’s society oh, you only care if its a women... right...[/QUOTE] Quite honestly, given that foreign forces are likely to be all-male, female combatants would be at a much higher risk for being raped simply because other militaries are 100% men. I don't think that changes anything, but female combatants would have much higher rape rates without question.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;50693831]Oh please, spare us the witty [Citation needed] bullshit.[/QUOTE] I would agree with you if he hadn't just given us a shit ton of sources. That remark only stings if the other party doesn't do the above.

[QUOTE=phygon;50701887]Quite honestly, given that foreign forces are likely to be all-male, female combatants would be at a much higher risk for being raped simply because other militaries are 100% men. I don't think that changes anything, but female combatants would have much higher rape rates without question.[/QUOTE] Yes, luckily the men will just get tortured to death or just outright killed in a gruesome way. thank god for that.

[QUOTE=ksenior;50688575]Oh yeah, because when his buddy goes down it's totally not his first instinct to save him :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] I remember this being an actual study being conducted but I can't find it right this moment. If there's proof for it, then yeah it's a valid concern.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50702641]I remember this being an actual study being conducted but I can't find it right this moment. If there's proof for it, then yeah it's a valid concern.[/QUOTE] more like pop psych bullshit that people wildly misunderstand

Please clarify. I'm not sure on my sources so I'm not making definitive claims, but you seem to know more about the subject than me.

Somehow I doubt the "instinct" to protect women is somehow more ingrained than the intro avoid dangerous places or aversion toward killing people.

[QUOTE=Murky42;50702236]I would agree with you if he hadn't just given us a shit ton of sources. That remark only stings if the other party doesn't do the above.[/QUOTE] Except sources had been posted already for Canada.