|
Cyrano4747 posted:Somehow my wife and I have had sex pretty routinely over the past 7 years without getting her pregnant. I wonder how the gently caress we managed that? Wow! In the past 4 years your wife and I have had at least 3 scares.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
If a woman 1) meets the physical requirements (real physical requirements, not pass the APFT) and 2) can tolerate the lack of privacy in a light infantry unit, then have at it. But I think that the number of women who can actually perform at the same physical level as the average man in a light infantry unit is pretty low. I've met tough a lot of tough women the army, who wouldn't give up and could tolerate a large amount of pain. But could they carry any ruck heavier than the air assault packing list any real distance? Not in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It's not But how much of this is the pre-existing social context that only exists because of historical reasons? Much in the same way computers and guns were seen as male oriented devices because of that context when in reality there's nothing about them that differentiates between genders? I think if the cultural social context were to change to make the military more attractive to potential female recruits then I think more women would want to join the military and it could cease to be seen as a primarily male field like computer science of engineering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:07
|
|
it's that fewer women than men want to be in the military.
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Totally read that as IUD. according to pro-lifers an IUD is basically and IED for the baby making parts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:But how much of this is the pre-existing social context that only exists because of historical reasons? Much in the same way computers and guns were seen as male oriented devices because of that context when in reality there's nothing about them that differentiates between genders? Women show a much greater demonstrated preference than men for not having to travel away from their families and spend a lot of time at work. This is not universally true, but it is broadly true. Deployments, time in the field, long hours, etc. are unavoidable in the military. The result is that women make up between...I want to say 10-20% of each branch; 10% for the marines, 20% for the air force, or something like that. And even to the extent that culture plays a role in these things, you can't will that out of existence. You can call it all a social construct until you're blue in the face, but just because something is socially constructed doesn't mean it can be socially reconstructed. At my father's law firm, they start out with more female associates than male associates. "Lawyer" is no longer anything remotely resembling a masculine job; most law school graduates are female. But his firm has overwhelmingly more male partners, because very few women are willing to spend the time at work and away from their kids that's required. So they leave the firm. This is despite policies that go right up to the line of overt discrimination in their favor. Compare to my actuarial firm, where perhaps 40% of our partners are women, because actuarial work hours are shorter. And we don't have any policies preferring women at all. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:For the same reason you send your tanks and planes into battle but not your lathes and presses. Plenty of downrange metal shops custom fabbing replacement parts for our antiquated equipment would like a word with you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:"Oh no a military member got pregnant however shall I cope?" say world's most incompetent commanders. When you have two people qualified to fly that mission and one of them goes long-term DNIF for something that's effectively voluntary, yeah. It can be a problem. But men are equally stupid. And in this case, the guy also DNIFed himself on literally the same day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Godholio posted:When you have two people qualified to fly that mission and one of them goes long-term DNIF for something that's effectively voluntary, yeah. It can be a problem. I've had, per capita, so many more mission critical men gently caress their readiness up than women, even including issues that aren't pregnancy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Plenty of downrange metal shops custom fabbing replacement parts for our antiquated equipment would like a word with you. Wait, so are the Privates having unprotected sex in the bunkers at Bagram the downrange fab in this metaphor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Yes and yes, I think.mlmp08 posted:I've had, per capita, so many more mission critical men gently caress their readiness up than women, even including issues that aren't pregnancy. Same. But it's not a non-issue, even if it is a relatively minor issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Wait, so are the Privates having unprotected sex in the bunkers at Bagram the downrange fab in this metaphor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
I'm hearing a lot of time money and people are being thrown at the SHORAD problem- and that what's coming together is a hot mess. Why can't we develop mobile SAM's with move and shoot capabilities with a 0-100km range? The Soviets developed a fuckload of mobile SAM's and even developed move and shoot on some. Surely this is something we can develop and integrate into maneuver elements. Keep Patriot as a theater level asset, and put these down at the BCT level. Why is this not happening?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:40
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:I'm hearing a lot of time money and people are being thrown at the SHORAD problem- and that what's coming together is a hot mess. Bluntly, it was neglected for decades and it's really hard to do.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Bluntly, it was neglected for decades and it's really hard to do. Accurate enough. Also, mobile SAMs are happening, presently, with a lot of catch up. In the meantime, teach grunts how to shoot MANPADS, upgrade SHORAD, increase SHORAD trainee numbers, deploy C-UAS prototypes to Europe, continue running C-UAS tests stateside and rapidly export that tech/technique overseas, etc. Simultaneously, the Army seems to have faith that it can build SHORAD-esque quasi-mobile systems that are highly capable but aren't standalone systems. I hope for the best, but testing is still very much in progress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Technologically this isn't a tough nut to crack at all. How do we gently caress this up? We will, no doubt. But gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Somewhere in the pentagon, a working group is no doubt measuring the cost of fratricide (ground-to-air and air-to-ground) we can handle vs the amount of dakka the ground force can sustain from enemy air/arty platforms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:58
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:Technologically this isn't a tough nut to crack at all. It's always the little minor issues that senior crew has discovered over years of training and usage that turn to major issues when you try and do it from scratch. Hell we've been doing carrier ops for almost a full century and they still hosed up the tailhook on the F-35
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, ADATS was the closest the US army ever got to fielding a modern SHORAD system. On the maneuver force air defense front, the US has basically no experience at all. Meanwhile, Russia has tons of legacy systems, operational experience, etc to build upon. So this is a major change in Army practice. Artillery returning to ita rightful position a queen of the battlefield is next in lime for major cultre change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:But how much of this is the pre-existing social context that only exists because of historical reasons? Much in the same way computers and guns were seen as male oriented devices because of that context when in reality there's nothing about them that differentiates between genders? Computer programming used to be women's work and was seen as basically secretarial work until around the 70s to 80s. Computers/programming...etc. male domination today is a leftover artifact of society selling video games/arcade games/computers as 'boys toys' when home video games were practical and affordable. In the day when they were actually building the foundations of modern computing it was mostly women doing the programming. I mean Grace Hopper invented one of the first compilers and loving COBOL. There was no pre-existing context, it came about in the last 30ish years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
The whole context argument for women in the military is entirely beside the point. Almost all military jobs for all time require high levels of physical strength and endurance. Biologically, men are much much better at those attributes than women. It was only the advent of modern aircraft and, to a lesser degree sniping, which gave women a role in which they could be equal to men. Look back at the fitness statistics, women are just not as strong as men as combat roles tend to call for stronger people than the average. Only when combat is largely physical strength independent can women be equal to men in that role. There's also the psychological aggression factor, but that's a much trickier subject..
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:As far as I can tell, ADATS was the closest the US army ever got to fielding a modern SHORAD system. A improved version of the Euromissile Roland was almost ready to go into service in the 80s but got killed by budget cuts. The National Guard ended up operating the handful of launchers that had already been built for 4-5 years. Quickest option would probably be to start buying NASAMS systems (since Raytheon is already making them for Norway and elsewhere) and putting them on trucks/Strykers or the unwanted M1 Abrams hulls. But even then it's not a self-contained system like the Crotale NG and similar, it would need separate vehicles for the radar and launchers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Just because most women wouldn't have strenght compared to most men doesn't mean "I guess we shouldn't bother then." A rifle doesn't care if the firer has a penis or vagina. A tank doesn't care if the driver wears panties or briefs. And women have served on the front lines in rough conditions before even if it wasn't with the USA. So when the arguments against women in combat amount to "it's not worth trying because that requires effort on our part and something bad might happen in combat" it falls flat. Okay, maybe there's never going to be a female on seal team 6. But there are still roles other than being elite special ops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:A rifle doesn't care if the firer has a penis or vagina. A tank doesn't care if the driver wears panties or briefs. And women have served on the front lines in rough conditions before even if it wasn't with the USA. A rifle that isn't in a position to fire on the enemy because its wielder didn't have the endurance to make it there carrying a 100lb combat load is useless. A tank that's broken down because the driver didn't have the upper body strength to perform routine maintenance tasks is useless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Damnit, can we just take Shim's out and stop talking about women in combat please? Since we were talking about air defense, here's a Rapier launcher  They used these in the Falklands and supposedly shot down a Skyhawk with one. Maybe two. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Just because most women wouldn't have strenght compared to most men doesn't mean "I guess we shouldn't bother then." Actually there was a Woman in Seal Team 6, she didn't transition until she retired, however.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Hell for that matter there's females already assigned to SEAL team 6. Hint: It's not just SEALs on the SEAL teams.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Things are getting interesting in Venezuela.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
That country is sooooooo hosed. hosed as in the "good" solution here is a big popular demonstration that leads to a military coup, Maduro disposed of, and then whoever's in charge of the military has the good sense to quickly hand it back over to their congress. The bad version is basically Syria: Rainforest Edition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Computer programming used to be women's work and was seen as basically secretarial work until around the 70s to 80s. quote:I mean Grace Hopper invented one of the first compilers and loving COBOL. Hopper is the almost lone exception.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 06:33
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:This is not true. I don't know where you heard this. It definitely isn't true in a meaningful sense: It's possible secretaries copied programs onto punch tapes but virtually all of the pioneer computer scientists were male. gently caress how are you so wrong all the time. Women were all over the early history of computing until the great female crash of the mid 80s when female participation in computer science plunged Here's a real short list for you to google Ada loving Lovelace Margaret Hamilton Adele Goldberg Adele Goldstein Kathleen Booth Jean Sammett Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
Oh come on, Alan Turing was a man. Not a straight man, but a man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Damnit, can we just take Shim's out and stop talking about women in combat please? I always thought they looked like Johnny 5's angry older brother. "You need 'input,' bro...I need *targets*."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Nobody really cares, and I'm probably the only one who can change opinion over heated interneto arguing (I'm so easy to influence, it's embarassing), but several pro-combat lady arguments are just like tumblr screeching. Enlisted aren't adults. Enlisted are usually under 20yo, which is prime being stupid and horny age. Daily show makes me believe that american campuses are hellholes of rape, and if the military had a similar amount of women, it could probably be worse (especially considering that grunts are not in the process of having their minds expanded by the college). Plus, we haven't rooted out harrasment and sexism in civilian life, and it would probably persist longer in an insular culture like the military. W/r/t pregnancy, this is a complication that women can encounter in addition to injuries that are common to all humans. In the end, set barriers of entry for both sexes, make birth control pills available on government dime (pills help deal with menstrual crampa, which can be criplingy intense as far as my experience with ladies shows, which is a really good reason to give them out for free) and see how it goes. I think my tiny country accepts women in frontline roles (we don't have tanks or planes to put them in) and one photographer buddy of mine basically became MoD's official photographer after she completed her training with great enthusiasm. She's a better suited to the whole military thing than I am. Plus, women aren't aliens, they understand that guns are cool, so why not let them pew pew.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Wait, so are the Privates having unprotected sex in the bunkers at Bagram the downrange fab in this metaphor? Second generation feral enlistedspawn haunting the shadows at the base, terribly mutated from their diets of energy drinks and whey protein, multiplying like rabbits. Occasionally they'll dismember an incautious officer and there'll be a cull.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkjbMoj0JY4
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
Even if you use the biological argument, there's a non-trivial percentage of women that could likely be in an appropriate range of combat fitness etc. Let's say that's only 5%. That's still 5% more of a labor pool that can be utilized than before. If that percentage are capable of the same tasks we'd require the other gender to do, then why not let them do it? What is the downside? I don't think anyone ITT is making the argument that we should let them do anything the men do and then relax the standards accordingly to assist that.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:Technologically this isn't a tough nut to crack at all. Technology is the simplest part of the equation. The hard part is building up an efficient doctrine and a good training program to get your personnel effective with it. That's true in pretty much every domain you can think of. The problem is that many deciders believe that you can just let skills rot, and then throw technology at it to compensate. The result is a usually a boondoggle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
That Works posted:Even if you use the biological argument, there's a non-trivial percentage of women that could likely be in an appropriate range of combat fitness etc. Let's say that's only 5%. That's still 5% more of a labor pool that can be utilized than before. If that percentage are capable of the same tasks we'd require the other gender to do, then why not let them do it? What is the downside? Because without reaching critical mass of women in combat roles theres going to be a lot of harassment or work swept under the rug. You need to have enough in the command structure as both lowly enlisted (to support each other) and officers (to control situations that escalate). Without that you can't simply mandate a culture that's safe for a minority of women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
The problem is that women in the army have always been acknowledged to be less physically fit, and are afforded easier physical fitness standards so that women are not de facto excluded from the army. And that is a political decision. There are military situations where a woman's unique insight is valuable, but they are limited to counter insurgency wars in misogynistic countries. The fact is, there are male soldiers that are kicked out for failing to a standard that they would have easily passed if they were a female soldier. When they talk about integrating women into combat arms we are told that the standards won't change, but what is really being said is that these women have to pass the female standard. No one is saying they have to pass the male standard because very few of them would, and no one is saying that they have to hit the 270 mark that is the de facto standard for so many male combat arms officers. That's why people are skeptical. The militarily sound solution is to have one standard for each MOS, and to make it a real standard. I've seen skinny fast kids not be able to ruck more than a couple of miles before they fall out, but they max the APFT. That makes no sense. Unfortunately for America, that will never happen because it would make it too hard for women to enter those MOSs, and people will say it's because of some sexist reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
Chewbacca Defense posted:The problem is that women in the army have always been acknowledged to be less physically fit, and are afforded easier physical fitness standards so that women are not de facto excluded from the army. And that is a political decision. There are military situations where a woman's unique insight is valuable, but they are limited to counter insurgency wars in misogynistic countries. The fact is, there are male soldiers that are kicked out for failing to a standard that they would have easily passed if they were a female soldier. When they talk about integrating women into combat arms we are told that the standards won't change, but what is really being said is that these women have to pass the female standard. No one is saying they have to pass the male standard because very few of them would, and no one is saying that they have to hit the 270 mark that is the de facto standard for so many male combat arms officers. That's why people are skeptical. Hey, hey, I have news for you. THE ARMY IS ALREADY DOING THIS RIGHT loving NOW FOR MEN AND WOMEN. The PC police and tumblerinas didn't win. That's all in your head. https://www.army.mil/article/177774 https://www.army.mil/article/168882 https://www.army.mil/article/163948/Gender_integration__Reality_in_today_s_Army I know I sound pissy, but jesus christ, it's like everyone ran in here to post their opinions without reading any other posts or doing a 10 second google. And for those mentioning birth control, it's already offered for free to women in the military. And except for totally dumbass commanders and NCOs, of which there are more than a few, no one is confiscating condoms from people just because they're in an environment where they're not supposed to be loving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 13:49
|
|