Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby Haggis_McMutton on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:16 am

thegreekdog wrote:This is an interesting thread. It seems that some people (e.g. McMuffin and spurgistan) have made some strawman arguments. Nobunaga is pointing out that he thinks women in combat is fine as long as they are held to the same physical standards as men (I would agree and vice versa). But McMuffin and spurgistan are "moving the goal posts" (to use McMuffin's phrase) by pointing to things like "why can't women do what men can do?" I'm sure they can, but right now they aren't required to in the military. And that may or may not cause a problem. So why don't you guys argue about that instead of creating this inequality straw man?


Wait, what straw man?

I said from the beginning that the same standard should be applied to both men and women. That seems like a no-brainer, I don't know what more there is to discuss about that.

@ leave of absence.

My problem is in the assumption that just because Mary is a woman she will probably take a leave of absence and therefore should be penalized for that. What if Mary fuckin' hates kids and has absolutely no intention of breeding. Hell, what if Mary is incapable of having kids?
I'm saying we shouldn't penalize Mary just because she is part of the category of people called "women". If she does intend to take maternity leave then that should be taken in account, same as if some guy intends to take paternity leave.
Last edited by Haggis_McMutton on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67;
Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA};
8-3-7
User avatar
Major Haggis_McMutton
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:32 am
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (4)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:17 am

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:This is an interesting thread. It seems that some people (e.g. McMuffin and spurgistan) have made some strawman arguments. Nobunaga is pointing out that he thinks women in combat is fine as long as they are held to the same physical standards as men (I would agree and vice versa). But McMuffin and spurgistan are "moving the goal posts" (to use McMuffin's phrase) by pointing to things like "why can't women do what men can do?" I'm sure they can, but right now they aren't required to in the military. And that may or may not cause a problem. So why don't you guys argue about that instead of creating this inequality straw man?


Wait, what straw man?

I said from the beginning that the same standard should be applied to both men and women. That seems like a no-brainer, I don't know what more there is to discuss about that.

@ leave of absence.

My problem is in the assumption that just because Marie is a woman she will probably take a leave of absence and therefore should be penalized for that. What if Mary fuckin' hates kids and has absolutely no intention of breeding. Hell, what if Mary is incapable of having kids?
I'm saying we shouldn't penalize Mary just because she is part of the category of people called "women". If she does intend to take maternity leave then that should be taken in account, same as if some guy intends to take paternity leave.


Whoops... sorry. I read your "moving the goal posts" line and for some reason thought that you were the one that were moving the goal posts.

I agree with the above, by the way.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby Haggis_McMutton on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:27 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:Of course, but I don't see how that reasoning explains most of the problem here. Much of the discrepancy is explained away with MPL and people's previous choices and preferences.

MPL still applies to millions; it's microeconomics.

If an employer makes such decisions by only having an applicant's particular group in mind, then he's missing out on many profitable opportunities, which his competitors will take advantage of--if they're aware of them.


There seems to me to be some of this viewing all women as a single entity and making judgments based on that going on. Such as in saying "women are more likely to take a leave of absence" or "women are likely to affect morale in war" or whatever. I'm just saying this needs to shift more to a case by case analysis.
It's the same argument as that regarding fighting ability. It is true to say "women, on average, are worse fighters than men", but there is a huge overlap in the two distributions (i.e. best women fighters can still kick the ass of 99% of men), so if I'm hiring bodyguards I'm gonna be more interested in their actual stats than in whether they have a penis or not.

I'm going to strategically ignore the last line in your response as I predict that leading to a huge rabbit hole.

BBS wrote:Because people can still fill in the gaps of the unexplained with their preconceived notions; social science is forever inexact; and statistics can be manipulated and/or used poorly. Maybe about 1% or 2% of discrepancy may be explained by discrimination, but the rest isn't.

For example, (wiki) "For example, fewer replies to identical resumes with female names[3]:10 and more jobs went to women when orchestras moved to blind auditions.[4]"

Is that evidence of discrimination or evidence that lacking knowledge of an employee's risks and future costs leads to poorer decisions? I say the former. Having kids isn't good for business; it's costly, and unfortunately in today's society the women predominantly take care of the kids.

Note: I was reading that government review on gender-wage gap. "Women working full-time, year-round earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and virtually no progress has been made in closing the gap since 2001.[26]"

That's false. If you fail to control for differences in age and career, then ohmerhgerd! no growth in income for women! (Also, note the selective use of words: "full-time, year-round" but what about the other categories?)

This is a political report which involves ulterior motives, so this isn't trustworthy.


Yeah, I agree that report seems somewhat biased.
Look, since you admit some leeway(1-2%, whatever), I'm not sure I see the benefit of continuing this line of discussion.

I was taking offense to the notion that this is an absolutely settled matter. "This has been disproved many times" - this is the kind of language I'd use when discussing creationism vs. evolution. I'm just saying this stuff is nowhere near as clear cut. And we should not make statements like "it is 100% certain there is absolutely no gender-based discrimination going on anywhere". Cause in sociology such statements are just ridiculous.
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67;
Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA};
8-3-7
User avatar
Major Haggis_McMutton
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:32 am
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (4)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby DoomYoshi on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:47 am

john9blue wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.


That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).


this sounds eerily like the argument women use for why men shouldn't be allowed to debate abortion...


What are you talking about? Haven't you seen the Godfather?
If you have ever referred to FDR as "Delano", then you just might be a hipster.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DoomYoshi
Entertainment Contributor
Entertainment Contributor
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (16)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (5)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:39 am

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:This is an interesting thread. It seems that some people (e.g. McMuffin and spurgistan) have made some strawman arguments. Nobunaga is pointing out that he thinks women in combat is fine as long as they are held to the same physical standards as men (I would agree and vice versa). But McMuffin and spurgistan are "moving the goal posts" (to use McMuffin's phrase) by pointing to things like "why can't women do what men can do?" I'm sure they can, but right now they aren't required to in the military. And that may or may not cause a problem. So why don't you guys argue about that instead of creating this inequality straw man?


Wait, what straw man?

I said from the beginning that the same standard should be applied to both men and women. That seems like a no-brainer, I don't know what more there is to discuss about that.

@ leave of absence.

My problem is in the assumption that just because Mary is a woman she will probably take a leave of absence and therefore should be penalized for that. [1] What if Mary fuckin' hates kids and has absolutely no intention of breeding. [2] Hell, what if Mary is incapable of having kids?
I'm saying we shouldn't penalize Mary just because she is part of the category of people called "women". If she does intend to take maternity leave then that should be taken in account, same as if some guy intends to take paternity leave.


[1] Then her expected productivity would increase--if the subject is mentioned; however, she would have to make a convincing case.

[2] The employers could probably be sued for inquiring about her medical history (I'm not 100% sure, but I smell a lawsuit with that topic).

Mary isn't being penalized. She can produce kids, and like other women, she's very likely to have them, and like most women she's very likely to take time off to care for them. Also, IIRC, she is required to received maternity leave (which will be deducted from her wage ultimately--just like the employer's paying his 'share' of one's Social Security tax). All of this reduces her expected productivity (or marginal product of labor), thus justifying a lower wage--on average--compared to a man.

Looks like the federal government is 66% to blame on this one. 33% goes to society in general for having women raise the kids--in general, in general, in general. 1% goes to saxitoxin because he's a penis head.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:41 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:Looks like the federal government is 66% to blame on this one. 33% goes to society in general for having women raise the kids--in general, in general, in general. 1% goes to saxitoxin because he's a penis head.


guilty :(
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Location: the American Riviera
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:43 am

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Of course, but I don't see how that reasoning explains most of the problem here. Much of the discrepancy is explained away with MPL and people's previous choices and preferences.

MPL still applies to millions; it's microeconomics.

If an employer makes such decisions by only having an applicant's particular group in mind, then he's missing out on many profitable opportunities, which his competitors will take advantage of--if they're aware of them.


There seems to me to be some of this viewing all women as a single entity and making judgments based on that going on. Such as in saying "women are more likely to take a leave of absence" or "women are likely to affect morale in war" or whatever. I'm just saying this needs to shift more to a case by case analysis.
It's the same argument as that regarding fighting ability. It is true to say "women, on average, are worse fighters than men", but there is a huge overlap in the two distributions (i.e. best women fighters can still kick the ass of 99% of men), so if I'm hiring bodyguards I'm gonna be more interested in their actual stats than in whether they have a penis or not.


I'm going to strategically ignore the last line in your response as I predict that leading to a huge rabbit hole.


Well, from what I recall, the younger the woman, the more likely her wage is equivalent to the man's, so it seems that things are changing. What's weighing down the numbers is all those old people and their old ways. So, already things are 'on the mend'--without the help of lefties and their government intervention.

RE: I'd imagine that if there was no threat of being sued for asking questions about one's medical history and other very personal questions, then many of your concerns could be alleviated. But thanks to anti-discrimination laws and what not, this is impeded.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
BBS wrote:Because people can still fill in the gaps of the unexplained with their preconceived notions; social science is forever inexact; and statistics can be manipulated and/or used poorly. Maybe about 1% or 2% of discrepancy may be explained by discrimination, but the rest isn't.

For example, (wiki) "For example, fewer replies to identical resumes with female names[3]:10 and more jobs went to women when orchestras moved to blind auditions.[4]"

Is that evidence of discrimination or evidence that lacking knowledge of an employee's risks and future costs leads to poorer decisions? I say the former. Having kids isn't good for business; it's costly, and unfortunately in today's society the women predominantly take care of the kids.

Note: I was reading that government review on gender-wage gap. "Women working full-time, year-round earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and virtually no progress has been made in closing the gap since 2001.[26]"

That's false. If you fail to control for differences in age and career, then ohmerhgerd! no growth in income for women! (Also, note the selective use of words: "full-time, year-round" but what about the other categories?)

This is a political report which involves ulterior motives, so this isn't trustworthy.


Yeah, I agree that report seems somewhat biased.
Look, since you admit some leeway(1-2%, whatever), I'm not sure I see the benefit of continuing this line of discussion.

I was taking offense to the notion that this is an absolutely settled matter. "This has been disproved many times" - this is the kind of language I'd use when discussing creationism vs. evolution. I'm just saying this stuff is nowhere near as clear cut. And we should not make statements like "it is 100% certain there is absolutely no gender-based discrimination going on anywhere". Cause in sociology such statements are just ridiculous.


Sure, just saying that it's not as bad as many think it is--which is a point that needs to be made. Otherwise, those idiots will advocate for well-intended policies with bad outcomes.

P.S. Evolution is a lie. You can't have string cheese from nothing.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby john9blue on Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:28 pm

Haggis_McMutton wrote:There seems to me to be some of this viewing all women as a single entity and making judgments based on that going on. Such as in saying "women are more likely to take a leave of absence" or "women are likely to affect morale in war" or whatever. I'm just saying this needs to shift more to a case by case analysis.
It's the same argument as that regarding fighting ability. It is true to say "women, on average, are worse fighters than men", but there is a huge overlap in the two distributions (i.e. best women fighters can still kick the ass of 99% of men), so if I'm hiring bodyguards I'm gonna be more interested in their actual stats than in whether they have a penis or not.

I'm going to strategically ignore the last line in your response as I predict that leading to a huge rabbit hole.


i think a distinction needs to be made here. i'm not saying that there don't exist women who CAN be great soldiers. i'm just questioning whether the benefit of the additional military power is worth the potential costs.

also, your "statistical analysis" is a bit off, considering that the military is largely composed of males in the upper, say, 10% of physical fitness. and the fact that women who can beat 99% of men exist doesn't change the fact that, given the distributions are clustered around the mean, probably 75% of males are more capable of being soldiers than 75% of females.

basing public policy on extreme statistical outliers is generally a bad idea.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
BBS wrote:Because people can still fill in the gaps of the unexplained with their preconceived notions; social science is forever inexact; and statistics can be manipulated and/or used poorly. Maybe about 1% or 2% of discrepancy may be explained by discrimination, but the rest isn't.

For example, (wiki) "For example, fewer replies to identical resumes with female names[3]:10 and more jobs went to women when orchestras moved to blind auditions.[4]"

Is that evidence of discrimination or evidence that lacking knowledge of an employee's risks and future costs leads to poorer decisions? I say the former. Having kids isn't good for business; it's costly, and unfortunately in today's society the women predominantly take care of the kids.

Note: I was reading that government review on gender-wage gap. "Women working full-time, year-round earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and virtually no progress has been made in closing the gap since 2001.[26]"

That's false. If you fail to control for differences in age and career, then ohmerhgerd! no growth in income for women! (Also, note the selective use of words: "full-time, year-round" but what about the other categories?)

This is a political report which involves ulterior motives, so this isn't trustworthy.


Yeah, I agree that report seems somewhat biased.
Look, since you admit some leeway(1-2%, whatever), I'm not sure I see the benefit of continuing this line of discussion.

I was taking offense to the notion that this is an absolutely settled matter. "This has been disproved many times" - this is the kind of language I'd use when discussing creationism vs. evolution. I'm just saying this stuff is nowhere near as clear cut. And we should not make statements like "it is 100% certain there is absolutely no gender-based discrimination going on anywhere". Cause in sociology such statements are just ridiculous.


i agree with most of BBS' post, except for his claim that women being caretakers is "unfortunate". i think it's a real possibility that women, on average, are better caretakers.

also, my original post was:

john9blue wrote:the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.


i said "much less" for a reason. i do believe that there exists discrimination against women. i've seen it personally from my coworkers (software development is possibly the single most male-dominated white-collar profession). but i think the "70 cents" figure greatly exaggerates how prevalent it really is.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (3)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:24 pm

john9blue wrote:
i agree with most of BBS' post, except for his claim that women being caretakers is "unfortunate". i think it's a real possibility that women, on average, are better caretakers.


Oh, it's unfortunate that society in general tends to delegate the upbringing of children to women, which on average lowers their expected productivity, thus depressing some portion of their wage.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby Lootifer on Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:41 pm

I'd have thought you'd see the unfortunate aspect being that they are not sufficiently rewarded for caretaking (nor properly incentivised to do a good job of it).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
Discussions Moderator
Discussions Moderator
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:18 am

Lootifer wrote:I'd have thought you'd see the unfortunate aspect being that they are not sufficiently rewarded for caretaking (nor properly incentivised to do a good job of it).


Wasn't there some study showing how doubling the available workforce fucked salaries up? I would do an internet search for "doubling available workforce + fucking up salaries" but I'm afraid I'll get a video of two women having intercourse with a salad.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:32 am

Lootifer wrote:I'd have thought you'd see the unfortunate aspect being that they are not sufficiently rewarded for caretaking (nor properly incentivised to do a good job of it).


I'm just railing against heteronormativity, ya dig?

As for the labor market of child-rearing, ehh. Maybe Plato was right. Perhaps the division of labor should be managed differently for this sector, so that children could attain their highest fulfillment within the ranks of the "productive class," the auxiliaries, and the Great PHILOSOPHER-KINGS!!!! Hail! Hail! Hail!
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:35 am

thegreekdog wrote:
Lootifer wrote:I'd have thought you'd see the unfortunate aspect being that they are not sufficiently rewarded for caretaking (nor properly incentivised to do a good job of it).


Wasn't there some study showing how doubling the available workforce fucked salaries up? I would do an internet search for "doubling available workforce + fucking up salaries" but I'm afraid I'll get a video of two women having intercourse with a salad.


I recall this graph which should the median income of males declining since the 1960s, BUT the median income for females kept rising (and perhaps rose at a greater rate since the 1960s). So there's that.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby fadedpsychosis on Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:05 pm

ok, I was going to throw my own 2 cents in, but it looks like it's going to be closer to a buck and a half after reading through the whole post... so here it goes, quote city!

john9blue wrote:we'll see how it works out. i can definitely see it reducing the effectiveness of male soldiers, but i've never been in the armed forces, so maybe they are capable of ignoring it?

some of us most certainly are... certainly not all, but if I'm getting shot at I'd have no problem with any of the women I've ever worked with in the military next to me

notyou2 wrote:I expect it will be equal pay, which they probably already have based on rank and skills, or something similar, so I'm in support of it.

yup, as patches explained later

(here in fact)
patches70 wrote:Pay isn't an issue, of a certain rank you get a certain pay. Hazard duty as proscribed and all the other things. It's all laid out, and there isn't a Male Pay scale and a Female Pay scale in the military.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4429,d.b2I

Pretty much the women combat troops will get paid just as crappy as the men. heh heh.


Just_essence wrote:Well, it'll be largely peaceful, that's for sure. But it's not going to be a smooth ride, that's also for sure. Why? 'Cause there's always the lingering problem of the entire population in the military that are either consciously sexist or unconsciously sexist. It'll disappear in time, but for now, it's still there.

"entire population"? in the future if you wish to avoid cramming your foot further down your throat, avoid such all inclusive phrases... because for starters you're claiming to know something about every member of a fairly large population that I can guarantee you have not met every member of (as I've never met you personally), not to mention you're also assuming the female portion of that population is also sexist

Nobunaga wrote:Allow me to be the first to be against it... well, partially and conditionally against it.

The day women are made to meet the same requirements, many of them physical, is the day I'm all for it. So when you've been shot in the gut and need to be carried a mile by your buddy, you'd know the woman in your foxhole can pull the job off.

At present, they need not meet those requirements.

really? which requirements specifically are you talking about, and what proof have you of your claim?

_sabotage_ wrote:It must be part of the shock and awe.

The muslim whatever we call them to avoid war crime laws will be so surprised that a woman is shooting them it will be like a flash bang. On the other hand, when they catch and rape the crap out of them and send us videos, we might have a change of heart about equality in the forces.

sure, like what they do to the men isn't gruesome enough... oh, and the civilians they capture... oh, and any women not actively in combat who might still work on a base that gets overrun...

PLAYER57832 wrote:Actually, women are often better able to stand up to long term stress, including things like long forced marches and such, than men.

The benefit of male strength is often very overrated. I cannot even count the number of arrogant strong young guys I worked to the ground -- I am not particularly big or particulary muscular, but I used what I had more effectively than they. Also, I have more flexibility, so was prone to some injuries less than men.

The issue is not that men are women or women men, the issue is mostly that both can do the jobs effectively, and even when the approach has to differ for women, many times rethinking how things are done to make it easier for men is very beneficial to all involved.

Or, to put it another way.. foxholes don't provide much protection against either IEDs on the roadway, (or directed drones, for that matter)

bolded for emphasis, you are quite correct... also, one of the toughest women I know is my mother-in-law. she's not overly strong, and I could easily out muscle her, but she puts me to shame over the long haul

Nobunaga wrote:
spurgistan wrote:The fun thing is that this doesn't really change much except acknowledge that women are actually serving in combat areas and face the same hazards their male counterparts do. And morale doesn't suffer.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... omen-fight

Read this a while ago, made a really good argument for why this is a no-brainer.


Yeah... the main point of the article is basically, and I quote, "It is time for the U.S. military to get over its hang-ups and acknowledge women’s rightful place on the battlefield. ".

Not exactly a neutral examination of the situation, but I understand the argument and I absolutely believe women should be allowed to fight... so long as they are held to the same standards as their be-testicled compatriots..

spurg: as you said, they're already here, the only difference is they're allowed to go kick down doors now if they want. there are very few women specifically in combat jobs in the military, and the few that are tend to be just as good at what they do as their male counterparts
Nob: as I said earlier, what standards, and what proof have you they aren't being held to them?


Haggis_McMutton wrote:God bless their pretty little heads for thinking they could ever die in a trench like a man can.

while I acknowledge the sarcasm in the original post I must point out that trenches went out with WWII

john9blue wrote:that's because, even if you manage to find women who are able to meet the physical standards that men do, they introduce a whole host of psychological problems to their unit. if the benefit from the additional "man"power in our military outweighed these negative psychological consequences, then i'd be totally in favor of introducing women to combat. the reality of the situation, though, is that our military is already bloated and there's just no need to make our current soldiers suffer more than they have to... even if it's the female soldiers who are victims of misogyny from the males.

you ARE aware that women are already involved in many combat situations, albeit usually in a defensive capacity, and that we're doing just fine with them where they are, right? so I gotta ask... how is allowing women who VOLUNTEER for the duty to fight like they want making us suffer?

john9blue wrote:the disagreement ITT arises because i look at things from a pragmatic POV and others look at it from an idealist POV. yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".

all I have to say is Bull F**king Sh**

spurgistan wrote:It doesn't matter if "women in general" don't want to serve on the front lines - men "in general" don't want to serve on the front lines, or we'd be able to fight way more wars. But a few are ok with being puppets of international finance and dying for oil companies, so, we let them.

as opposed to wage slavery for the same companies? at least I get paid better this way

Lootifer wrote:
john9blue wrote:yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".

You highlight the inherent problem, and who is responsible for it.

The problem lies with the men who see "brotherhood" as a male-only thing.

The people who suffer because of the problem are the 'ard as fucking nails woman who dont give a f*ck about whats between your legs and just want to soldier.

Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".

Like Haggis I support Nobungas requirement that woman meet the exact same entry criteria; I just disagree with your pragmatic argument that fixing soldier psychology is just too hard. If anything getting beat by a girl in training exercises will only serve to improve all the macho twats...

let's just say when the smallest girl in the platoon outdid EVERY male the PT scores went up for a bit afterwards...

thegreekdog wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.


That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).

I'm currently in Afghanistan, and I do care, so forgive me for rambling a bit

john9blue wrote:i think a distinction needs to be made here. i'm not saying that there don't exist women who CAN be great soldiers. i'm just questioning whether the benefit of the additional military power is worth the potential costs.

uh... what additional cost? the troops being allowed into combat are already being paid by the military
oh, and don't go into combat/hazardous duty pay, we all get that just for being in the war zone in the first place

john9blue wrote:also, your "statistical analysis" is a bit off, considering that the military is largely composed of males in the upper, say, 10% of physical fitness. and the fact that women who can beat 99% of men exist doesn't change the fact that, given the distributions are clustered around the mean, probably 75% of males are more capable of being soldiers than 75% of females.

basing public policy on extreme statistical outliers is generally a bad idea.

uh... as a slice of the general populace, yes I'd probably agree... but the females that currently are in the military have about the same level of competence at the job as their male counterparts (which is why there are so many fewer females actually in the military than males)
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
User avatar
Private fadedpsychosis
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: global

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Postby Nobunaga on Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:34 pm

fadedpsychosis wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:Allow me to be the first to be against it... well, partially and conditionally against it.

The day women are made to meet the same requirements, many of them physical, is the day I'm all for it. So when you've been shot in the gut and need to be carried a mile by your buddy, you'd know the woman in your foxhole can pull the job off.

At present, they need not meet those requirements.

really? which requirements specifically are you talking about, and what proof have you of your claim?



I am talking about the physical requirements to get through basic training - the number and type of required push-ups and sit-ups, the time requirements for running distance in full gear, the obstacles' size and composition encountered on the runs, etc.. etc... The required standards for women are still tough, but considerably lower than the requirements for men.

Proof? Many years in the military and countless conversations with men and women in uniform over the years.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka
Medals: 6
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
Map Contribution (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Whose Forum is It Anyway?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dragon69 and 4 guests

Login