The mindset of the "Women in Combat" crowd

[makattak]

On a post about allowing women in combat, the comment section laid out the issue perfectly:

http://classicalvalues.com/2015/09/debate-is-closed-on-this-issue-they-explained/ (original post)

Comments:

Kathy Kinsley September 23rd, 2015 (#):
Exactly. Those of us who can compete, LET US. Those of us who can’t, well, too effing bad. And the same goes for any “minority”.

All I ever asked as a feminist was to be judged by the quality of my character, not the curves of my body.

(And you know da**ed well who I’m misquoting.) The same thing applies to “affirmative action” anywhere.

Equality. Not condescending “oh, you aren’t good enough so we’ll pretend you are.”

Reponse:

Bram September 24th, 2015 (#):
Two problems.

1. Nobody wants to admit it but men behave very differently around women. A couple of women in an Infantry unit will result in romances, jealousies, and drive a wedge through the unit’s morale.

2. We are simply too weak-hearted to weed out the 99.5% (at least) of women not strong enough to pull their weight in an Infantry unit. Instead, men will be carrying her gear as well their own. Loss of effectiveness and resentment will ensue.

Counter:

Kathy Kinsley September 24th, 2015 (#):
But that’s your problem, not ours. And I don’t think it’s 99.5, either. Man have more strength, but women have more stamina.

So, on a long march, the women will still be stumbling along while the men are collapsed. Military needs to play to both strengths.

Or split them up – use women in one group (squad/platoon/whatever) and men in another.

But effing quit protecting those of us who can fight, unless your are guarding our backs while we are guarding yours.

Emphasis mine.

Pointing out that there are hard-wired changes in men's attitudes in the presence of females is met with complete dismissal.

It's part of the complete denial of what human nature is or even that there is a human nature.

I'll also note that there is no care for the effectiveness of the unit after adding women (even if they can "do the job", which, as noted the VAST majority can't.)

Neither is there any cost-benefit of what it would take (if it is even possible) to "train" human nature out of the men so they don't act differently in the presence of women, especially given the minuscule number of women that could "do the job".

Nope. Women want to do this, so that's what we'll do, all other considerations be damned. (Hey! I just described the attitude of the Administration and the Brass!)

[Ron]

Delusional

[Jocassee]

Man have more strength, but women have more stamina.

So, on a long march, the women will still be stumbling along while the men are collapsed.

LOL WUT

[roo_ster]

Delusional

This.  Some folk have zero grounding in reality.

[Scout26]

So, on a long march, the women will still be stumbling along while the men are collapsed.

Because the men will be carrying their *expletive deleted*it. All one has to do is go to any airport and see who is carrying what, when there is a couple or family traveling.

[HankB]

2. We are simply too weak-hearted to weed out the 99.5% (at least) of women not strong enough to pull their weight in an Infantry unit. Instead, men will be carrying her gear as well their own. Loss of effectiveness and resentment will ensue.

Worked with a guy who spent his Navy hitch in submarines. He said that normally after returning from patrol, the returning crew got leave while the dockworkers repaired/refit/replenished/rearmed the sub for the next crew. HOWEVER, once the Navy started accepting more women, they assigned them to dockworker duty, since they couldn't be assigned to sub patrols.

They couldn't do the work - just not strong enough to lift and tote some the the things that needed lifting and toting. So the returning crews got less leave and THEY had to do the dockworker's jobs, with a predictable effect on morale.

[zxcvbob]

Worked with a guy who spent his Navy hitch in submarines. He said that normally after returning from patrol, the returning crew got leave while the dockworkers repaired/refit/replenished/rearmed the sub for the next crew. HOWEVER, once the Navy started accepting more women, they assigned them to dockworker duty, since they couldn't be assigned to sub patrols.

They couldn't do the work - just not strong enough to lift and tote some the the things that needed lifting and toting. So the returning crews got less leave and THEY had to do the dockworker's jobs, with a predictable effect on morale.

As I've said before, I think the predictable effect of morale is the whole point.  (also the recent military pay freeze, appointing openly gay Secretary of the Army, orders to overlook atrocities in ME because "that's their culture", etc, etc)

[Scout26]

As I've said before, I think the predictable effect of morale is the whole point.  (also the recent military pay freeze, appointing openly gay chief of staff Secretary of the Army, orders to overlook atrocities in ME because "that's their culture", etc, etc)

FTFY

[griz]

Man have more strength, but women have more stamina.

Is that why they have different categories in marathons and triathlons, so the men can at least do well in their own competition instead of being shown up by the faster women?  Oh wait, I forgot about reality.

[zxcvbob]

FTFY

Correction made.  Thanks.

[Scout26]

Is that why they have different categories in marathons and triathlons, so the men can at least do well in their own competition instead of being shown up by the faster women?  Oh wait, I forgot about reality.

Those of us who can compete, LET US. Those of us who can’t, well, too effing bad.

Great, let's do it. You want equality??  We can give it to you good and hard.  No more Men's and Women's divisions in any sport, or activity, every one competes on the same plane. 

[wmenorr67]

Until females have to register for Selective Service at 18, they will never be equal. 

They want them to be treated equally then that is the first thing that should've happened.

[makattak]

Worked with a guy who spent his Navy hitch in submarines. He said that normally after returning from patrol, the returning crew got leave while the dockworkers repaired/refit/replenished/rearmed the sub for the next crew. HOWEVER, once the Navy started accepting more women, they assigned them to dockworker duty, since they couldn't be assigned to sub patrols.

They couldn't do the work - just not strong enough to lift and tote some the the things that needed lifting and toting. So the returning crews got less leave and THEY had to do the dockworker's jobs, with a predictable effect on morale.

This is not the only issue, as well.

There are only a certain number of jobs that are support or are out of the combat zone (or deployment.) As I have read, before adding women, men would rotate into those jobs in order to have breaks from combat or deployment. Once women were allowed into the military, they now take up a disproportionate amount of those jobs, leading to men with more or longer deployments/combat tours.

The concerns are not just about the ability to do certain jobs, but also the military's ability to allow men to have breaks from the high-stress combat/deployments as well.

[Andiron]

So, on a long march, the women will still be stumbling along while the men are collapsed

LMAO.

BTDT.  She's *expletive deleted*ing high.  Females easily have a 40% recycle rate in MCT/ITB.  Due mostly to the marches.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm not going to bother with the physical differences.

But the bit about treating woman different being the man's problem?

Yeah, it is. No, you do not have a biological impairitive to be "chivilrous" and carry bags. That is a social construct.
And if you are too stupid (or to stupid not to figure out that you are getting used) to say "carry your own *expletive deleted*it through this airport" that really is your *expletive deleted*ing problem.

What I really hate about these conversations is that you jerks use examples of how modern woman have adapted to dealing with centuries of a patriarchal society as your excuse to avoid saying "you know what, *expletive deleted*ck you woman. You want equality? Here it is. Hack it or shut up."

I swear to Ishia, it is these threads that really make me say the rad fems might actually be right about something.
Seriously, if you can't cope with being  professional in your dealings with woman, what good are you?

"but, but, but... We have to protect her!!!" bullshit. I call bullshit. Men don't have to do jack. Stop your smug, self righteous whining.

And, Wmennor, I agree. Equality in the military starts with the draft.

[roo_ster]

G. K. Chesterton:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Those who think stuffing women into combat units can be done without getting good men killed for no good reason don't even know what they don't know.

Helpful bit of reading, especially to unlearn false lessons learned:
http://www.baen.com/amazonsrightbreast.asp

[brimic]

I'm not going to bother with the physical differences.

But the bit about treating woman different being the man's problem?

Yeah, it is. No, you do not have a biological impairitive to be "chivilrous" and carry bags. That is a social construct.
And if you are too stupid (or to stupid not to figure out that you are getting used) to say "carry your own *expletive deleted*it through this airport" that really is your *expletive deleted*ing problem.

What I really hate about these conversations is that you jerks use examples of how modern woman have adapted to dealing with centuries of a patriarchal society as your excuse to avoid saying "you know what, *expletive deleted*ck you woman. You want equality? Here it is. Hack it or shut up."

I swear to Ishia, it is these threads that really make me say the rad fems might actually be right about something.
Seriously, if you can't cope with being  professional in your dealings with woman, what good are you?

"but, but, but... We have to protect her!!!" bullshit. I call bullshit. Men don't have to do jack. Stop your smug, self righteous whining.

And, Wmennor, I agree. Equality in the military starts with the draft.

I was going to tear into this one, but I reread it a few times and really can't find anything I disagree with within. *expletive deleted*ing awesome rant.

The real problem is the institutionalized 'equality.' When a government entity mandates that 'X' # of 'Y' subcategory must be represented in your organization, whether qualified  people with 'Y' trait exist or not. In a general sense, compliance is enforced from the top down, whether it be military or private industry, and it is your front line soldiers or workers that bear the brunt of the burden of carrying these people who aren't up to the task. When morale breaks down, and a chery position opens up, it's often easier to fill that position with the underperformer than with someone more qualified, because of the expense and legal issues involved with firing someone.
If the person with the 'Y' trait is up to snuff and is at least capable of doing their job, I have less problem with it,  so long as better candidates weren't passed over for the same position.
None of the above is hypothetical, I could, as I'm sure many here could as well, write books about such experiences in their careers.

[Ron]

BSL is correct in that if "women" truly want to be treated as equals then men will have to stop defaulting to the old traditional rules.

Problem is some women like the old rules (traditionalists) and others opportunistically will pick which set of rules apply depending on what works in their favor.

Men are now left continually trying to figure out what rulebook is in play.

At work you have to treat everyone equally even when corporate policy favors certain groups in order to hit diversity targets. This is called "equality" in newspeak.   

 

[griz]

In principle I agree with BSL.  But the real issue to me will be application.  The real reason WiC is coming up is because in the military, advancement is tied to your record.  And since the military's mission is war, a warrior background is better for promotions.  So if the women who could meet the physical standards were allowed to be in combat positions, they would have advancement opportunities comparable with their male counterparts.  And  how many would that be?  Maybe a couple hundred?  Maybe less?  That version of equality is not going to go over well when so many believe that the definition of equality means statistical parity.  That's why I think the result will be an attempt to change standards, not an acceptance of the women who can meet the current standards.

[makattak]

I'm not going to bother with the physical differences.

But the bit about treating woman different being the man's problem?

Yeah, it is. No, you do not have a biological impairitive to be "chivilrous" and carry bags. That is a social construct.
And if you are too stupid (or to stupid not to figure out that you are getting used) to say "carry your own *expletive deleted*it through this airport" that really is your *expletive deleted*ing problem.

What I really hate about these conversations is that you jerks use examples of how modern woman have adapted to dealing with centuries of a patriarchal society as your excuse to avoid saying "you know what, *expletive deleted*ck you woman. You want equality? Here it is. Hack it or shut up."

I swear to Ishia, it is these threads that really make me say the rad fems might actually be right about something.
Seriously, if you can't cope with being  professional in your dealings with woman, what good are you?

"but, but, but... We have to protect her!!!" bullshit. I call bullshit. Men don't have to do jack. Stop your smug, self righteous whining.

And, Wmennor, I agree. Equality in the military starts with the draft.

No. It is not a matter of picking up the slack for the women that can't hack it.

That is not the issue.  As the Israelis have tested, men will take much greater risks to themselves and the mission to save women rather than men.  When women are injured, captured, or killed, morale suffers more than when men are.
Additionally, there is the dynamic of sexual desire. Men and women now have this additional distraction from fighting.
None of these are social constructs.

Further,  do we really want to have an army that does not prioritize women and children, instinctively?

Your attitude is the same as the quoted one: all that matters is physical capabilities. Given the tiny number of women who can meet those requirements, is training the above responses out of men worth it? Not only in monetary costs, but is it even beneficial in the first place to train those reactions out of them?

[Ron]

No. It is not a matter of picking up the slack for the women that can't hack it.

That is not the issue.  As the Israelis have tested, men will take much greater risks to themselves and the mission to save women rather than men.  When women are injured, captured, or killed, morale suffers more than when men are.
Additionally, there is the dynamic of sexual desire. Men and women now have this additional distraction from fighting.
None of these are social constructs.

Further,  do we really want to have an army that does not prioritize women and children, instinctively?

Your attitude is the same as the quoted one: all that matters is physical capabilities. Given the tiny number of women who can meet those requirements, is training the above responses out of men worth it? Not only in monetary costs, but is it even beneficial in the first place to train those reactions out of them?

They are living in the delusion that we are in a nascent stage on our way to the Starship Troopers world.

[brimic]

They are living in the delusion that we are in a nascent stage on our way to the Starship Troopers world.

Well having large metropolitan ateas destroyed by r-selected aliens isn't exactly far fetched.

[BlueStarLizzard]

No. It is not a matter of picking up the slack for the women that can't hack it.

That is not the issue.  As the Israelis have tested, men will take much greater risks to themselves and the mission to save women rather than men.  When women are injured, captured, or killed, morale suffers more than when men are.
Additionally, there is the dynamic of sexual desire. Men and women now have this additional distraction from fighting.
None of these are social constructs.

Further,  do we really want to have an army that does not prioritize women and children, instinctively?

Your attitude is the same as the quoted one: all that matters is physical capabilities. Given the tiny number of women who can meet those requirements, is training the above responses out of men worth it? Not only in monetary costs, but is it even beneficial in the first place to train those reactions out of them?

So we should have an army that prioritizes one genders safety and we'll being above another's instead of having a military that prioritizes human life above death, period?

Well, I guess this great military is going to do the rad fems job for them and just kill off all the men. Good job.

As far as troops saving female combatants over mission priorities or sacrificing male troops, are you really telling me that particular mindset can't be whooped out of these macho men in boot camp? Seriously?
I love that the whole bruhaha over the fact woman in combat will fail is because the men will try to keep them safe while at the same time sexual harassment and rape is an epidemic in the military.
I hate to burst your little bubble, but men aren't nearly as concerned with the safety and well being of woman as you think.

And yes, it is worth it to train that crap out of men, even without adding woman into combat. They should have been doing it all along. They need to be doing it now. Don't bitch about how dangerous it is for the male soldiers to be saving woman and conveniently forget that those soldiers are often operating against guerilla style rebles on their home ground, where woman very well may pick up arms and start shooting.

As far as sex goes, if anyone can't control their responses enough to cope on an adult level, then they need to go back to high school, because they are not an adult.

[BlueStarLizzard]

In principle I agree with BSL.  But the real issue to me will be application.  The real reason WiC is coming up is because in the military, advancement is tied to your record.  And since the military's mission is war, a warrior background is better for promotions.  So if the women who could meet the physical standards were allowed to be in combat positions, they would have advancement opportunities comparable with their male counterparts.  And  how many would that be?  Maybe a couple hundred?  Maybe less?  That version of equality is not going to go over well when so many believe that the definition of equality means statistical parity.  That's why I think the result will be an attempt to change standards, not an acceptance of the women who can meet the current standards.

I agree. The current status quo is idiotic and counter productive.
On one hand you have the sexist jerks who don't want the ladies in the boys club pushing their BS, and on the other hand, you have the delusional liberal idiots with their attitude of forcing it to work where it's not going to.

The results are that the sexist jerks get proven "right" because the affirmative action style BS is keeping around woman who should have washed out.

The reality is that very few woman would make it, even in many non combatant roles. Furthermore, fewer woman would even bother joining up because they would no longer be catered too.
The few who did make it are not the type who would cause issues.

But it is worth it, because it is straight up equality. When people rise or fail based on their individual merits, rather than anything else, we can get over a lot of this BS drama that is crippling our society (and yes, this last statement is not just talking about the military)

[zxcvbob]

As far as troops saving female combatants over mission priorities or sacrificing male troops, are you really telling me that particular mindset can't be whooped out of these macho men in boot camp? Seriously?

So you want to waste training time on making even harder for soldiers to reintegrate into society when they get out of the service?  Or are none of them going to make it out alive anyway so it's okay?

And thanks for telling me how men should feel.    (where have I heard something like that before...)