Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

United States Armed Forces finally recognizes combat duty of women

1246789

Posts

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    What if the woman was raped?

    Then obviously that's something completely different and you're dragging this shit completely off track. Obviously there wouldn't be a recommendation of punitive action against the victim of rape. Don't be a silly goose.

    What is this I don't even.
    Bastableoverride367
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    What if the woman was raped?

    Then it needs to be reported. Something that can also be mandated.

    Which again is the kind of thing that we'd shy away from in the civilian world, but in the military nobody really gives a fuck about your feelings.

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Also, I'm not saying this is the best longterm solution. To be honest, we're going to have to fundamentally change the way we even go about THINKING about units, MOS's and organization, not just because of more mixed genders and sexualities, but also as we face the reality of more common guerilla warfare, more common policing actions, more common "nation building" and just less clear combat lines.

    I'm just saying this is the pragmatic, short term solution to maintaining unit cohesion and finding simple solutions while the rest of that shit takes the next 60 years.

    What is this I don't even.
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Calica wrote: »

    Of course, being on hormones can bring its own set of health issues, but still. There are hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs, too, and they are not much more invasive than a Pap smear.

    Dude, no. Iud insertion can cause some bad cramping and pain. Its not the same as someone poking your cervix real quick.
    Granted, but as a vagina owner, I still think it's hyperbolic to compare it to surgery. And IUDs are temporary, while reversing a vasectomy is chancy at best.
    Chanus wrote: »
    Why is it incumbent upon the women to take these measures?

    Ideal vs. reality. Men *should* be responsible and use condoms - they should do that even if the woman is sterile, to avoid spreading STDs - but it doesn't always happen. People do stupid things in the heat of the moment. Also, soldiers can and do get raped. Obviously, rape is terrible and reprehensible and should not happen and should never be excused when it does happen, but the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy from rape is to have the woman on birth control.

    If VasalGel ever comes to the US market, I'd say it's incumbent on men to get that, because it is apparently close to 100% effective and doesn't have side effects. Until then, we're stuck with the methods we've got.

    Honest question - what would you (anyone) think about requiring male soldiers to get VasalGel, assuming it becomes available and lives up to its claims (safe, effective, 100% reversible)?

    Edit: fixed quote tags

    Calica on
    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
  • ChanusChanus Sugoi! ^_____^Registered User regular
    Long term exposure to low levels of estrogen can increase the risk of breast, uterine and ovarian cancer, so that's a pretty big deal, especially for women who are predisposed to any of those cancers due to family medical history. I think that mandatory birth control is a terrible idea. Just require all soldiers to swear to be celibate while in a combat zone, and dishonorably discharge both parties when you find out they broke that oath (either through pregnancy or other discovery). We entrust these people with deadly weapons to protect are nation. Surely they should be adult enough to be able to not have sex with each other for a while. . .

    Surely...

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    To what degree are abortions available to servicewomen serving overseas in shitholes? I mean, the rape and both partners having birth control fail does have a pretty simple solution, that many women are willing to avail themselves of.

    Not that it could be required, but it would avoid that empty billet.

    This machine kills threads.
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    To what degree are abortions available to servicewomen serving overseas in shitholes? I mean, the rape and both partners having birth control fail does have a pretty simple solution, that many women are willing to avail themselves of.

    Not that it could be required, but it would avoid that empty billet.

    Taxpayer funded abortions? Honorable heroes being told to get an abortion or lose their job?

    Yeah, the GOP wouldn't lose their shit over THAT.

    A Dabble Of Theloniusoverride367Corehealer
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Long term exposure to low levels of estrogen can increase the risk of breast, uterine and ovarian cancer, so that's a pretty big deal, especially for women who are predisposed to any of those cancers due to family medical history. I think that mandatory birth control is a terrible idea. Just require all soldiers to swear to be celibate while in a combat zone, and dishonorably discharge both parties when you find out they broke that oath (either through pregnancy or other discovery). We entrust these people with deadly weapons to protect are nation. Surely they should be adult enough to be able to not have sex with each other for a while. . .

    So first it's moral panic of wimin problems, now it's a deep concern with the sex lives of people fighting and deing for their country. You're a real card mate.

    Also celibacy = adult. Pull the other leg mate it's got bells on.

    Bastable on
    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    What if the woman was raped?

    Then obviously that's something completely different and you're dragging this shit completely off track. Obviously there wouldn't be a recommendation of punitive action against the victim of rape. Don't be a silly goose.

    This would work if the military didn't have a horrible problem with unreported rapes and officers ignoring accusations of rape.

  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Vaginae are not the reason this isn't a great idea and it's a dumb conversation. It's a good idea that is going to be implemented incorrectly.

    EDIT: I also thought it was agreed that rape doesn't cause pregnancies.

    Cabezone on
  • ChanusChanus Sugoi! ^_____^Registered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Why is it incumbent upon the women to take these measures?

    Ideal vs. reality. Men *should* be responsible and use condoms - they should do that even if the woman is sterile, to avoid spreading STDs - but it doesn't always happen. People do stupid things in the heat of the moment. Also, soldiers can and do get raped. Obviously, rape is terrible and reprehensible and should not happen and should never be excused when it does happen, but the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy from rape is to have the woman on birth control.

    If VasalGel ever comes to the US market, I'd say it's incumbent on men to get that, because it is apparently close to 100% effective and doesn't have side effects. Until then, we're stuck with the methods we've got.

    Honest question - what would you (anyone) think about requiring male soldiers to get VasalGel, assuming it becomes available and lives up to its claims (safe, effective, 100% reversible)?

    Edit: fixed quote tags

    I'm going to ignore the first part of your response as I don't feel like getting infracted.

    But in answer to your question, I'm fine with equal standards.

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    To what degree are abortions available to servicewomen serving overseas in shitholes? I mean, the rape and both partners having birth control fail does have a pretty simple solution, that many women are willing to avail themselves of.

    Not that it could be required, but it would avoid that empty billet.

    The military does not, to my knowledge, provide abortions except in cases of medical necessity. So the degree to which they are available is "not."

    To my knowledge, even servicemembers who are raped are required to pay for their own abortions (their military insurance cannot cover it). I believe a fix to that may have been addressed in the last year or two, but not sure if it passed.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    What if the woman was raped?

    Then obviously that's something completely different and you're dragging this shit completely off track. Obviously there wouldn't be a recommendation of punitive action against the victim of rape. Don't be a silly goose.

    This would work if the military didn't have a horrible problem with unreported rapes and officers ignoring accusations of rape.

    That is something that absolutely needs to get changed. Zero tolerance up and down the chain.

    Rapes and sexual assaults absolutely represent a breakdown in discipline and are detrimental to the integrity of the military. Anyone involved in a rape, covering up a rape, or not immediately taking proper action to report / address a rape should have their career ended, then and there. EDIT - in addition to criminal charges.

    You throw a few guys with stars out with a bad conduct discharge because they allowed that culture, and you will sure as fuck see that culture change.

    Yeah, it'll still happen...but it certainly won't be what it is today where it is not only epidemic, but it's covered up.

    zagdrob on
    Bastablespacekungfumanoverride367JusticeforPlutoPLA
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bastable wrote: »
    Long term exposure to low levels of estrogen can increase the risk of breast, uterine and ovarian cancer, so that's a pretty big deal, especially for women who are predisposed to any of those cancers due to family medical history. I think that mandatory birth control is a terrible idea. Just require all soldiers to swear to be celibate while in a combat zone, and dishonorably discharge both parties when you find out they broke that oath (either through pregnancy or other discovery). We entrust these people with deadly weapons to protect are nation. Surely they should be adult enough to be able to not have sex with each other for a while. . .

    So first it's moral panic of wimin problems, now it's a deep concern with the sex lives of people fighting and deing for their country. You're a real card mate.

    Also celibacy = adult. Pull the other leg mate it's got bells on.

    What are you talking about? Moral panic? I said that we ought to screen for a particular condition that can effect women but not men now that women are going to serve in combat. The systems already in place seem suitable, so that is done.

    As far as sex goes, if the problems are spread of disease and pregnancy, I hardly think that asking these people to abstain from having sex while in a combat zone (something we already do) is a worse solution than forces injections of hormones into women like other posters are suggesting. You seem to be looking for a particular kind of person to argue with/demonize, but I am not that person, no matter how much you want me to be.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    No you are, if cutting down on std's and pregnancy are the main concerns of a operational unit, celibacy or the failed teenage abstinence program are invalid solutions.

    If punishing sex is your objective then your ideas at implementing failed religious ideas of abstinace then your ideas is logical if horrid. It will not in my experience as a ex NCO solve the actual problem. The anecdotes of other soldiers seems to accord with my Nz army experience.

    Bastable on
    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Bastable wrote: »
    No you are, if cutting down on std's and pregnancy are the main concerns of a operational unit, celibacy or the failed teenage abstinence program are invalid solutions.

    If punishing sex is your objective then your ideas at implementing failed religious ideas of abstinace then your ideas is logical if horrid. It will not in my experience as a ex NCO solve the actual problem. The anecdotes of other soldiers seems to accord with my Nz army experience.
    I'm pretty sure the VD rates are also in line with your experience (ie: they're not 0, no matter how much we'd like them to be). We can ask them not to have sex all we want. They're still somewhere between 18 and 30, so I doubt we can stop it with any short of chastity belts. We can, however, minimize any resulting damage with a combination of preventative medicine and education.

    Given the choice between impossible perfection and thoroughly attainable poor solutions, I will always take the second because at least that works. Picking the first is the same as saying that you don't actually care about the results, you just want to feel good about saying you tried.

    Syrdon on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?

    If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.

    Edit for clarity: implant (was the right word) birth control is a little stick that is inserted under the skin that delivers measured doses of birth control for three years and is really effective, mostly because you don't have remember anything.

    There are various reversible vasectomies too.

    I mean, there's a chance they can't be.

    But so long as we're playing mandatory medical procedures with, you know, pretty low risk of side effects we might as well toss those in too right?

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Chanus wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    The pregnancy thing seems pretty simple. Dishonorable discharge for anyone who, by calendar measurements, gets pregnant during a period when they are not permitted to (generally CZ assignments, or whatever else stretches into an enlistment contract). Then do mandated paternity testing on the unit and a dishonorable discharge for the father too. Zero tolerance policy to make it clear that discipline is important as we transition into this new policy.

    What if they were using birth control and it fails?

    What happens if someone takes every precaution and still breaks their leg playing basketball? Nothing I imagine, they just get light duty until they can go back to work.

    This is what I am talking about when I say sexphobia. We can except tons of activities that have the same or more risk associated with them but if there is an orgasm involved, wow look out. I mean, why do we let soldiers drive motorcycles and play sports when we expect them to be celibate?

    rockrnger on
    BastablePLA
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    So why doesn't the military require implant (I think that's the right word) birth control for active duty women?

    If you take out the sexphobic stuff it's basically just like a vaccination. We don't want you to get pregnant/malaria so you have to take this medicine, if you don't want to or it is against your religion you can't be in combat.

    Edit for clarity: implant (was the right word) birth control is a little stick that is inserted under the skin that delivers measured doses of birth control for three years and is really effective, mostly because you don't have remember anything.

    There are various reversible vasectomies too.

    I mean, there's a chance they can't be.

    But so long as we're playing mandatory medical procedures with, you know, pretty low risk of side effects we might as well toss those in too right?

    We certainly could.

    Question is why we'd need to. I guess for single servicmembers without a valid Family Care Plan (or whatever the other branches have as an equiavlent).

    But as somebody aptly pointed out, it takes two to create a pregnancy...so we really only need to sterilize one of those two. And since female servicmembers can still become pregnant after sex with civilians, locals, none of which would be covered by sterilizing male servicemembers, it seems like it's pretty logical which of the two you'd choose.

    However, yes if deployable man-months lost to single male parents with custody was a significant issue, the military could absolutely consider reversible procedures to address that issue. So the question is, how many deployable man-months are lost to single male parents without adequate family care plans, compared to how many are lost to pregnancy and post-partum periods? Ignoring, for a moment, that single mothers without adequate family care plans will also be an issue...probably more often than fathers, given the rate at which mothers are awarded custody over fathers, but like I said we'll ignore that aspect and pretend it's just male family care plans versus female pregnancy.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure the DoD would love to see a massive cut in costs related to unwanted pregnancies.

    But regardless the point was to demonstrate the idea is both ridiculous and sexist.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Quid wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure the DoD would love to see a massive cut in costs related to unwanted pregnancies.

    But regardless the point was to demonstrate the idea is both ridiculous and sexist.

    Some sexism has roots in reality.

    If only one gender gets pregnant, and if it can be shown that this leads to a disparity in availability for deployment for that gender, it can justify measures targeting the problem that are gender-specific.

    Of course, the question is whether it actually leads to a disparity in deployment availability. From what I can tell, there's pretty strong resistance within the DoD to even ask the question, because if you come up with the wrong answer you wind up having conversations...well, like this one. And it's not like the answer is obvious, either. There are IIRC other factors that tend to disproportionately render men nondeployable (criminal issues being one), so it's entirely possible that the fact that women get pregnant merely balances out the fact that men are perhaps more likely to be dumbasses (or at least more likely to be prosecuted for it), among other issues.

    mcdermott on
    Bastable
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    There isn't really any solution to soldiers having sex. Some are going to have it, regardless of how hard you try and prevent it or how harshly you punish them. Hell, take women out of the equation and some of the soldiers are still going to have sex with one another.

    So, you identify what the problem is. Is it just soldiers having sex with each other because you are a prude? Is it pregnancy? STDs? Is it loss of unit cohesion? Is it fraternization between the ranks? Rape / sexual assault / coercion? Some combination of all of them?

    If your concern is pregnancy or STDs, provide birth control and condoms, but the policy is no sex. Punish people who get caught banging when they aren't on duty / watch, people who get pregnant / get someone pregnant, and people who get STDs. Put them on the shit list, make them scrub shitters and do every crappy duty out there for a week or two or until they get the lesson. If it gets to be a chronic problem, the problems are more than just sex - it's a major discipline problem - deal with it accordingly at a unit level.

    Is the problem people are banging when they should be on duty / watch? Fucking court martial them. That shit's unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable.

    Are there problems with jealousy / love triangles? Fucking punish the shit out of them. Again, shit list and bitch duty again.

    Rape / sexual assult / coercion? End careers. Court martial people. Clean fucking house and do in-depth life-destroying investigations. Air the dirty laundry and make examples. Zero tolerance.

    None of these problems are new problems, or suddenly become problems because women are officially in combat roles instead of unofficially being there.

    QuidspacekungfumanEvigilantArchSo It GoesGennenalyse RuebenA Dabble Of TheloniusJusticeforPlutoPLAMan in the Mists
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bastable wrote: »
    No you are, if cutting down on std's and pregnancy are the main concerns of a operational unit, celibacy or the failed teenage abstinence program are invalid solutions.

    If punishing sex is your objective then your ideas at implementing failed religious ideas of abstinace then your ideas is logical if horrid. It will not in my experience as a ex NCO solve the actual problem. The anecdotes of other soldiers seems to accord with my Nz army experience.

    Who mentioned religion? I think that these are supposed to be responsible adults, and so, just like we expect them to obey the other oaths they make to our country in joining the service, they should be able to agree not to have sex while in combat zones (something we already require them to do). All that I am suggesting is increasing the penalties for breaking this rule. . .

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    As another example, men are (IIRC) more likely to be unavailable for deployment due to injuries, even after controlling for MOS (so injuries related to MOS-specific training, such as airborne infantry). Like the dumbass from my old unit who broke his neck playing a friendly tackle football game with no equipment.

    The only evidence I've ever found suggests that female soldiers overall do see higher rates of nondeployability, pretty much directly related to pregnancy, which should be unsurprising. The numbers I saw put the rate at something like 2x or 3x, but they were pretty damn old (early 90's). Much like with deaths from gun violence, there aren't a lot of recent stats you can even dig up, because there's been resistance to even studying the issue. And old stats aren't really applicable, since the force has changed significantly since.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    There isn't really any solution to soldiers having sex. Some are going to have it, regardless of how hard you try and prevent it or how harshly you punish them. Hell, take women out of the equation and some of the soldiers are still going to have sex with one another.

    So, you identify what the problem is. Is it just soldiers having sex with each other because you are a prude? Is it pregnancy? STDs? Is it loss of unit cohesion? Is it fraternization between the ranks? Rape / sexual assault / coercion? Some combination of all of them?

    If your concern is pregnancy or STDs, provide birth control and condoms, but the policy is no sex. Punish people who get caught banging when they aren't on duty / watch, people who get pregnant / get someone pregnant, and people who get STDs. Put them on the shit list, make them scrub shitters and do every crappy duty out there for a week or two or until they get the lesson. If it gets to be a chronic problem, the problems are more than just sex - it's a major discipline problem - deal with it accordingly at a unit level.

    Is the problem people are banging when they should be on duty / watch? Fucking court martial them. That shit's unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable.

    Are there problems with jealousy / love triangles? Fucking punish the shit out of them. Again, shit list and bitch duty again.

    Rape / sexual assult / coercion? End careers. Court martial people. Clean fucking house and do in-depth life-destroying investigations. Air the dirty laundry and make examples. Zero tolerance.

    None of these problems are new problems, or suddenly become problems because women are officially in combat roles instead of unofficially being there.

    This is exactly what I was trying to get across. We don't want them having sex, so we need to deal with it, and part of that is more punishments.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    There isn't really any solution to soldiers having sex. Some are going to have it, regardless of how hard you try and prevent it or how harshly you punish them. Hell, take women out of the equation and some of the soldiers are still going to have sex with one another.

    So, you identify what the problem is. Is it just soldiers having sex with each other because you are a prude? Is it pregnancy? STDs? Is it loss of unit cohesion? Is it fraternization between the ranks? Rape / sexual assault / coercion? Some combination of all of them?

    If your concern is pregnancy or STDs, provide birth control and condoms, but the policy is no sex. Punish people who get caught banging when they aren't on duty / watch, people who get pregnant / get someone pregnant, and people who get STDs. Put them on the shit list, make them scrub shitters and do every crappy duty out there for a week or two or until they get the lesson. If it gets to be a chronic problem, the problems are more than just sex - it's a major discipline problem - deal with it accordingly at a unit level.

    Is the problem people are banging when they should be on duty / watch? Fucking court martial them. That shit's unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable.

    Are there problems with jealousy / love triangles? Fucking punish the shit out of them. Again, shit list and bitch duty again.

    Rape / sexual assult / coercion? End careers. Court martial people. Clean fucking house and do in-depth life-destroying investigations. Air the dirty laundry and make examples. Zero tolerance.

    None of these problems are new problems, or suddenly become problems because women are officially in combat roles instead of unofficially being there.


    My only real problem is with unavailability of personnel. All the "unit cohesion" bullshit makes me want to tell people to grow the fuck up. Fraternization between ranks is another issue, and irrelevant to combat versus noncombat. Rape is obviously a criminal issue, and needs to be treated accordingly (and we need to do a better job of it). At the end of the day, though, I honestly could not care less if soldiers are consensually banging each other, including in theatre.

    But the only issue I think is relevant to the topic at hand, and cannot be dismissed with a "grow the fuck up," is availability for deployment. Right now females are 17% or so of the force (off the top of my head). You open up the roles that are available to them, that number will go up. If there's a disparity in availability for deployment, increasing that number can be an issue, potentially enough of an issue that it needs to be addressed in some way.

    But you can't get the answer without asking the question, and looking at the data, and doing so in an honest and open fashion.

    rockrnger
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure the DoD would love to see a massive cut in costs related to unwanted pregnancies.

    But regardless the point was to demonstrate the idea is both ridiculous and sexist.

    Some sexism has roots in reality.

    If only one gender gets pregnant, and if it can be shown that this leads to a disparity in availability for deployment for that gender, it can justify measures targeting the problem that are gender-specific.

    Of course, the question is whether it actually leads to a disparity in deployment availability. From what I can tell, there's pretty strong resistance within the DoD to even ask the question, because if you come up with the wrong answer you wind up having conversations...well, like this one. And it's not like the answer is obvious, either. There are IIRC other factors that tend to disproportionately render men nondeployable (criminal issues being one), so it's entirely possible that the fact that women get pregnant merely balances out the fact that men are perhaps more likely to be dumbasses (or at least more likely to be prosecuted for it), among other issues.

    That's a really good point. Women tend to have less criminal issues, substance abuse issues, and are less likely to commit suicide.

    Especially in that 18-30 age range, that may actually balance out the time lost to pregnancy and other 'women issues'.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    This is exactly what I was trying to get across. We don't want them having sex, so we need to deal with it, and part of that is more punishments.

    No, it isn't. That you constantly jump to punishment as a solution for anything you don't like is disturbing.

    So It GoesGennenalyse RuebenHakkekageshryke
  • BastableBastable Registered User regular
    Bastable wrote: »
    No you are, if cutting down on std's and pregnancy are the main concerns of a operational unit, celibacy or the failed teenage abstinence program are invalid solutions.

    If punishing sex is your objective then your ideas at implementing failed religious ideas of abstinace then your ideas is logical if horrid. It will not in my experience as a ex NCO solve the actual problem. The anecdotes of other soldiers seems to accord with my Nz army experience.

    Who mentioned religion? I think that these are supposed to be responsible adults, and so, just like we expect them to obey the other oaths they make to our country in joining the service, they should be able to agree not to have sex while in combat zones (something we already require them to do). All that I am suggesting is increasing the penalties for breaking this rule. . .
    Which is not working, I've been on a couple of deployments with two different units with two different command structures and ideas on the matter. The deployment with a certian RSM who advised and implemented condoms and pill resulted in zero STD's and zero pregnancies. The other deployment had several male and female peers going home and leaving holes in capability either through incapacitation or due to being disciplined.

    Abstinence/discipline does not work in reducing the incidence of STD's/Pregnancies. My experience in a not to dissimilar military show abstinence does not work within the defence forces and as US schools have taught us abstinence education does not work even for adolescents who are just developing their sex drives, unless you're interested in punishing sex. Abstinence/celebicy education is a religious impulse and is ineffective at solving the actual problem of soldier incapacitation.

    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    This is exactly what I was trying to get across. We don't want them having sex, so we need to deal with it, and part of that is more punishments.

    No, it isn't. That you constantly jump to punishment as a solution for anything you don't like is disturbing.
    Not to mention the fact that it doesn't work. At all.

    Gennenalyse Rueben
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Something else mcdermott pointed out is that currently women make up 17% of the military.

    We know that the military has had trouble recruiting, and lowered standards to meet their quotas. This results in picking up some troops who are maybe more 'troubled' than really belong in the military. My anecdotal evidence indicates the more 'troubled' soldiers gravitate towards infantry man and other less 'technical' specialties. Ones not open to women right now...

    If those MOS's are now opened to women, and women end up filling even 15-20% of the troops in those specialties, that means (ideally) the worst 20% of those men won't be recruited at all or will leave through attrition.

    Considering the 80/20 rule, even if women are overall less available for deployment, by dropping 80% of the issues, the military as a whole could possibly end up far better and more capable. In this case, the numbers may show men are far more deployable individually then women, but it's only BECAUSE of women that can happen.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Just as an aside, I'm really excited at the idea that combat units will no longer be the last refuge of rampant misogyny.

    Like, I'm not perfect, I make some off-color jokes every now and again, but in a combat arms unit it's just at a whole 'nother level. There are no control rods. It's just like 24/7 rape jokes.

    Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. But it's pretty damn bad, and it gets tiring.

    rockrngerEvigilant
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Something else mcdermott pointed out is that currently women make up 17% of the military.

    We know that the military has had trouble recruiting, and lowered standards to meet their quotas. This results in picking up some troops who are maybe more 'troubled' than really belong in the military. My anecdotal evidence indicates the more 'troubled' soldiers gravitate towards infantry man and other less 'technical' specialties. Ones not open to women right now...

    If those MOS's are now opened to women, and women end up filling even 15-20% of the troops in those specialties, that means (ideally) the worst 20% of those men won't be recruited at all or will leave through attrition.

    Considering the 80/20 rule, even if women are overall less available for deployment, by dropping 80% of the issues, the military as a whole could possibly end up far better and more capable. In this case, the numbers may show men are far more deployable individually then women, but it's only BECAUSE of women that can happen.

    The bulk of the recruiting problem was the optempo, which has since fallen. I don't think "women who want to be infantrymen" will make up the recruiting gap next time we start sending people on 18-month-on, 6-month-off deployments to play "dodge the bomb" in canvas HMMWVs with steel plates strapped to them like some shit out of Mad Max because we're too cheap to pay for real gear and because we started an operation we didn't have the manpower to see through. /venting

    In seriousness, though, the Army is getting ready to shove people out left and right as we downsize. Expect to see incentives dry up as well. The military recruitment always seems to run as a pendulum between "you better have a diploma, high ASVAB score, and no criminal record if you want to even speak to a recruiter" and "we will give six-figure bonuses to anybody with a pulse" based on the current fiscal situation and the odds of finishing your enlistment minus a limb.

    EDIT: Not that opening more positions to women won't help, mind you. Just that the recruitment issues we saw in the mid-late '00s probably would not have been remotely solved by this.

    mcdermott on
    Evigilant
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Just as an aside, I'm really excited at the idea that combat units will no longer be the last refuge of rampant misogyny.

    Like, I'm not perfect, I make some off-color jokes every now and again, but in a combat arms unit it's just at a whole 'nother level. There are no control rods. It's just like 24/7 rape jokes.

    Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. But it's pretty damn bad, and it gets tiring.

    This is apparently part of why the JCOS wanted this change. They (finally) realized that having a subgroup of the military being officially discriminated against made further awfulness much easier for assholes to justify. They hope this change lowers the incidence of sexual assault.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Just as an aside, I'm really excited at the idea that combat units will no longer be the last refuge of rampant misogyny.

    Like, I'm not perfect, I make some off-color jokes every now and again, but in a combat arms unit it's just at a whole 'nother level. There are no control rods. It's just like 24/7 rape jokes.

    Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. But it's pretty damn bad, and it gets tiring.

    It's weird in that one dead island thread I actually got flak for saying the military had a problem with misogyny, I was beginning to question if my exposure to it was merely anecdotal

    override367 on
  • AeneasAeneas Registered User regular
    Mcdermott, lack of deployability IS a form of unit disruption. I do agree with you that we need better, more current data on how pregnancy affects military readiness before we keep going on this path.

    Zagrob, the military USED to have trouble recruiting, but no more. They're actually downsizing ridiculously right now. And I don't understand how you think that upper body strength does not apply to combat arms. Whether its carrying ammo packs or a wounded soldier, upper body strength matters a quite a bit. The fact that you think the physical tests are unfairly skewed for men tells me people are already going to want to change the standards in combat schools so more women can pass.

    I agree that the current PT tests do not really apply to combat skills. But the physically grueling tests in the schools do. I'm sure there are some women who can ruck for miles at a time with a full combat load. But if many cannot, then I'm willing to bet people will start clamoring for the tests to change.

    Again for the last part, I wish there was more data. All I'm doing right now is voicing some reservations, but overall, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

    Hear about the cow that tried to jump over a barbed-wire fence? It was udder disaster.
    Bastable
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Quid wrote: »
    This is exactly what I was trying to get across. We don't want them having sex, so we need to deal with it, and part of that is more punishments.

    No, it isn't. That you constantly jump to punishment as a solution for anything you don't like is disturbing.

    People are capable of rational thought and impulse control, and so, if they choose not to have sex, that is a choice that they should be just as capable of keeping as other choice that they make in joining the military. We are not wild animals that get overcome by pheromones and have no ability to prevent ourselves from engaging in sexual activity. To be frank, if we can't trust soldiers to be able to resist the urge to have sex with each other, then I'm not sure that we should be trusting them with deadly weapons.

    Personally, I think that it makes good sense to keep soldiers from having sex with each other, for the unit cohesion concerns people raised earlier. But regardless of the reason (STDs, pregnancy, cohesion, etc.) sex is most certainly not something that people are incapable of abstaining from, and while in a combat zone, I see no reason not to expect that. And if people cannot live up to our expectations, then like any other rule violation, they should be punished. If there is no reason for people not to have sex, then that is a different matter entirely, but we seem to have made the decision (at least for now) that it should not be allowed in combat zones.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    Aeneas wrote: »
    And I don't understand how you think that upper body strength does not apply to combat arms. Whether its carrying ammo packs or a wounded soldier, upper body strength matters a quite a bit. The fact that you think the physical tests are unfairly skewed for men tells me people are already going to want to change the standards in combat schools so more women can pass.

    I agree that the current PT tests do not really apply to combat skills. But the physically grueling tests in the schools do. I'm sure there are some women who can ruck for miles at a time with a full combat load. But if many cannot, then I'm willing to bet people will start clamoring for the tests to change.

    Again for the last part, I wish there was more data. All I'm doing right now is voicing some reservations, but overall, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

    But this is a bunch of bullshit. I know what you're saying and what you're getting at but there are also men, currently in the infantry, who can't even perform to the standard or have the upper body strength and/or cardio to do the job well. But they aren't prohibited from applying for the position, they aren't prohibited from serving in that capacity. So you see, the problem isn't the strength standard; the problem is not even letting women try for that position.

    A recruit is a recruit, treat them as such. They want to go to infantry school, have at it. They wash out, they get sent to a different school. Male or female. At least let them give it a shot. I'm sure we'll all be pleasantly surprised at just how well they can perform given enough time to adapt to the change.

    The PT standards and tests need to be changed anyways (again), and I'm sure allowing women into these roles will expedite that.

    Google+ Profile XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
    BastableGennenalyse RuebenA Dabble Of TheloniusJulius
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    This is apparently part of why the JCOS wanted this change. They (finally) realized that having a subgroup of the military being officially discriminated against made further awfulness much easier for assholes to justify. They hope this change lowers the incidence of sexual assault.

    Yes, introduction of women into combat units will absolutely reduce the cultural misogyny which (IMO) adds to the rape issue.

    Even if you aren't bringing them in as 11B's or 19D's, just having female supply, signal, or maintenance personnel in combat battalions and companies would help change the culture. It was my understanding that this was already the plan before this announcement (to move females into non-combat MOSs within combat units). The change now is that services will have to draft individual justifications to keep them out of combat MOSs as well.

    It's weird in that one dead island thread I actually got flak for saying the military had a problem with misogyny, I was beginning to question if my exposure to it was merely anecdotal

    I've spent my entire time in combat arms units, including multiple companies across multiple battalions, both reserve and active. My experience is obviously anecdotal as well, but I'm pretty confident it's representative of the force as whole. "The force" meaning combat arms units within the Army, that is.

    I've also had some exposure to non-combat units, and it seemed like a significantly different culture. So it'd be possible with somebody who has extensive military experience to think you were full of shit as well, if their experience was in non-combat units (support battalions, brigade level, whatever). And obviously I can't speak to the other branches, either.

    Mcdermott, lack of deployability IS a form of unit disruption. I do agree with you that we need better, more current data on how pregnancy affects military readiness before we keep going on this path.

    Zagrob, the military USED to have trouble recruiting, but no more. They're actually downsizing ridiculously right now. And I don't understand how you think that upper body strength does not apply to combat arms. Whether its carrying ammo packs or a wounded soldier, upper body strength matters a quite a bit. The fact that you think the physical tests are unfairly skewed for men tells me people are already going to want to change the standards in combat schools so more women can pass.

    I agree that the current PT tests do not really apply to combat skills. But the physically grueling tests in the schools do. I'm sure there are some women who can ruck for miles at a time with a full combat load. But if many cannot, then I'm willing to bet people will start clamoring for the tests to change.

    Again for the last part, I wish there was more data. All I'm doing right now is voicing some reservations, but overall, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

    Yeah, I saw a callout to the fact that injuries, particularly long-term injuries, increase as a carried load exceeds a certain percentage of weight. Obviously you've got some lightweight male non-combat infantrymen as well, but your distribution among females will be lighter overall...so you'll see more issues there. At the same time, it might make it possible to fill those positions with more capable women and cull less capable men, something a lot of guys don't even consider as a possibility. I'm not afraid to admit there are some women who can out-lift me, and out-perform me in a combat environment. I don't pretend to be a superstar, my performance tends towards the standard, not greatly exceeding it. I'm also over thirty, a reservist, and (probably) on my way out after this stint...I still remember what it was like to be twenty years old in an active duty line company. Both how I was, and the expectations of that unit.

    I'll also agree that upper body strength absolutely matters for combat performance, even if it doesn't seem to matter for everyday performance of an MOS. It's the kind of thing you think you'll never need...until you do. As it is**, in the 17-21 age bracket, the minimum passing score for a male in the pushup event (42 repetitions) is the maximum* score for a female. A male scoring 60 points minimum is performing at the same level as a female scoring 100 points.

    I've not seen the distribution (only some averages), but I'd be surprised if more than single-digit percentages of females could pass on the male scale. And merely "passing" is looked at as a failure in your average active duty line company.


    * - 100 can only be exceeded if you score 100% on all three events, and then you are scored on an extended scale.

    ** - As of the chart I'm looking at, which may be outdated by some small amount, they change the standards every now and again.

  • AeneasAeneas Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Evigilant wrote: »
    Aeneas wrote: »
    And I don't understand how you think that upper body strength does not apply to combat arms. Whether its carrying ammo packs or a wounded soldier, upper body strength matters a quite a bit. The fact that you think the physical tests are unfairly skewed for men tells me people are already going to want to change the standards in combat schools so more women can pass.

    I agree that the current PT tests do not really apply to combat skills. But the physically grueling tests in the schools do. I'm sure there are some women who can ruck for miles at a time with a full combat load. But if many cannot, then I'm willing to bet people will start clamoring for the tests to change.

    Again for the last part, I wish there was more data. All I'm doing right now is voicing some reservations, but overall, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

    But this is a bunch of bullshit. I know what you're saying and what you're getting at but there are also men, currently in the infantry, who can't even perform to the standard or have the upper body strength and/or cardio to do the job well. But they aren't prohibited from applying for the position, they aren't prohibited from serving in that capacity. So you see, the problem isn't the strength standard; the problem is not even letting women try for that position.

    A recruit is a recruit, treat them as such. They want to go to infantry school, have at it. They wash out, they get sent to a different school. Male or female. At least let them give it a shot. I'm sure we'll all be pleasantly surprised at just how well they can perform given enough time to adapt to the change.

    The PT standards and tests need to be changed anyways (again), and I'm sure allowing women into these roles will expedite that.

    And I'm pretty sure those guys who can't perform are getting drummed out right now. Everyone's getting cut, which is a great way to repay them for their service but that's another subject altogether.

    In a perfect world, both men and women will be allowed to compete and whoever makes the standard will get in. That's it. But you and I both know this is already a political issue, and will be for the foreseeable future. Because it's a political issue, my fear is that there will be political pressure to have more women be in combat units, regardless of their performance.

    It could be a completely groundless fear, but why do we already have two different standards for men and women? I can understand for push-ups, but what about run times and sit-ups? And how would you change the PT tests to make them more equitable?

    EDIT: Never mind, I take back what I say.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/24/women-in-combat-briefing/1861887/

    According to the link, officials have stated the standards will NOT change for combat arms. More details to follow later.

    If that's the case, then let's see how this plays out.

    Aeneas on
    Hear about the cow that tried to jump over a barbed-wire fence? It was udder disaster.
Sign In or Register to comment.