Options

US Military to Allow Women in Combat Roles

13468915

Posts

  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Ultimately, what are you loking for?
    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    If 1), why should we accept a higher incidence of unit injury / loss in capability trying to meet that quota

    If 2), we're in agreement, with the caveat that many women will not make it - nobody, man or woman, is entitled to a combat MOS billet, or especially an 18X - but those that do will not be second class soldiers within that MOS.

    There isn't any actual proof of this is combat situations as far as I can tell

    The announcement just came down yesterday, so I'm not surprised? :biggrin:

    It's a proxy for Hedgie's argument about lowering standards.

    (BBL, work)

    I don't want to lower the standards as much as I want them modernized.

    I mean, what are they going to do when they wind up with a gifted female soldier who is also gifted when it comes to her breasts. Should she just go under the knife if she's serious about a military career? It sounds like a ridiculous problem to think about but it really isn't.


    Anyone under 64" or over 77" tall doesn't meet the USAF physical requirements to be a pilot. Anyone over 73" tall can't be a tanker in the army. Sometimes your physiology just prevents you from doing what you would like to be able to do. At least she could make that choice if she wanted to. Can't really shorten/lengthen people as easily.

    yes but those requirements sort of make sense.

    and also not many people are seven feet seven inches tall. like wow that is really pretty goddamn flexible as far as requirements go.

  • Options
    P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    77 inches

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Why not increase the standards? Ten more of everything.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    This seems like a monstrous question to be asking. I wish you'd taken "SummaryJudgment"'s out.

    Zero combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity because gender parity is neither desirable nor useful in the military, and justice is served through equal opportunity to achieve a standard, not equal numbers in the units. None of us should care for an instant about gender parity in military combat units! We should only care about the unit's effectiveness at accomplishing missions, and not what the genders of the soldiers involved are at all.

    Pretty much this. I don't feel I have much else to say on this subject because there isn't, and there isn't going to be an agreement on first principles.

    For me, "most able fighting force" is the first principle, and that's that. Gender parity in particular combat roles isn't a useful goal for this. Neither, for that matter, is accommodating the disabled or various other things that we would demand in a typical workplace situation. The military routinely screens people out for a host of reasons that just wouldn't fly anywhere else. They always have and always will. If they are actively discriminating against women that's one thing. But this argument that the standards passively discriminate because the end result means fewer women, I'm just totally unmoved because "most able fighting force" is all I care about.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    This seems like a monstrous question to be asking. I wish you'd taken @SummaryJudgment's out.

    Zero combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity because gender parity is neither desirable nor useful in the military, and justice is served through equal opportunity to achieve a standard, not equal numbers in the units. None of us should care for an instant about gender parity in military combat units! We should only care about the unit's effectiveness at accomplishing missions, and not what the genders of the soldiers involved are at all.

    Nobody is talking about gender parity.

    What people are pointing out is that when you start talking about the legitimacy of a standard that will exclude specific demographics at an exceptionally high rate, it is fair to say that said standard should be objectively evaluated to determine whether or not it is legitimately measuring the needed capabilities, or if it is overly strict and excluding candidates who would be able to perform in that position.

    I do not get why this is such a controversial position to take.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Ultimately, what are you loking for?
    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    If 1), why should we accept a higher incidence of unit injury / loss in capability trying to meet that quota

    If 2), we're in agreement, with the caveat that many women will not make it - nobody, man or woman, is entitled to a combat MOS billet, or especially an 18X - but those that do will not be second class soldiers within that MOS.

    There isn't any actual proof of this is combat situations as far as I can tell

    The announcement just came down yesterday, so I'm not surprised? :biggrin:

    It's a proxy for Hedgie's argument about lowering standards.

    (BBL, work)

    I don't want to lower the standards as much as I want them modernized.

    I mean, what are they going to do when they wind up with a gifted female soldier who is also gifted when it comes to her breasts. Should she just go under the knife if she's serious about a military career? It sounds like a ridiculous problem to think about but it really isn't.


    Anyone under 64" or over 77" tall doesn't meet the USAF physical requirements to be a pilot. Anyone over 73" tall can't be a tanker in the army. Sometimes your physiology just prevents you from doing what you would like to be able to do. At least she could make that choice if she wanted to. Can't really shorten/lengthen people as easily.

    yes but those requirements sort of make sense.

    and also not many people are seven feet seven inches tall. like wow that is really pretty goddamn flexible as far as requirements go.

    It's 6'-5", 12 inches in a foot, get that base 10 metric nonsense out of here.

    So 5'-4" to 6'-5" to fly and 6'-1" and under for tanks.

    And really, do you want to be in a tank if you are just scraping the limit of what the Army(always concerned about soldiers comfort) is calling the biggest you could actually be and fit...

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Deadly if someone cant do the job.
    This isn't a female/male issue. Its a capable of doing the job/not capable of doing the job issue.

    Gooseshit.

    You want to tell me that standards show that women aren't fit for combat? Then I want to see your work. I want to see you show me that those standards are a fair and objective assessment that accurately denotes what the needed ability to handle the rigors of combat is. I don't think that is an unfair request.

    And if you can't show the work? Then perhaps that's a sign that the standards aren't as accurate an assessment as you claim them to be.

    Settle down there.

    I never said women arent fit for combat. Ever.
    I said its a standards issue. If they cant meet the physical requirements, they dont get in.
    Same as i dont get in if i dont meet the standards. Or you. Or anyone.

    Which misses the point, which is that the standards need to be evaluated to see if they are properly measuring fitness. Standards that incorrectly exclude qualified candidates are bad standards.

    PT standards are already evaluated constantly. Not sure what you want here.

    I've invited him to explain whether he wants a qualitative or a quantitative benchmark; still waiting.

    RF had a great post earlier about the logic of sexist animus-based standards that he just skipped over, too.

    He wants to talk.

    I think I've made it clear that I would like a qualitative benchmark grounded in reality. I have also pointed out why I don't trust the military to be able to do so on their own.

    As for jeep's comment, he fell into the fallacy that active animus has to be shown to say that something is discrimatory. This is one of those reoccurring arguments that constantly pops up, and ignores how the vast majority of discrimination in our society is systematic, built on bad conceptualization.

    The State has a compelling interest in ensuring the defense of the nation through maximum military effectiveness. The PT requirements will pass strict scrutiny. This is prettymuch the "State at the zenith of its power" as per SCOTUS caselaw.

    The only way this flies on a discrimination based argument if it's motivated by animus and not discriminatory effect.

    As Quid mentioned, the standards are constantly revised re: effectiveness.

    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    This seems like a monstrous question to be asking. I wish you'd taken @SummaryJudgment's out.

    Zero combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity because gender parity is neither desirable nor useful in the military, and justice is served through equal opportunity to achieve a standard, not equal numbers in the units. None of us should care for an instant about gender parity in military combat units! We should only care about the unit's effectiveness at accomplishing missions, and not what the genders of the soldiers involved are at all.

    Nobody is talking about gender parity.

    Sometimes I feel like you honestly don't read anything. Look in the above quotes where I directly ask Paladin if he's talking about gender parity and he answers with an unequivocal Yes.

    Paladin is talking about gender parity. It's monstrous and he should not care.

  • Options
    P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    I don't think it's monstrous to want to have an estimate on what the consequences of a potential relaxing of the standards would be.

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    This seems like a monstrous question to be asking. I wish you'd taken "SummaryJudgment"'s out.

    Zero combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity because gender parity is neither desirable nor useful in the military, and justice is served through equal opportunity to achieve a standard, not equal numbers in the units. None of us should care for an instant about gender parity in military combat units! We should only care about the unit's effectiveness at accomplishing missions, and not what the genders of the soldiers involved are at all.

    Pretty much this. I don't feel I have much else to say on this subject because there isn't, and there isn't going to be an agreement on first principles.

    For me, "most able fighting force" is the first principle, and that's that. Gender parity in particular combat roles isn't a useful goal for this. Neither, for that matter, is accommodating the disabled or various other things that we would demand in a typical workplace situation. The military routinely screens people out for a host of reasons that just wouldn't fly anywhere else. They always have and always will. If they are actively discriminating against women that's one thing. But this argument that the standards passively discriminate because the end result means fewer women, I'm just totally unmoved because "most able fighting force" is all I care about.

    Define most able. Because that's the flaw in your argument - most able is an incredibly subjective term, and how you define it may not be how others do. Not to mention that the military has a history of working contrary to that ideal, with things like purging translators because of sexual preference.

    You want to say that these standards create the most able fighting force? Then you should be able to make the positive case for that.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Heh, all the military people have stopped posting, guess this thread became intolerable for them

    Hard to blame them if they -actually being "experts" in the EXACT subject being discussed- dont get listened to.
    (not directed at you by the by)

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    P10 wrote: »
    I don't think it's monstrous to want to have an estimate on what the consequences of a potential relaxing of the standards would be.

    and that is also not what he was talking about.
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.


    He is asking, straightforward, how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity. He is not asking what the consequence of relaxed standards might be, he is asking how many dead soldiers we should accept in order to have equal numbers of women in combat roles.

    Stop turning aside, folks. This is Paladin's question.

  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    This conversation will circle around itself forever. Angel, if you are actually advocating that we cant let the military determine its own physical standards for entry into certain jobs...then....well.....there is no reasoning with you. I mean no disrespect, but there just isn't.

    The Army gets to decide what it wants people to be able to do to qualify for any given role because...they are the Army, and that's what they do. I get the sense that the Army knows better than anyone else what it needs for combat infantry personnel.

    You would have a point if a female met every current standard, and the Army said..."nope too bad! you have girl parts!" but...they have decided NOT to do that any more.
    So...what the heck are you advocating? You're trying to support a position by saying the "standards" are incorrect, but -no offense- over the course of a few hundred years and countless wars and conflicts, i think the Army has a pretty goddamned good idea what it needs for a combat role.
    And, when they can be adjusted, they are. Maybe not on a schedule you find correct, but they are. And, at that time, if a woman meets THOSE new standards, then..."Welcome!" but if they dont, they dont get in.
    Just like guys dont get in if they dont meet them.

    That, seems to me, is the VERY DEFINITION of equality.

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    This seems like a monstrous question to be asking. I wish you'd taken "SummaryJudgment"'s out.

    Zero combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity because gender parity is neither desirable nor useful in the military, and justice is served through equal opportunity to achieve a standard, not equal numbers in the units. None of us should care for an instant about gender parity in military combat units! We should only care about the unit's effectiveness at accomplishing missions, and not what the genders of the soldiers involved are at all.

    Pretty much this. I don't feel I have much else to say on this subject because there isn't, and there isn't going to be an agreement on first principles.

    For me, "most able fighting force" is the first principle, and that's that. Gender parity in particular combat roles isn't a useful goal for this. Neither, for that matter, is accommodating the disabled or various other things that we would demand in a typical workplace situation. The military routinely screens people out for a host of reasons that just wouldn't fly anywhere else. They always have and always will. If they are actively discriminating against women that's one thing. But this argument that the standards passively discriminate because the end result means fewer women, I'm just totally unmoved because "most able fighting force" is all I care about.

    Define most able. Because that's the flaw in your argument - most able is an incredibly subjective term, and how you define it may not be how others do. Not to mention that the military has a history of working contrary to that ideal, with things like purging translators because of sexual preference.

    You want to say that these standards create the most able fighting force? Then you should be able to make the positive case for that.

    I don't see this flaw you are alleging. You haven't exactly made a case for how relaxing physical standards results in a more able force by any definition. You've asserted that the standards are unfair, but that is a different thing entirely and I am unmoved by appeals to fairness.

  • Options
    P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    How dangerous would it be to achieve gender parity (by relaxing standards) is a fair question. The assumption seems to be that it would be an unacceptably large loss of quality, but no one has presented firm evidence. Granted, this isn't a topic that lends itself to strong evidence being available, but having a reasonable estimate or something to work with would make this conversation a lot better. Since a lot of people seem to be talking past each other based on their underlying assumptions of how much of a loss of quality the military would face if it relaxed its standards (some vs negligible)

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    P10 wrote: »
    How dangerous would it be to achieve gender parity (by relaxing standards) is a fair question. The assumption seems to be that it would be an unacceptably large loss of quality, but no one has presented firm evidence. Granted, this isn't a topic that lends itself to strong evidence being available, but having a reasonable estimate or something to work with would make this conversation a lot better. Since a lot of people seem to be talking past each other based on their underlying assumptions of how much of a loss of quality the military would face if it relaxed its standards (some vs negligible)

    I don't believe it's a fair question because gender parity is pointless and irrelevant. It should not be a goal. We should not be willing to sacrifice anything in order to simply have more balanced gender distribution. We shouldn't care about it in the slightest.

  • Options
    P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    P10 wrote: »
    How dangerous would it be to achieve gender parity (by relaxing standards) is a fair question. The assumption seems to be that it would be an unacceptably large loss of quality, but no one has presented firm evidence. Granted, this isn't a topic that lends itself to strong evidence being available, but having a reasonable estimate or something to work with would make this conversation a lot better. Since a lot of people seem to be talking past each other based on their underlying assumptions of how much of a loss of quality the military would face if it relaxed its standards (some vs negligible)

    I don't believe it's a fair question because gender parity is pointless and irrelevant. It should not be a goal. We should not be willing to sacrifice anything in order to simply have more balanced gender distribution. We shouldn't care about it in the slightest.
    I assume the positive of gender parity would be increased quantity / recruitment pool, but I don't know how valuable that is. Presumably, it has some importance - otherwise standards would be higher / they wouldn't have relaxed standards in the past. I will admit I am ignorant on this topic (which is why I would like to be pointed in the direction of evidence and studies, where available)

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    P10 wrote: »
    How dangerous would it be to achieve gender parity (by relaxing standards) is a fair question. The assumption seems to be that it would be an unacceptably large loss of quality, but no one has presented firm evidence. Granted, this isn't a topic that lends itself to strong evidence being available, but having a reasonable estimate or something to work with would make this conversation a lot better. Since a lot of people seem to be talking past each other based on their underlying assumptions of how much of a loss of quality the military would face if it relaxed its standards (some vs negligible)

    What is gender parity? 50/50?
    And, this whole discussion is about COMBAT roles specifically.
    So relax what? Amount needed to be carried into combat? PJ already went over this. You carry what you have to carry. Its usually mission dependent, but some stuff just weighs what it weighs. Like water.

    You arent outfitting a football team here, you are outfitting a military combat role. Somethings arent negotiable. Like water. In the desert. Or enough rounds to complete the mission. Or someone on the team has to carry the machine gun. Does the female NOT have to carry the machine gun now because of relaxed standards? Does someone ELSE have to carry her water because she is only required 50lbs instead of the 100lbs for men?

    Or, relax the standards for everyone, and run into the exact same issues. For everyone. Combat doesn't give a flying shit what gender you are. So i would think its better to have higher standards and more soldiers alive, than gender parity.

  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    P10 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    P10 wrote: »
    How dangerous would it be to achieve gender parity (by relaxing standards) is a fair question. The assumption seems to be that it would be an unacceptably large loss of quality, but no one has presented firm evidence. Granted, this isn't a topic that lends itself to strong evidence being available, but having a reasonable estimate or something to work with would make this conversation a lot better. Since a lot of people seem to be talking past each other based on their underlying assumptions of how much of a loss of quality the military would face if it relaxed its standards (some vs negligible)

    I don't believe it's a fair question because gender parity is pointless and irrelevant. It should not be a goal. We should not be willing to sacrifice anything in order to simply have more balanced gender distribution. We shouldn't care about it in the slightest.
    I assume the positive of gender parity would be increased quantity / recruitment pool, but I don't know how valuable that is. Presumably, it has some importance - otherwise standards would be higher / they wouldn't have relaxed standards in the past. I will admit I am ignorant on this topic (which is why I would like to be pointed in the direction of evidence and studies, where available)

    The military is not hurting for soldiers really. They have been thinning combat numbers since the 2 wars ended. They have more than needed right now.

    Ninjeff on
  • Options
    TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Didn't realize we had a thread for this. Reposting my post from the bad news gone right thread. I'm going to catch up on the thread now.
    Taranis wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    You have a woman mechanic working for a support battalion attached to an infantry brigade. The whole lot of them get deployed to the middle east.

    The infantry do regular sweeps and patrols, but none of them can talk to women in the country without there being problems. They need a woman to go with them to do the talking.

    Guess who gets tapped for the task.

    Guess who loads up on armor and weapons just like the guys and goes out on the same sweeps and sees an equal amount of hostile action.

    When the deployment is over guess who goes back to the support battalion and is never allowed to claim that they served in combat.

    Guess how much combat experience counts in getting promoted

    Uh people earn CABs. Men and women earn CABs. What the hell are you even talking about? You wear a badge and you can't talk about it? How does that work? I just a few weeks ago had my buddy -- now in an MP unit -- tell me about how they were swapping stories war stories with one of their female peers without ridiculing her. I'm not aware of how women can't have combat experience and never saw that when I was in. Is that a new thing? I'm not aware of how women's experiences don't count toward their own promotion either. How are their combat experiences even worth less at the promotion board?

    What do presence patrols even have to do with anything? Is the argument that women show earn CIBs when they'd normally earn CABs? That's only true now that they will now serve in infantry units and not be attachments who earn CABs regardless of sex.

    How is any of that even relevant to what i'm saying here?

    The reason is that that the MOSes that have previously denied women are the ones which have a greater effect on getting promoted. An 11B will get promoted sooner and more often than a 09L, even though they will both be in the same place getting shot at by the same people, because the 11B is a categorized as a combat role and the 09L is not.
    No. That's mostly wrong. It's because you need more E5s and E6s in an infantry line unit. It's not the combat experience. These people are in different units with different MTOEs. Its also based on that MOS' retention: if that unit has most guys get out before meeting the requisite TIS then you'll naturally have a shortage in that MOS, but retention rates differ from unit/MOS to the next. Infantry doesn't often have good retention rates so they have a frequent shortage. This drives demand for that rank and MOS way up and required promotion points down for that rank. So basically it has a lot of NCO slots open because they're in demand and short of experienced candidates. This lowers the bar on leadership, it doesn't really select for combat experience. Plus, a CAB is worth just as many promotion points as a CIB.

    An interpreter's combat experience doesn't even translate to infantry experience and vice versa. Just like I didn't pick up enough Arabic to fill in for even a cherry interpreter even though I could interact with with local nationals solely in their language. Interpreters don't suddenly know how to parse things like types of machine gun and when you account for that just because they've been in firefights with 11Bs. So it's not like an 11B would have justification for using the promotion point requirement for 09Ls if it was different. Because overlapping experiences don't necessarily qualify you for that other MOS.

    It's sexist in that women can't have access combat arms jobs. However it's not like you're pretty much an infantryman if you fight with the infantry just like how I wasn't pretty much an 88M, 68W, 09L, or a 25U, or especially not an 18whatever.

    Edit: Also to further emphasize that it's more about a lack of commonality in overall experience, 11Cs often had much higher promotion point score requirements than 11Bs because there were fewer 11C slots. As as an 11B I didn't even know the first thing about using a mortar system. I probably could've used one after some hip pocket training, but I wouldn't be qualified to tell other people the finer points of using a mortar. An 11C isn't going to perform as well as an 11B during something like battle drill 6, because when they're training on the mortar 11Bs would be doing something like tape drills. Even within infantry units, training and experiences don't translate.

    Edit 2: It's not like if you see combat a lot you're just good at combat -- you're good at doing X during combat. X isn't always 'performing battle drills' or 'fulfilling fire missions' or 'talking to fixed wing aircraft to bring in a JDAM'. Sometimes X is hanging out with the PSG or PL, or accompanying the TAC, or searching women. Before this, that was those were the sorts of role women were relegated to. Nothing necessitates that X is performing battle drills and kicking in doors. In fact, inorganic male or females won't do that the vast majority of times.

    Taranis on
    EH28YFo.jpg
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Just to be clear this discussion originally started because of an argument in a chat thread about whether or not ranger standards should be reduced

    which I think almost everyone agrees is a definitive no

    override367 on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Ahem.


    We don't actually know that gender parity does or does not impact combat effectiveness in a unit. Intuitively it seems like it shouldn't, but many intuitive guesses are often incorrect.

    We perhaps shouldn't be positing that out of hand until there is actual data to support the argument (in any case, the biotruths arguments about women not being able to meet physical standards are ridiculous. Mean averages as far as bone density & muscle growth are something of a wash, and the studying that's been done thus far has not exactly been rigorous).

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Taranis wrote: »
    Didn't realize we had a thread for this. Reposting my post from the bad news gone right thread. I'm going to catch up on the thread now.
    Taranis wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    You have a woman mechanic working for a support battalion attached to an infantry brigade. The whole lot of them get deployed to the middle east.

    The infantry do regular sweeps and patrols, but none of them can talk to women in the country without there being problems. They need a woman to go with them to do the talking.

    Guess who gets tapped for the task.

    Guess who loads up on armor and weapons just like the guys and goes out on the same sweeps and sees an equal amount of hostile action.

    When the deployment is over guess who goes back to the support battalion and is never allowed to claim that they served in combat.

    Guess how much combat experience counts in getting promoted

    Uh people earn CABs. Men and women earn CABs. What the hell are you even talking about? You wear a badge and you can't talk about it? How does that work? I just a few weeks ago had my buddy -- now in an MP unit -- tell me about how they were swapping stories war stories with one of their female peers without ridiculing her. I'm not aware of how women can't have combat experience and never saw that when I was in. Is that a new thing? I'm not aware of how women's experiences don't count toward their own promotion either. How are their combat experiences even worth less at the promotion board?

    What do presence patrols even have to do with anything? Is the argument that women show earn CIBs when they'd normally earn CABs? That's only true now that they will now serve in infantry units and not be attachments who earn CABs regardless of sex.

    How is any of that even relevant to what i'm saying here?

    The reason is that that the MOSes that have previously denied women are the ones which have a greater effect on getting promoted. An 11B will get promoted sooner and more often than a 09L, even though they will both be in the same place getting shot at by the same people, because the 11B is a categorized as a combat role and the 09L is not.
    No. That's mostly wrong. It's because you need more E5s and E6s in an infantry line unit. It's not the combat experience. These people are in different units with different MTOEs. Its also based on that MOS' retention: if that unit has most guys get out before meeting the requisite TIS then you'll naturally have a shortage in that MOS, but retention rates differ from unit/MOS to the next. Infantry doesn't often have good retention rates so they have a frequent shortage. This drives demand for that rank and MOS way up and required promotion points down for that rank. So basically it has a lot of NCO slots open because they're in demand and short of experienced candidates. This lowers the bar on leadership, it doesn't really select for combat experience. Plus, a CAB is worth just as many promotion points as a CIB.

    An interpreter's combat experience doesn't even translate to infantry experience and vice versa. Just like I didn't pick up enough Arabic to fill in for even a cherry interpreter even though I could interact with with local nationals solely in their language. Interpreters don't suddenly know how to parse things like types of machine gun and when you account for that just because they've been in firefights with 11Bs. So it's not like an 11B would have justification for using the promotion point requirement for 09Ls if it was different. Because overlapping experiences don't necessarily qualify you for that other MOS.

    It's sexist in that women can't have access combat arms jobs. However it's not like you're pretty much an infantryman if you fight with the infantry just like how I wasn't pretty much an 88M, 68W, 09L, or a 25U, or especially not an 18whatever.

    Edit: Also to further emphasize that it's more about a lack of commonality in overall experience, 11Cs often had much higher promotion point score requirements than 11Bs because there were fewer 11C slots. As as an 11B I didn't even know the first thing about using a mortar system. I probably could've used one after some hip pocket training, but I wouldn't be qualified to tell other people the finer points of using a mortar. An 11C isn't going to perform as well as an 11B during something like battle drill 6, because when they're training on the mortar 11Bs would be doing something like tape drills. Even within infantry units, training and experiences don't translate.

    Edit 2: It's not like if you see combat a lot you're just good at combat -- you're good at doing X during combat. X isn't always 'performing battle drills' or 'fulfilling fire missions' or 'talking to fixed wing aircraft to bring in a JDAM'. Sometimes X is hanging out with the PSG or PL, or accompanying the TAC, or searching women. Before this, that was those were the sorts of role women were relegated to. Nothing necessitates that X is performing battle drills and kicking in doors. In fact, inorganic male or females won't do that the vast majority of times.

    Thats....thats a lot of acronyms and codes. lol

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ahem.


    We don't actually know that gender parity does or does not impact combat effectiveness in a unit. Intuitively it seems like it shouldn't, but many intuitive guesses are often incorrect.

    We perhaps shouldn't be positing that out of hand until there is actual data to support the argument (in any case, the biotruths arguments about women not being able to meet physical standards are ridiculous. Mean averages as far as bone density & muscle growth are something of a wash, and the studying that's been done thus far has not exactly been rigorous).

    No one has said that gender parity impacts combat effectiveness.

    This issue is how gender parity is achieved.

    If it's achieved by lowering the physical standards so more people become eligible for these positions then it does stand to reason that it will. Some people have asserted that the physical standards are unimportant and can be safely lowered, which I personally find dubious, but I'm open to being proven wrong. Provided that proof doesn't come via a "lets just let everyone in, go to war, and tabulate data after the fact" like this is an experiment and not peoples lives.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    P10 wrote: »
    How dangerous would it be to achieve gender parity (by relaxing standards) is a fair question. The assumption seems to be that it would be an unacceptably large loss of quality, but no one has presented firm evidence. Granted, this isn't a topic that lends itself to strong evidence being available, but having a reasonable estimate or something to work with would make this conversation a lot better. Since a lot of people seem to be talking past each other based on their underlying assumptions of how much of a loss of quality the military would face if it relaxed its standards (some vs negligible)

    I don't believe it's a fair question because gender parity is pointless and irrelevant. It should not be a goal. We should not be willing to sacrifice anything in order to simply have more balanced gender distribution. We shouldn't care about it in the slightest.

    Which then becomes justification for allowing the exclusion of one gender over the other, since, as you said "it shouldn't matter". I've found that highly lopsided gender distribution serves as a "canary in the coal mine", so to speak - when the ratios become overly lopsided, it's a sign that investigation is warranted to see if there are issues occurring that are pushing qualified candidates out.

    As for why this is important, studies have shown that diversity improves business performance, and I find it hard to believe that the same would not hold true for the military as well.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    P10 wrote: »
    How dangerous would it be to achieve gender parity (by relaxing standards) is a fair question. The assumption seems to be that it would be an unacceptably large loss of quality, but no one has presented firm evidence. Granted, this isn't a topic that lends itself to strong evidence being available, but having a reasonable estimate or something to work with would make this conversation a lot better. Since a lot of people seem to be talking past each other based on their underlying assumptions of how much of a loss of quality the military would face if it relaxed its standards (some vs negligible)

    I don't believe it's a fair question because gender parity is pointless and irrelevant. It should not be a goal. We should not be willing to sacrifice anything in order to simply have more balanced gender distribution. We shouldn't care about it in the slightest.

    Which then becomes justification for allowing the exclusion of one gender over the other, since, as you said "it shouldn't matter". I've found that highly lopsided gender distribution serves as a "canary in the coal mine", so to speak - when the ratios become overly lopsided, it's a sign that investigation is warranted to see if there are issues occurring that are pushing qualified candidates out.

    As for why this is important, studies have shown that diversity improves business performance, and I find it hard to believe that the same would not hold true for the military as well.

    because the business world and combat infantry are basically not analogous at all

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    This seems like a monstrous question to be asking. I wish you'd taken SummaryJudgment"'s out.

    Zero combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity because gender parity is neither desirable nor useful in the military, and justice is served through equal opportunity to achieve a standard, not equal numbers in the units. None of us should care for an instant about gender parity in military combat units! We should only care about the unit's effectiveness at accomplishing missions, and not what the genders of the soldiers involved are at all.

    Nobody is talking about gender parity.

    What people are pointing out is that when you start talking about the legitimacy of a standard that will exclude specific demographics at an exceptionally high rate, it is fair to say that said standard should be objectively evaluated to determine whether or not it is legitimately measuring the needed capabilities, or if it is overly strict and excluding candidates who would be able to perform in that position.

    I do not get why this is such a controversial position to take.

    What about the current standard is unfair?

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Business performance and combat performance.

    Not the same thing. This is seriously poor logic.

  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    P10 wrote: »
    How dangerous would it be to achieve gender parity (by relaxing standards) is a fair question. The assumption seems to be that it would be an unacceptably large loss of quality, but no one has presented firm evidence. Granted, this isn't a topic that lends itself to strong evidence being available, but having a reasonable estimate or something to work with would make this conversation a lot better. Since a lot of people seem to be talking past each other based on their underlying assumptions of how much of a loss of quality the military would face if it relaxed its standards (some vs negligible)

    I don't believe it's a fair question because gender parity is pointless and irrelevant. It should not be a goal. We should not be willing to sacrifice anything in order to simply have more balanced gender distribution. We shouldn't care about it in the slightest.

    Which then becomes justification for allowing the exclusion of one gender over the other, since, as you said "it shouldn't matter". I've found that highly lopsided gender distribution serves as a "canary in the coal mine", so to speak - when the ratios become overly lopsided, it's a sign that investigation is warranted to see if there are issues occurring that are pushing qualified candidates out.

    As for why this is important, studies have shown that diversity improves business performance, and I find it hard to believe that the same would not hold true for the military as well.

    Just so everyone is on the same page.....

    You are aware that non-combat roles have been open to females and males for quite some time correct? The issue being discussed is SPECIFICALLY Combat roles. Which is a new development. And with that, brings a new set of standards. An Airborne infantry person will have much stricter physical requirements for the job than a truck driver.

  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ahem.


    We don't actually know that gender parity does or does not impact combat effectiveness in a unit. Intuitively it seems like it shouldn't, but many intuitive guesses are often incorrect.

    We perhaps shouldn't be positing that out of hand until there is actual data to support the argument (in any case, the biotruths arguments about women not being able to meet physical standards are ridiculous. Mean averages as far as bone density & muscle growth are something of a wash, and the studying that's been done thus far has not exactly been rigorous).

    No one has said that gender parity impacts combat effectiveness.

    This issue is how gender parity is achieved.

    If it's achieved by lowering the physical standards so more people become eligible for these positions then it does stand to reason that it will. Some people have asserted that the physical standards are unimportant and can be safely lowered, which I personally find dubious, but I'm open to being proven wrong. Provided that proof doesn't come via a "lets just let everyone in, go to war, and tabulate data after the fact" like this is an experiment and not peoples lives.


    I don't disagree, but would take umbrage with the bolded for this reason:

    Testing regimes that the U.S. Army uses for it's standards should not be trusted, imho. I think this has aptly been demonstrated when it comes to various recent equipment debacles (the Sniffex 'bomb detectors', the refusal to adopt Dragon Skin armor, the sordid development cycle of the Bradley IFV, the pressing of the HMMV into a direct combat role, etc). If it can't even reliably dig out good equipment for it's soldiers to use, call me skeptical that they know best when it comes to finding the best soldiers.

    (Of course, if we do grant that the testing regime works, then sure - it shouldn't be relaxed).

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ahem.


    We don't actually know that gender parity does or does not impact combat effectiveness in a unit. Intuitively it seems like it shouldn't, but many intuitive guesses are often incorrect.

    We perhaps shouldn't be positing that out of hand until there is actual data to support the argument (in any case, the biotruths arguments about women not being able to meet physical standards are ridiculous. Mean averages as far as bone density & muscle growth are something of a wash, and the studying that's been done thus far has not exactly been rigorous).

    No one has said that gender parity impacts combat effectiveness.

    This issue is how gender parity is achieved.

    If it's achieved by lowering the physical standards so more people become eligible for these positions then it does stand to reason that it will. Some people have asserted that the physical standards are unimportant and can be safely lowered, which I personally find dubious, but I'm open to being proven wrong. Provided that proof doesn't come via a "lets just let everyone in, go to war, and tabulate data after the fact" like this is an experiment and not peoples lives.


    I don't disagree, but would take umbrage with the bolded for this reason:

    Testing regimes that the U.S. Army uses for it's standards should not be trusted, imho. I think this has aptly been demonstrated when it comes to various recent equipment debacles (the Sniffex 'bomb detectors', the refusal to adopt Dragon Skin armor, the sordid development cycle of the Bradley IFV, the pressing of the HMMV into a direct combat role, etc). If it can't even reliably dig out good equipment for it's soldiers to use, call me skeptical that they know best when it comes to finding the best soldiers.

    (Of course, if we do grant that the testing regime works, then sure - it shouldn't be relaxed).

    Even if we accept that the standards in place are questionable because we don't really trust the army to not be dumb, it doesn't follow that the best course of action is to arbitrarily reduce them.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Business performance and combat performance.

    Not the same thing. This is seriously poor logic.

    Except that if you actually read the studies, what they find is that diversity improves business performance by giving a broader pool of experience to work with. Why wouldn't that dynamic translate to military and combat performance? Because I would argue that one of the biggest issues our military faces in the sorts of conflicts we see now is that we continue to use the same sort of strategies and tactics over and over. Why shouldn't we want to enhance this pool?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Business performance and combat performance.

    Not the same thing. This is seriously poor logic.

    Except that if you actually read the studies, what they find is that diversity improves business performance by giving a broader pool of experience to work with. Why wouldn't that dynamic translate to military and combat performance? Because I would argue that one of the biggest issues our military faces in the sorts of conflicts we see now is that we continue to use the same sort of strategies and tactics over and over. Why shouldn't we want to enhance this pool?

    You are comparing apples to oranges here. I'm not going to entertain it any further.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    P10 wrote: »
    How dangerous would it be to achieve gender parity (by relaxing standards) is a fair question. The assumption seems to be that it would be an unacceptably large loss of quality, but no one has presented firm evidence. Granted, this isn't a topic that lends itself to strong evidence being available, but having a reasonable estimate or something to work with would make this conversation a lot better. Since a lot of people seem to be talking past each other based on their underlying assumptions of how much of a loss of quality the military would face if it relaxed its standards (some vs negligible)

    I don't believe it's a fair question because gender parity is pointless and irrelevant. It should not be a goal. We should not be willing to sacrifice anything in order to simply have more balanced gender distribution. We shouldn't care about it in the slightest.

    Which then becomes justification for allowing the exclusion of one gender over the other, since, as you said "it shouldn't matter". I've found that highly lopsided gender distribution serves as a "canary in the coal mine", so to speak - when the ratios become overly lopsided, it's a sign that investigation is warranted to see if there are issues occurring that are pushing qualified candidates out.

    As for why this is important, studies have shown that diversity improves business performance, and I find it hard to believe that the same would not hold true for the military as well.

    Just so everyone is on the same page.....

    You are aware that non-combat roles have been open to females and males for quite some time correct? The issue being discussed is SPECIFICALLY Combat roles. Which is a new development. And with that, brings a new set of standards. An Airborne infantry person will have much stricter physical requirements for the job than a truck driver.

    Yes, we know. And every time the door to the military was opened wider to women, the same arguments about fitness and capability got trotted out.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ahem.


    We don't actually know that gender parity does or does not impact combat effectiveness in a unit. Intuitively it seems like it shouldn't, but many intuitive guesses are often incorrect.

    We perhaps shouldn't be positing that out of hand until there is actual data to support the argument (in any case, the biotruths arguments about women not being able to meet physical standards are ridiculous. Mean averages as far as bone density & muscle growth are something of a wash, and the studying that's been done thus far has not exactly been rigorous).

    No one has said that gender parity impacts combat effectiveness.

    This issue is how gender parity is achieved.

    If it's achieved by lowering the physical standards so more people become eligible for these positions then it does stand to reason that it will. Some people have asserted that the physical standards are unimportant and can be safely lowered, which I personally find dubious, but I'm open to being proven wrong. Provided that proof doesn't come via a "lets just let everyone in, go to war, and tabulate data after the fact" like this is an experiment and not peoples lives.


    I don't disagree, but would take umbrage with the bolded for this reason:

    Testing regimes that the U.S. Army uses for it's standards should not be trusted, imho. I think this has aptly been demonstrated when it comes to various recent equipment debacles (the Sniffex 'bomb detectors', the refusal to adopt Dragon Skin armor, the sordid development cycle of the Bradley IFV, the pressing of the HMMV into a direct combat role, etc). If it can't even reliably dig out good equipment for it's soldiers to use, call me skeptical that they know best when it comes to finding the best soldiers.

    (Of course, if we do grant that the testing regime works, then sure - it shouldn't be relaxed).

    SIde note: Dragon Skin armor wasn't approved for a number of reasons. One of specific note - it didnt hold up at all in cold weather environments.
    The military is very complex, and generally speaking know exactly what they need to do the best job possible. They dont always get it right for sure, but i would caution you into making the leap between procurement issues and combat infantry physical standards.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    This seems like a monstrous question to be asking. I wish you'd taken SummaryJudgment"'s out.

    Zero combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity because gender parity is neither desirable nor useful in the military, and justice is served through equal opportunity to achieve a standard, not equal numbers in the units. None of us should care for an instant about gender parity in military combat units! We should only care about the unit's effectiveness at accomplishing missions, and not what the genders of the soldiers involved are at all.

    Nobody is talking about gender parity.

    What people are pointing out is that when you start talking about the legitimacy of a standard that will exclude specific demographics at an exceptionally high rate, it is fair to say that said standard should be objectively evaluated to determine whether or not it is legitimately measuring the needed capabilities, or if it is overly strict and excluding candidates who would be able to perform in that position.

    I do not get why this is such a controversial position to take.

    What about the current standard is unfair?

    I don't know. But I'm not going to assume the validity of the status quo, especially when the military has a track record of using it to dig their heels in to oppose societal changes they dislike.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Business performance and combat performance.

    Not the same thing. This is seriously poor logic.

    Except that if you actually read the studies, what they find is that diversity improves business performance by giving a broader pool of experience to work with. Why wouldn't that dynamic translate to military and combat performance? Because I would argue that one of the biggest issues our military faces in the sorts of conflicts we see now is that we continue to use the same sort of strategies and tactics over and over. Why shouldn't we want to enhance this pool?

    You are comparing apples to oranges here. I'm not going to entertain it any further.

    So, you don't actually have an argument, so you're just going to dismiss it. If you really think there's such a gulf, then you should be able to prove it.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

    How dangerous?

    Are you actually asking how many combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity?

    Yes.

    This seems like a monstrous question to be asking. I wish you'd taken SummaryJudgment"'s out.

    Zero combat deaths are acceptable in order to achieve gender parity because gender parity is neither desirable nor useful in the military, and justice is served through equal opportunity to achieve a standard, not equal numbers in the units. None of us should care for an instant about gender parity in military combat units! We should only care about the unit's effectiveness at accomplishing missions, and not what the genders of the soldiers involved are at all.

    Nobody is talking about gender parity.

    What people are pointing out is that when you start talking about the legitimacy of a standard that will exclude specific demographics at an exceptionally high rate, it is fair to say that said standard should be objectively evaluated to determine whether or not it is legitimately measuring the needed capabilities, or if it is overly strict and excluding candidates who would be able to perform in that position.

    I do not get why this is such a controversial position to take.

    What about the current standard is unfair?

    I don't know. But I'm not going to assume the validity of the status quo, especially when the military has a track record of using it to dig their heels in to oppose societal changes they dislike.

    I think in this instance the responsibility is on you to show whats not fair, versus the military having to do it, as they are the ones most knowing what they need to do the job they will ask people to do.
    Or listen to the actual soldiers who have replied in this thread as they know far more about the subject matter than yourself.

  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Ultimately, what are you loking for?
    1) Quantitative equal numerical parity, 50-50? Some kind of numerical floor, i.e. at least 5/10/20% of women in combat MOS?

    Or, 2) some kind of qualitative series of standards to ensure as many women as possible, but with no set numerical value?

    If 1), why should we accept a higher incidence of unit injury / loss in capability trying to meet that quota

    If 2), we're in agreement, with the caveat that many women will not make it - nobody, man or woman, is entitled to a combat MOS billet, or especially an 18X - but those that do will not be second class soldiers within that MOS.

    There isn't any actual proof of this is combat situations as far as I can tell

    The announcement just came down yesterday, so I'm not surprised? :biggrin:

    It's a proxy for Hedgie's argument about lowering standards.

    (BBL, work)

    I don't want to lower the standards as much as I want them modernized.

    I mean, what are they going to do when they wind up with a gifted female soldier who is also gifted when it comes to her breasts. Should she just go under the knife if she's serious about a military career? It sounds like a ridiculous problem to think about but it really isn't.


    Anyone under 64" or over 77" tall doesn't meet the USAF physical requirements to be a pilot. Anyone over 73" tall can't be a tanker in the army. Sometimes your physiology just prevents you from doing what you would like to be able to do. At least she could make that choice if she wanted to. Can't really shorten/lengthen people as easily.

    yes but those requirements sort of make sense.

    and also not many people are seven feet seven inches tall. like wow that is really pretty goddamn flexible as far as requirements go.

    Yup there are some hard limits like that simply because they can't adjust the vehicles for the pilots so they pick the pilots for the vehicles. Actually in a lot of ways women tend to work better as fighter pilots as being smaller often is an advantage with certain models for fitting comfortably.

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    .
    Business performance and combat performance.

    Not the same thing. This is seriously poor logic.

    Except that if you actually read the studies, what they find is that diversity improves business performance by giving a broader pool of experience to work with. Why wouldn't that dynamic translate to military and combat performance? Because I would argue that one of the biggest issues our military faces in the sorts of conflicts we see now is that we continue to use the same sort of strategies and tactics over and over. Why shouldn't we want to enhance this pool?

    You are comparing apples to oranges here. I'm not going to entertain it any further.

    So, you don't actually have an argument, so you're just going to dismiss it.

    My argument is that this is an invalid comparison. Because you are comparing things which are too dissimilar for a meaningful comparison.

    And then I dismissed it. Yeap.

Sign In or Register to comment.