[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by (s)macintosh 

Huh? "...ignoring centuries old methods for focusing soldiers on their mission."

So we should kick out all the non-white people in the military? They're obviously a distraction. And women? Pfft. Gone.

Do we have constitutional protections for being non-white and non-male?

Does the Constitution protect us from the sexual choices we make? I don't think so. Does the Constitution allow for "separate but equal"? No. Does it allow for legal separation of private "facilities" to allow for a right to privacy in regards to possible sexual attraction? It sure does.

Apples to oranges...

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Huh ... I guess you've forgotten the centuries old practice of providing soldiers with young boys when women weren't available or encouraging homosexual relationships between soldiers?

I don't remember the U.S. military ever concluding that was an effective practice. I think stuff like that went the way of the flat-earthers and "bleeding" people when they were ill.

[Wiskedjak]

my apologies. when you said "centuries old methods" I thought you meant more than the last two cherry-picked centuries.

So, really, moving away from the practices of the flat-earthers was unconservative (because at the time it was the conservatives who wanted to keep the earth flat)

[Wiskedjak]

The funny thing about Conservatives is that they only seemed concerned about preserving traditions that go back to the last liberal move when society rejected the previous traditions. A *true* conservative would still be loyal to the traditions of Roman culture.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

my apologies. when you said "centuries old methods" I thought you meant more than the last two cherry-picked centuries.

I thought we were talking about the U.S. military? I'm sure you could go back to battles during the caveman days and use that to decide what's best as well. Should we were one bone, or two through our noses? I'm guessing it's better to look at more modern methods that have stood the test of time.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The funny thing about Conservatives is that they only seemed concerned about preserving traditions that go back to the last liberal move when society rejected the previous traditions. A *true* conservative would still be loyal to the traditions of Roman culture.

I'm not interested in "preserving traditions". I'm interested in doing what really works. Again, I'll ask:

"So it's your belief that unisex bathrooms and forced co-ed naked showering would pose no threat to recruiting, morale or focus?"

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

A *true* conservative would still be loyal to the traditions of Roman culture.

And let "pink pantella puffers" join the legions?

That's crazy talk!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I thought we were talking about the U.S. military? I'm sure you could go back to battles during the caveman days and use that to decide what's best as well. Should we were one bone, or two through our noses? I'm guessing it's better to look at more modern methods that have stood the test of time.

Well, I guess it's easier to limit your history to the last 2 hundred years (which only barely counts as "centuries"). As for "standing the test of time", your "modern methods" have barely stood the test of any time at all relative to the practices they replaced. In one breath, you're arguing that the current methods were a change for the better while also arguing against any further change. I suspect those who were conservative about the older methods argued just as adamantly against the changes to your "modern methods". I can also imagine those conservatives saying that *their* methods had "stood the test of time".

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, I'll ask:

"So it's your belief that unisex bathrooms and forced co-ed naked showering would pose no threat to recruiting, morale or focus?"

You can ask all you want, but you still won't listen to the answer.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not interested in "preserving traditions". I'm interested in doing what really works. Again, I'll ask:

"So it's your belief that unisex bathrooms and forced co-ed naked showering would pose no threat to recruiting, morale or focus?"

There's no question it would. However, like with the issue of homosexuals, I still say this boils down to a math problem.

What are the costs (of which you named three)? What are the actions that can be taken to reduce that impact (and how much does that cost)?

Then there are the questions of the benefits. As I said to ebuddy, how one "does the math" is going to be based in one's opinions on military doctrine. From where I stand, having women effectively used in combat (for which I believe the coed situation would be required), will unquestionably make for a military that is better at killing things and blowing **** up than one who doesn't.

There are lots of reasons I can put forward for coming to this conclusion, but the two that spring immediately to mind are:

1) The success of combined arms: not just as a military philosophy, but in system design, and life in general. Attempting to keep women out of combat is a flaw in our system. We are at the same time not making full use of our resources, and leaving open a vulnerability which may be exploited. Leading us to...

2) As has been mentioned, the one enemy that handed our ass to us did not share our concerns about putting women in combat. I'd really rather we got over it before someone trying to crush us forces it to happen.



I'm obviously interested in reengaging here if you are. I don't like to shy away from legitimate questions. All I ask is that if you are going to make an accusation I have an agenda different than being "interested in doing what really works", provide evidence for this beyond your opinion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Well, I guess it's easier to limit your history to the last 2 hundred years (which only barely counts as "centuries"). As for "standing the test of time", your "modern methods" have barely stood the test of any time at all relative to the practices they replaced. In one breath, you're arguing that the current methods were a change for the better while also arguing against any further change.

I'm not arguing against "further change" for the sake of tradition. I'm arguing based on what has shown to work with our modern society and culture. That's why we don't look 2,000 years into the past. Culture and society has changed.

You can ask all you want, but you still won't listen to the answer.

Especially since when I ask, I get no answer. Thanks.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's no question it would. However, like with the issue of homosexuals, I still say this boils down to a math problem.

What are the costs (of which you named three)? What are the actions that can be taken to reduce that impact (and how much does that cost)?

I believe Ebuddy has already produced some of the math and it shows that we currently wouldn't make out in the positive in regards to homosexuals. Add removing privacy standard for male/female nudity and I'd suggest you're going to be going even deeper into the hole. I'd bet a majority of the women who sign up for military service would not enlist all things being equal, if they were forced to shower naked with men. I know plenty of women in service who just wouldn't go for that. It's just simply not acceptable on various grounds including, moral ones.

From where I stand, having women effectively used in combat (for which I believe the coed situation would be required), will unquestionably make for a military that is better at killing things and blowing **** up than one who doesn't.

If your goal is to have women fighting on the front lines en masse with the men, maybe so. Then, you'd get even fewer women volunteering for service. Your plan would likely drastically cut available forces. That's some bad math and likely not what's best for the military. If it ain't broke....

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd bet a majority of the women who sign up for military service would not enlist all things being equal

I pretty explicitly stated that this, and by implication the situation with homosexuals, could not be handled by merely changing policy and hoping for the best. I'm not sure what you thought I meant by "[w]hat are the actions that can be taken to reduce that impact (and how much does that cost)". "[T]hat impact" refers specifically to what you speak of, and "actions that can be taken to reduce" refers specifically to making the situation unequal to what it is now.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If your goal is to have women fighting on the front lines en masse with the men, maybe so.

I'm not sure what you mean by "en masse", and I'm not sure what you think I meant when I said "effectively". For what I'm imagining as "effectively", "en masse" would not not describe it.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's some bad math and likely not what's best for the military.

See both above. We're looking at different calculations.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Especially since when I ask, I get no answer. Thanks.

that question's been answered several times in here already. but, when it wasn't the answer desired, it was dismissed. why answer it again only to have you dismiss it again?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not arguing against "further change" for the sake of tradition. I'm arguing based on what has shown to work with our modern society and culture. That's why we don't look 2,000 years into the past. Culture and society has changed.

You reasons for not changing the ways things are done pretty much amount to "it works as is. why change it?". that's the definition of dong something for the sake of tradition.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's no question it would. However, like with the issue of homosexuals, I still say this boils down to a math problem.

Agreed.

What are the costs (of which you named three)? What are the actions that can be taken to reduce that impact (and how much does that cost)?

Such perhaps that they've not seriously embraced the ideas yet? Who could know?

Then there are the questions of the benefits. As I said to ebuddy, how one "does the math" is going to be based in one's opinions on military doctrine. From where I stand, having women effectively used in combat (for which I believe the coed situation would be required), will unquestionably make for a military that is better at killing things and blowing **** up than one who doesn't.

How do you know this? What if in fact we've found there are differences between men and women? Strengths and weaknesses that can be managed to for the most effective outcome? What if they've found that unit cohesion is most effective in building brotherhoods and sisterhoods as opposed to "siblinghoods"?

There are lots of reasons I can put forward for coming to this conclusion, but the two that spring immediately to mind are:

1) The success of combined arms: not just as a military philosophy, but in system design, and life in general. Attempting to keep women out of combat is a flaw in our system. We are at the same time not making full use of our resources, and leaving open a vulnerability which may be exploited. Leading us to...

I'd say the reality is there are strengths, weaknesses, and cultural differences that must be managed to. What if the military has determined that the benefits of their services in combat do not outweigh the complications this idea poses?
- Part of the problem is men. Men regard women differently than men. I'd go into perhaps some evolutionary aspects of it as the carriers of our species, but suffice it to say that men regard women differently than men. Would you regard them differently in battle, perhaps putting yourself and your unit at greater risk over a woman than a man?
- Women are simply not as physically capable as men. A unit is as strong as its weakest soldier. I know a great many will kneejerk on me for this, but it is so. This is why there are differing standards between men and women in basic training. They can't lift as much and they can't run as fast. There simply isn't enough time to regard the varying standards in the throws of combat. Why would you take a unit otherwise capable of moving faster and carrying more and create a unit that moves slower and carries less?
- Do we require the mandated signature for the selective service all, including the only ones who would propagate our species?
- Coed barracks and coed units in combat might have been found to be more a distraction and hinderance than complimentary.
- Genitalia and basic hygiene; are the health implications of not showering for several weeks the same between men and women?
- Are there chemical differences between men and women that might put undue stress on a unit periodically? Is this undue stress necessary, particularly in environments where your wits are not only necessary for your own well being, but perhaps the well being of your entire unit?

IMO and I'm guessing the opinion of the military not unlike all decisions they make where there are pros and cons... do the cons outweigh the pros. In this sense they've deemed they do and I support the decision.

2) As has been mentioned, the one enemy that handed our ass to us did not share our concerns about putting women in combat...

... or children, the elderly, and plain-clothed civilians. I don't think our success is contingent upon modeling countries that eventually relented to a form of governance more similar our own than before we invaded. I don't think women in combat made the difference between success or failure on the battle field. I'd be interested in seeing any information you have that might affirm your point.

I think failed policy was the difference between success or failure. I think it would be much easier to claim that our most important lesson from "getting our asses handed to us" was that you don't fight a war like a police action. Not; we should've let women serve in combat.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You reasons for not changing the ways things are done pretty much amount to "it works as is. why change it?". that's the definition of dong something for the sake of tradition.

Why is doing something for "the sake of tradition" less meritorious than for "the sake of change"?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

that question's been answered several times in here already. but, when it wasn't the answer desired, it was dismissed. why answer it again only to have you dismiss it again?

I've only seen one person answer the question, and we are now debating the answer. Please cite where someone else has. I can't find it.

Thanks.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You reasons for not changing the ways things are done pretty much amount to "it works as is. why change it?". that's the definition of dong something for the sake of tradition.

Actually, my reason is "it works, the alternatives work against the goal, so why change it?"

1. It works.
2. The alternatives do not help achieve the goal of having more focused killers, yet causes the removal of basic civil rights to privacy for a greater number of people then would be helped.
3. Therefore, there's really no need to change it.

It has nothing to do with "tradition".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure what you thought I meant by "[w]hat are the actions that can be taken to reduce that impact (and how much does that cost)". "[T]hat impact" refers specifically to what you speak of, and "actions that can be taken to reduce" refers specifically to making the situation unequal to what it is now.

My point is that taking resources you'd normally be using to create focused killers, to engage in social engineering to help a very small percentage of solders in ways that really isn't focused on the primary objective, isn't something that's a smart thing to do. It takes enough effort and training to get soldiers to where they need to be in order to follow orders and work as a cohesive unit. Throwing additional obstacles in their way when it's not necessary and further violates their rights doesn't sound like a good plan unless you're more worried about advancing a social agenda then you are about making the military be the best at what they do.

See both above. We're looking at different calculations.

I'm calculating what would be best to defend the country. You're calculating how much damage that effort can possibly take and still advance a social agenda that violates rights. I know....

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've only seen one person answer the question, and we are now debating the answer. Please cite where someone else has. I can't find it.

Thanks.

We *all* need to answer your question? Start a poll, then.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, my reason is "it works, the alternatives work against the goal, so why change it?"

I'd buy that, except you have no evidence that the alternatives work against the goal. You only have speculation.

[OldManMac]

All this verbiage over a basically non-existent "problem."

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm calculating what would be best to defend the country. You're calculating how much damage that effort can possibly take and still advance a social agenda that violates rights. I know....

Feel free to hook me up with some people who are trying to "advance a social agenda" of putting women into combat.

NOW stopped taking my calls. I think it was at the part where I told them they should get behind legalizing prostitution so the military could just buy hookers for the troops.


Dramatic reenactment:

So. What'ya say? All kinds of hookers. Even broads need to hop on the pole every now and again.

Hello? Hello?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How do you know this? What if in fact we've found there are differences between men and women? Strengths and weaknesses that can be managed to for the most effective outcome? What if they've found that unit cohesion is most effective in building brotherhoods and sisterhoods as opposed to "siblinghoods"?

My conclusion is based on two main assumptions.

The first is that while I give enormous credit to our military's ability to look critically at itself (the famed NBA, or "No Bullshit Assessment"), that's very different from thinking outside the box, which for various good reasons is something the military is designed to discourage.

My second assumption (which I believe is also evidence for my first) is that the military generally doesn't undergo sweeping changes based on its own conclusions. It gets dragged, kicking and screaming, by a civilian. The most recent example of this, and the one I'm most familiar with, is Rumsfeld. He entirely transformed our military, and had to tell most of our generals to "suck it" in order to achieve that transformation. As I said before, and it bears repeating, I think the man is a genius. I don't have any technical issues with his doctrine, I just don't agree with the kind of foreign policy that doctrine is best suited for. If I did, I'd have no issues with it whatsoever, and could say the only mistake he made was to misjudge the importance of palling-up with Congress. He's not exactly the same caliber of genius when it comes to interpersonal communication.

So, the conclusion I reach from this is that I'd be kinda shocked if the military has genuinely tried to assess putting women on combat duty. They're not inclined to do so on their own, and no one has forced them to. As a corollary to this, unlike the situation with homosexuals, I think the kind of experimentation required to truly assess putting women on combat duty would be groundbreaking, and we would have heard about it long before the experiments got to the point where women were actually on combat duty.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Part of the problem is men. Men regard women differently than men... Would you regard them differently in battle, perhaps putting yourself and your unit at greater risk over a woman than a man?

This is the primary issue above all. I'd say this is a vastly more widespread and coherent social construction than the attitude towards homosexuality.

I say this is another math problem. Some might see this as a shot at the military, but to call a spade a spade here, one of the things the military does to people is brainwash them. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist, and they're quite good at it. The question is, can you blow out this social conditioning with brainwashing? Some may find the ethics dubious, but I personally find them no more dubious than what the military does to get people in the mindset where they can cope with horror and be expected to continue functioning. This is a place where at higher levels it is your duty to your country to calmly and objectively inflict horror (including their own death) upon fellow countrymen to whom you've looked straight in the eye.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Women are simply not as physically capable as men. A unit is as strong as its weakest soldier. I know a great many will kneejerk on me for this, but it is so. This is why there are differing standards between men and women in basic training. They can't lift as much and they can't run as fast.

This is primary issue number two, and you'll get no knee-jerk from me. Anyone who knee-jerks needs to google some world records and note the discrepancies between women and men.

Again though, I'd say this is more math. What's the minimum requirement for a particular job for a male? What performance do you get at the maximum end for a female? What's the overlap? If you separate out other factors (which I'm only doing for the sake of this specific point) any overlap is a bad use of resources. By not using a stronger and faster woman to replace a weaker and slower man, you are dragging the unit down. Again, the fact I am making a narrow point here is not to imply any of your other points are being dismissed.

Also (this starts to get into minutiae that is beyond my ken, so I look extra favorably upon corrections), being a fighter pilot, a tank commander, or an infantryman are all combat duties. I'll fully admit that with infantry, the suitable women we are talking about are the outliers, but I'm not anywhere near as sure with the other two.

The dynamic is certainly different as well. The questions posed by the "primary issue over all" I think change when you aren't seeing the other person in combat, or if your specialty isn't being part of a coordinated group but being a "group acting as one". These pilot/commander examples also strike me as less dependent on strength and speed on foot. I think it's at least plausible that women are biologically better equipped for some of these duties (accent on the plausible... as always, the research is king), but it would seem to me you can't even claim to know until you've tried something really close, and I'm not yet convinced our military has done so.

In any case, I think the overlap in the pilot/commander examples is much larger than with infantry. Plausibly large enough where it's a detriment. I was going to throw in artillery as another example where you would have "group as one" rather than "coordinated group", but I think strength starts to enter back into the equation. On the other hand, I would say that there are some "front line" combat duties where there's more overlap than one might imagine. Sniping and forward observation/reconnaissance are what come to mind.

However, I fully admit the sniper rifles our military are fond of at the moment would split many a young lass in two.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are there chemical differences between men and women that might put undue stress on a unit periodically?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about except it's going to involve more of this bloody math.



What? You think I wouldn't say it after that last one?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it would be much easier to claim that our most important lesson...

This wasn't the point I was trying to make, but I really think it would be better for all involved if I just withdrew the statement.


There are many good points you made here that I didn't address, and again, I don't want you to interpret that as a dismissal of them. I think I hit the main ones and more want to stop chewing your ear off.

[subego]

Tl;dr.

1) Evidence the military hasn't properly assessed the utility of women in combat.
a) Thinking outside the box is discouraged in the military.
b) Thinking outside the box is usually forced upon them by civilians. Example: Rumsfeld.
c) Conclusion: they won't do it themselves, and no one has forced them to.

2) Issues of how men and women view each other differently.
a) Agreed these are very big issues.
b) How much of this can be counteracted by (for lack of a better term) brainwashing?

3) Issues of how men and women are physically different.
a) Agreed these are big issues.
b) Proposed the overlap between the lowest performing males and highest performing females would be useful to analysis.
c) Illustrated physical and mental differences in being a fighter pilot and an infantryman (among others), but both are combat duties, thus barring women.

4) Bad jokes.

5) Ignore the Vietnam thing. Pretend I never said it.

6) Anything not covered here or in the two tons of **** version, is not meant to be interpreted as a dismissal of your other (valid) points, just me trying to zip it already.


That's still kind of long.