Progressive Ideals are all F for Fake - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14823121
Rojava has a women army and they seem to be doing fine against ISIS.


They don't do fine at all, they're rear echelon support troops used for guard duties and where they see frontline combat it is alongside a majority male force.

Women are notoriously bad soldiers, and they make mixed units worse too. It has been proven time and again. They are just a small step above child soldiers when it comes to front line combat.
#14823161
Igor Antunov wrote:They don't do fine at all, they're rear echelon support troops used for guard duties and where they see frontline combat it is alongside a majority male force.

Women are notoriously bad soldiers, and they make mixed units worse too. It has been proven time and again. They are just a small step above child soldiers when it comes to front line combat.


How and when has it been proven?
#14823319
Igor Antunov wrote:Women are notoriously bad soldiers, and they make mixed units worse too. It has been proven time and again. They are just a small step above child soldiers when it comes to front line combat.

Proven time and again. Should be easy peasy to prove universally. Otherwise, we'd say it's your country's failure.
#14823326
Igor Antunov wrote:Women are notoriously bad soldiers, and they make mixed units worse too.
  1. maybe give women their own units then and see how they do?
  2. did you know one of the best snipers in history was a woman?
#14823329
It's an acknowledged FACT that women do make good as service personnel.

During WW2 they gave sterling service no matter what country they fought for.

I guess that the misogynist amongst us are like EU 'remoaners' , plain old 'Luddites'.

Whether for the U.K, France, Russia, Israel or many other countries, women have NOTHING to prove, they have been there & done it.

NOT only that, they are the equal, if not better than many male contemporary's in the field of work & play.
#14823355
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Women can do many things that man can do but not exactly everything
but women cant be in the military as fighters for obvious reasons and they cant really work in jobs that require physical strength
no problem with anything else


Ummm yeah, you have not seen the really muscley women around, have you? They can lift as much as any man. Their arms are all muscley and they have washboard abs. I have a co-worker who has run in 5 marathons so far and she works out at the gym for 4 hours and teaches a fitness class every week. She can lift barbells fine.
#14823364
I refer to frontline combat roles pertaining to the infantry/ground forces, ie the most common role in the armed forces, ground combat troops. Support Specialists (eg snipers), pilots, artillery crews, machinery operators, drivers, armored vehicle gunners etc are all examples where women can do fine. Some of them are frontline roles but most fall under stand-off support categories.

See the latest US marine study on the matter, they tried mixed units, single composition units (all female squads) and in both instances the results were mediocre. The mixed composition made the entire team performs worse relative to all-male teams in a variety of categories. During one of the all-female unit marches almost all the troops got yeast infections and couldn't go further. On top of that they couldn't carry as much. This was not an isolated case.

When introducing new personnel you do not want to see your standards drop, and in the area of combat infantry, they unequivocally always do when you put women in infantry squad frontline roles. The Kurds for example in Syria are using Militias, including men trained with basic infantry training in under 6 weeks. These are crappy conscripts across the board, standards don't cut it for either male or female units. The compositions in these conflicts are not an example for advanced militaries to follow-unless they want to reduce their combat effectiveness and increase their casualty rates.
#14823393
@Igor Antunov

First it talked about the performance of the squad as a whole, not of the performance of individual soldiers. All this shows is that when mixed together, male and female soldiers don't get along. This could also be for a variety of reasons.

If you want to prove that women are bad at being soldiers, you should give me information on the performance of all female squads or individual female squad members.
#14823395
No it proves that most women recruits can't keep up with men in such roles and tend to fall in the lower 50 percentile in up to 70% of tasks. It wasn't the men under-performing in these mixed units.

Ultimately, find the full US marine study, it talks about all female unit performance.

I can't redo this discussion every year.
#14823398
@Igor Antunov

No, it really doesn't. There are other factors that could have resulted in this. For example, the battalion only have 100 female soldiers in contrast with 300 male soldiers. The overwhelming majority of males could've effected female performance. Furthermore mixed battalions aren't a good way to test the effectiveness of women in military. This study simply says that mixed battalions don't work, it does not say that women are bad at being soldiers at all.

Please show me the sources for your claim that they fell in the lower 50 percentile in up to 70% of tasks? That statement doesn't even make sense. Have you even considered the possibility that women being a minority in the battalions effected them? These women were probably distributed among majority male squads and therefore could've felt alienated. If I was a lone male soldier in a battalion full of women I would feel relatively lonely.
#14823399
Is there like a venting section on this site, it's hard to engage with that which is merely statements and not really arguments for why the statements should be accepted.

Anyway, here's some material to toy with in arguing the extent to which women are or aren't excluded from the military for social or practical reasons.
Physical-Strength Rationales for De Jure Exclusion of Women from Military Combat Positions
#14823401
Right lawyers aren't relevant here Wellsey. We have a series of highly physical tasks, the detailed physiology of each gender, a context under which those tasks are performed and minimum relative and absolute standards that must be maintained under that context, drawn from both iterative training regimes and battlefield experiences over the decades.

It's science. It's mean, it's lean, it's nasty un-pc deductive reasoning built on a foundation of cold, hard units of measurement. You can't dispute the results, you can only work around them. And that's disingenuous, misleading and generally lame.
#14823410
Igor Antunov wrote:Right lawyers aren't relevant here Wellsey. We have a series of highly physical tasks, the detailed physiology of each gender, a context under which those tasks are performed and minimum relative and absolute standards that must be maintained under that context, drawn from both iterative training regimes and battlefield experiences over the decades.

It's science. It's mean, it's lean, it's nasty un-pc deductive reasoning built on a foundation of cold, hard units of measurement. You can't dispute the results, you can only work around them. And that's disingenuous, misleading and generally lame.

Maia Goodell being a lawyer doesn't make a case against any of her points, I couldn't care what her profession is and so I don't know why you should either.
I shared her work as I think she makes some interesting points that contend with the broad dismissal of women's inclusion in the military, it doesn't go so far as to put women on par with men in all regards and assume that the highest performing women reach the peak results of many men. But it's also not as uncritically accepting of the notion of some exclusive divergence on the basis of one's sex and I think such a position draws attention to having some nuance and seeking clarity rather than a lack of thought.
III. FOUR PROBLEMS WITH PHYSICAL-STRENGTH RATIONALES
This Part discusses four problems with physical-strength rationales: stereotyping, differential training, trait selection, and task definition. Analysis of each of these rationales reveals a different argument against allowing perceived differences in physical strength to justify de jure exclusion of women from the military. Furthermore, each rationale exposes a deeper level of discrimination that is built into the strength argument.

In it's focus on strength it doesn't even necessarily make points that run counter to the Marine study conducted. So for example, the matter of women being more prone to injury would be left untouched by such points.
https://www.scribd.com/document/285174854/Marine-Corps-analysis-of-female-integration
In addition to performance, we see significant evidence of higher injury rates for females when compared to males. The aforementioned upper- and lower-body strength and higher fatigue levels lead to greater incidents of overuse injuries, such as stress fractures. This leads to significantly higher levels of non-deployable status for females, of which, medical non-deployability comprises the largest fraction. We have seen this not only for GCE-ITF and ITB females, but also for female Marines in general, and for females throughout foreign militaries that were studied. Further, for all GCE-ITF volunteers, we saw higher levels of injuries within the ‘hiking’ MOSs (03xx [less 0313] and 1371) compared to the ‘riding’ ones (08xx, 18xx, and 0313).

But then one could move into a more specific discussion as to why this might be, is it simply because women are innately vulnerable or something else, to which even if it's a more temporal rather than assumed innateness, it would still be a problem.
But if arguably temporal and born out of other conidtions rather than an enduring biology, it's something that could change with intervention.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/marine-corps-study-casts-doubt-success-gender-integrated/story?id=34524486
"...female volunteers in the study had no operating force experience in ground combat units, and that better physical screening would have all but eliminated the rates of injury for womenn"

https://meganhmackenzie.com/2015/10/14/exclusive-access-to-marine-corps-study-shows-it-misses-the-mark/?preview_id=456
Another issue associated with the volunteer population and representativeness relates to selection and physical requirements. There has been significant attention given to the relatively high rates of injury for women in the Marine study. However, the longer reports show that “when fitness is considered, female injury rates are similar/the same as male injury rates” and that “a stricter physical screening tool would have eliminated all the female Marines who sustained injury and were dropped during ITB” (infantry initial entry training). They also conclude that “it is unknown how much a stricter (higher) physical screen would have improved the physical performance of female volunteers” during the integrated task force testing.

High Injury Rates Among Female Army Trainees A Function of Gender?
Conclusions: The key risk factor for training injuries appears to be physical fitness, particularly cardiovascular fitness. The significant improvement in endurance attained by women suggests that women enter training less physically fit relative to their own fitness potential, as well as to men. Remedial training for less fit soldiers is likely to reduce injuries and decrease the gender differential in risk of injuries.



Yeah and in science one can critically appraise things and not accept them at face value.
You yourself have interpreted the data to mean that "that most women recruits can't keep up with men in such roles and tend to fall in the lower 50 percentile in up to 70% of tasks.".
I could accept such a conclusion but I also hold some skepticism to the strength of it on the basis that people are very quick to leap to such a conclusion and I'd give such things a little bit more slack than that before I go making general statements that don't get into detail as to why women were subpar in their performance.
Questions like how were tasks defined, like to what end, was it just a competition between the groups or was it to meet a cutoff standard applicable to their job requirements for example.
https://meganhmackenzie.com/2015/10/14/exclusive-access-to-marine-corps-study-shows-it-misses-the-mark/?preview_id=456
Although the Marines had clear directives from DOD and acknowledged the limitations of their current standards for infantry, their studies did not focus on establishing quantifiable job-specific performance standards. Instead, their main research effort, the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force (GCEITF) had as its objective “to evaluate the physical performance of individual Marine volunteers in the execution of individual and collective tasks in an operational environment” and to “estimate the effect of gender integration.”

The problem with this objective was that the Marines were seeking to evaluate the physical performance of Marines in the absence of quantifiable job-specific standards. Not only did they lack clear standards at the start of the research program, but they failed to define or outline criteria for evaluating success or “combat effectiveness” at any point whatsoever in their research. Throughout the analyses, the only criteria used to measure achievement or combat effectiveness appears to be absolute speed and accuracy when completing a select number of physically demanding tasks: in other words, no standard was established to be met, and each task was turned into an absolute competition.

Since the study does not establish minimum operational standards associated with combat tasks and duties, and it fails to measure study participants against job-specific standards, this research does little to further the discussion on gender integration. The conclusion that all-male groups, on average, performed faster than integrated groups has been taken as proof that there are risks to gender integration and that the inclusion of female Marines would therefore render the Marines less combat effective, regardless of any individual Marines’ qualifications, male or female. Despite the importance placed on speed, the study does not define how fast a task needs to be accomplished or under what conditions to meet combat effective screening criteria. They just say that men are faster, therefore better. Although it is interesting that all-male teams – on average- performed better than integrated ones, the results do not tell us whether the integrated teams performed adequately. Moreover, an unexpected and unreported finding was that males with no infantry training consistently outshot their infantry trained counterparts on three of the four weapons tested and tied them on the fourth.


Such criticisms don't necessarily bury the study but the study within itself isn't the be all end all on the subject and bringing up perceivable limitations is vital to assessing the generalizability of such a study.
#14823546
There are many resources and articles out there on this subject. The military knows women cant perform as good as men, but they cant do anything because the government is run by whole bunch of lunatics, that push their insane ideological agenda on the military.
#14823782
Albert wrote:There are many resources and articles out there on this subject. The military knows women cant perform as good as men, but they cant do anything because the government is run by whole bunch of lunatics, that push their insane ideological agenda on the military.


So you are saying that military people are such wimps that effeminate men and women can easily push them around? :|
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]