Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Is political correctness going too far?

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
I believe that there hasn't been a big take up for combat jobs by women though.
Click to expand...

What I meant earlier when I said the "Combat roles" were specific, and non combat roles often are involved in combat was this.

Artillery for example is a "Combat role", because their main job is to attack the enemy, even though they are a long way from the actual fighting, often sitting inside bases.

these guys are "combat troops"



However a transport corp soldier is not considered to be in a combat role, because their job is transport, even though they often might find themselves in ambushes such as this, where they have to return fire and fight the enemy, they are not "combat troops"

So to say a woman can drive a truck in a combat zone, but couldn't work on an artillery battery because its a "combat role" seems silly.

 
Value Collector said:
So to say a woman can drive a truck in a combat zone, but couldn't work on an artillery battery because its a "combat role" seems silly.
Click to expand...

It depends on the definition of "combat" doesn't it ?

In areas where physical strength is important (if it still is considering the technology around now) then a strong man is always going to beat a strong woman, but I doubt if there is much opportunity for hand to hand fighting these days.
 
SirRumpole said:
It depends on the definition of "combat" doesn't it ?
Click to expand...

In the past the Army has excluded women from "Combat corps", there are 4 combat corps.

Infantry
Armour
Engineers
Artillery

So there are 19 other corps they could serve in which weren't "combat corps", however this doesn't mean they will not be involved in fighting, just that they won't be tasked with directly seeking out and closing with the enemy, to kill or capture him, or to seize ground.

Moving from a role of driving a truck in a convoy, to driving a fighting vehicle that escorts it is not a big step in my opinion.

In areas where physical strength is important (if it still is considering the technology around now) then a strong man is always going to beat a strong woman, but I doubt if there is much opportunity for hand to hand fighting these days.
Click to expand...

That goes back to what I was saying before, I would swap an D grade man for an A grade women any day.

Saying you will exclude 100% of the women seems crazy, when other armies around the world are using women very effectively.
 
SirRumpole said:
I don't think anyone ever said we should be excluding 100% of women, just that they should be fit for the role and not have the standards inappropriately lowered to suit the "equality" megaphone crusaders.
Click to expand...

Obviously the rules of war need to be changed, so that women can have equity and opportunity to kill the same number of people as a male counterpart. I just makes sense that killing shouldn't be just a man sport.
 
Tisme said:
Obviously the rules of war need to be changed, so that women can have equity and opportunity to kill the same number of people as a male counterpart. I just makes sense that killing shouldn't be just a man sport.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. There is a psychological side to killing as well. I wonder if there have been many studies into whether its harder mentally for a woman to kill someone than a man. Given that soldiers hardly ever see the people they are killing these days, I wonder if any psychological difference matters anyway.
 
SirRumpole said:
Interesting point. There is a psychological side to killing as well. I wonder if there have been many studies into whether its harder mentally for a woman to kill someone than a man. Given that soldiers hardly ever see the people they are killing these days, I wonder if any psychological difference matters anyway.
Click to expand...

Syria is employing females as snipers



Russians employed female snipers with great affect in WW2.

 
SirRumpole said:
More silly snowfakes (typo intended) dictating to our children.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-03/should-golliwog-dolls-exist-in-australia-in-2018/9391188
Click to expand...

Was a time the only person in Australia that might offend was Marcia Hines.;)

they also take the p155 out of whitey:



barbie.jpg
 
In 2013, the US military lifted its ban on women serving in combat. Shortly after, the Marine Corps began what it calls an “unprecedented research effort” to understand the impact of gender integration on its combat forces. That took the form of a year-long experiment called the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, in which 400 Marines—100 of them female—trained for combat together and then undertook a simulated deployment, with every facet of their experience measured and scrutinized.

All branches of the military are facing a January 1, 2016, deadline to open all combat roles to women. The Marine Corps is using this experiment to decide whether to request exceptions to that mandate. The Corps’ summary of the experiment, posted online today by NPR, concludes that combat teams were less effective when they included women.

Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” On “lethality,” the report says:

All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

And:

All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

And:

All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)

The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

Such conclusions may be disheartening to proponents of gender integration in combat, and certainly put a damper on the news that the Army’s ranger school recently graduated its first female soldiers. The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.

The Marine Corps summary report does not indicate or suggest that the Marines will be asking for an exception to the military’s integration mandate. However, it does quote this somber section of a 1992 government study on gender integration in the armed forces:

A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.
Click to expand...

Been tested already apparently.
 
The "unprecedented research effort" comes down to something like this:

If your enemy does it - you do it better. Women in combat won't be decided by the PC warriors. It'll be decided by who has man-flu and who hasn't :D
 
PZ99 said:
The "unprecedented research effort" comes down to something like this:

If your enemy does it - you do it better. Women in combat won't be decided by the PC warriors. It'll be decided by who has man-flu and who hasn't :D
Click to expand...


US defense forces ...what happened in the end with gay soldiers. (boom boom)
 
moXJO said:
Been tested already apparently.
Click to expand...


Interesting report. Did anyone else notice the caveat that was highlighted?

Such conclusions may be disheartening to proponents of gender integration in combat, and certainly put a damper on the news that the Army’s ranger school recently graduated its first female soldiers. The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.

I would have thought that trying to compare the combat effectiveness of men vs women would be more useful if both groups had roughly identical training. How reasonable was it to expect women from non combat jobs or infantry school to have the same level of skills as men who had served in combat ?
 
basilio said:
would have thought that trying to compare the combat effectiveness of men vs women would be more useful if both groups had roughly identical training. How reasonable was it to expect women from non combat jobs or infantry school to have the same level of skills as men who had served in combat ?
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to accepting the fact that the military is not like other organisations, it's probably got the toughest (physically and mentally) job in the world. The idea of seat polishers in Canberra deciding that it should have women quotas or whatever is ridiculous as they couldn't know what it's really like on a battlefield. It should be a decision left to operational commanders and not imposed by politicians.
 
basilio said:
Interesting report. Did anyone else notice the caveat that was highlighted?

Such conclusions may be disheartening to proponents of gender integration in combat, and certainly put a damper on the news that the Army’s ranger school recently graduated its first female soldiers. The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.

I would have thought that trying to compare the combat effectiveness of men vs women would be more useful if both groups had roughly identical training. How reasonable was it to expect women from non combat jobs or infantry school to have the same level of skills as men who had served in combat ?
Click to expand...
They applied the same as other male applicants there was a mix of levels throughout. The women were the best on offer and were already physically fit. Mixed groups were proven to be less effective, end of story. A lot of men were also canned. And after that the bet is a lot of the women and men will drop from injury.

Women's hips were always the problem when carrying loads. Having women on the team means other troops then have to do/carry more.

Just doing it because #WomenPower, is stupid. Putting grunts lives at risk for equality...... Dumb.
 
moXJO said:
They applied the same as other male applicants there was a mix of levels throughout. The women were the best on offer and were already physically fit. Mixed groups were proven to be less effective, end of story. A lot of men were also canned. And after that the bet is a lot of the women and men will drop from injury.

Women's hips were always the problem when carrying loads. Having women on the team means other troops then have to do/carry more.

Just doing it because #WomenPower, is stupid. Putting grunts lives at risk for equality...... Dumb.
Click to expand...

If you watch that TV show American/Australian Ninja women have a real problem racing up the inclined curve....apparently it's a centre of gravity thing.... should they change the geometry to accommodate this?
 
Overall I don't give a rats whether women are allowed/encouraged/required to be front line combat soldiers. Having said that for the sake for making rational decisions I would offer the following points.

1) What are the total skills and capacities wanted for a soldier? Certainly fitness and strength but how about intelligence, adapatability, capacity to support other members of the group, technical skills with weapons, endurance (which is more than just brute strength) cunning.

2) Does everyone in a platoon have to be excellent at every skill ? Common sense would say that was unrealistic. Some things probably can't be taught or developed in particular quickwittedness, social skills and perhaps very high level technical skills.

3) Is every combat unit like the Marines? Obviously not. The US Marines pride themselves on being the toughest, hardest SOB's in town. They see themselves (and I assume are trained) as an elite fighting force. Perhaps this is not the place to look for realistic comparisions with women. Clearly 95% of men would never, ever make the Marines. The chance of women achieving the physical demands would be far smaller.

I think a fighting force should be an effective and cohesive unit. The individual capacities are always required but in the end combat is a team effort. Ruling out all women as potential soldiers on princple seems silly if it means one can't put the most effective unit on the field. Give em a go.
 
Top