Kill the women first.

[Xsyne]

If it of any consideration I can personally attest to the idea that you need a penis to be a combat soldier, at least reguarding to tanks.

See, its hot inside of a tank, like 140+ degrees inside because it is a metal box sitting the the sun with hot hydralics and machines running inside. So you drink water so you don't die. Bottles and bottles of water, a 3 quarts an hour. Well, that water has to go somewhere and its ultimately back into one the bottles you drank from.

Laying reclined or sitting down inside of a tank, I imagine it would be impossible to piss into an empty waterbottle without the dynamic, point-anywhere utility of a penis. Zip down the fly, point and shoot, all the while looking through the optics.

Like to see a woman do that. They'd have to stand up, almost completely undo their nomex uniform and piss in front of two other dudes inside the tank's crew compartment. Or they could, you know, squat outside of the tank and get shot, or die of dehydration.

There you go. You need a penis to operate a tank. Any other former 19Ks have an alternative hypothesis?

If you think you need a dick to piss in a bottle you aren't very good at arranging objects with your mind. And I'm pretty sure arranging objects with your mind is a skill you need in order to operate a tank. In fact, I'm pretty sure arranging objects with your mind is a skill you need to do anything but walking.

[Virtud Tierra]

Maybe in the upper body. Their lower body strength is just fine for their size though. Plus, greater durability (stamina, pain tolerance, tolerance of extreme temperatures, etc.). It seems a good enough trade-off.

They still can't even run as well as male soldiers, so lower body strength is somewhat irrelevant since most of the physical conditioning needed for soldiering anyways.

Besides, the physical conditioning thing is a weak point, since it would be implied that females that could pass the men's standards could be accepted into combat arms. There are certainly a few women that can do that easily. The average female in the military, could not.

So even if we let these exceptional females as combat soldiers, I say there are still more problems with this idea then just physical strength and endurance.

[Callisdrun]

If it of any consideration I can personally attest to the idea that you need a penis to be a combat soldier, at least reguarding to tanks.

See, its hot inside of a tank, like 140+ degrees inside because it is a metal box sitting the the sun with hot hydralics and machines running inside. So you drink water so you don't die. Bottles and bottles of water, a 3 quarts an hour. Well, that water has to go somewhere and its ultimately back into one the bottles you drank from.

Laying reclined or sitting down inside of a tank, I imagine it would be impossible to piss into an empty waterbottle without the dynamic, point-anywhere utility of a penis. Zip down the fly, point and shoot, all the while looking through the optics.

Like to see a woman do that. They'd have to stand up, almost completely undo their nomex uniform and piss in front of two other dudes inside the tank's crew compartment. Or they could, you know, squat outside of the tank and get shot, or die of dehydration.

There you go. You need a penis to operate a tank. Any other former 19Ks have an alternative hypothesis?

After reading this, I don't just disbelieve you've been a soldier---I disbelieve you've ever actually met a woman.

It's like reading one of those medieval bestiaries. They'd heard stories about lions and giraffes, but the stories were all from drunks who couldn't speak their language, and they really could not even begin to visualize what they were babbling about, so we ended up with books full of dragons and giant snakes with legs and heads in their bellies.

That's pretty much what I think of when I read VT's descriptions of how women and the military work.

It's also amazing how stupid he thinks our military must be.

At the Minnesota State Fair this year, there were some women selling this handy little plastic thing that women can carry with them and use to pee standing up. It's this bendy plastic funnel sort of thing, can be easily washed, and folds up small enough to fit in a coin purse when you're not using it. I bought one for those times I'm at a bar that has a bathroom too unspeakable to sit in.

This gizmo was invented by two housewives. They had no engineering training, no background in modeling or design, they just saw an issue and said, "Hey, I'll bet we can do something about that." Turns out they're like the tenth people to come up with an idea along these lines, and there's already several alternative versions of their product with slightly different designs.

Yet VT seems to believe that the military would not be capable of figuring out a way to allow female soldiers to pee in a tank. Seriously? The military can target missiles to the enemy's nose hairs, but can't figure out what a pair of suburban housewives can figure out?

If true, that sounds like a very strong argument for replacing all military command with housewives.

Yes. I have posted links to these devices twice already in response to his ridiculous "wimminz can't be in the military cuz dey can't aim their piss" argument. They can be purchased for about $10.

The whole argument is one of the most asinine I've ever seen. Apparently women can't serve on the front lines because the military is too damn stupid to order what amounts to little more than a plastic funnel online or go to fucking REI.

[Gimmadonis]

Maybe in the upper body. Their lower body strength is just fine for their size though. Plus, greater durability (stamina, pain tolerance, tolerance of extreme temperatures, etc.). It seems a good enough trade-off.

They still can't even run as well as male soldiers, so lower body strength is somewhat irrelevant since most of the physical conditioning needed for soldiering anyways.

Besides, the physical conditioning thing is a weak point, since it would be implied that females that could pass the men's standards could be accepted into combat arms. There are certainly a few women that can do that easily. The average female in the military, could not.

So even if we let these exceptional females as combat soldiers, I say there are still more problems with this idea then just physical strength and endurance.

1. Powered, Exooooooooooooo, SKEL-E-TAWNZ.

2. Moar training. It's the military, not cub scouts.

[Callisdrun]

Maybe in the upper body. Their lower body strength is just fine for their size though. Plus, greater durability (stamina, pain tolerance, tolerance of extreme temperatures, etc.). It seems a good enough trade-off.

They still can't even run as well as male soldiers, so lower body strength is somewhat irrelevant since most of the physical conditioning needed for soldiering anyways.

Besides, the physical conditioning thing is a weak point, since it would be implied that females that could pass the men's standards could be accepted into combat arms. There are certainly a few women that can do that easily. The average female in the military, could not.

So even if we let these exceptional females as combat soldiers, I say there are still more problems with this idea then just physical strength and endurance.

Women will soon pass men in marathon speeds. So, your argument is bullshit.

Women's endurance is also somewhat better than men's. Also, carrying a pack is actually mostly lower body strength once the pack is on your back. On average. I'd post tons of stuff supporting this, but I've got to go to class. I'm sure one of the many posters on here who is in touch with reality will do so anyway.

[Virtud Tierra]

Right, the tank-cannot-function-without-a-penis argument.

Thats already been illustrated that it can reasonably be worked around like several pages ago, with the glaring exception of the adult diaper "solution".

I said it mostly as a joke to show something I've noticed in my own experiences and to demostrate the minute issues surrounding the difficulties of female soldiers dealing with the realities that that combat arms soldiers go through. Its intended to show that the issue is more complex and even little things can snag and add up.

Its not to say a woman can't figure out how to piss in a bottle.

[Bottle]

Maybe in the upper body. Their lower body strength is just fine for their size though. Plus, greater durability (stamina, pain tolerance, tolerance of extreme temperatures, etc.). It seems a good enough trade-off.

They still can't even run as well as male soldiers, so lower body strength is somewhat irrelevant since most of the physical conditioning needed for soldiering anyways.

Besides, the physical conditioning thing is a weak point, since it would be implied that females that could pass the men's standards could be accepted into combat arms. There are certainly a few women that can do that easily. The average female in the military, could not.

So even if we let these exceptional females as combat soldiers, I say there are still more problems with this idea then just physical strength and endurance.

And men, on average, can't show the kind of pain threshold that an average woman has. Nor can men show the adaptability to different temperatures that an average woman can. Nor can men demonstrate the level of olfactory sensitivity that women can. Nor do men show the sort of joint flexibility that the average woman can. Nor do men have the stronger immune systems that women have.

Seriously, for everything you can list that is physically "better" about men on average, we could list something that's physically "better" about women on average. Yes, if you decide that the only criteria that will matter just HAPPEN to be the things men are better at, then it's going to look like women are less fit to serve...but I'm not seeing any kind of justification for those standards so far.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Its not to say a woman can't figure out how to piss in a bottle.

But that's what you said...

[Gimmadonis]

I don't see why we don't just use pack mules like we did back in the good ol' days. Sure they spit, but you didn't have to carry all that damn gear.

[Unchecked Expansion]

I don't see why we don't just use pack mules like we did back in the good ol' days. Sure they spit, but you didn't have to carry all that damn gear.

Seen BigDog? A pack mule that won't spit

[Xsyne]

I don't see why we don't just use pack mules like we did back in the good ol' days. Sure they spit, but you didn't have to carry all that damn gear.

Mules have a nasty habit of inheriting the intelligence of the donkey parent, and thus their aversion to warzones.

[Allanea]

I don't see why we don't just use pack mules like we did back in the good ol' days. Sure they spit, but you didn't have to carry all that damn gear.

Seen BigDog? A pack mule that won't spit

[Gimmadonis]

I don't see why we don't just use pack mules like we did back in the good ol' days. Sure they spit, but you didn't have to carry all that damn gear.

Mules have a nasty habit of inheriting the intelligence of the donkey parent, and thus their aversion to warzones.

Really? Damn, there goes my plan to put light-machine guns on them, and create the "Assault Ass".

[Virtud Tierra]

And men, on average, can't show the kind of pain threshold that an average woman has. Nor can men show the adaptability to different temperatures that an average woman can. Nor can men demonstrate the level of olfactory sensitivity that women can. Nor do men show the sort of joint flexibility that the average woman can. Nor do men have the stronger immune systems that women have.

Seriously, for everything you can list that is physically "better" about men on average, we could list something that's physically "better" about women on average. Yes, if you decide that the only criteria that will matter just HAPPEN to be the things men are better at, then it's going to look like women are less fit to serve...but I'm not seeing any kind of justification for those standards so far.

Please explain to me how a study involving ice water and a person that is great at that somehow translates into superior soldier? This isn't a video game, pain tolerance is rather ilrelevant outside of the context of physical exercise.

Stronger immune systems, yet more prone to disease and infection? How does that work?

Olfactories, yes very important when the only thing you can smell is burnt cordite and hydralic fluid. This isn't a wine-tasting, its combat.

Flexible joints? You know the problem with women's hips, the angle their femur goes down from their pelvic girdle is one of the major reasons why they cannot run well, right? its an unideal placement of their skeletal structure that is there as a comprise so they can give birth. I have really flexible joints too, that hasn't given me any advantage besides permenant damage to my knees from hopping off vehicles.

The criteria you've outlined is useless in the context of the line of work we are talking about. "better" or "worst" is subjective, and in this subjective case, women are less adapted to the conditions then men.

[Gimmadonis]

And men, on average, can't show the kind of pain threshold that an average woman has. Nor can men show the adaptability to different temperatures that an average woman can. Nor can men demonstrate the level of olfactory sensitivity that women can. Nor do men show the sort of joint flexibility that the average woman can. Nor do men have the stronger immune systems that women have.

Seriously, for everything you can list that is physically "better" about men on average, we could list something that's physically "better" about women on average. Yes, if you decide that the only criteria that will matter just HAPPEN to be the things men are better at, then it's going to look like women are less fit to serve...but I'm not seeing any kind of justification for those standards so far.

Please explain to me how a study involving ice water and a person that is great at that somehow translates into superior soldier? This isn't a video game, pain tolerance is rather ilrelevant outside of the context of physical exercise.

Stronger immune systems, yet more prone to disease and infection? How does that work?

Olfactories, yes very important when the only thing you can smell is burnt cordite and hydralic fluid. This isn't a wine-tasting, its combat.

Flexible joints? You know the problem with women's hips, the angle their femur goes down from their pelvic girdle is one of the major reasons why they cannot run well, right? its an unideal placement of their skeletal structure that is there as a comprise so they can give birth. I have really flexible joints too, that hasn't given me any advantage besides permenant damage to my knees from hopping off vehicles.

The criteria you've outlined is useless in the context of the line of work we are talking about. "better" or "worst" is subjective, and in this subjective case, women are less adapted to the conditions then men.

I don't see why we don't just make a surgery even, to physically enhance troops. I know we have the technology, I just wonder why we don't-



OH YEAH.

[Disposablepuppetland]

Right, the tank-cannot-function-without-a-penis argument.

Thats already been illustrated that it can reasonably be worked around like several pages ago, with the glaring exception of the adult diaper "solution".

I said it mostly as a joke to show something I've noticed in my own experiences and to demostrate the minute issues surrounding the difficulties of female soldiers dealing with the realities that that combat arms soldiers go through. Its intended to show that the issue is more complex and even little things can snag and add up.

Its not to say a woman can't figure out how to piss in a bottle.

Do tanks ever need to reverse into a parking space?

[Grave_n_idle]

And quite frankly, if I were a 200-lb man, I wouldn't want to have to worry that a 130-lb woman wouldn't be able to drag my ass out of a field of fire.

This seems to be something of a red herring.

Not just because the average marine male is only 40 lbs heavier than the average marine female... but because there is plenty of stuff in the military that doesn't involve dragging dead weight around.

[Grave_n_idle]

Women are physiologically stronger than men, and men are physically stronger than women. I hate the "men and women are exactly alike" crap, because it isn't true, no matter how many times someone says it.

No one said it.

It's a strawman constructed by those who want to impose artificial differences.

[Gimmadonis]

I read somewhere that women are better at multi-tasking, which I would think would be a useful skill.

[Grave_n_idle]

Okay, I re-edited the OP to widen the topic.

I quite enjoyed the edits.

As did I. GNI's post about the menstrual blood all over the battlefield was quite amusing as well.

It's not supposed to be amusing. It's dead serious. How can two groups of MEN concentrate on shooting, fighting, bleeding and dying, when they're going to have to worry about rolling onto a tampon when they dodge a bullet?

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the men?

[Grave_n_idle]

I see that one of the first responses trots out the old "womenz ain't got teh muscles" argument against women in combat. I also see that it was quickly shot down (good) on the grounds that modern combat doesn't necessarily favor he who has the biggest pecs.

Yes, women tend, on average, to have lower muscle mass than men. Of course, women also tend to have better stamina, higher pain thresholds, better adaptability to extreme heat or cold, better sense of smell, and greater sensitivity to the emotional state/cues of other humans. All of which can be incredibly useful in both combat and field operations. A female soldier can provide you with a brain that is just as good as a male soldier's, yet she'll require 30% less food and 20% less water.

It's always a trade-off. After all, it's not like the military says that only 6' tall, 200 pound dudes can serve, as if being physically smaller somehow made one unworthy or incapable of serving. Ability to lift heavy shit isn't really the most needed capability in the military these days, and any country that limits its forces based on that criteria is going to lose out in the long run.

Exactly. Women are only physically "weaker" because women, on average, are smaller. It should go without saying that you can't fit as much muscle onto a smaller frame, but I guess some people in here need it spelled out for them.

Are we going to discriminate against smaller guys, too? I know for a fact that not everybody in the military is a hulking, 6' he-man, and that there are some pretty slightly built dudes on the front lines. So, unless people are going to argue that smallish men shouldn't be on the front lines, either, the whole "women R teh weaklings" argument is just bullshit.

And as you said, women might not on average have the same brute strength as men on average, but in some ways, they are more 'durable.' Which is something that I'd think also would be a valued attribute in a soldier.

They are weaker in the sense that they are less able to do things that require them to move their own weight, like push-ups and sit-ups and running. A 130 pound guy can typically do just as many push-ups as a 200 pound guy.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm

Notice the wide descrepancy between female and male standards. They set those standards based on the averages of both genders out of the population. Women are not weaker because they are "smaller" they are weaker because they lack the testerone and muscle tone of men.

Yes, the standards are lower because they are based on AVERAGES. Well done. That's what you've been arguing against. The crazy thing is you then start suggesting that - after acknowledging the standards - it's not because women are smaller... despite having JUST presented evidence based on averages, and thus, influenced by EXACTLY that factor.

You also seem to think women don't have testosterone?

[Grave_n_idle]

Besides, the physical conditioning thing is a weak point, since it would be implied that females that could pass the men's standards could be accepted into combat arms. There are certainly a few women that can do that easily. The average female in the military, could not.

The average is irrelevent.

If there's a standard, and they pass it, it doesn't matter what anyone else does... surely?

[Gimmadonis]

The average man can only take one bullet before they either die, or start crying and curl up in the fetal position. I guess we shouldn't let men in the military.

[Aelosia]

The average man can only take one bullet before they either die, or start crying and curl up in the fetal position. I guess we shouldn't let men in the military.

*Nods from right behind Gimmadonis*

And regarding the ability of women to kill...Do you know how many women are poisoners? To kill by poison means to kill another human being slowly and methodically, even with many, many moments for regret. Yet, most poisoners are women.

[KaIashnikov]

The average man can only take one bullet before they either die, or start crying and curl up in the fetal position. I guess we shouldn't let men in the military.

Depends where it hits. One can kill you, one can disable you and there are times where it hurts really badly but you will be fine.