Topic: Women in the military - Over emotional and controlled by their hormones

[341gerbig]

They're talking average. I've known women at the gym who could pick up the average man and throw him over their shoulders.

Women have served with distinction in combat in many venues, usually auxiliaries in cases of a shortage of men. If qualifications for a combat position is mission defined, then I can't see any rational reason for disqualifying someone based on gender.

On the other hand, if we are going to disqualify a particular sex based on who is best for a mission, then men ought to be excluded as combat pilots. Women are generally smaller, and more easily fit into cockpits and handle rapid acceleration better than do men. And, they can be extremely aggressive in combat--as the Germans found out when they faced Russia's "night witch" pilots in WWII.

Its shouldn't be " males or females would be better". The fact that they are male or female should be irrelevant, it should simple fall on who can do the job better.

[EhJayArr]

It's been said already... but gender should be irrelevant to fighting on the front line; a person can pass the physical requirements, or a person can't.

I listened to a debate about this on NPR last week. The retired colonel arguing against women on the front lines tossed out a bunch of dumb reasons why women shouldn't be allowed, including "men have an instinctual reaction to defend women" and "they might get pregnant," but ultimately couldn't defeat the "if they pass the same physical tests, why shouldn't they be allowed" question.

[341gerbig]

It's been said already... but gender should be irrelevant to fighting on the front line; a person can pass the physical requirements, or a person can't.

I listened to a debate about this on NPR last week. The retired colonel arguing against women on the front lines tossed out a bunch of dumb reasons why women shouldn't be allowed, including "men have an instinctual reaction to defend women" and "they might get pregnant," but ultimately couldn't defeat the "if they pass the same physical tests, why shouldn't they be allowed" question.

EXACTLY

All arguments default to:

Can they do the job, or cant they?

On an individual basis, regardless of gender

[AQB24712]

It's been said already... but gender should be irrelevant to fighting on the front line; a person can pass the physical requirements, or a person can't.

Kinda the same thing in firefighting, isn't it?  Or so I'd think.

[MikeHz]

It's been said already... but gender should be irrelevant to fighting on the front line; a person can pass the physical requirements, or a person can't.

Kinda the same thing in firefighting, isn't it?  Or so I'd think.

Yeah. Not all men, or even most men, qualify as firefighters. But, some women can, and do the job well.

[Karyn]

I think we're getting away from the original topic a little bit.  I think this is more about the whole PMS problem, where some women get extremely irritable a week before their periods start.  I would say I am one of those women, and on the more extreme end of the problem, so there's my bias in this.

I don't think there have been studies done on women in combat situations on this.  Although I get extremely irritable and teary-eyed, and generally just want to hide in a hole for a few days out of the month, I don't see this as being a factor in serious situations. In extremely serious situations, I imagine adrenaline would overrule anything other hormonal changes make to someone's behavior.  A person's overall personality is going to be a far better marker of their ability to handle tense situations.  Although I feel like shit inside, on the outside, I'm only slightly more likely to call off social plans or say something nasty when I would have normally kept my mouth shut.  You give a woman birth control, and these extremes shrink to almost nothing.  And IMHO, all women who are out on duty should agree to being given birth control for many, many reasons.  But that's an other discussion.

[Hanes]

You give a woman birth control, and these extremes shrink to almost nothing.  And IMHO, all women who are out on duty should agree to being given birth control for many, many reasons.  But that's an other discussion.

But that's Satan's pill!

[Desert Fox]

On birth control, modern IUDs seem to have among the lowest failure rates, lasts years, the woman does not have to be as diligent as with the pill, and seems to have few down sides. I don't think it helps much with mood swings however.

Maybe for a woman who seems to have bad mood swings, the implant?

[DRmeg378]

So did Soviet troops in WWII do worse when they had women in the frontlines? I don't think so. It's not like men in the frontlines are not subject to emotion or hormonal swings. To go to the question in the OP, I think studies should be made to test whether women who pass the same requirements as men are in fact less effective. PMS seems to me to be quite irrelevant. I have yet to meet a woman who doesn't do her job just as well when she's PMSing as when she's not. But I have seen both men and women with bad days. I'm not saying PMS is not biologically based, I'm saying that people deal with whatever biological shit they have to deal with on any given day, and to assume that a woman who wants to be on the frontlines will not be able to deal is more than a little patronizing.

[pandamonium]

So this is relevant:
 http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40356.0.html
this is an episode of skeptically speaking where they discuss menstruation. PMS comes up. Apparently right after ovulation, when PMS is generally accepted to happen, women's hormones levels are like men's levels.

Chew on that for a bit.

[EhJayArr]

So this is relevant:
 http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40356.0.html
this is an episode of skeptically speaking where they discuss menstruation. PMS comes up. Apparently right after ovulation, when PMS is generally accepted to happen, women's hormones levels are like men's levels.

Chew on that for a bit.

Sorry if y'all don't handle it as well as us... 

[DRmeg378]

 

[Eternally Learning]

So this is relevant:
 http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,40356.0.html
this is an episode of skeptically speaking where they discuss menstruation. PMS comes up. Apparently right after ovulation, when PMS is generally accepted to happen, women's hormones levels are like men's levels.

Chew on that for a bit.

Sorry if y'all don't handle it as well as us... 

Yet another example of us eerily thinking alike .

As much as it's been said already though, I think it bears repeating ad nausea: averages mean precisely shit when talking about qualifying for service in the military or any physically and emotionally challenging career.  Unless someone can provide actual and fundamental differences between men and women where every single woman is at a distinct disadvantage to their male counterparts then I fail to see how any decision can be made on all women.  If women on average, are less capable than men then it will show up in less of them qualifying for the positions they seek or at worst in lower job performance.  Neither of those things are areas where men are guaranteed success either as men still fail to qualify and still have poor job performance.  To disqualify the entire gender based on average likelihood of failure is just prejudicial and ignorant. 

As for hormones and emotional control; I'd tend to imagine that those details would come out quite readily during the lengthy and arduous training all military personnel go through, and any women that can make it through the shit they'd have to endure are just as likely as men to start weeping and running when their friends get blown to bits around them in actual combat.

[EhJayArr]

As for hormones and emotional control; I'd tend to imagine that those details would come out quite readily during the lengthy and arduous training all military personnel go through, and any women that can make it through the shit they'd have to endure are just as likely as men to start weeping and running when their friends get blown to bits around them in actual combat.

Seriously.

The retired colonel on NPR did avoid that argument, at least--but others make it sound like no man has ever been emotionally compromised from battle.

Yet another example of us eerily thinking alike .

 

[Citizen Skeptic]

I think we're getting away from the original topic a little bit.  I think this is more about the whole PMS problem, where some women get extremely irritable a week before their periods start.

Somehow I missed the part that got us to the crux of the problem.

Having had a wife who occassionally would grow horns, I'd say the most scary army in the world would be a bunch of women with automatic weapons and PMS. So this is your "pro" argument, right?