Gi Jane, if you please

[Edont Knoff]

Russia and China are already working on Enhanced Human Operations (EHO), i.e. modifying the body and the brain itself, creating what some have called "super soldiers." http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a18574/enhanced-human-operations/

[...] So what ! I'm waiting for "super female soldiers"

I have the faint idea that if one makes super-soldiers, a sexless body based on the male genome (higher strength, speed ...) will be the best performing. You don't want your soldiers to be distracted by anything sexual. A sexless body is also less volatile in certain places. They are meant to be fighters. Breast are just extra weight, testicles are useless for a fighter also ands can cause crippling pain. So, off with that.

I know the idea of female super soldiers is popular, but I think this is more because of "sex sells" than because of real advantages of the female body in combat.

 

[birch]

you remind of my spoiled brat of a cousin. no one likes me they won't do what i say. we get it your pissed off i called you out on your blatant sexism.

that wasn't his first argument. that was what he retreated to and tried to pretend was his argument after he got called out on his blatant sexism.

more lies. the whole thing started off when you made a blatantly sexist comment got called on it and than attacked me because you thought i was female. you discredit yourself

someone who thinks calling someone a girl is an insult isn't really likely to be capable of that level of self reflection

and yet you keep using that claiming they can't do all combat roles. you have repeatedly used the term US military and not shrinking it to infantry roles in the army and marines.

You are the one acting like a brat on this thread and rather confused. You are also being intellectually dishonest because your argument does not center on the topic in question and you are skewing anywhere from my personal opinions to pretending this is not about infantry. This topic is combat roles being open to women, specifically combat (infantry) and spec ops. What do you think this was about? You are also blatantly lying because you know but skirting it to give you the excuse to keep personally accusing me of whatever you wish. Maybe you need to re-read the op. That is what the military is referring to. Hello?

You are the one who stated or believed that the standards are set or skewed to keep women out of combat arms. I dont think this is true even if the standards could be changed. It is a case of males/females having different physiology.

Furthermore, from my experience, the military despite not being totally immune to politics is one of the more egalitarian organizations in that all they care about is that you qualify and can do the job and there are clearly defined criteria. Im not talking about individual attitudes, beliefs or opinions. There are all types of people in the military. The civilian sector is much more prone to sexism, unfairness and politics in hiring and employment practices which has more wiggle room for subjectivity. This is because the military is not based on competition but on qualification and duty. Furthermore, being funded by government you dont land your job by being more impressive than another in an interview, the manager liked you, look better etc. It is soley by more literal or hard-core stats, much more than in the civilian world.

 

[birch]

I see he already flipped.
Why do I have to miss all the fun?

People should be more careful on the net who they are arguing with, you never know what psycho lies behind a username. We think/hope that most of them are harmless and rejoice in the teasing when noticed it hits home. Fanatic misogynist militaries with a short temper, is that what we want to aggravate? Well, we should not fear them either. Often it's someone who just pretends, created a persona for this purpose.

Do you see how dishonest you people are? I wasnt nearly as upset as the rest who were so incensed at the mere hint that women cant qualify for combat as easily. And arent you the psycho hiding behind a screen?

What would piss anyone off is a group of arrogant assholes who know nothing or little about the military and how it works and why and blindly throwing around accusations of misogyny and sexism. Total fruit loops.

Furthermore, the delusion on this thread is ridiculous.

You try carrying a 70-100lb ( often heavier) pack as well as heavy weaponry and no shower for weeks and then accuse the military for misogyny.

 

[Oystein]

You try carrying a 70-100lb ( often heavier) pack as well as heavy weaponry and no shower for weeks and then accuse the military for misogyny.

Yeah, but we all know that you didn't do that.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

This thread is about covert government trial injections of extra terrestrial growth hormones on babies.

 

[Edont Knoff]

You try carrying a 70-100lb ( often heavier) pack as well as heavy weaponry and no shower for weeks and then accuse the military for misogyny.

The military cares about hygiene. They don't want lice or anything spread among the soldiers. There might not be showers always, but soldiers wash.

Not all soldiers must carry so heavy equipment all the time. I was in air defense, and the positions there are all very suitable to women, too. And in a group of soldiers, the strongest are chosen to carry the heavy weapons. Usually you have one with a machine gun, one with an anti-tank rocket launcher and 5 to 10 with assault rifles in a group. Carrying ammo for the machine gun and the rocket launcher is rotated among the group.

You also rotate the carriers of heavy weapons to give the soldiers a chance to recover.

Military usually has a mix of powerhouses, average and small grown persons. A group is mixed by intention, and each member has a position on which they can perform well.

 

[ajanta]

I know the idea of female super soldiers is popular, but I think this is more because of "sex sells" than because of real advantages of the female body in combat.

Me too. If higher strength, speed is importantly related to genome so may be it is a big challenge to genetic engineering and I think
Current/next development of genetic engineering can take the challenge.

 

[birch]

The military cares about hygiene. They don't want lice or anything spread among the soldiers. There might not be showers always, but soldiers wash.

Not all soldiers must carry so heavy equipment all the time. I was in air defense, and the positions there are all very suitable to women, too. And in a group of soldiers, the strongest are chosen to carry the heavy weapons. Usually you have one with a machine gun, one with an anti-tank rocket launcher and 5 to 10 with assault rifles in a group. Carrying ammo for the machine gun and the rocket launcher is rotated among the group.

You also rotate the carriers of heavy weapons to give the soldiers a chance to recover.



Military usually has a mix of powerhouses, average and small grown persons. A group is mixed by intention, and each member has a position on which they can perform well.

Yes, but the point is women cant do this as well as men. Therefore, more men would be qualified.

It isnt that they dont rotate. Thats common sense. Its that you must be able to carry these loads if another cant or they are injured.

And of course they shower but they are out in the field for stretches at a time as part of the main job requirement.

 

[Edont Knoff]

I dislike the super-soldier idea because it limits the being to one activity, one purpose. Either if genetically engineered, or cyborged, I think it is not fair to create a sentient being just for one purpose - it should be free if it wants to be artist, engineer or soldier (or something else).

The only acceptable exception that I see is if someone submits willfully, and agrees to be reconstructed into a super-soldier by biological, medical and technical means. But this requries a normal birth and upbringing till the age when one can make proper decisions, and IMO this rules out the idea of "breeding" super-soldiers.

 

[Edont Knoff]

Yes, but the point is women cant do this as well as men. Therefore, more men would be qualified.

I think this is common consensus by now. Some women qualify, but probably fewer than men, due to bodily bias. In other areas it's the other way round.

 

[PhysBang]

What would piss anyone off is a group of arrogant assholes who know nothing or little about the military and how it works and why and blindly throwing around accusations of misogyny and sexism. Total fruit loops.

Accusations of sexism were not thrown around blindly. People can actually see that you are sexist.

You are taking a few studies, done in an environment of sexism, and blowing them way out of proportion because they fit with your mindset that all men are stronger than all women. You grudgingly make some exceptions, but you have a mythology of hyperbolic differences between men and women lodged in your head. It's not good for women and its not good for men.

Furthermore, the delusion on this thread is ridiculous.

Not really, your delusion is entirely understandable because it has been part of the mythology of popular culture in the West for a long time.

You try carrying a 70-100lb ( often heavier) pack as well as heavy weaponry and no shower for weeks and then accuse the military for misogyny.

See, there you are being misogynist because you are assuming that such a task will be beyond women. That task is beyond most men. You are saying, contrary to evidence, that women cannot do this, that women cannot be trained to do this.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

A quick google:
Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face.Oct 19, 2015

Now can we please get with discussing alien DNA?

 

[birch]

You will hardly read in a textbook of how women have fought alongside their men throughout history. Even though they may be relatively weaker or less skilled in combat roles, their contribution is minimized. That goes for any position that is more support or not as prevalent as those in the main spotlight.

Just like the housewife with all the thankless tasks women have done to support and free their men for other tasks they call 'men's business'. Well, this part is not necessarily the case these days.

Still, when it comes to tasks related to hardcore warfare men excel over women and that is still true today. They are better built for it physically and mentally.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You don't even know what your argument was at this point, do you?

 

[birch]

See, there you are being misogynist because you are assuming that such a task will be beyond women. That task is beyond most men. You are saying, contrary to evidence, that women cannot do this, that women cannot be trained to do this.

If you truly believe there are no physiological differences, then the outcome should be the same after training.

Give me the evidence and stay on topic. Also, dont resort to what other countries refer to as combat arms for women which amounts to mp positions and border patrol or skirmishes. We are talking about infantry and all the hardcore tasks.

What is it you all are not getting? Both men and women go through training but the men still outperform including more men qualifying. Did you think the genders were literally alike?

Did you all not know men have more testosterone? more muscle mass? quicker reflexes? better hand/eye coordination? Have you ever gone to a pool hall and noticed there are more men? Or the gym where men usually are the ones lifting heavier weights?

And what do you propose should be done? Allow women longer or more intense training to get them up to par?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If you truly believe there are no physiological differences, then the outcome should be the same after training.

What is it you all are not getting? Both men and women go through training but the men still outperform. Did you think the genders were literally alike?

Did you all not know men have more testosterone? more muscle mass? quicker reflexes? better hand/eye coordination?

And what do you propose should be done? Allow women longer or more intense training to get them up to par?

WOW! I feel sorry for men having to read that.

 

[billvon]

Its very obvious we are talking specifically about infantry where BRAWN is the main pre-requisite and therefore females would be generally weaker and slower. Hello?????

Generally but not specifically. Let anyone, of any sex, religion or race, try out for any job/position they want. If they can pass the test, great. That means you might end up with 80% men in infantry, a roughly equal mix of sexes in the navy but 80% women as pilots. Or you might end up with a mostly-black Ranger force. As long as everyone has the same chance of getting into those positions, no problems.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

So your argument is women are inferior in every physical way?

 

[exchemist]

If you truly believe there are no physiological differences, then the outcome should be the same after training.

Give me the evidence and stay on topic. Also, dont resort to what other countries refer to as combat arms for women which amounts to mp positions and border patrol or skirmishes. We are talking about infantry and all the hardcore tasks.

What is it you all are not getting? Both men and women go through training but the men still outperform including more men qualifying. Did you think the genders were literally alike?

Did you all not know men have more testosterone? more muscle mass? quicker reflexes? better hand/eye coordination? Have you ever gone to a pool hall and noticed there are more men? Or the gym where men usually are the ones lifting heavier weights?

And what do you propose should be done? Allow women longer or more intense training to get them up to par?

I think you need to justify your implicit assumption that mere physical strength is the main prerequisite for the modern infantry. What is your evidence for that?

 

[PhysBang]

If you truly believe there are no physiological differences, then the outcome should be the same after training.

Again, you reply with misogyny.

I never said that there were no physical differences. Indeed, you seem to have completely ignored the post I made with links actually discussing the physiological differences.

You assume that there is a vast physiological difference that makes all women incapable. Even when you are forced to retract this statement, you always return to it as a default. This is your misogyny at work.

Give me the evidence and stay on topic.

Done by me, ignored by you.

Also, dont resort to what other countries refer to as combat arms for women which amounts to mp positions and border patrol or skirmishes. We are talking about infantry and all the hardcore tasks.

Wow, sexist and racist. What a surprise.

Did you all not know men have more testosterone? more muscle mass? quicker reflexes? better hand/eye coordination?

The evidence says no to those last two, but I doubt you care to learn.