Women and the draft

[Lancer]

"Women also have a greater ability to endure pain."

Breaking a nail is the world's end however.

Alot of military women got preggy to avoid desert storm. Years ago I saw the % and I don't remember...maybe 7% of those to be deployed. Something like that. So, hastily trained people had to take their place which no doubt got some soldiers killed.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Actually, women consistently prove to be better marksmen than men, given equivalent training.

Source? I'm not disputing it, given that I have no evidence to back up my guess, but I'm going to need some from you if you want to make a statement of fact.

Women also have a greater ability to endure pain.

Bull****. Just another one of those pieces of "fact" that everybody believes despite the fact that every woman I've ever seen injure herself moans far longer than a man would. Every study done on the subject shows that men take more pain more easily.

http://health.allrefer.com/news/index.php?ID=2561

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the movie!), women have better reflexes

[Dis]

yep, I've heard about countless navy women who get pregnant to avoid going on overseas deployments. Though you have to wonder why they joined the navy if they don't want to go out to sea...

[Dis]

and of course a lot of women join the military just to meet guys...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Source? I'm not disputing it, given that I have no evidence to back up my guess, but I'm going to need some from you if you want to make a statement of fact.

Now I'm going to dispute your statement.

link

found a couple more studies, which also claimed that untrained male shooters were better than untrained female shooters, with the difference persisting through training.

[MRT144]

no woman will go above the 3rd round

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And what I'm saying is that male and female norms are so far away from each other that only outliers (superior females) would be considered adequate recruits when based on objective standards.

The waste of time spent determining that these 9 women don't gain strength quickly enough while this one does is far worse than the waste of time spent determining that this one man doesn't gain strength quickly enough while these nine do.

Until there's a cheap and quick way to determine that ahead of time (before you spend 9 times as much to gain each female soldier as you do to gain each male soldier) it's better, especially in the context of a national emergency, to reject out of hand all women (or at least all who do not already display extraordinary capabilities).

As I said though, there are a million factors you could bring into play once you cross that line. To pull some examples out of my ass, maybe black men in general have more muscles, maybe people from Texas have more firearms training, does that mean they should always be drafted first to save on training costs?

Besides, I highly doubt drafting women would result in 10 times the cost.

[Dis]

Using the example he was providing it would. ie testing to show they can increase muscles.

But you could have a simple strength test. Say 100 pushups. That seems like a decent number. As I know the actual numbers they have to do are much lower.

But then you have to factor in their ability to shoot at someone they don't know in combat. True, you never know if a man can do this either. But I'm more willing to believe a man can do this over a woman.

[KrazyHorse]

Why? That's less than 2 standard deviations. I don't doubt at all that an average man is 2 standard deviations above the female population in many, if not most of the objective standards for a combat soldier. If only 1 in 10 women is going to be able to meet equal standards (which is not at all unreasoble) and you're spending 8 weeks of basic to find that out then the cost is simply not worth it.

The differences between races etc. pale before the differences between genders, dude. 2-3 standard deviations in height, 2 standard deviations in weight, 3+ standard deviations in strength, ~1 standard deviation in reaction time, probably similar or greater in marksmanship. All that adds up to some major differences.

[Dis]

Although you could still draft women for non combat positions. Which is what they fill anyways. This would free up more men for front line duty.

But in my opinion, this would screw things up. As not all men are fit for front line duty. Some are best equipped for cryptology or maintenance back from the front lines (which is an archaic concept I know). But you'd still be faced with the problem of uncapable soldiers on the front lines.

I still say the best way is to draft as many men as possible (assuming a major war where our all volunteer force is not enough). Use the men qualified for combat on the front lines, the rest go to the rear with the females (insert the joke if you must ).

[Jon Miller]

I voted no, but note that for none infantry positions drafting women is fine...

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

My girlfriend has been lifting weights for 2 years now. She's 5'7-5'8 and weighs 125-130lbs. She's strong as **** for a girl. Until 4 months ago I had never lifted a weight for the purposes of strength training in my life. I'm 5'11 and weighed ~160 lbs. We were much closer to each other in both strength and size than are the average man and woman. I went to the gym with her. On every strength exercise I outperformed her by more than 50% (usually more like 75%). Now I've been lifting and running for ~4 months. I've gained at least 35-40% additional strength, and I've lost 10 lbs in the bargain. She could train the rest of her life and never come close to approaching me in strength, cardio fitness, muscle-to-mass ratio etc. I'm no more than average strength for a moderately trained male in his mid 20s, and she is tall and strong for a woman. Ask her to hump standard combat kit for 10 miles over rolling terrain and she would die.

There's no other single demographic factor you can pick which would make so big a difference as gender when it comes to physical capabilities.

[Dis]

Though it should be mentioned that what soldier humps a combat pack 10 miles in rough terrain anymore? They all ride in vehicles! The exceptions being special forces in Afghanistan.

War ain't like the old days. They used to have to march 10 miles in the snow while getting shot at. .

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why? That's less than 2 standard deviations. I don't doubt at all that an average man is 2 standard deviations above the female population in many, if not most of the objective standards for a combat soldier. If only 1 in 10 women is going to be able to meet equal standards (which is not at all unreasoble) and you're spending 8 weeks of basic to find that out then the cost is simply not worth it.

The differences between races etc. pale before the differences between genders, dude. 2-3 standard deviations in height, 2 standard deviations in weight, 3+ standard deviations in strength, ~1 standard deviation in reaction time, probably similar or greater in marksmanship. All that adds up to some major differences.

You want people to have a certain hieght, marksmanship ability, etc before they can be drafted? Fine, that can be tested right off the bat for men and women. The only reasonable point I have heard is you may have a harder time telling how easy it for them to put on muscle. I cannot, however, imagine this equates to ten times the training cost. I also have a hard time imagining there are not plenty of jobs in the military for whatever percentage the men and women who simply have a lower maximum muscle mass.