Estrogen and danger

[Toxn]

This just means that the US needs to transition to weapons that have a smaller in-theater logistical footprint.  Like ICBMs and Project Pluto.

But Colli, could a nuclear-powered ramjet occupy a third-world country before being ignominiously driven out a decade later by dudes armed with Hiluxes?

[Tied]

Oh! Oh! I actually just thought of something productive to add to this conversation:

Seems to me this whole controversy is the result of the evolution from Enlightenment warfare to modern warfare. Pre-1900 warfare consisted essentially of large bodies of fighting men moving with limited or no organized logistical support until they made contact with the enemy and the fighting began. Post-1900 warfare has become more and more a contest of "glaciers", where huge non-combat logistical trains support a more (proportionally) limited number of men who actually do the fighting.

This is important because even a 19th Century military man probably wouldn't have a big problem with women being employed in ancillary roles, and I cite their willingness to employ female battlefield nurses as an example of this. So women being truck drivers, pilots, secretaries, etc, etc, etc in support of a war effort is absolutely fine, and basically nobody argues against this.

The problem has arisen that these women have by necessity been enrolled in the military to perform these roles, which has allowed them to culturally infiltrate what was previously (also by necessity) a huge boys' club*. This has resulted in a clash between the (in my opinion eminently sensible) tradition of not sending women into combat, and a perception by/of women in the military in ancillary roles as them being somehow "second-class" in the boys' club, and the boys in the boys' club feeling like women are intruding. Add to that the fact that modern warfare recognizes no border between the soldier and the truck driver, especially not when you're fighting Wahhabist-inspired aixophile terrorists instead of the Nazis, and you've got a pretty substantial mess on your hands.

 

Put this way, and considering the current cultural climate in the U.S., there is no correct answer to this problem. The only thing the military can do is its utmost to prevent toxic female leadership from gaining a hold and wrecking whole sectors of the organization(s).

 

*today, the term "boys' club" is almost always used with a slight implied sneer - and if it's not used that way, it's almost always read that way - but I don't mean to use it that way. I am fine with boys' clubs.

 

Personally, the infrantry will always call the non infrantry bozo's reguardless of the reason for their boobs being evolutionary or spending too much time wolfing down east german sausage and soda pop

 

The solution? Keep women in whatever roles they are proficient in (strategical air defense forces, auxiliary, logistics, nurses etc.) and say "yah, uh-huh, yep, hmmm sure" the the grunts whenever they tell you how to run the army that they didnt even volunteer for. They dont have a high attention span and will be out in 4 years, if they want to make a career out of it than they wont care that the person gassing up their BTR-80 while they look for hookers and booze has a penis or not. If they really are the special snowflake that makes a fuss tell them that "Look, i dont tell you how to use your Kalashnikov, so you dont tell me that who among the various decreasing demographics i should pull for/from military service".

 

 

If there is a problem with rape, that is the time to be really gender blinded, shoot the bastard and replace him, its that easy. 

[Tied]

I honestly can't tell which you mean.

 

the one that won the world war they were involved in 

[Belesarius]

 

USSOCOM Statement on all women in combat roles decision.

[Collimatrix]

But Colli, could a nuclear-powered ramjet occupy a third-world country before being ignominiously driven out a decade later by dudes armed with Hiluxes?

 

Given that it would completely sterilize the area in question with the initial warhead package and keep things nice and irradiated afterward with lots of gammas and fast neutrons, thereby completely precluding any sort of lingering insurgency, or indeed any sort of near-term economic productivity of any sort...

 

I'm sure the Saudis would find a way to lose.

[Tied]

Given that it would completely sterilize the area in question with the initial warhead package and keep things nice and irradiated afterward with lots of gammas and fast neutrons, thereby completely precluding any sort of lingering insurgency, or indeed any sort of near-term economic productivity of any sort...

 

I'm sure the Saudis would find a way to lose.

 

Probably because they would spend the whole time sending small groups of M-60s and Bradleys into whatever they are attacking without infrantry support and let the nukes gather dust pending shipment to customers in Raqqa

[Sturgeon]

SH member Hognose weighs in.

[Toxn]

So here's a few suggestions (beyond the obvious ones we've hashed out before):

 

- Sterility for everyone! The guys get RISUG, the ladies get implants or IUDs. This means no soldiers fathering illegitimate sprogs and no pregnancies during a tour. This would also be a good way to enforce proper leave allocations (if such has not been done already), as some time would be needed to reverse things (if such is needed) between deployments.

 

- Blinded tests. All tests get performed at one location and assessed at another sans identifiers. This should help to put a stop to both bias and people being politically prodded to stuff in specific demographics.

 

- Promotions based on force-specific criteria. I don't know the intricacies here, so I'm open to correction on this on, but it seems like part of the problem is that your chances of getting promoted have more to do with breaking into the clubhouse than actually, you know, doing your job well. The standard approach here would be for the higher-ups to set specific requirements for competence related to each speciality, then stick to them going up the chain.

 

- Be less retarded about relations between soldiers. One of the other problems that make it to my distant ears seems to be that there is an over-emphasis on nigh-useless sexual relations training in the US armed forces. The assumption seems be that soldiers only have two modes of dealing with other members of their group: neutral indifference and uncontrolled lust. This is obviously retarded, and would be retarded even if the force was single-gender and straight (straight dudes are eminently capable of forming bonds that span the gamut from 'tentatively friendly' to 'closer than blood' and this will warp the threads of authority accordingly). It would be better to just accept that there will be human relations of all sorts and build in an ethos of professionalism to the extent that, so long as it is not compromising performance, nobody cares what people get up to. If you can't beat even that level of professional conduct into your troops (something that companies manage to get right all the time) then your training is truly fucked.

 

- Implement policy transparently and then stick to it. This, I think, is one of the things that annoy the actual military folks a lot - that the higher-ups seem to want to diddle with things rather than being upfront and following through properly. You can easily see this by sitting down and considering what a person with some actual guts would do if they decided to implement a policy, then comparing it to what is actually being implemented. In the case of introducing women in the US armed forces, it seems clear from the outside that this was done in a slap-dash and ill-considered way, with the result being that a lot of the 'fixes' end up being self-defeating. Worse, the bitty piecey approach gives the not-at-all-incorrect impression that each step is done for the sake of political expediency rather than with a coherent objective in mind.

 

I figure the chances of any of this stuff getting put into practice are about nil, but figure that if you're going to do something it should be done intelligently.

[Sturgeon]

- Sterility for everyone! The guys get RISUG, the ladies get implants or IUDs. This means no soldiers fathering illegitimate sprogs and no pregnancies during a tour. This would also be a good way to enforce proper leave allocations (if such has not been done already), as some time would be needed to reverse things (if such is needed) between deployments.

 

 

For the Navy especially this may be the only politically viable solution to the scads of deployment pregnancies that have afflicted female sailors recently.

[Toxn]

For the Navy especially this may be the only politically viable solution to the scads of deployment pregnancies that have afflicted female sailors recently.

I see this one as being very unpopular with both sides of the debate, which endears it to me on that basis alone.

 

But yeah, we have the technology to easily and safely control this stuff here and now. So it seems ludicrous that we allow serving personnel to use their genitals to decide things.

[Sturgeon]

I see this one as being very unpopular with both sides of the debate, which endears it to me on that basis alone.

 

But yeah, we have the technology to easily and safely control this stuff here and now. So it seems ludicrous that we allow serving personnel to use their genitals to decide things.

 

Genitals, sure whatever. Physiology and psychology are more what concerns me, and Hognose, too, I suspect.

Though I think Hognose is waaaaayyyyy further on that side of the fence than I am...

[Sturgeon]

Not all that closely related to women in combat, but I've time and time again been reaffirmed in my belief that women learn rifle shooting more quickly and easily than men do. I don't know if it's because they have fewer preconceived notions about their skill (men tend to over-estimate their skill with firearms, whereas women tend to be reluctant to accept that they could even pick up the gun safely to begin with), whether they are better able to control their physiology, whether they are calmer or more patient, or whether it's something sillier than that like that their weight distribution tends to be lower.

Regardless, I've taught a few people to shoot, and the ladies have always impressed me with their natural inclination towards riflery. Here's an example:
 

[Toxn]

Genitals, sure whatever. Physiology and psychology are more what concerns me, and Hognose, too, I suspect.

Though I think Hognose is waaaaayyyyy further on that side of the fence than I am...

Genitals are pretty much physiology/psychology personified.

[Sturgeon]

Then don't reduce it to a "meat curtains or sausage" dichotomy?

[Tied]

Then don't reduce it to a "meat curtains or sausage" dichotomy?

 

gross

[Belesarius]

I'm kinda odd on this one.

 

Set the standard, objectively for the job.

Meet the standard, you can possibly get the job.

 

Done.

 

Don't meet the standard? You aren't qualified for that job.  But we'll find a use for you elsewhere.

[Tied]

Well, i have a feeling if the standard was the same for males and females we woudn't be hearing about this, like if it was an unwritten rule if you qualified than you got the job

[SuperComrade]

Well then...http://m.military.com/daily-news/2015/10/12/women-likely-have-register-draft-army-secretary-says.html

[Toxn]

I'm kinda odd on this one.

 

Set the standard, objectively for the job.

Meet the standard, you can possibly get the job.

 

Done.

 

Don't meet the standard? You aren't qualified for that job.  But we'll find a use for you elsewhere.

The joke is that this is what a lot of people are arguing for, yet the bureaucratic debate seems to revolve exclusively around 'no women' vs. '% of women by lowering standards'.

[Tied]

Simple-dont lower standards and find some other roles for them

Its never a good idea to turn away voluneteers but they also have to understand that not every role in the military is being a green beret

[Toxn]

Another, more rigorous approach to measuring strength differences in men vs. women is mentioned here* (warning: the article referred to is an evo-psych piece and thus should be ignored wherever it strays beyond the data). Interestingly, this seems to show a nearly equivalent difference when comparing height and lower body strength (around 2 SD) versus upper body strength (around 2.5 SD). Thus, my above conclusions for observed male:female ratios in an equal-selection army would be a bit different depending on how important upper body strength is to any given task.

 

 

* A note on the comments: fantasising about beating your spouse back into the marital bed or beating "divorce-rape" lawyers as a viable means for ending divorce proceedings merely convinces me that you're a waste of flesh. I will also note Razib's rather constrained reaction to this sort of thing, compared to his response when people poke holes in his HBD bullshit.

[Toxn]

Then don't reduce it to a "meat curtains or sausage" dichotomy?

I think we're miscommunicating. My original comment:

 

So it seems ludicrous that we allow serving personnel to use their genitals to decide things.

 

was meant to imply that we shouldn't even be giving soldiers the option to do stupid things that may result in pregnancy. This was meant to be put in the context of soldiers having their entire lives rigorously controlled (clothing, food, sleep, company etc.) yet the military inexplicably leaving them the option to father/mother children while on duty. The idea of making it contraceptive is that a person who is off-duty can then decide if they want to produce a kid on their own time. Thus no pregnancies during deployment, no foreign ladies heading back to the homeland in a family way and no uncomfortable issues with the locals beyond the direct deeds/misdeeds of the soldiers themselves.

[Toxn]

Another thought: I haven't gone into the issue of diet and conditioning, but my personal experience with family leads me to believe that a lot of women in less rural parts of the world are essentially starving themselves from late childhood onwards. This is a serious issue when combined with other cultural factors which may push women away from strength training and so on, as it tends to distort the underlying biological/genetic factors. Though not exactly pertinent when dealing with current methods of inducting soldiers (who go into the system with all these biases already loaded in), this does become a factor when contemplating what an 'optimal' system would look like.

 

Finally; given the perennial issue of soldiers and hip/leg problems, I am quietly confident that lower leg exoskeletons/frames will be the saving grace for many a future soldier's joints. We'll see how this progresses as time goes on.

[Sturgeon]

I will also note Razib's rather constrained reaction to this sort of thing, compared to his response when people poke holes in his HBD bullshit.

I am curious to know what about his HBD theory is bullshit? I am familiar with the term as essentially a rejection of the "race is only skin deep" politics that in the USA are taught from the beginning of grade school onwards, but I wonder if it's metastasized into something dumber since then...

[Toxn]

I am curious to know what about his HBD theory is bullshit? I am familiar with the term as essentially a rejection of the "race is only skin deep" politics that in the USA are taught from the beginning of grade school onwards, but I wonder if it's metastasized into something dumber since then...

I don't know how representative he is of HBD in general, but the dude is a population geneticist so his understanding is likely to be the most nuanced of the breed.

 

Basically he conflates a few measured values (IQ, WORDSUM scores, GRE scores and so on) with an objective measure of intelligence as a whole, and then assumes that differences in said values are driven primarily by genetic rather than environmental or interaction factors. He further relies on a view of race which takes a no- biological species concept (some blend of phonetic species concept and phylogenetic species concept) as axiomic for humans.

 

Finally, he commits what I feel is the greatest fallacy of this sort of thinking (and something he should be well aware of) in taking the whole bundle together without then formulating the most obvious of variance hypotheses. Essentially, even if you feel that IQ measures overall intelligence (it doesn't) and African Americans form a genetically distinct and homogenous group from the rest of the American population (they don't) then testing the hypothesis "there is a measurable difference in intelligence across races" should begin by trying to assess the effect of environmental and interaction factors by comparing distinct groups.

 

Here the entire concept breaks down because it is an incontrovertible fact that there is more genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else. Accordingly, one would expect an objective measure of intelligence to find the greatest variance in intelligence when comparing African-origin groups against other groups. As such, both the highest and lowest IQ groups should be found in Africa, with African populations showing a greater variance than European or Asian groups.

 

I see no evidence of this.

 

Instead, we have a lot of speculation which conveniently confines itself to the United States and compares distinctly non-homogenous groups against each other. Even here, however, one would expect African Americans to have a much higher variance than white Americans or Asian Americans. Black folk in the US, being on average 30% European and drawing from a number of African-origin ethnic groups, should have a much wider distribution of IQ than White folk, who in turn should have a wider distribution than Asian folk. Basically, black people should have both more morons and geniuses than white people, and Asian people should have the most narrow range of IQs

 

In real life the distributions for all groups are very similar, which points to the idea that there simply isn't much genetic variation in intelligence in humans. This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint, because intelligence should be strongly selected. As such, I see nothing which would dispel the null hypothesis that differences in overall intelligence are both very hard to measure and highly dependent on environmental and interaction factors.