Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Science of Women in Combat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Science of Women in Combat

    A few months ago I came by asking for some help with finding material about women involved in direct combat or supporting those in combat. You guys gave me a lot of help with that, with both ancient historical sources and more recent research.

    I put a lot of the material into this article I wrote, that recently got published at the federalist, regarding the US governments decision to open all combat positions to women, and recent controversies regarding the draft. The article is a condensed version of a paper that can be found here, which has a lot more detailed footnotes to it.

    You guys helped me find a lot of historical examples regarding the issue, I just wanted to say thanks and I'm just giving back letting you guys know that you helped out.

    P.S. also, I'm open to receiving constructive criticism. Let me know what you think.

    Thanks again for all your help. Hope you guys like it.
    Last edited by Travis-Scott; 12-10-2016, 10:08 PM.

  • #2
    what if they become pregnant right as they get drafted? which would happen en mass!
    Originally posted by MatrixTransform
    where were you before you put yourself last?
    Originally posted by TheNarrator
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Travis-Scott View Post
      A few months ago I came by asking for some help with finding material about women involved in direct combat or supporting those in combat. You guys gave me a lot of help with that, with both ancient historical sources and more recent research.

      I put a lot of the material into this article I wrote, that recently got published at the federalist, regarding the US governments decision to open all combat positions to women, and recent controversies regarding the draft. The article is a condensed version of a paper that can be found here, which has a lot more detailed footnotes to it.

      You guys helped me find a lot of historical examples regarding the issue, I just wanted to say thanks and I'm just giving back letting you guys know that you helped out.

      P.S. also, I'm open to receiving constructive criticism. Let me know what you think.

      Thanks again for all your help. Hope you guys like it.

      If you're agreeable, why don't you submit the full paper to "A Voice For Men" main site for publication. Here is the email address: [email protected]
      FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
      It's time to call it out for what it is.
      == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


      The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
      http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mr_e View Post
        If you're agreeable, why don't you submit the full paper to "A Voice For Men" main site for publication. Here is the email address: [email protected]
        I did. I waited almost a month with only one response from the man I usually deal with in the editorial team. in my experience submissions usually dont take that long, and because its based off of current issues, I felt I had to get out quickly, so I withdrew it (AVfM doesn't like articles posted on one website posted on theirs). The federalist got back to me in less than a day. I enjoy publishing at AVfM but this one took too long, I am going to keep the full paper at my blog for now. Maybe i'll change my mind later.

        Comment


        • #5
          Maxx, you will like this paper. It's very well-written and loaded with tons of great points and observations.
          FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
          It's time to call it out for what it is.
          == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


          The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
          http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Travis-Scott View Post
            I'm open to receiving constructive criticism. Let me know what you think.
            Hi,

            thx for a great reasearch and writing job!
            A few comments; I'll leave it to you to judge their constructiveness.

            I Trivia
            Pls relay to the "Federalist" proofreader:
            I think
            "Yes, historians have shown that there are instances and parts of the world were women may have had the opportunity ..."
            should read
            "Yes, historians have shown that there are instances and parts of the world wHere women may have had the opportunity ...".

            II Article structure
            Although the point of the article is eminently clear, I'm not so sure that the point of the point is. The fact that females are not suitable for combat roles should affect policy.
            So establishing this fact is, or can at least be read, as an argument in a wider debate, and it is your own discussion of this wider debate, or at least bringing it out clearly, that I miss in the article.

            The "political outcome" could be one of two:
            - We disallow females in the military.
            - We disallow females in combat roles.

            The first would justify exempting females from the draft. The problem would be female soldiers presently in other roles.
            The second would allow female soldiers in other roles - based on a "quality ranking" like for men - and thus would justify _including_ females in the draft.

            From an equality perspective, IMO the latter would make the most sense; but I gather that may not be your present focus?
            Anyway, it would make for a focused ending of the article, in my very humble non-article-writer opinion.

            III Contradictions
            This one is beyond the scope of the article, but anyway:
            These arguments make it harder to maintain that gender violence is symmetrical - on the face of it.
            Females' inferiority in combat is in contrast to the emerging image of females as perpetrators of abuse and violence.
            At present you must be the leading expert on women in combat ... if the writing itch takes you again, perhaps female IPV could be a suitable theme?

            In any case - thx again.


            M

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Travis-Scott View Post
              You guys helped me find a lot of historical examples regarding the issue ....
              Hi,

              here's one more data point - the new Norwegian All Female Special Forces Unit:

              https://tv.nrk.no/serie/jenter-for-n...ng-1/episode-2

              I guess this is an exercise in futility ... me posting this, I mean .. of course .... as the program is in Norwegian; but to those in the know, even the visuals give clues, I guess.
              For those who take the trouble, I reccommend the section called "Mini Monster", showing an underwater combat exercise (which is mostly wordless, obviously).
              The link is to the second and shorter (ca. 20 mins) "exam" episode of two, with the first (ca. 40 mins) focusing on induction and selection.

              As you may or may not know, Norway recently introduced the draft for women. The Defence Force has been restructured from national defense to a kind of Rapid Response Force to aid allies abroad.
              One present combat area is Afghanistan, and the above female unit was established to be able to send in soldiers into all-female - "haram" - environments with reduced aggravation to civilians.
              Could be a test case to watch if you want to pursue the topic.

              M

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Travis-Scott View Post
                I did. I waited almost a month with only one response from the man I usually deal with in the editorial team. in my experience submissions usually dont take that long, and because its based off of current issues, I felt I had to get out quickly, so I withdrew it (AVfM doesn't like articles posted on one website posted on theirs). The federalist got back to me in less than a day. I enjoy publishing at AVfM but this one took too long, I am going to keep the full paper at my blog for now. Maybe i'll change my mind later.

                Try sending a PM to "GOM" (Grumpy Old Man). He's one of the moderators here in the forums, and in the main site. And he can easily get your submission to the right folks in a hurry.

                I urge you to reconsider. Your essay is fantastic. Very, very well done. I applaud you, Sir. Both for your truth and your service!
                FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                It's time to call it out for what it is.
                == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                  Hi,
                  I Trivia
                  Pls relay to the "Federalist" proofreader:
                  I think
                  "Yes, historians have shown that there are instances and parts of the world were women may have had the opportunity ..."
                  should read
                  "Yes, historians have shown that there are instances and parts of the world wHere women may have had the opportunity ...".
                  I'll check that out with him, thanks!

                  II Article structure
                  Although the point of the article is eminently clear, I'm not so sure that the point of the point is. The fact that females are not suitable for combat roles should affect policy.
                  So establishing this fact is, or can at least be read, as an argument in a wider debate, and it is your own discussion of this wider debate, or at least bringing it out clearly, that I miss in the article.

                  The "political outcome" could be one of two:
                  - We disallow females in the military.
                  - We disallow females in combat roles.
                  Yeah, I saw those both come out when I was writing this. i simply didn't put forth the notion of disallowing females in the military because some people would think thats too radical, and like you said it would require a lot more writing that might take away from my main point.

                  III Contradictions
                  This one is beyond the scope of the article, but anyway:
                  These arguments make it harder to maintain that gender violence is symmetrical - on the face of it.
                  Females' inferiority in combat is in contrast to the emerging image of females as perpetrators of abuse and violence.
                  At present you must be the leading expert on women in combat ... if the writing itch takes you again, perhaps female IPV could be a suitable theme?
                  Yeah, funny that you mention that. The kernel of this article actually started out as a paper about violence among people of their own sex (men vs men, women vs women), and between the sexes (domestic abuse). A big chunk of it ended up being about the new moral dilemma in the military, so I threw it out there as something totally separate, because its really a topic to itself.

                  I have a bunch of written work about violence, I was going to submit it to AVfM at one point but right now its in the draft of this book im writing about patriarchy, feminism, etc (which I would love for AVfM to sponsor or publish, but we shall see how that goes in the future).

                  Thanks for all the input!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                    Hi,

                    thx for a great reasearch and writing job!
                    A few comments; I'll leave it to you to judge their constructiveness.

                    I Trivia
                    Pls relay to the "Federalist" proofreader:
                    I think
                    "Yes, historians have shown that there are instances and parts of the world were women may have had the opportunity ..."
                    should read
                    "Yes, historians have shown that there are instances and parts of the world wHere women may have had the opportunity ...".

                    II Article structure
                    Although the point of the article is eminently clear, I'm not so sure that the point of the point is. The fact that females are not suitable for combat roles should affect policy.
                    So establishing this fact is, or can at least be read, as an argument in a wider debate, and it is your own discussion of this wider debate, or at least bringing it out clearly, that I miss in the article.

                    The "political outcome" could be one of two:
                    - We disallow females in the military.
                    - We disallow females in combat roles.

                    The first would justify exempting females from the draft. The problem would be female soldiers presently in other roles.
                    The second would allow female soldiers in other roles - based on a "quality ranking" like for men - and thus would justify _including_ females in the draft.

                    From an equality perspective, IMO the latter would make the most sense; but I gather that may not be your present focus?
                    Anyway, it would make for a focused ending of the article, in my very humble non-article-writer opinion.

                    III Contradictions
                    This one is beyond the scope of the article, but anyway:
                    These arguments make it harder to maintain that gender violence is symmetrical - on the face of it.
                    Females' inferiority in combat is in contrast to the emerging image of females as perpetrators of abuse and violence.
                    At present you must be the leading expert on women in combat ... if the writing itch takes you again, perhaps female IPV could be a suitable theme?

                    In any case - thx again.


                    M
                    Not really, those two things have little in common, besides it´s not like men are mentally unscathed after being in a situation where they must kill, here´s a good video from Lindybeige about that:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs

                    Perpetrators of domestic violence display lack of discipline on their part which is the exact opposite of what you want in an army, and being abusive to people you know is totally different from being sent to war to kill people you don´t know, and i don´´t need to tell you about physical requirements either.
                    I sexually identify as a sword pommel, check your privilege or i will have to end you RIGHTLY.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Anonymous View Post
                      Not really, those two things have little in common, besides it´s not like men are mentally unscathed after being in a situation where they must kill, here´s a good video from Lindybeige about that:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs

                      Perpetrators of domestic violence display lack of discipline on their part which is the exact opposite of what you want in an army, and being abusive to people you know is totally different from being sent to war to kill people you don´t know, and i don´´t need to tell you about physical requirements either.
                      The way I see it, it gives a smidgeon of credence to the trope that men's violence towards females must be worse than females' violence towards men.
                      I can certainly see ways of spinning it that way. That's why it would be interesting to hear why females nevertheless are 'effective' when it comes to IPV, etc.

                      M

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                        The way I see it, it gives a smidgeon of credence to the trope that men's violence towards females must be worse than females' violence towards men.
                        I can certainly see ways of spinning it that way. That's why it would be interesting to hear why females nevertheless are 'effective' when it comes to IPV, etc.

                        M
                        Because IPV has a psychological element to it, it is not strictly tied to physical, it incorporates various brainwashing techniques to make the victim accept the abuse, besides women are more likely to ujse weapons in IPV.
                        I sexually identify as a sword pommel, check your privilege or i will have to end you RIGHTLY.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                          The way I see it, it gives a smidgeon of credence to the trope that men's violence towards females must be worse than females' violence towards men.
                          I can certainly see ways of spinning it that way. That's why it would be interesting to hear why females nevertheless are 'effective' when it comes to IPV, etc.

                          M

                          No, at best, following your logic, it can only be said that Male violence towards Females *CAN BE* worse than Female violence towards Men-- IF, and ONLY IF, we are comparing *GROUPS* of purposeful MEN versus groups of purposeful WOMEN. Individual situations and outcomes are-- you know, individual.
                          FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                          It's time to call it out for what it is.
                          == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                          The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                          http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Travis-Scott View Post
                            P.S. also, I'm open to receiving constructive criticism. Let me know what you think.

                            Thanks again for all your help. Hope you guys like it.
                            Sorry, but I cannot in good conscience support the title of your article.

                            You clearly started out with a premise you wanted to support, and so you "found" the support you were looking for. Moreover, you did not even attempt to address the null hypothesis.

                            That's not how we do science.

                            At least you published it on the right website, though

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                              Sorry, but I cannot in good conscience support the title of your article.

                              You clearly started out with a premise you wanted to support, and so you "found" the support you were looking for. Moreover, you did not even attempt to address the null hypothesis.

                              That's not how we do science.

                              At least you published it on the right website, though

                              Regardless of all of that, did you actually read through his longer paper? It was very interesting and made a number of excellent points.
                              FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                              It's time to call it out for what it is.
                              == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                              The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                              http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X