OT: Don't They Have More Important Things To Worry About

[NinerSickness]

Also, this shows how gullable you're being on this subject:

A study on endurance showed that the top 40th percentile of women outperformed the average male.

So you're saying if you randomly find 15 twenty-year-old men & 15 twenty-year-old women that the top 6 performing women in endurance running (say running 3 miles carrying a 40 pound backpack and a rifle) are going to out-perform at least 7 of the men and this is going to be typical?

This is a perfect example of how intellectually dishoonest people are when they perform so-called "studies" when there is a political motive behind it.

 

[TobyTyler]

It was costly for the US military to integrate women into the armed forces. Right thing to do?

No. It was the absolute worst thing that has happened to the military since the Viet Nam war. Trying to be stylish almost ruined the Army.

 

[MHSL82]

Also, this shows how gullable you're being on this subject:



So you're saying if you randomly find 15 twenty-year-old men & 15 twenty-year-old women that the top 6 performing women in endurance running (say running 3 miles carrying a 40 pound backpack and a rifle) are going to out-perform at least 7 of the men and this is going to be typical?

This is a perfect example of how intellectually dishoonest people are when they perform so-called "studies" when there is a political motive behind it.

I think he means the weaker are filtered out as weaker women don't report. A similar happens for men, but if the stats are true, that says something (NOT everything). Not vouching for the stats.

 

[MHSL82]

This is another example of letting the exception validate the rule. It's typical of people who aren't interested in the actual result of something but rather the intention of it. Just because Paula Broadwell is athletic enought to be in the military doesn't mean it's a good idea to let women serve in the military. At first, the military had different standards for men & women, and then they just lowered athletic standards for eveyone. If women could hang with men (in general, not the exceptions), there wouldn't be seperate sports leagues for women. Not to mention the problems with cost and cohabitation.

From a practical standpoint women in the military is a terrible idea. Is that fair? I really don't care. The point of the military isn't to be fair; it's to defend the nation from forgeign & domestic threats.

There. Check. That's my one thing to learn everyday for the day. I didn't know they put them together, hence my previous comment (that I'm not sure if anyone read) was in regard to the requirements of passing for males and females (the older standards, apparently).

 

[imac_21]

Sigh your arguments don't make sense. Why would I say some women are better then some men at war if I don't mean women who went thru the same basic training as men. Do I really need to be clear on that? We are talking about military women are we not? Since women can't do the same NFL training as a man that point is clearly moot.

What does cliche mean in regards to sexual assault? Cmon you just told all of us what cliche is. Using sexual assault is a trite idea. You say it's 100 times easier? Making up statistics to prove a point is good. And yes I'm saying some of the sexual assault statistics aren't true. As you just proved they can be made up. It would be extremely difficult for one guy to r*pe another guy without help? How do you prove this statement? I can disprove it quite easily.

The Pentagon estimates that last year 13,900 of the 1.2 million men on active duty endured sexual assault while 12,100 of the 203,000 women in uniform experienced the same crime — or 38 men per day versus 33 women per day. Yet the Defense Department also acknowledges “male survivors report at much lower rates than female survivors.”

Male r*pe survivors tackle military assault in tough-guy culture - U.S. News

I suppose that's one way to report the numbers. You could make the NFL look like a wonderful place compared to most professions by doing that. I mean, there is all kinds of concern about the number of DUIs with NFL players. But I bet if you compared the total numbers, on a per day basis, you would find teachers get way more DUIs than NFL players.

Since people complain about how horrible NFL players are with their DUIs, I guess we really need to consider exactly what kind of people we are trusting our children to.

Of course, on the other hand, we can look at it on a per person, or percentage, basis that would give a much more accurate reflection of the actual numbers (there's a reason crime rates are calculated per capita).

So let's use your numbers

13,900 of 1,200,000 men equates to 1.15%, or 1 out of every 86.33 men report sexual assaults in the military.

12,100 of 203,000 women equates to 5.96%, or 1 out of every 16.78 women.

Women, on a per capita basis, report sexual assaults 5.1 times as often as men. That seems significant. If there were 1.2M women in the armed forces, there would be 76,256 sexual assaults reported by women.

I also understand your reasoning for saying men may not report sexual assaults, but let's not sit here and pretend that every time a woman is sexually assaulted she reports it, even outside the armed forces. The culture of the military (strict hierarchy, respecting superior, following commands of superior) would discourage women from reporting sexual assaults even more than regular society.

Well, when we look

 

[Rathman44]

This is another example of letting the exception validate the rule. It's typical of people who aren't interested in the actual result of something but rather the intention of it. Just because Paula Broadwell is athletic enought to be in the military doesn't mean it's a good idea to let women serve in the military. At first, the military had different standards for men & women, and then they just lowered athletic standards for eveyone. If women could hang with men (in general, not the exceptions), there wouldn't be seperate sports leagues for women. Not to mention the problems with cost and cohabitation.

From a practical standpoint women in the military is a terrible idea. Is that fair? I really don't care. The point of the military isn't to be fair; it's to defend the nation from forgeign & domestic threats.

These aren't exceptions, these are large percentages of women who are able to not only match but outperform the lower 50 percentile of men. If good science and statistics isn't solid enough proof for you, then go to a local race sometime and watch how many women are beating men to the finish line.

The military fumbling their entrance standards and not initially handling women enrollees correctly is not the women's fault. In fact, I'd argue that even if women weren't allowed to enlist that they would've lowered the standards anyways in order keep enrollment up due to our nation's obesity epidemic. It's baffling to me that you keep blaming women for issues like entrance requirements and r*pe...these are problems perpetrated by men. And the whole cohabitation issue is an old and worn-out argument that has been debunked so many times - there's just no point going there again.

And finally, yes, the point is to defend our country and I want the best, the brightest, and the most professional. I could care less what gender or orientation they are. I just want the best. My best friend has been in the Navy for 10 years and he says many of the most reliable people he's worked with are women. Why would we want to get rid of them?

 

[Rathman44]

Also, this shows how gullable you're being on this subject:



So you're saying if you randomly find 15 twenty-year-old men & 15 twenty-year-old women that the top 6 performing women in endurance running (say running 3 miles carrying a 40 pound backpack and a rifle) are going to out-perform at least 7 of the men and this is going to be typical?

This is a perfect example of how intellectually dishoonest people are when they perform so-called "studies" when there is a political motive behind it.

Most of these studies that I've read are funded by universities and purely looking at athletic performance - they aren't linked to military activities at all. They are quite strict about their results being honest, so I am pretty sure there wasn't any political motivation in mind.

Your little scenario is very realistic according to the science. Your sample size is extremely small so it's not the most reliable scenario, but to keep it simple for you, yes that is a reasonable result according to the statistics from the studies I have seen.

And with that all being said, I think I'm done with this topic too. The minute you site actual scientific data and the response is that it's dishonest, well you know it's time to quit. No point wasting more of my time with this one. I'm just glad you guys aren't in charge of these decisions!

 

[NinerSickness]

Most of these studies that I've read are funded by universities and purely looking at athletic performance - they aren't linked to military activities at all. They are quite strict about their results being honest, so I am pretty sure there wasn't any political motivation in mind.

Your little scenario is very realistic according to the science. Your sample size is extremely small so it's not the most reliable scenario, but to keep it simple for you, yes that is a reasonable result according to the statistics from the studies I have seen.

And with that all being said, I think I'm done with this topic too. The minute you site actual scientific data and the response is that it's dishonest, well you know it's time to quit. No point wasting more of my time with this one. I'm just glad you guys aren't in charge of these decisions!

No, you're done because the "scientific data" you cited is ludicrous. In those groups of 15, the women would be lucky to have 1 woman beat the lower 7 guys much less 6 of them. The notion is absurd. This is almost as bad as people saying women aren't in the NFL because they're discriminated against. Women are SIGNIFICANGTLY slower, weaker and less durable than men. That's just an obvious fact. Have you ever played sports with women before? It doesn't sound like it.

 

[Rathman44]

No, you're done because the "scientific data" you cited is ludicrous. In those groups of 15, the women would be lucky to have 1 woman beat the lower 7 guys much less 6 of them. The notion is absurd. This is almost as bad as people saying women aren't in the NFL because they're discriminated against. Women are SIGNIFICANGTLY slower, weaker and less durable than men. That's just an obvious fact. Have you ever played sports with women before? It doesn't sound like it.

OK, you're right, I'm not done. I just texted one of my former classmates (he's got a photographic memory and remembers all this info better than I certainly do) and he corrected me that the number is actually 32%. So I will admit that I did exaggerate a bit, but it doesn't change my point - that's still a large portion of our female population that can outperform half of the men out there. Our professors came to this number after reviewing hundreds of studies, combining the results, and analyzing athletic performance according to their own criteria that included speed, agility, coordination, reaction time, strength, endurance, different sporting events, etc.

Regardless, here's a list of articles that support my point. This took me only a few minutes to come up with these...I'm sure I could come up with many more if I cared to give you any more time on this topic. The fact is, it's just not worth discussing intellectually charged topics like these with someone who just babbles with nothing worthwhile to support their claims. Enjoy...

http://www.cps.org.tw/docs/Vol55 No5 Article 6.pdf
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Ovid: Welcome to OvidSP
The gender difference in distance runni... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI
Could women outrun men in ultramarathon races? : Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Running Performance Differences between Men and Women - Springer
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Gender, age, and sport differences in relative ... [J Sports Sci. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[NinerSickness]

You can'y seriously believe that crap can you? I ran cross country in high school, and there was only 1 girl on the entire team (including JV and varsity) who could keep up with ANY of the guys on the team, much less half of them. Add the fact that soldiers have to carry like 50 pounds of gear over large distances (which women can't do nearly as well because they're significantly weaker than men), and what you have is women slowing everyone else down.

Come to think of it, were you the one who said women were discriminated against and that's what's keeping them out of the NFL? I'll have to go back & see who that was just for fun because that was an even stupider arguement than the bomber-back-from-the-dead nonsense on the OT-Boston thread.

 

[TobyTyler]

You can'y seriously believe that crap can you? I ran cross country in high school, and there was only 1 girl on the entire team (including JV and varsity) who could keep up with ANY of the guys on the team, much less half of them. Add the fact that soldiers have to carry like 50 pounds of gear over large distances (which women can't do nearly as well because they're significantly weaker than men), and what you have is women slowing everyone else down.

Come to think of it, were you the one who said women were discriminated against and that's what's keeping them out of the NFL? I'll have to go back & see who that was just for fun because that was an even stupider arguement than the bomber-back-from-the-dead nonsense on the OT-Boston thread.

I spent several years in the army and I can tell you of the hundreds of women I knew, there were perhaps 4 who could perform the duties in the same manner that a man who had that job was expected to. Physically, they just couldn't or wouldn't cut it. The army's answer: lower the standards for women. Absolutley pathetic.

 

[MHSL82]

Taking the 32% of women are better than 50 percent of men, here are some numbers that go with that. Not saying it's true and not saying that it's true in the military as typically the strongest of both genders go, I presume. Feel free to correct me on that.

--------------------------------

In 100 people, 50 women and 50 men, 32% of 50 women is 16 women. Half of 50 men is 25. So that means 34 women (50-16) and 25 men are on one side (59). And 16 women (32% of 50) and 25 men (50% of 50) is on the other.

Top 41 participants: 25 men (61%), 16 women (39%).
Bottom 59 participants: 25 men (42.4%), 34 women (57.6%).

Take what you will of that. I only shared it because I did the math and it would be more of a waste not to share it. It was already a waste to share it.

 

[MHSL82]

Art Monk, Darrell Green -- Washington Redskins should mull change