All-male combat units outperform units that include women – study

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: PublicOpinion

She failed pretty hard here "proving" that females are smarter than men. There couldn't be more to prove my theory, than the fact that she brought THIS article to the table...instead of finding something tangible to back up her case. Of course, MY theory looks like it may actually profit more reality than hers.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: trollz

Try saying that to Joan of Arc. 😱

Damn straight! JOAN OF ARC WOULD KICK YOUR ASS!!

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: trollz

Try saying that to Joan of Arc. 😱

Damn straight! JOAN OF ARC WOULD KICK YOUR ASS!!

I suspect she was a mere creation of fantasy, much like George Washington's wooden teeth and Newton discovering gravity by an apple dropping on his head (like he never dropped his stylus prior to that moment).

Also, is Joan of Arc the Moon Landing of battle history? Never had another instance of this in history ever since??
Highly unlikely.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

i guess you missed a couple of things is that article.

I guess you guessed wrong then.
Again: compare mental skillsets and we will see how theoretical their abilities are.

The findings lend support to the view that males may excel at motor skills, while women may be better at integrating analysis and intuitive thinking.

www.scientificamerican.com...

I know it's a theory, but I think it's a rather good one.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

I just cited another source if you hate Forbes so much, which is perfectly understandable. Didn't say anything about intelligence either, but I do see the biological difference between the genders. And as far as neurology is concerned they might be on to something there.

Women belong in the kitchen not in the trenches. Its been this way for eons , men were the hunters women were gatherers when we lived in caves. Just because women are not built for combat does not make them unimportant though.

There are sandwitches that need to be made ladies.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

i guess you missed a couple of things is that article.

I guess you guessed wrong then.
Again: compare mental skillsets and we will see how theoretical their abilities are.

The findings lend support to the view that males may excel at motor skills, while women may be better at integrating analysis and intuitive thinking.

www.scientificamerican.com...

I know it's a theory, but I think it's a rather good one.

I don't think his issue was with you having the birth right of entertaining a theory; Rather, I think it was because your first post sounded more like the trumpet shout of "women are smarter than men, and here's the proof".
That is the message structure and intent that your post wreaked of. I think his real plan here was to "educate" people with "facts", as opposed to the usual way people do business today (and the route you chose)...which is to peruse through material real fast, looking for what they want to see, and casting away all of the parts that would not support your intended claim, or what they wanted to believe in. Some call it cherry picking. He just pulled the remaining cherries from the tree that you forgot, intentional or otherwise.

In essence, he was just calling your BS.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: trollz

Try saying that to Joan of Arc. 😱

Damn straight! JOAN OF ARC WOULD KICK YOUR ASS!!

I suspect she was a mere creation of fantasy, much like George Washington's wooden teeth and Newton discovering gravity by an apple dropping on his head (like he never dropped his stylus prior to that moment).

Also, is Joan of Arc the Moon Landing of battle history? Never had another instance of this in history ever since??
Highly unlikely.

You know what you are Mr. Smarty pants? Your a historical sexist! I know how Joan of Arc felt as the flames hit a roman nose and her walkman began to melt.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Again, only theory. My link back there gave proof, from actual tests taken between men and women.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: trollz

Try saying that to Joan of Arc. 😱

Damn straight! JOAN OF ARC WOULD KICK YOUR ASS!!

I suspect she was a mere creation of fantasy, much like George Washington's wooden teeth and Newton discovering gravity by an apple dropping on his head (like he never dropped his stylus prior to that moment).

Also, is Joan of Arc the Moon Landing of battle history? Never had another instance of this in history ever since??
Highly unlikely.

You know what you are Mr. Smarty pants? Your a historical sexist! I know how Joan of Arc felt as the flames hit a roman nose and her walkman began to melt.

Ha ha ha, guilty as charged!

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Well. I wouldn't have that discussion with a woman right now.



From your link:

...First, there are no good evolutionary or environmental theories or reasons to suppose there are sex differences Second,...

www.psychologytoday.com...

Those assumptions with regards to intelligence are a friggin joke, how in hell can you call this scientific proof?

There are things that men are better at, and things that women are better at. This test was aimed at seeing if women would be able to keep up with men in the male-dominated tasks. The news is appearing all over the web, not just on the RT. The question is whether or not the army should change how it operates to be more accommodating to women.

I'm sure that if people took the realistic differences between men and women into account, they could use that to structure the army accordingly. I also think there could be exceptions.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm well aware of what makes up a cutting score and what they are used for. Seeing as I used to write pro/con reports, I'm pretty well versed in them, thanks.

My point, which I'm guessing you're electing to ignore due to having been a POG, is that "how well you can fight" is not what gets you promoted. Otherwise Dakota Meyer would've made sergeant a hell of a lot earlier than he did. A crapload of lance corporals would be wearing blood stripes instead of being terminal lances.

Pro-tip: saying you lost interest in the discussion and then continuing to discuss it reeks of a childish, immature sign that one can't come up with an actual response anymore but doesn't want to "lose."

Ta-ta

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Well. I wouldn't have that discussion with a woman right now.

From your link:

...First, there are no good evolutionary or environmental theories or reasons to suppose there are sex differences Second,...

www.psychologytoday.com...

Those assumptions with regards to intelligence are a friggin joke, how in hell can you call this scientific proof?

LOL!

Finally read it did you? If you go back to my first post, even I said there was no difference. You're the one that came in screaming women were smarter. How does it feel to Ultimately deny...what you came in proclaiming? BTW, women are all that I "argue" with, as men seem to behave and "debate", rather than storming a room and starting some $**t about how much smarter women are than men, and then to quote "First, there are no good evolutionary or environmental theories or reasons to suppose there are sex differences". I believe they call that flip flopping in politics. So which is it? Are women smarter than men, or is there no evidence support that there is a difference between the sees? (...even though there are obvious ones such as strength). It seems we are at he point where you can no longer just be one or the other. If you agree with me my post (which you quoted from), then your post should not have existed anyway.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

please that link is the same study, and does not change what i what i pointed out earlier.

a reply to: DarthFazer

be careful, your in danger of being called a male chauvinist pig talking like that.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I'm just waiting to learn how one goes about making a "sandwitch."

a reply to: PaddyInf

If you think you don't need to be as physically fit to be a modern combat infantry soldier then you need to give your head a wobble.

Ok, I wobbled my head!

You make good points and yes, I am aware of them.

So answer the question I posed please.

How do other countries, such as Israel, make it work and make it all come together effectively?

Why can't the US learn how to do it.

P

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I'm just waiting to learn how one goes about making a "sandwitch."

I saw that too LOL. I was waiting for someone to pick up on that one. Black Witches, White Witches and now we have Sand Witches.

So true, just like the Jessica Lynch situation. (She sat in the middle of four men in the HMMWV. In the middle "gunners seat" area.)
From personal experience, any woman becomes a "desert princess" while deployed.
Some play it up and became "morale packages".
Sexual harrassment aside, even a local civilian woman in the theater of operation was enough to get men killed.
I am all for keeping women out of combat!

a reply to: rockintitz