[Scotty]

You're wrong, Liberator is on record as supporting lower requirements for women.

^{[Citation needed]}

[Droid803]

Funny how that everyone actually agrees - even TrashMan.
Except that they just don't recognize that they're all in agreement.  
That, and that people are reading other people's posts completely wrong, not implying that I am in any way above this, though.

Let me summarize the accepted points...

- A lower percentage of women are capable of meeting standards required for armed forces, especially for special ops.
- If a hypothetical woman were to meet these standards, they should be allowed in.
- These standards should not be lowered.

Now let me summarize what is in contestation...

- Whether or not there is a statistically relevant number of women that can actually meet the standards.

Here, then, we'll need citations. Otherwise you could just vent whatever hypothetical scenarios you want or spout random statistics. We can't have that, now can we?

[Nuclear1]

Alright, first of all, I think you're all being kind of rough on Lib today, undeservingly.

Secondly, the data's all there potentially, it just hasn't been compiled to make an assessment.

Physical standards:
--Annual or semiannual PT eval statistics.
--First-hand accounts from SERE instructors on female trainees' endurance during long rucks.
--Medical records of possibility handicapping conditions

Psychological standards:
--Reports of performance during interrogation/torture resistance training
--Preventative health assessments done on a semiannual basis

Unit Cohesion/Performance:
--Enlisted/Officer Performance Reports (EPR/OPR)
--Historical US military accounts of women in combat.   

It's all there, it just never gets compiled.

[Klaustrophobia]

well there IS the whole issue of differing relationships between male and female soldiers in combat scenarios.  while not definitely show-stoppers, it IS something to consider and address.  the "ignore it and it won't matter" idea doesn't really seem solid to me.

[SpardaSon21]

It makes sense actually.  Treat the woman next to you as just another soldier, and that's what she will be.

EDIT: This won't be useful if she's complaining about her nails and makeup, but if she acts like she has a pair of brass balls hanging down there like a male soldier does, then it won't take long before the males start thinking of her as one of their own rather than a female who happens to be with them.

[Nuclear1]

Exactly.  On the jet over Afghanistan, the female op sitting next to you is a valuable team asset in intelligence collecting, not a piece of pussy (pardon my bluntness).  Same goes for the flight deck and the flight engineers.

Bear in mind, I've flown with some absolutely gorgeous women over Afghanistan, but when it comes down to it, with Coalition soldiers or civilian Afghan lives on the line, our first priority isn't finding a way to join the USAF mile high club.  

[iamzack]

It's kind of sexist the way some people assume men can't be in the presence of a woman without losing his mind. Seems to me like the genitals of the person next to you would be pretty much the last thing on one's mind when under fire.

[Qent]

It's not sexist. Because we're guys.

[el_magnifico]

It's not sexist. Because we're guys.

Sexism against guys is sexism too.

Now, I do think that some people are oversensitive in these matters. But sexism is real, and it affects everyone.

[Qent]

This article is somewhat out of date, but provides a decent layperson's window into the topic.

So apparently my Ambivalent Sexism Inventory scores are as follows:
Hostile Sexism Score:  1.91
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.36
Higher scores mean more sexist.

EDIT: But giving dishonest answers makes it super easy to get 0's.

[Scotty]

Hostile Sexism Score: 0.91
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.64

Interesting little test.  Then again, I can't help but wonder, is all sexism necessarily bad?  (That's an honest question)  After all, there are some undeniable differences between male and female.

[Qent]

I was about to say exactly the same thing, but Wikipedia says that sexism is the belief that one sex is inferior to the other. So in that sense, yeah.

[Ace]

Hostile Sexism Score: 0.00
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.09

Considering I'm surrounded by women archaeologists if I had a hostile score of even 0.01 I think I'd be bludgeoned to death.

[Klaustrophobia]

those questions were really loaded and hard to answer honestly.

[iamzack]

The questions are all pretty transparent. Bad test.

And yeah, sexism is bad. Always.

[el_magnifico]

Hostile Sexism Score:  1.64
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.55

My score is quite below the average in both cases.
The difference in hostile sexism is notorious though, but considering all the **** I've had to take from feminists in my life (included, but not limited to, physical aggressions, censorship, and denial of rightfully earned positions) just because I was a man, I'm going to cut myself some slack in that one.

I do have to admit I feel more comfortable working with women, especially when receiving and when imparting orders. So I may have some degree of sexism against males too.

( WTF @ sexism levels in Cuba).

[NGTM-1R]

I'm a bit surprised at my hostility score (0.82), as I don't think it reflects my usual behavior on an interpersonal basis. (I would rank my hostility and benevolence as roughly equal, personally.) I think they made an error, or a simple imposed limitation of getting an accurate reading on the general populace, in assuming those taking the test would not be widely read. Sure, women aren't seeking preferential treatment or power over men as a majority, but the Lady Land utopianists do exist (I've read a few books by them) so I can't categorically reject the assertion these things are happening.

The benevolent score was 0.55. Apparently the assertion that I will hit you in the face if you annoy me enough, regardless of gender, is true.

[General Battuta]

The test you're all taking is a self-report measure. It's often helpful to supplement those with an implicit measure.

Try it out. Maybe I'll start a new thread.

EDIT: why the heck isn't the direct gender one available without registration? Grump.

Take the race one, it's a good demo of how they work.

[Nuclear1]

Hostile Sexism Score: 4.55
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.45

Well, looks like I'm a jackass.

[General Battuta]

After all, there are some undeniable differences between male and female.

Name a few biologically rooted behavioral differences. I bet it'll be trickier than you think!