Served 27 years in the American Navy. Another difficulty that was discovered in the deployment of women on ships was that they have a much lower tolerance of heat. My understanding of this is due to less muscle mass (have to work harder under the stress of heavy work) and extra fat which both acts as insulation and is extra weight that must be carried around. On my ship, women in hot areas of the ship (usually ratings that work deep in the bowels of the ship) were constantly coming down with heat exhaustion. The CO talked to the Personnel Officer on the ship. Quietly, without fanfare, women were not assigned into these areas of the ship.
The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps is already speculating that the few women who make it into combat roles face the greater likelihood of injury and recommendations have been made for force planning that many women will have to be medically retired before age forty--just as they reach levels of training and experience that would lead to mid-level, and more senior level responsibility as enlisted personnel.
One last practical problem at sea is the average difference in strength. Everything on a ship is heavy, e.g. watertight hatches. If I am injured in a fire and need evacuated, I want people around me who can carry me out. The Navy's solution to date has just been to increase the number of women during drills or to put four women on a fire hose instead of two men. So, depending on the circumstances, where one or maybe two men can evacuate one man, it may take three or four women to do the same. This means other injured may not get evacuated. Women can be valuable assets in the military. But they need to be deployed in areas that make sense and best utilize their skills. So far the American Navy's approach has been to lower qualifications for women and then rig the promotion system with affirmative action. If the balloon goes us, it will needlessly cost lives. But by then the current Generals and Admirals will be working for Gov't contractors and their successors will have to clean up the mess.
It is encouraging to see more and more people willing to speak directly about these issues. However, does anyone have the courage to talk about racial differences?
I watched for 35 years more and more women become cops. And I saw more and more male officers get hurt either defending the women cops because they couldn't defend themselves or not getting backed up by women cops. They really can't do the job, but we are not allowed to say that. I watched female sergeants and officers drive around fight scenes in circles until someone on scene called code 4 and then they would swoop in a pretend to get there for the fight and talk all tough. The male officers usually know what they did, they just can't talk about it. We watched as most female officers couldn't make the minimum 70% on the range without the range officers bumping up their score with extra shots...its a mess that will get worse, just like the military will. These jobs are not fit for women.
Women should be raising children, tending to the home, looking after the household, shopping, cleaning, laundry, cooking, gardening, canning and other lost crafts. the loss of the family unit was the biggest contributor to the degradation of our society. Let's stop cucking ourselves to woke political correctness and call it like it is.
This is a hot button issue for me. There are absolutely NO advantages to having women in the military. Even if one could imagine one or two, they're completely offset by the hundreds of others costs and liabilities.
The rise in clown world observations are in direct proportion to the thirty year intentional decline of testosterone in western men. It's only going to get so much worse.
This article stretches things a bit. While there are some overall differences in things like spatial rotation, that's not really what is at play in maritime navigation, use of radar and similar instrumentation removes all need for ad hoc spatial rotation.
At the same time there have been a number of US naval ships involved in embarrassing collisions over the past few years, with male commanders and navigators.
More likely these navigators were rushed into service for diversity reasons, without acquiring the years of experience necessary for the task.
I did 20 years in the US Navy and retired in '99. I saw many good female sailors - but only ONSHORE. Women on ships was and still is a huge liability. They aren't as strong, get tired more easily, are more emotional and lack wartime attitude. Mostly the ones who knew there was a 6 month cruise coming up got pregnant on purpose so they could stay ashore.
Like I said, females in the Navy are an asset in administrative and shore billets - but for GOD's sake keep them off ships and subs!!!
it is done on purpose. why? to degrade the manned armed forces to such a point that a transition to robots becomes preferable. the robots are nearing production as tech advances at an exponential rate.
Way back in the 1990s, the female "ombudsman" for sex discrimination in Sweden demanded lighter dummies for female firefighters to carry out of smoke-filled buildings. They couldn't lift dummies with real weights. In the U.S. military, the "first female marines!" got to redo practically everything on the obstacle course until they succeeded - for men this is very unusual and only done for rare reasons. In the air force male mechanics have to carry female mechanics' toolboxes out on the runway. And so on. And all over Western Europe "refugees" are extremely privileged. In Sweden, "refugees" get 70% of their wages paid by the government if you hire them for a year. So that they can outcompete better qualified Swedes. Women and "refugees" get extra money from the taxpayers when they start a new company, in order to outcompete better qualified Swedish men.
Nitpick: in racing there are physical stresses, e.g. it is typical to have lateral g-force ~6 in formula 1 passing thought corner. Maybe this also reason why there aren't many East Asian drivers too.
Women belong into NATO militaries, because it enables our rulers to abuse us more without risking rebellion. They don’t need a strong army. They need a compliant army.
A ruler faces two risks:
a) enemy militaries
b) a rebellion
Since rebellion is more likely than invasion for NATO countries, women are put into the military to prevent men organizing against a hostile elite.
A: Build 100 ships, man them with women, 50 ship sink.
B: Build 100 ships, man them with men, 0 ship sink, but you have a coup.
-> A is obviously better
Imagine a ruler funding gain of function research. Or supporting demographic replacement of the native population. Or breaking up families. Or picking and choosing when and which laws to enforce = Anarcho-Tyranny. This ruler would fear his subjects revolting against him.
Served 27 years in the American Navy. Another difficulty that was discovered in the deployment of women on ships was that they have a much lower tolerance of heat. My understanding of this is due to less muscle mass (have to work harder under the stress of heavy work) and extra fat which both acts as insulation and is extra weight that must be carried around. On my ship, women in hot areas of the ship (usually ratings that work deep in the bowels of the ship) were constantly coming down with heat exhaustion. The CO talked to the Personnel Officer on the ship. Quietly, without fanfare, women were not assigned into these areas of the ship.
The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps is already speculating that the few women who make it into combat roles face the greater likelihood of injury and recommendations have been made for force planning that many women will have to be medically retired before age forty--just as they reach levels of training and experience that would lead to mid-level, and more senior level responsibility as enlisted personnel.
One last practical problem at sea is the average difference in strength. Everything on a ship is heavy, e.g. watertight hatches. If I am injured in a fire and need evacuated, I want people around me who can carry me out. The Navy's solution to date has just been to increase the number of women during drills or to put four women on a fire hose instead of two men. So, depending on the circumstances, where one or maybe two men can evacuate one man, it may take three or four women to do the same. This means other injured may not get evacuated. Women can be valuable assets in the military. But they need to be deployed in areas that make sense and best utilize their skills. So far the American Navy's approach has been to lower qualifications for women and then rig the promotion system with affirmative action. If the balloon goes us, it will needlessly cost lives. But by then the current Generals and Admirals will be working for Gov't contractors and their successors will have to clean up the mess.
It is encouraging to see more and more people willing to speak directly about these issues. However, does anyone have the courage to talk about racial differences?
I watched for 35 years more and more women become cops. And I saw more and more male officers get hurt either defending the women cops because they couldn't defend themselves or not getting backed up by women cops. They really can't do the job, but we are not allowed to say that. I watched female sergeants and officers drive around fight scenes in circles until someone on scene called code 4 and then they would swoop in a pretend to get there for the fight and talk all tough. The male officers usually know what they did, they just can't talk about it. We watched as most female officers couldn't make the minimum 70% on the range without the range officers bumping up their score with extra shots...its a mess that will get worse, just like the military will. These jobs are not fit for women.
Women should be raising children, tending to the home, looking after the household, shopping, cleaning, laundry, cooking, gardening, canning and other lost crafts. the loss of the family unit was the biggest contributor to the degradation of our society. Let's stop cucking ourselves to woke political correctness and call it like it is.
This is a hot button issue for me. There are absolutely NO advantages to having women in the military. Even if one could imagine one or two, they're completely offset by the hundreds of others costs and liabilities.
The rise in clown world observations are in direct proportion to the thirty year intentional decline of testosterone in western men. It's only going to get so much worse.
This article stretches things a bit. While there are some overall differences in things like spatial rotation, that's not really what is at play in maritime navigation, use of radar and similar instrumentation removes all need for ad hoc spatial rotation.
At the same time there have been a number of US naval ships involved in embarrassing collisions over the past few years, with male commanders and navigators.
More likely these navigators were rushed into service for diversity reasons, without acquiring the years of experience necessary for the task.
And what about those female sailor pregnancy rates during deployment. Sailors can get some a-- on the Nimitz class.
I did 20 years in the US Navy and retired in '99. I saw many good female sailors - but only ONSHORE. Women on ships was and still is a huge liability. They aren't as strong, get tired more easily, are more emotional and lack wartime attitude. Mostly the ones who knew there was a 6 month cruise coming up got pregnant on purpose so they could stay ashore.
Like I said, females in the Navy are an asset in administrative and shore billets - but for GOD's sake keep them off ships and subs!!!
it is done on purpose. why? to degrade the manned armed forces to such a point that a transition to robots becomes preferable. the robots are nearing production as tech advances at an exponential rate.
Way back in the 1990s, the female "ombudsman" for sex discrimination in Sweden demanded lighter dummies for female firefighters to carry out of smoke-filled buildings. They couldn't lift dummies with real weights. In the U.S. military, the "first female marines!" got to redo practically everything on the obstacle course until they succeeded - for men this is very unusual and only done for rare reasons. In the air force male mechanics have to carry female mechanics' toolboxes out on the runway. And so on. And all over Western Europe "refugees" are extremely privileged. In Sweden, "refugees" get 70% of their wages paid by the government if you hire them for a year. So that they can outcompete better qualified Swedes. Women and "refugees" get extra money from the taxpayers when they start a new company, in order to outcompete better qualified Swedish men.
One set of physical standards cant pass you are out
The US Navy with male navigators has managed some impressive crashes in the last years too.
I agree with your general point, but the navigator of KNM Helge Ingstad was in fact a man.
Nitpick: in racing there are physical stresses, e.g. it is typical to have lateral g-force ~6 in formula 1 passing thought corner. Maybe this also reason why there aren't many East Asian drivers too.
Counterargument:
Women belong into NATO militaries, because it enables our rulers to abuse us more without risking rebellion. They don’t need a strong army. They need a compliant army.
A ruler faces two risks:
a) enemy militaries
b) a rebellion
Since rebellion is more likely than invasion for NATO countries, women are put into the military to prevent men organizing against a hostile elite.
A: Build 100 ships, man them with women, 50 ship sink.
B: Build 100 ships, man them with men, 0 ship sink, but you have a coup.
-> A is obviously better
Imagine a ruler funding gain of function research. Or supporting demographic replacement of the native population. Or breaking up families. Or picking and choosing when and which laws to enforce = Anarcho-Tyranny. This ruler would fear his subjects revolting against him.