They better have female soldiers...

[pathetic_berserker 4]

@ scrim

1 word minimums.

And yet I've heard anecdotaly that for many, after basic things get easier, as they get more time and resources to focus on the required lifestyle. I find it odd that you are such an expert on generalising about the entry standards for all services of all nations and thier ineptness at managing thier resources.

[nodunit 397]

It amuses me how when a topic of female soldiers comes up, the first thought of a collective conscience is based upon the systems of the real world rather than looking at the mechanics of the game. IE males can use tools but females can't, making the resources invested in them ultimately pointless.

Coming from the view of an addon maker, it's really confusing to see so many people against this and using endless loops of arguements justified by things from the real world while blissfully turning a blind eye to the mechanical aspect and what it could mean for the game itself.

Imagine being an undercover grandma who drives to a meeting point to get a concealed weapon, which you must then use to assassinate someone. Think of resistance fighters, or just civilians taking up arms in general. Don't get stuck on the female soldier meaning historical or military, and for the love of god don't get stuck on the idea that it must always be based on the real world.

Everyone lauds Arma games for their sandboxy nature and how you can do "anything" , yet so many of those people are opposed to something as simple as this.

Edited February 4, 2013 by NodUnit

[sqb-sma 66]

Don't really mind either way, but I think the deciding factor should be the realism of it...

[iceman77 18]

They should have women and small children... Though it would be pretty ruthless to be able to kill a child in a game :p. But for "realism" sakes...

[max power 21]

There seems to be a fairly common argument here that since most women don't meet some artificial standard, they aren't fit to fight. I really wonder about these standards and what they are describing. For instance, is the capability of the army based on those standards or are those standards based on some desired capability? I wonder if these standards are current, or if they are the same standards that the armed forces have had kicking around for a while now. Let's not forget that these categories are artificial, and possibly old, and probably not without a great deal of arbitrariness. Be that as it may, these standards are not the only reason why armies are hesitant to allow women into combat roles. I have heard that women present a training challenge to the fighting men, because men in general lack the discipline to treat women as equals, and will sacrifice their own lives to save women in peril, etc.

[scrim 1]

@ scrim

1 word minimums.

And yet I've heard anecdotaly that for many, after basic things get easier, as they get more time and resources to focus on the required lifestyle. I find it odd that you are such an expert on generalising about the entry standards for all services of all nations and thier ineptness at managing thier resources.

"1 word minimums"? What?

Yes, after basic training there is more free time, that's fairly obvious. However, the time you have does not matter, because here we go again: Basic biology, a world wide accepted fact simply means that women can't reach the physical standards required to serve in combat roles. Not physical standards set to favor men, but standards that mean that every infantryman can carry his pack without having others carry things for him, that every infantryman can actually with his pack on carry a wounded man out of the line of fire. That artillerymen can carry one or even two 50kg shells from a truck to the cannon, and load them, and repeat this for several hours if neccessary.

Why is it that when these things are discussed, the common consensus seems to be that naive assumptions and irrelevant nonsense such as "I've seen a woman who can shoot very well and/or outrun me" take the lead by a mile over simple biology we learn in sixth grade, science and facts? Has anyone here bothered giving a factual source about why women can serve in combat roles? Nope. Does anyone bother reading the source that I just gave, written by a female Marine Corps officer who did less than what infantry officers would? Heck no, but I suppose that you can't say she's generalising, whereas you can say that I am.

[maddogx 13]

It amuses me how when a topic of female soldiers comes up, the first thought of a collective conscience is based upon the systems of the real world rather than looking at the mechanics of the game. IE males can use tools but females can't, making the resources invested in them ultimately pointless.

Coming from the view of an addon maker, it's really confusing to see so many people against this and using endless loops of arguements justified by things from the real world while blissfully turning a blind eye to the mechanical aspect and what it could mean for the game itself.

Imagine being an undercover grandma who drives to a meeting point to get a concealed weapon, which you must then use to assassinate someone. Think of resistance fighters, or just civilians taking up arms in general. Don't get stuck on the female soldier meaning historical or military, and for the love of god don't get stuck on the idea that it must always be based on the real world.

Everyone lauds Arma games for their sandboxy nature and how you can do "anything" , yet so many of those people are opposed to something as simple as this.

^^ This.

IMHO, whether or not women should be allowed or are physically capable of performing combat roles in real world militaries is beside the point here. Such issues are for the mission designers to worry about.

The point is that women can hold and shoot guns in real life, while women in the game cannot (so far). The same goes for driving, as pointed out earlier. In short, female avatars in the game lack certain capabilities, and it would be nice to see those capabilities implemented.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

That artillerymen can carry one or even two 50kg shells from a truck to the cannon, and load them, and repeat this for several hours if neccessary.....

I rekon there would be very very few who could cary 2x50kg shells at a time for several hrs if at all.

If you had actually been reading my posts you would have noticed that there are no naive asumptions used or any silly exagerations.

Just a point of fact. Women are being accepted into military forces around the world. It is happening and has already happened.

Your argument is already known and has been heard and weighed by others that make real decisions and now women are being accepted in ever increasing roles in the military. Simple.

1 repeated argument about female weakness is not enough to change this.

A few opinionated anecdotes is not enough to change this, because like all things in this world, you can never please everyone.

A few highlighted cases of failing systems in one service doesn't change the game for other nations or services within that nation.

And I'll reiterate that the 'basic biology' you keep refering to is still statisics. All of science uses statistics to verify the theories and anecdotes before they are widely considered 'knowledge'. And there are layers of statistics within the statistics you are refering to. For instance, statisics will show that men are generaly stronger than women, yes, but 'generaly' doesnt tell you how many women would still be capable of doing the task or how how many men would be incapable doing the task, specifics are needed. If this were possible they may have actually had a rationale for not including women. But the truth is the range of human capability required is too broad to create a system wich can effectively exclude females (without resorting to blatant sexism) or the bar would be set too high and the high quality of individual accepted into the military would be so few as to make forming an army impossible. ie. many men are accepted that may be below above average females.

I get what you are saying about tilting requirements for females in the US military but this is really an internal matter for them to be rectified. And IF they change policy on this it's still unlikely that it would change much from a 'do we include female soldiers in ArmA' standpoint, as indications are that women are actualy being accepted even further. And this is also a very US centric view that ignores the rest of the world.

If your argument is actually about the inclusion of female soldiers in A3 or not, I'm not sure. Because as it stands it's no more usefull than arguing against any other asset that is in existance and being used. If your argument is about not having women in the military at all then I'd look at it as being a different topic.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Pathetic_Berserker

[scrim 1]

I reiterate, it would be nice to see someone who agrees with women in combat roles and can actually support it with real facts, sources, etc. instead of making assumptions and excuses. I could link to another ~half dozen scientific reports and accounts written by female servicemembers who strongly disagree with placing women in combat positions and have facts they experienced themselves to back that up with, but I get the feeling no one who disagrees with me will actually bother reading them but will just make up excuses that are naive and/or in direct contradiction of facts brought up in said sources, as has been the case so far.

[blackmamb 2]

I reiterate what's been said: Who cares? Women, in a sandbox game, should be allowed to do whatever we want them to do, and especially drive cars. And pick up weapons. And shoot you in the back. You personally don't want to see women on the frontline, but that's your problem. We want to play and do stupid stuff, and why not involve the female characters of the game in it. Cause we can't at the moment.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

And whether I agree with you or not it has little relevance to a 'combined arms simulator/game' wich needs to somewhat reflect what we see on the ground and cater for a larger group than just the inf elites. Women as incapable set pieces simply drops way short of the mark.

[max power 21]

I reiterate, it would be nice to see someone who agrees with women in combat roles and can actually support it with real facts, sources, etc. instead of making assumptions and excuses. I could link to another ~half dozen scientific reports and accounts written by female servicemembers who strongly disagree with placing women in combat positions and have facts they experienced themselves to back that up with, but I get the feeling no one who disagrees with me will actually bother reading them but will just make up excuses that are naive and/or in direct contradiction of facts brought up in said sources, as has been the case so far.

Unless those opinions are opinions of policy makers, they are all but useless. They have neither any scientific merit, not any actual influence. All you're talking about here is a bunch of people with opinions... and you know what they say about opinions.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Thought that this thread is more about that females in A3 should be at least capable to defend themselves? Can't be so hard to understand that BIS made a strange decision of reducing females in A2OA just to be useful to walk around and to act as eyecandy.

[scrim 1]

Unless those opinions are opinions of policy makers, they are all but useless. They have neither any scientific merit, not any actual influence. All you're talking about here is a bunch of people with opinions... and you know what they say about opinions.

Yeah, except as I said, they are 1, scientific reports, and 2, accounts based on real life experiences. So it isn't opinions, but something that actually has scientific merit, and are more than opinions, though pretty much everyone seems to have been intent on ignoring that.

[maddogx 13]

Yeah, except as I said, they are 1, scientific reports, and 2, accounts based on real life experiences. So it isn't opinions, but something that actually has scientific merit, and are more than opinions, though pretty much everyone seems to have been intent on ignoring that.

No one is ignoring that. As far as I can tell, nothing you have posted is wrong, per se - you just seem to be fixated single-mindedly on the issue of women serving on the front line in a regular army, while we are discussing alternate possibilies.

Again, the fact remains that women are not physically incapable of holding and firing a rifle. The game should reflect this accordingly.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Again, the fact remains that women are not physically incapable of holding and firing a rifle. The game should reflect this accordingly.

Exactly.

[[evo] dan 79]

Exactly.

Also, Women drove T34's during the second world war (which isn't easy from what I heard, its very heavy on steering), fought as part of the Red army infantry and of course female resistance fighters.

[nodunit 397]

Thought that this thread is more about that females in A3 should be at least capable to defend themselves? Can't be so hard to understand that BIS made a strange decision of reducing females in A2OA just to be useful to walk around and to act as eyecandy.

Don't bother wasting your time, this thread is clearly not about game logic from mechanical standpoints but scientific and real world "facts" and studies, any attempts to point out that it should be less about real world and more about doors opened for more game styles under the choice of the mission creator are simply ignored by most.

It's almost as if you guys WANT to have the broken record re-looping arguements again and again.

Edited February 5, 2013 by NodUnit

[max power 21]

Yeah, except as I said, they are 1, scientific reports, and 2, accounts based on real life experiences. So it isn't opinions, but something that actually has scientific merit, and are more than opinions, though pretty much everyone seems to have been intent on ignoring that.

No, peoples' opinions don't have any scientific merit, sorry to say. What you're talking about is an opinion poll and I'm wondering how that became scientific all of a sudden. People will sometimes illogically fight against their own interests, like the handful of blacks that are thought to have fought for the Confederate states during the American civil war.

---------- Post added at 08:46 ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 ----------

Don't bother wasting your time, this thread is clearly not about game logic from mechanical standpoints but scientific and real world "facts" and studies, any attempts to point out that it should be less about real world and more about doors opened for more game styles under the choice of the mission creator are simply ignored by most.

It's almost as if you guys WANT to have the broken record re-looping arguements again and again.

There is absolutely no ground to cover in this thread at all, period. Anything you bring up is relooping, no matter what stand point you're trying to discuss. We've covered the missing animations for characters, etc. This thread was reopened I guess for the news about America allowing women in combat roles, and now we're back to the same old, tired, pseudo-science.

[scrim 1]

No, peoples' opinions don't have any scientific merit, sorry to say. What you're talking about is an opinion poll and I'm wondering how that became scientific all of a sudden. People will sometimes illogically fight against their own interests, like the handful of blacks that are thought to have fought for the Confederate states during the American civil war.

Oh, so the scientific reports have no scientific merit? Should you or I tell the authors that? And comparing female servicemembers who have actually gone to war, know what they are talking about, and make a strong, unbiased case based on science to slaves who were told to go to war and did so because they didn't have a choice is quite possibly the most sexist, demeaning and belittling thing that has been said so far in these forums about women in combat.

I have little reason to believe that they would agree with your view that not they, but you know what's best for them, despite lacking the experiences they have and on which they base their case.

[Harzach 2516]

Oh, so the scientific reports have no scientific merit?

Not until you provide links, no.

[scrim 1]

And here you go: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119587-They-better-have-female-soldiers/page103

Though I can add, that just like I said earlier, I didn't because no one seemed interested in responding to anything I linked to with more than saying things that we're at best ignoring the sources and persons who wrote it, and at worst belittling them for it saying they don't know any better.

[duckii 1]

I would love to see female soldiers in ArmA3.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I just understood why this topic was closed.

[max power 21]

Oh, so the scientific reports have no scientific merit? Should you or I tell the authors that?

No, scientific reports do. I'm not sure if you are not understanding what I'm saying, or if you're trying to misrepresent what I said.

And comparing female servicemembers who have actually gone to war, know what they are talking about, and make a strong, unbiased case based on science

Peoples' opinions are not a scientific authority, sorry.

to slaves who were told to go to war and did so because they didn't have a choice is quite possibly the most sexist, demeaning and belittling thing that has been said so far in these forums about women in combat.

I have little reason to believe that they would agree with your view that not they, but you know what's best for them, despite lacking the experiences they have and on which they base their case.

Who said anything about slaves? I was talking about free black men ;) Of course it would be pretty sweet for your argument if I was talking about slaves- sadly not.