They better have female soldiers...

[Harzach 2518]

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

I'm not sure how linking to this page we're on right now proves anything.

I just understood why this topic was closed.

Indeed.

[scrim 1]

MP:Agreed, scientific reports have such merit. The thing is that I wrote scientific reports in the post you qouted.

I'm not saying that the opinions of people are scientific (I don't think the opinions themselves are very important, as opposed to their reasons to have said opinions), but partly the grounds on which they base their case are very much related to science.

Slaves, "free" black men, not that much difference. IIRC there was a draft in the South, and those not caught up in the draft would probably have good reason to fear even more for their lives if they didn't sign up. Then there ought to have been a number who wanted to prove themselves and believed that fighting for the South would lead to a better social standing for them after the war if they did, so their cases are hardly something you can compare to female servicemembers who go to war, do and/or see enough to reach the conclusion that no, women should really not be allowed in combat positions, because they simply can't pull their weight or stay healthy no matter how much they try.

Harzach: Dang it, better luck this time: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA285676

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Not to argue a point but scientific merit is gained when other scientific piers test findings and ultimately agree to a common point. But I digress.

To me the statisical findings of that paper show a problem with the range of females in the studied roles, not that females are, across the board, unfit to do the job. Reread the writters conclusions. The study also relates to the US Army only.

So tell me how your argument has anything to do with the topic. And be clear on this. This topic is about including female avatars in A3 that are able to drive, use guns change uniforms etc. NOT about whether females are fit to serve in roles that policy makers have already green lighted. Otherwise you've proved nothing other than you have a point to prove.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Pathetic_Berserker

[slatts 1978]

They should have women, because let's face it..that hip swivel while running would look damn fine on a woman while running behind it.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Ar, ar. Though I think the ones that would meets scrims requirements have little swivel left.

[xBiG_BaD_Wo1Fx 1]

I feel the argument of science here is pointless. I always liked being able to choose gender my character in games. To leave females as an option out of arma 3 completley because people dont think they should be fighing in real life is stupid. Plenty of other games and movies have women fighting and firing weapons and dieing. Its a video game. And if you give the "Its a Military Sim" crap then why can i survive my a10 nose diving into the ground, and living because i was givin some morphien and bandages. Female combatents should be in game and we could stop talking about and it would be no big deal. I'm not demanding anything, just my opinion. Ever play Rainbow Six: vegas or Splintercell double agent, female operatives and no one complained, its just awesome.

[max power 21]

MP:Agreed, scientific reports have such merit. The thing is that I wrote scientific reports in the post you qouted.

I'm not saying that the opinions of people are scientific (I don't think the opinions themselves are very important, as opposed to their reasons to have said opinions), but partly the grounds on which they base their case are very much related to science.

Unfortunately, the opinion poll is not scientific. If that was part of the paper, which I have not read and I probably will not read, then at the very least the opinion poll can't be considered if the conclusion intends to be scientific. Opinion polls measure peoples' opinions at best, and at worst are a rhetorical tool with little or no actual basis. The fact you can find some people that have some random opinion is not surprising. You can't account for why they have that opinion, for or against your hypothesis.

If you don't think they are important than perhaps you should stop touting them ;)

Slaves, "free" black men, not that much difference. IIRC there was a draft in the South, and those not caught up in the draft would probably have good reason to fear even more for their lives if they didn't sign up. Then there ought to have been a number who wanted to prove themselves and believed that fighting for the South would lead to a better social standing for them after the war if they did, so their cases are hardly something you can compare to female servicemembers who go to war, do and/or see enough to reach the conclusion that no, women should really not be allowed in combat positions, because they simply can't pull their weight or stay healthy no matter how much they try.

Now you're just making shit up. About six percent of the CSA were draftees. And I think you're having a problem with this comparison thing. To be clear, I was using blacks in the CSA to give an example of people actively choosing- for whatever reason- to seemingly fight against their own best interests. People do do that sometimes, and they may even have strong reasons to do so. The fact of the matter is, you don't know why individual freedmen decided to fight for the CSA. The paragraph above has a lot of absolutes. A woman can't 'stay healthy' until you meet one that can. If women can pass all of the training for combat but are still not fit for combat, then I would severely question ANY of the army's ability to measure ANYTHING.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Max Power

[slatts 1978]

Although the U.S Military is the main focus in Arma, Females have been in front line service around the world, hell in our army some them show up some blokes. Some women are able for it, some aren't. Just as some men aren't able for it.

[Maio 293]

So to sum it up:

Most of us want to see women in combat roles.

Some of us want women to at least be able carry a weapon.

Some of us don't want to see women in any sort of combat role.

A very small minority does not want to see women in any form in A3. Someone knight these souls, as they are modern day example of chivalry.

Just going by the pool , the majority of us desire combat able women. I doubt we will see a major turn in the pool, so could we please let this thread die off once more?

[galzohar 31]

http://www.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/files/1/9111.jpg

http://img.mako.co.il/2012/04/30/KARAKAL_c.jpg

http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer3/2012/09/24/4179392/untitled_wa.jpg

Last one actually killed a terrorist.

Then again, last time I was next to a woman with a loaded rifle, she nearly killed me (she wasn't a combat soldier, though, which was actually the main cause for this safety catastrophe).

[scrim 1]

Berserker: Yeah, because the women in the US Army are dramatically genetically different to all other women on the planet. If you read the document, it is painfully obvious that it says women are unfit for combat positions.

Is this more clear to you? "Differences between women and men in their capacity to develop muscle strength and aerobic fitness are such that only approximately 1% of women can equal the performance of the average man. In lifting, carrying and similar tasks performed routinely by the British Army, this means that, on average, women have a lower work capacity than men and, when exposed to the same physical workload as men, have to work 50-80% harder to achieve the same results. This puts them at greater risk of injury. In load marching, another fundamental military task, and in all other simulated combat tasks, women were found to perform worse than men, and the greater the load, the greater the discrepancy. The study concluded that about 0.1% of female applicants and 1 % of trained female soldiers would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these roles."

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/10B34976-75F9-47E0-B376-AED4B09FB3B3/0/women_af_summary.pdf

And that 1% is physical capabilities, so they're just as likely as any other woman to break bones when performing the tasks. How much do you think should be sacrificed by other people than you the next time there's a war where American/British soldiers have to do a Falklands long- and heavy march? Do you really think it's fair to tell the men who are carrying their body weight in kit to distribute 50% of the female soldiers' kit among them and carry it for them, for the sake of sheer sexism? Because treating people differently based on their gender is just that, regardless of which direction it is in, ergo letting women serve as infantry when they can't perform well enough, just because they're women is sexism.

On another note, I don't disagree with women being able to drive and carry weapons in Arma. In fact, I didn't even know they couldn't until I came across this thread.

MP: Sorry, but are you reading what I write? I have not refered to a single opinion poll, I have not called any of the polls I never refered to as scientific, I have not said that the articles aren't important (I said that the opinions aren't very interesting compared to the reason for why these women have said opinions, very clearly), nor have I linked to any "random opinions". I have linked to articles written by women on why, based on their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan women should not be allowed in combat positions. You chosing to ignore that and calling it random opinions, against their best self interest, etc. won't change this. And as I have said many times over and over, basic training is not the highest standards facing an infantryman. Nor does basic training alter biology.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

And I thought I had implied earlier that my opinion on those kind of findings is irrelevant as it doesn't change what is. If you so desperately want to keep repeating yourself I'd say find another topic or someone who can help you effect the change.

On another note, I don't disagree with women being able to drive and carry weapons in Arma. In fact, I didn't even know they couldn't until I came across this thread.

Thank you for bringing it back on topic.

[slatts 1978]

Regardless of all the real world data and whatever. HOW is this going to be implemented. if it is at all? If I want to be a female soldier, how do I make sure I am? Will it be up to the mission maker, will a MP mission of 20 have to have some reserved as female soldiers? Will I be able to pick male/female in the player profile screen?

Forget IF women should be in combat roles. HOW can women be in combat roles in Arma 3.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Well I'd hope 2 methods,

First, I woulld extend the players custom face idea to include the whole avatar so people would simply choose to be male or female as part of thier character profile then in mission the appropriate uniform would be selected.

Additionaly it would be good to allow mission makers to over-ride and ensure missions have the flavour they desire.

[scarecrow398 43]

Well I'd hope 2 methods,

First, I woulld extend the players custom face idea to include the whole avatar so people would simply choose to be male or female as part of thier character profile then in mission the appropriate uniform would be selected.

Additionaly it would be good to allow mission makers to over-ride and ensure missions have the flavour they desire.

I know the point you're making, but i can only imagine a massive amount of threads about people complaining about sexist Mission makers...

Agreed on the avatar side though, seems like the easiest way, then for AI placement they could just randomize it, like of BAF added more Asian faces when units are placed, do the same with Female units, just on a smaller scale.

Either way, Sadly, i think Arma 3 is probably a little too far along in development to do any of the above.

[Nathan1506 1]

---------- Post added at 01:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 ----------

yeah! for the 2-3 only girls in the entire Arma community...

I Hope this was a troll....

[dragon01 903]

Either way, Sadly, i think Arma 3 is probably a little too far along in development to do any of the above.

I don't think so. It's been possible to mod perfectly functional female soldiers and marines into ArmA II long after it was released. Models can always be made and while I don't know if the randomization procedure can be modified at this point, I'm certain that a mission-side solution is perfectly possible. It was all doable in AII, and BI isn't exactly known for removing features.

[nodunit 397]

I know the point you're making, but i can only imagine a massive amount of threads about people complaining about sexist Mission makers...

Why? Nobody complains about the fact that you can go around as a priest and shoot people, or shooting priests. If they do make sexist missions then just ignore it.

Freedom to create always has two sides of the coin, but nobody ever forces anyone to download what is created.

Edited February 12, 2013 by NodUnit

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I don't think so. It's been possible to mod perfectly functional female soldiers and marines into ArmA II long after it was released....

Dosn't realy solve the problem of females as a class. If you read about some of the difficulties those few addon makers have had to get females models working ingame you'd realise that having a functional base class to inherit from is what is really needed.

I think Scarecrow398 is probably right in that A3 would be too far along for females to be included if not already but that doesn't stop them leaving the door open for future updates and expansions.

....Freedom to create always has two sides of the coin, but nobody ever forces anyone to download what is created.

Agreed, and theres nothing stopping folks creating sexist material with the hapless females we have available now. Anyway say as a topic it does blow up, could it really be any worse than this thread.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Who iz more afraid of Altis Baywatch missions ???? Yankees or Aussies ? :D

[Laqueesha 474]

Who iz more afraid of Altis Baywatch missions ???? Yankees or Aussies ? :D

Or Limeys. :p :D

[-Coulum- 35]

I would have no problem with females being able to fight. More options the better.

Taking the issue of "who should and shouldn't be able to fight ingame" to the extreme, if guys think females should be able to fight, what is your point of view on children fighting (if they were in game)?

My initial reaction is "hell no that's just wrong", but when you think about it, the moral reasons behind it are similar to why women "shouldn't" fight - the old school "rule" that men do the fighting to protect the women and children who aren't meant to fight.

Obviously, this "rule" doesn't really apply to women as much anymore so why should it apply to children. Thoughts? (apologies if this is too off topic/too contreversial)

[Nicholas 5]

I don't think that women in the game would hurt anything. But adding the ability for children to fight as well? Yes, children should be able to fight as well. But it's not only about whether it's possible or not. Wouldn't it bump up the game's rating to AO? AO is surely a rating that Bohemia Interactive would not want on their game.

[Ketsa 1]

---------- Post added at 01:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 ----------

I Hope this was a troll....

Notice, the DOTDOTDOT...

As long as you are able to wear ghillies, then I say bring them on! Just as long as she doesn't whine like a girl after getting shot.

[slatts 1978]

^ DayZ much?