They better have female soldiers...

[r3volution 0]

Scrim, seriously? Like I said. What your thoughts are on biological difference doesn't matter. There is training and selection exercises there which obviously weed out anyone who isn't physically capable. That's not the argument here.

Are you denying that women are involved in combat as infantry or support units?

The IDF has allowed it for years. The USA is in the process of doing so. The Australian Defence Force will have women in infantry combat units by 2016. Canada has already had female officers commanding frontline infantry units, search for Cpt Nicola Goddard. New Zealand currently has no restriction on women serving in infantry combat units. Sweden has no restriction. Germany has no restriction, even having female soldiers in Fallshirmjaeger units.

So yeah, those armies.

::edit:: As an additional thought for those concerned with the logistics/cost of implementation, the DayZ game in development has female character models which are fully combat capable which I imagine would only require minimal work to adapt to Arma3 ::edit::

Edited March 16, 2013 by r3volution

[scrim 1]

Here we go, "your thoughts on biology". It isn't my thoughts on biology, it's scientifically accepted facts! Not even the 1% that could make it through would be suitable due to the fact that the current tests are designed for men, who will naturally have capabilites that develop and/or will just be there, and will never exist for women.

No, I'm denying that "many NATO countries are already doing it", which is what you said, and that is nothing but a lie. Israel isn't in NATO, Australia isn't in NATO, New Zeeland isn't in NATO, Sweden isn't in NATO, and the Americans aren't actually doing it yet. In fact, they still have two more years to argue for exemptions. You have a single example there in Canada, and they have had extremelly few female infantrymen.

Please go ahead and retract that statement unless you can come up with any real examples, otherwise it's pretty much just a massive lie.

[nodunit 397]

And so the cycle continues...

Edited March 16, 2013 by NodUnit

[HellToupee 0]

HT, thank you for illustrating my point about BS arguments from the "equality side" (it's not really equality when you say that women should be allowed access to something they're not physically capable of, just because they're women, now is it?)

No we say should not be denied access to something they are physically capable of just because they are women.

[r3volution 0]

Scrim, I would love to see your data on these 'capabilities that will never exist for women'. But leaving that alone, because I keep trying to tell you that it is irrelevant in the context of this argument.

If I say that some significant NATO member countries (e.g USA, Canada, Germany) and a significant and increasing number of countries globally (New Zealand, Israel, Australia, Sweden) are permitting and have allowed women into frontline combat roles would that make you happy? And that even in those countries which don't allow women into frontline infantry units, women are in support units which are engaged in combat due to asymmetrical warfare.

Does this reality now, then make it logical that we should rightly have female soldiers represented in a game set in the present day? And even more logical that they should be represented in a game set 20 years from now?

[Freighttrain4 1]

The normal combat soldier on an extended patrol weighs about 350lbs. He's carrying around 170lbs and is walking for about 36 hours or so. It is highly unlikely that any woman that has even thought of joining the military could do that.

Then we also have to question. Would a women of about 5'5"-5'6" be able to carry out a man of about 275lbs(including gear) and more than just a few meters.

Though I think women should be in ARMA 3 as there is no reason to not have them in there. They just need to do it right. I think it should be taken into effect if a women in ARMA 3 was to carry a substantial amount of weight for a long time.

[metalcraze 290]

https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

So much sexism and woman hate in this!

[shadowze 1]

I would also like to see smaller people models .... eg children sized people

[Elena 2]

Quite sure there will be. What else could the parent class (Fem_Base_Soldier) be for? I mean, we know there are Females in A3 anyhow, as there were in A2, just that they had no Animations to get in/out of cars or use weapons. With the entirely overhauled Animation system, it should work out, and if not a modder is going to do it anyways. Girls are in ArmA 3, the question is if we are able to carry gear and Equipment or not.

[johncage 30]

I would also like to see smaller people models .... eg children sized people

probably will need to be modded in, animation, skeleton and all. bohemia thinks we aren't mature enough to handle that properly and they may be right. just look at how this thread went.

[scrim 1]

HT: Except they're simply not. Saying otherwise is a lie. Just read some all the links around here.

R3v: Yeah, now it's "some NATO countries", not "many", and really, it's a few. And you can keep making up straw man arguments a la "women should be in the game, regardless of what you say" because you know damn well we're not arguing against that, we're pointing out the fact that you're lying through your teeth. And a woman coming under fire when assigned to a support unit is not remotely similar to being in the infantry, because in one she will mostly sit in a truck, and in the other she will be walking around with a heavy pack on her back for hours on end, which will cause her life lasting medical injuries after a while, without carrying as much as the male soldiers.

[r3volution 0]

Scrim, I could take you and your accusations of lying so much more seriously if you didn't keep bringing the sexist 'women shouldn't be in combat roles' talk into every post. Let us for now just say that there are enough NATO countries that allow or are allowing women into combat roles that it is unrealistic not to include them.

[DieAngel 0]

Scrim if you do not back up your "facts" with proofs they are just your opinion, and everyone has one of these.

From a realism standpoint, not every country gets to "pick" who they want to send to the frontline, sometimes you make due.

Also, it's a game set in the future, a GAME, who cares about RL policies?

Hey you can be all misogynist if you want as long as you leave that at the door when it comes to video games.

Othewise it's not being realistic or authentic, it's just plain rude.

[Yairweinberg 1]

I met about 5 girls in games (All in world of tanks)

The only reason to put female in the game is for Eye candy... So yeah sure why not.

[white 1]

i love female soldiers, and i believe all 3 images represent accuratelly how they will look on arma:

https://www.google.com.br/search?q=israeli+female+soldiers&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&rlz=1C1GTPM_enBR501BR501&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=cJZEUca0NO2D0QG8-YEw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1340&bih=859

[alduric 10]

Girls shd be in kitchen bro :D

[scrim 1]

Scrim, I could take you and your accusations of lying so much more seriously if you didn't keep bringing the sexist 'women shouldn't be in combat roles' talk into every post. Let us for now just say that there are enough NATO countries that allow or are allowing women into combat roles that it is unrealistic not to include them.

Yep, here we go with straw man arugments again. I have not argued against having them in the game, nor has anyone else you've argued with and played the "realism card" argued against either really. It's just you who keep saying "you're sexists who don't want women in the game because you're mean sexists" because user after user after user calls out your lies. Have I said women shouldn't be in the game? No, but you keep writing as if I had. You are lying about several things, like how many NATO countries allow women in combat positions, about the biological differences between men and women, about what others say, etc.

DieAngel: Yeah, here's the thing: I do back up my posts with facts. Real life facts. If people wouldn't ignore them because they say something they don't agree with, that's not my fault.

And as I've said repeatedly, I'm not at all against female characters in the game. If you've actually read my posts, you know this, as I have stated so repeatedly. My issue here is not female characters, but the lies spread by the ""equality" at the expense of others, ignore science!" crowd.

[PN11A 2]

Clarification for those just viewing this thread. Scrim and myself are not saying that woman should not be allowed in this game.

My viewpoint is from the American standpoint because I am American I cannot speak for or begin to understand the other countries and how they operate. I acknowledge that outside of my country things are different and that this game was created not representing United States Military.

Next I want to make sure everyone understands there is a difference in "being in combat" and serving in "a combat role." The characters in this game are in a combat role, there are no support roles in this game. Every role is combat.

Revolution, it is disingenuous to say that woman and me have been serving in combat roles mainly when it comes to the US.

Should Women Go Into Combat? By Catherine L. Aspy

Inside my boots my feet had turned to hamburger. My uniform, even my belt, was soaking with sweat, and my back and shoulders were numb from the 40 pounds of gear in my rucksack. The climax of Army basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C., a 12-mile march, was almost over.

Determined to keep up, I forced my muscles to move. But few of the other women in the company remained with me near the front. Many were straggling, and some rode the truck that followed to retrieve discarded rucksacks. The men, meanwhile, were swinging along, calling cadence. They seemed to relish the whole thing.

That march confirmed something which had struck me often during the previous eight weeks: with rare exceptions, the women in my unit could not physically compete with the men. Many were unable to lift heavy weights, scale barriers or pull themselves along a rope suspended above a safety net. Mixed running groups had inevitably sorted themselves out by sex; in final tests on two-mile runs, the average woman took 18 minutes, the average man about 14. It was apparent that too many of the men weren't challenged enough by the training regimen.

There certainly were good soldiers among the women in my company; later on, during regular duty at a military-intelligence installation, I saw women of all the service branches perform as well as or better than men in a variety of capacities. Nevertheless, the huge physical performance gap, so obvious in basic training, forced me to consider the implications of placing women in ground combat units.

Today the nearly 200,000 women in the nation's armed forces (14 percent of all active-duty personnel) serve as everything from Air Force fighter pilots to military police officers to captains of Navy ships. But the direct combat arms of the Army and Marines—including infantry, armor and field artillery—are closed to them.

Should women be allowed into these units as well? Many believe they should. After all, we Americans resent being barred from anything; it's part of our instinct for freedom. Former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D, Colo.) declared, "Combat-exclusion laws have outlived their usefulness and are now nothing more than institutionalized discrimination."

It's not an issue I thought about much when I enlisted. I'm sure if I had been asked at the time whether women should be allowed in combat, I would have at least said, "maybe."

Now I say "no." Everything I observed during my hitch in the Army, and later, as I studied the issue and talked to others inside and outside the military, has convinced me this would be a mistake.

Combat is not primarily about brains, or patriotism, or dedication to duty. There is no question women soldiers have those in abundance. Combat is about war-fighting capacity and the morale of the unit. Here physical strength can be a life-and-death issue. And that is why the physical disparities between men and women cannot be ignored.

The Strength Factor. To deal with the male-female performance gap, the Army has increased emphasis on "teamwork." No one is against teamwork—that's the essence of the military. But in some cases it has become a euphemism for defining down military tasks, as when three or four soldiers are needed to carry an injured comrade instead of two.

"From a combat stand point this is just ludicrous," notes William Gregor, a veteran of combat in Vietnam who is now associate professor of social sciences at the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "You may not have extra people around. And battle wears you down. A unit where one person can't pull his or her weight becomes a weaker unit."

I'm five feet, six inches tall, and I arrived at basic training weighing 135 pounds. I was taller than many women in my unit. But the average female soldier is 4.7 inches shorter and 33.9 pounds lighter than her male counterpart. She has 37.8 pounds less lean body mass. This is critical because greater lean body mass is closely related to physical strength.

A U.S. Navy study of dynamic upper-torso strength in 38 men and women found that the women possessed about half the lifting power of the men. In another Navy study, the top seven percent of 239 women scored in the same range as the bottom seven percent of men in upper-body strength.

Even though I had been athletic in high school and had been toughened by two months' training, that final 12-mile march was a killer. One reason: cardio respiratory capacity—the rate at which the heart, lungs and blood vessels deliver oxygen to working muscles. Trainers know that this capacity is key to sustained physical performance. And numerous studies have revealed differences by sex. "In general," summarized the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, "women have a smaller heart mass, heart volume and cardiac output than men."

Some who want women in combat units acknowledge these differences, but claim they're based on stereotyping and can be minimized by extra training. It isn't that simple.

In a 1997 Army study, for example, 46 women were given a specially designed 24-week physical-training program to see if they could improve their ability to do "very heavy" lifting. During the training, the number of women who qualified for these jobs increased from 24 percent to 78 percent. Still, on average they were unable to match the lifting performance of men who did not undergo the program.

But what about those few women who might qualify for combat units? Gregor, who has done extensive research on male-female physical performance, questions how realistic it is to train 100 women for combat on the chance of finding a handful who will meet—or in exceptional cases exceed—the minimum requirements.

Tougher Standards? The interchangeability of every soldier in a combat emergency is an enduring principle of an army's effectiveness as a fighting force. It assumes that each has received the same training and can perform to the same basic standard. That's still true for men who sign up to go directly into the Army's combat arms. They train "the old way," in a harsh, demanding environment.

It's no longer true elsewhere. Under mixed-gender basic training instituted in 1994, men and women are held to different standards. The regimen became less challenging, to hide the difference in physical performance between men and women (although the Army denies this).

Eventually, the softness of basic training became an object of such widespread public ridicule that "tougher" rules were drawn up. Even with these new standards, scheduled to take effect this month, women can score as well as men who are being tested against a tougher standard. In the 17-to-21 age group, for example, to get a minimum score of 50 points, a male recruit must do 35 push-ups, a female, 13. If women were allowed into combat units and these double standards were made universal, the result would be to put physically weaker forces into the field.

An Army publicity release defended these "tougher" standards on the ground that they "promote gender equity" and "level the playing field."

I don't know about the "playing" field. But somehow I think the field of actual combat will not be very level.

Edited March 16, 2013 by PN11A

[johncage 30]

it's ok if models are missing, more important is rigging and skeleton.

here is example of female model:

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3606/femm.jpg

[metalcraze 290]

I like how when article about why females are unequal to male soldiers is written by a female soldier - it's always ignored and mostly male kids in this thread continue on their "equality" crusade to push some silly agenda for their LARPing in Citylife RPG or whatever.

[luuktoonen 1]

gotta love the arma community

[PN11A 2]

I like how when article about why females are unequal to male soldiers is written by a female soldier - it's always ignored and mostly male kids in this thread continue on their "equality" crusade to push some silly agenda for their LARPing in Citylife RPG or whatever.

You posted the original one that I wanted to post. I think its best to copy and past the articles because people rarely ever click the link and go read when you place it in the thread they are forced to deal with it, and like you said they seem to vanish.

[DieAngel 0]

The US army can brag about their "high performance" soldiers all day long, they never had to fend an invading force on their own land. When this happen you usually count on those willing to defend the country, regardless of their age or gender.

All this doesn't even matter, it's a game, the devs can implement whatever the hell they want. So can we go back on topic?

[PN11A 2]

The US army can brag about their "high performance" soldiers all day long, they never had to fend an invading force on their own land. When this happen you usually count on those willing to defend the country, regardless of their age or gender.

All this doesn't even matter, it's a game, the devs can implement whatever the hell they want. So can we go back on topic?[/QU war?OTE]

Revolutionary war? You sound butt hurt. Not only is your argument failing, so is your grasp of history.

[dunedain 48]

All this doesn't even matter, it's a game, the devs can implement whatever the hell they want. So can we go back on topic?

I think you answered your own question already. Just let the devs implement whatever the hell they want...