They better have female soldiers...

[rye1 21]

i don't see the point of not having female soldiers or civilians.

feeeeed the trolllll.

[dragon01 902]

Except the physical demands at basic and infantry training are considerably lower than those that will actually be required when the infantryman is deployed with his unit. That hasn't been a problem, because they've been able to raise their performance before deploying, or been kicked out to some other position, but now it becomes a problem, because basic biology says that women have 50% less upper body strength and 30% less aerobic capacity. Imagine how that'll end when they're going to carry 60-80 pounds of body armour, weapon, helmet, backpack, ammo, equipment, etc. a warm day in Afghanistan.

Remember, the numbers you quote are all averages. Nothing stops a woman from training more in order to meet the higher requirements. She might need to train more, but it's far from impossible.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

^^ And as this is a game wich is meant to be entertaining, it could be good to move away from generalizations and averages once in a while.

[scrim 1]

Remember, the numbers you quote are all averages. Nothing stops a woman from training more in order to meet the higher requirements. She might need to train more, but it's far from impossible.

No, those numbers are regarding the potential we as human beings have for developing muscle strength. It has been publically acknowledged by doctors, scientists and men and even women in the military that this is a simple fact of life that can't be altered.

[accapella 1]

It's never the case at least for physical tests which are "adapted" for women. Moreover I talked with NCOs in my country who told me women were much more refractory than men to discipline and generally lesser soldiers. It's just the usual liberal idealistic bullshit agenda at work.

Kinda fits the bill of the french having a patronizing attitude towards women.

I'm sure there are atleast invidual women who are completely fit for duty.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

No, those numbers are regarding the potential we as human beings have for developing muscle strength. It has been publically acknowledged by doctors, scientists and men and even women in the military that this is a simple fact of life that can't be altered.

Actually scrim as long your talking stats and numbers, Dragon01 right. Sure there could be loads of truth in them, but they're still numbers that don't account for the individual women who do make the grade. The numbers you refer to don’t reflect the gulf between the absolute ultimate of human performance and what is considered minimal to be used as sentient gun platform. And crying about numbers and generalistic norms at this point in time is usless. They are already out there in our faces.

[Itsarclight 1]

I pretty sure women would make better soldiers than men. That's why women should be available for all roles in ArmA 3.

My female cousin was a Major in some Artillery Unit (cant remember which) in the Swedish Armed Forces.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Kinda fits the bill of the french having a patronizing attitude towards women.

Meh, stop caricaturizing things, that's ridiculous.

[paecmaker 23]

I pretty sure women would make better soldiers than men. That's why women should be available for all roles in ArmA 3.

My female cousin was a Major in some Artillery Unit (cant remember which) in the Swedish Armed Forces.

Probably A 9 as its the only artillery regiment we got.

[Sky999 10]

I pretty sure women would make better soldiers than men. That's why women should be available for all roles in ArmA 3.

My female cousin was a Major in some Artillery Unit (cant remember which) in the Swedish Armed Forces.

That must be why men have been used as the majority, if not the complete majority of every fighting force in history...

[max power 21]

That must be why men have been used as the majority, if not the complete majority of every fighting force in history...

I think from an anthropological perspective, it's because women are more valuable than men. But, I think Itsarclight wasn't talking about historically, I think he was thinking in terms of discipline and other factors in a modern context.

[scrim 1]

Actually scrim as long your talking stats and numbers, Dragon01 right. Sure there could be loads of truth in them, but they're still numbers that don't account for the individual women who do make the grade. The numbers you refer to don’t reflect the gulf between the absolute ultimate of human performance and what is considered minimal to be used as sentient gun platform. And crying about numbers and generalistic norms at this point in time is usless. They are already out there in our faces.

Let me make this very clear: This is basic biology. It is how we are built as human beings, and as such what our bodies are actually capable of doing. Why do you think that female soldiers have considerably lower PT standards in almost every single military in the world? Why do you think that men and women compete in gender segregated teams in every single professional sport in the world? Most women simply can't reach the standards set for infantry-, artillery- and tankmen. And those standards are by no means standards you will actually get away with after your basic training, and the reason the standards are so low is because they are modeled for men, who are capable of going way above those standards when they reach their units. Women simply aren't. It is basic science.

Long story short, male bodies are built in one way, and female bodies in another. This is a fact. Physical standards that just a few women can reach, i.e. male standards for combat positions are not the standards that they will be held to after their basic training is complete, because as the name suggests, it's basic training, so the few women who can reach those standards have a long way to go afterwards.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

^^ And stating the obvious doesn't change the fact that many forces around the world have seen fit to include them. Folks better equiped to make this choice have already made it.

[scrim 1]

Yeah, and most of them have not been to war for a long time, or are exceptions. It's pretty much just Canada and Israel that have been to wars during the last decades and have decided to let women serve in the infantry. Israel needs pretty much everyone they can get, and Canada has only accepted a very low number of women into combat arms. Besides, the decision hasn't actually been made yet. The services have three years to argue why they should not allow female soldiers into the infantry, tanks and artillery.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Woman do serve in the US special forces community as information specialists and civil affairs specialists and are attached to and working with SEAL teams and Green Berets. It's not so much about how many miles one can run or how many push-ups one can do - it's more important what SOF candidates are made of and whether or not they have the courage and the intellectual agility to do their job. What's the real matter with having female soldiers in a game? Old fashioned thinking or just afraid that a female soldier could be better and/or win? A3 is set in a fictional world - why woman should be excluded to fight for their life, country and beliefs in this game?

[Double Doppler 10]

Is all this philosophical talk really necessary? Anyone can carry a gun and shoot at a target... who says that NATO/US-Army must be the only force that will feature them - ever considered the resistance fighters?

So I see no reason not to add female soldiers and units who can carry weapons. It shouldn't be too much of a task for the development team, after all, DayZ already "has" them...

So I don't see any sane reason why Arma 3 shouldn't.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Double Doppler

[rye1 21]

100 pages of discussion and yes, multiple people have mentioned resistance fighters.

[Tes 1]

There ARE females plaing ARMA,at least one i know (no, she won't marry you... i think)

[scrim 1]

Woman do serve in the US special forces community as information specialists and civil affairs specialists and are attached to and working with SEAL teams and Green Berets. It's not so much about how many miles one can run or how many push-ups one can do - it's more important what SOF candidates are made of and whether or not they have the courage and the intellectual agility to do their job. What's the real matter with having female soldiers in a game? Old fashioned thinking or just afraid that a female soldier could be better and/or win? A3 is set in a fictional world - why woman should be excluded to fight for their life, country and beliefs in this game?

Oh really? So if the physical standards are so irrlevant to that field of service, then why do they exist?

For all the way technology has come the last years, in the end it still comes down to someone who is strong enough to carry all his equipment, even more so than earlier, since soldiers today are expected to carry more than ever before. SF guys have high physical standards because A, they need to be able to carry much for long periods of time and still be on top of their game, and B, when the shit hits the fan, they need everything they have to evade capture. Remember the SAS guy who walked his way to safety through the Iraqi desert in the Gulf War? Tell him special forces aren't about physical standards just as much as every other standard.

And can people who are "equality everywhere, regardless of biological equality" stop playing the cheap "you're an old fashioned sexist" card when countered with basic facts of life?

[wipman 1]

Oh really? So if the physical standards are so irrlevant to that field of service, then why do they exist?

For all the way technology has come the last years, in the end it still comes down to someone who is strong enough to carry all his equipment, even more so than earlier, since soldiers today are expected to carry more than ever before. SF guys have high physical standards because A, they need to be able to carry much for long periods of time and still be on top of their game, and B, when the shit hits the fan, they need everything they have to evade capture. Remember the SAS guy who walked his way to safety through the Iraqi desert in the Gulf War? Tell him special forces aren't about physical standards just as much as every other standard.

And can people who are "equality everywhere, regardless of biological equality" stop playing the cheap "you're an old fashioned sexist" card when countered with basic facts of life?

'Basic life fact...' if you don't pass the course, for the SFs... the Marines or whatever... you don't gonna get promoted to that rank/task/cathegory; no matter if you're male or female. It's common that they lower a bit the physical standards for the females on the basic tasks, the thing is that now they gonna be sent to 1St line as everyone else; as it should be. That's true equality, you're a soldier... so you fight; period. Let's C ya

[scrim 1]

Can you explain to me how it is equality when someone is placed in a field of service with lower standards because of their gender? Ask any licensed physician, and that person will tell you that women are a lot less physically capable than men. This is why men and women don't compete against each other in sports. So how is it equality when women will be allowed in combat arms with lower standards than men? Basic standards (that is, they won't be accepted after training) that have been set considering the fact that men can easily go above those when they are placed in their units. They are not drafted for women, and few women will be able to reach the basic standards put on men.

Equality means that you are treated equally + Biology has not treated men and women equally =

No, women are not suited for combat arms, neither would it be equality to place them there.

This woman would agree with me. But hey, she's just an old fashioned sexist who doesn't know what she's talking about, right?

Edited February 2, 2013 by scrim

[Maio 293]

I think the bio aspect equals 0 in A3 case. BI said that they don't want to put women in combat roles due to the moral aspects behind it... it's a thing of choice.

Although if BI makes up it's mind and decides to include women in active combat roles, they can always play the enhanced strength and motor skills via "governmental issue drugs" card...

Which TBH could add a some extra color to the whole conflict and the ArmAverse as a whole.

[sapped 10]

Is all this philosophical talk really necessary? Anyone can carry a gun and shoot at a target... who says that NATO/US-Army must be the only force that will feature them - ever considered the resistance fighters?

So I see no reason not to add female soldiers and units who can carry weapons. It shouldn't be too much of a task for the development team, after all, DayZ already "has" them...

So I don't see any sane reason why Arma 3 shouldn't.

Yes, I do hope they can at least patch ArmA 2's female units with DayZ's female animation after it releases.

Not being able to carry weapon is one thing, but having females not even able to drive any vehicles is just over the line.

How can anyone correlate this as NOT being sexist? Is BIS trying to imply that all females can't drive?

Because it certainly looks that way, especially when it's a feature that's been asked on devtracker for years.

Seriously, what's the difference between females and animals in the A2 mission editor in term of their uses?

It feels stranger when even OFP have female units with proper animation, why go backwards with the ArmA series?

If BIS don't want to PROPERLY include female units, why even bother including them in the first place!

We would rather not have them than some half-finished package, with females as useless as animals or with long

sharp fingernail tentacle hands. At least that way the game don't feel like a half-completed product.

[kilroy the nerd 14]

What about Lyudmila Palivinichenko? She was a fine sniper in the Red Army. Not counting partisans, militia, whatever.

Women should be right there on par with men. I know plenty of women who can shoot (granted: mostly rednecks). And they should at least be able to drive. Hell, a woman in Take on Helicopters can fly a helicopter and still can't drive a car! (not counting how for some reason you can't see your arms or anything as a female character, or an animal)

[Asytra 1]

I've been lurking this thread for quite some time now after I heard about ARMA 3. I wanted to know if they were planning on fixing my biggest issue with the previous ARMA games, that being the inclusion of female soldiers or at the very least, fixing the issue of female characters not being able to hold weapons/use vehicles. In light of this thread being unlocked (thank you mods) and the recent announcement that the Pentagon will allow women to serve in frontline combat roles including special forces I felt it was a good time to comment on this as a woman instead of lurking.

I was shown Operation Flashpoint by my uncle back when it was just a demo in 2001. I had always been a gamer but not much of a warsimmer aside from 1942 PAW Gold and a couple of the Jane's sims. I was blown away by the scope of the game, especially the vehicles and aircraft you could control. Since then I've purchased every OPF/ARMA title and ARMA 3 won't be an exception regardless of what BIS decides on this issue. I realize that I am an atypical female gamer though there is strong evidence that women are more inclined to try games where they feel included and immersed.

I would also like to commend BIS on including playable female characters into DayZ. While I have been playing DayZ on and off since the initial alpha release, that choice by BIS has solidified my decision to purchase DayZ retail. I'm also impressed with how tastefully they were done. They are realistic and fit the setting and it gives me hope for what BIS could do with playable female soldiers in ARMA 3. Thank you.

Female soldiers should be added for a few reasons, the first being realism. Since this is a sim and it does take place in the near future the US will have woman serving in active combat roles by then. Not only that, but the game also features several aircraft and vehicles and women serving in that capacity for over a decade now. It would also increase immersion for female players, in addition to our teammates when we use in-game VOIP to communicate with others and have a character that matches our voice. The second reason would be inclusion, BIS has absolutely nothing to lose by adding playable female soldiers and everything to gain. I'd like to point out the successful campaign for playable females to be added to Aliens: Colonial Marines as an example of how a company (Gearbox) gained a lot of positive PR for listening to the petition and adding playable females to a game based on future where women fight side-by-side with men, a future that is becoming a reality in that regard. (Besides, we can't ignore how badass Vasquez was.)

I can understand, though, that creating playable female characters does take development time. For that reason I am completely happy buying playable female soldiers as DLC, just please make it so that the existing female characters are able to use vehicles and weapons/items, even if they have to use male animations. This would benefit the mod community greatly. Thank you BIS for listening to your customers, even your atypical ones. :)