An Interesting Example of DEI in Action

[mqt]

Success can be construed any way you want but MONEY is ultimately the unit of value in our society and the ones that can attract more money are inherently more valuable in society AS WE DEFINE IT.

But that’s because the reward structures in our system favor the traits you’re saying are inherently masculine. So why is the only obvious solution for investors to continue to steer their capital toward organizations/leaders that favor those traits? You’re not making a claim that “masculine” traits are just presently favored over “feminine” traits by the current system. You’re arguing that it’s obvious that it should and doing anything else would disrupt some natural order.

Or in short: it sure is a strange coincidence that the things you need to be a successful leader in the world just so happens to be the ones you most associate with the group of people that developed the better weapons ~500 years ago.

 

[mqt]

[tw]1879406344962523236[/tw]

On a related note, how do you subsequently solve the already dwindling recruitment numbers if you act on these plans? I’m not entirely insane, I understand a much lower percentage of women will naturally meet these strength requirements. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest there aren’t more men solely refusing to join the military because of women being there than there are women serving, so how do you make up the shortfall? Conscription?

 

[thethe]

[tw]1879406344962523236[/tw]

On a related note, how do you subsequently solve the already dwindling recruitment numbers if you act on these plans? I’m not entirely insane, I understand a much lower percentage of women will naturally meet these strength requirements. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest there aren’t more men solely refusing to join the military because of women being there than there are women serving, so how do you make up the shortfall? Conscription?

Enrollment is irrelevant if the enrolees aren't competant.

Its similar to the movie 300 where contributing armies of voluneteers were concerned only 300 spartans were sent. Then the question was how much soldiers did each country send and it was clearly sparta that sent hte most.

I know this hurts your sensibilities. Women in fighting force are a liability and not an asset.

 

[sturg33]

[tw]1879406344962523236[/tw]

On a related note, how do you subsequently solve the already dwindling recruitment numbers if you act on these plans? I’m not entirely insane, I understand a much lower percentage of women will naturally meet these strength requirements. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest there aren’t more men solely refusing to join the military because of women being there than there are women serving, so how do you make up the shortfall? Conscription?

I actually had dinner with an army vet yesterday and he was convinced that the feminization of the military has killed recruitment. The reliable southern hick from Louisiana isn't interested in signing up to go to battle with the 5 ft1 girl who can't keep up. Not to mention all the DEI stuff.

And this guy voted for Kamala

 

[mqt]

Enrollment is irrelevant if the enrolees aren't competant.

It’s similar to the movie 300 where contributing armies of voluneteers were concerned only 300 spartans were sent. Then the question was how much soldiers did each country send and it was clearly sparta that sent hte most.

I know this hurts your sensibilities. Women in fighting force are a liability and not an asset.

It doesn’t hurt my sensibilities, but I wonder if just maybe the comic book movie about 300 Spartans being the best defense against an army full of supernatural creatures isn’t as instructive for military performance and troop composition as you’re making it out to be.

When it comes to the battle at Thermopylae, the 300 movie is quite far from reality. Leonidas leaves Sparta with only 300 men and on their way to Thermopylae a small force of Arcadians led by Daxos join them. However, there were more men present in the battle of Thermopylae. With the 300 men of Leonidas, there were about 3800 Peloponnesians (Lacedemonians, Arcadians, Corinthians, Tegeans, Mantineans, Philians and Myceneans). Besides the Peloponnesians, there we also 700 Thespians, 1000 Phocians and 400 Thebans. The total army marching to Thermopylae numbered about 6200 men. Another 900 men should be added to this number to account for 3 helots (slaves of Sparta) serving each Spartan warrior.

https://greektraveltellers.com/blog/300-beyond-the-movie

Also, (spoiler alert) the Spartans die at the end because the Persian army had more fighters, and the only thing they really accomplished tactically is like 10% more damage to Xerxes than one sniper in a field got of Trump. Enjoyable film, though.

 

[mqt]

I actually had dinner with an army vet yesterday and he was convinced that the feminization of the military has killed recruitment. The reliable southern hick from Louisiana isn't interested in signing up to go to battle with the 5 ft1 girl who can't keep up. Not to mention all the DEI stuff.

And this guy voted for Kamala

I’d argue there are at least three bigger issues:

1) We subject our troops to a bunch of horrifying things and now that the internet exists, some of the country boys that grew up traditionally ready to serve are realizing that they’d rather just have brains and bodies that work later on in life.

2) While there are absolutely some financial benefits to military service, they don’t compare favorably to a decent-paying job with good benefits, and although these jobs aren’t freely available to anybody, enough of them exist to squeeze out the military as a superior option.

3) Both of these issues are exasperated by the fact that we haven’t actually fought for our freedoms since 1945 and instead have entered conflicts that, even when justifiable, are not going to excite a generation of young people to join. The one time America even ostensibly fought a war that was to protect Americans after the terror attacks on 9/11, recruitment skyrocketed and then we spent 2 decades fighting an abysmal war that accomplished nothing.

People can point to wokeness and I’m sure there are plenty of men who will tell you they didn’t enlist for that reason, but the incentives to go fight in a war for the United States in 2025 aren’t very compelling when you can go to an office for 8 hours and do 5 minutes of work instead of dying in some war-torn country.

 

[mqt]

One question I have is why a largely domestic force with no additional compulsory overseas/conflict obligations isn’t a superior model that mitigates the need for an entire army of people who can deadlift 310 pounds? We already have active-duty troops working domestically to ensure we are prepared for conflict, and those bases operate when we have no specific need for war-fighters. So why not reduce our footprint overseas, provide the current GI benefits to those willing to serve solely in the context of domestic support and then offer higher pay/health benefits to those willing to be sent to war?

 

[nsacpi]

Success can be construed any way you want but MONEY is ultimately the unit of value in our society and the ones that can attract more money are inherently more valuable in society AS WE DEFINE IT.

I'm not sure I agree. But by that definition of success, blue states have been much better in giving their people the tools needed to succeed! Both their male and their female residents.

I might add that if salary is the metric, there are a lot of belief systems/ideologies that appear to be negatively correlated with income. For example, did you know Baptists (of all races) are really poor. But that's another discussion.

 

[sturg33]

I’d argue there are at least three bigger issues:

1) We subject our troops to a bunch of horrifying things and now that the internet exists, some of the country boys that grew up traditionally ready to serve are realizing that they’d rather just have brains and bodies that work later on in life.

2) While there are absolutely some financial benefits to military service, they don’t compare favorably to a decent-paying job with good benefits, and although these jobs aren’t freely available to anybody, enough of them exist to squeeze out the military as a superior option.

3) Both of these issues are exasperated by the fact that we haven’t actually fought for our freedoms since 1945 and instead have entered conflicts that, even when justifiable, are not going to excite a generation of young people to join. The one time America even ostensibly fought a war that was to protect Americans after the terror attacks on 9/11, recruitment skyrocketed and then we spent 2 decades fighting an abysmal war that accomplished nothing.

People can point to wokeness and I’m sure there are plenty of men who will tell you they didn’t enlist for that reason, but the incentives to go fight in a war for the United States in 2025 aren’t very compelling when you can go to an office for 8 hours and do 5 minutes of work instead of dying in some war-torn country.

All of these are reasonable points and I would also add, the education system teaching our kids that America sucks and is a racist evil conquerer has undoubtedly led to a fall of patriotism to the point where a person ain't interested in going to die for that

On the point of women... a battle team is really only as good as it's weakest link. Allowing women in combatbrings down the standard of the unit

 

[thethe]

I'm not sure I agree. But by that definition of success, blue states have been much better in giving their people the tools needed to succeed! Both their male and their female residents.

I might add that if salary is the metric, there are a lot of belief systems/ideologies that appear to be negatively correlated with income. For example, did you know Baptists (of all races) are really poor. But that's another discussion.

Systems in place well before the 'blueification' of the states.

Meanwhile, after the 'blueification' the states have gotten significant worse outcomes for their consitutunets.

 

[thethe]

It doesn’t hurt my sensibilities, but I wonder if just maybe the comic book movie about 300 Spartans being the best defense against an army full of supernatural creatures isn’t as instructive for military performance and troop composition as you’re making it out to be.

https://greektraveltellers.com/blog/300-beyond-the-movie

Also, (spoiler alert) the Spartans die at the end because the Persian army had more fighters, and the only thing they really accomplished tactically is like 10% more damage to Xerxes than one sniper in a field got of Trump. Enjoyable film, though.

They lost in large part because the non-soldiers bailed because they aren't true soldiers.

 

[Garmel]

I'm not sure I agree. But by that definition of success, blue states have been much better in giving their people the tools needed to succeed! Both their male and their female residents.

I might add that if salary is the metric, there are a lot of belief systems/ideologies that appear to be negatively correlated with income. For example, did you know Baptists (of all races) are really poor. But that's another discussion.

The democrats controlled the South for how many years? 100?

Where was the boom?

It's like something else is going on here, huh?

 

[mqt]

All of these are reasonable points and I would also add, the education system teaching our kids that America sucks and is a racist evil conquerer has undoubtedly led to a fall of patriotism to the point where a person ain't interested in going to die for that

On the point of women... a battle team is really only as good as it's weakest link. Allowing women in combatbrings down the standard of the unit

But you must realize that even if we were to agree on this point, it’s not all or nothing. One person on a battle team not being strong enough to carry their fallen brother isn’t going to be worse than having 50% fewer troops. Why would the answer not be to ask more of our leadership to use technology and strategy to use the fighters that we do have in a way that mitigates the risk of that operation depending on all soldiers being at the same level of physical strength or whatever other traits you’re looking for.

Those other problems are still going to be present with or without women in the military. So how do you increase the participation rate of men going into the military so much that you account for reducing the available pool of soldiers in half?

Also, you’re probably not entirely wrong that a less blindly patriotic education system is detrimental to military recruitment, but given we apparently agree on my 3 points, I’m not sure the answer is to trick more people into serving by telling them how the US is a shining beacon of good and we really need them to die for that to continue being true.

 

[thethe]

But you must realize that even if we were to agree on this point, it’s not all or nothing. One person on a battle team not being strong enough to carry their fallen brother isn’t going to be worse than having 50% fewer troops. Why would the answer not be to ask more of our leadership to use technology and strategy to use the fighters that we do have in a way that mitigates the risk of that operation depending on all soldiers being at the same level of physical strength or whatever other traits you’re looking for.

Those other problems are still going to be present with or without women in the military. So how do you increase the participation rate of men going into the military so much that you account for reducing the available pool of soldiers in half?

Also, you’re probably not entirely wrong that a less blindly patriotic education system is detrimental to military recruitment, but given we apparently agree on my 3 points, I’m not sure the answer is to trick more people into serving by telling them how the US is a shining beacon of good and we really need them to die for that to continue being true.

Anything that discourages true soldiers should be removed. Whether you want to admit it or not men do not want to have women around as liabilities on the fighting field. For that matter, MEN do not want wussy men as liabilities in the field either. Thats why you make requirements tough to seperate the men from boys.

 

[nsacpi]

The democrats controlled the South for how many years? 100?

Where was the boom?

It's like something else is going on here, huh?

Actually there have been periods of convergence. But even during those periods the South never caught up. Which makes me think it is a bit deeper than party control. Hence my reference to Baptists and belief systems.

The recent period of divergence does coincide with a period when states were give more freedom to pursue a range of policies.

 

[mqt]

They lost in large part because the non-soldiers bailed because they aren't true soldiers.

…so they would have overcome the discrepancy if they instead kicked out the non-soldiers earlier? We’re not *choosing* between recruiting men and women, we’re spending ungodly amounts of money to recruit both. You don’t just magically get to replace the “non-soldiers” with soldiers.

 

[mqt]

The democrats controlled the South for how many years? 100?

Where was the boom?

It's like something else is going on here, huh?

I have some real bad news for you about early 20th-Century Southern Democrats, friend.

 

[thethe]

…so they would have overcome the discrepancy if they instead kicked out the non-soldiers earlier? We’re not *choosing* between recruiting men and women, we’re spending ungodly amounts of money to recruit both. You don’t just magically get to replace the “non-soldiers” with soldiers.

Not sure whats hard to understand that when fighting breaks out that women and unqualified men (because they are lowering standards) become liabilities.

This isn't me saying it. These are special forces veterans who are explaining this narrative. BUt I'm sure you discount their experience as well.

 

[thethe]

I have some real bad news for you about early 20th-Century Southern Democrats, friend.

Oh this is the hypothetical 'switching of parties' that we learened about in high school?

 

[Garmel]

Actually there have been periods of convergence. But even during those periods the South never caught up. Which makes me think it is a bit deeper than party control. Hence my reference to Baptists and belief systems.

The recent period of divergence does coincide with a period when states were give more freedom to pursue a range of policies.

It's rural vs. urban.

Industrialization brings wealth, better educational and medical outcomes.