@CronoSaturn
1- His arguments boil down to "some women can do that too" and he can't see any long term bad effects. Other minor points are plain shilling like social equality.
2- His conclusion is that women that passed have no difference with men in regards to training performance as reported by an opinion poll. The figure below also shows numbers that seem to indicate poll bias.
3-This one has a lot of arguments and is highly written, even though I don't have access to a lot of sources because it jumps to page 28 <:varg:521372050225627156> . I do however see that the arguments either challenge commonsensical wisdom or bend data. That results in a weird collection full of dubious data. And then I remembered that the argument of efficiency is ridiculous because women are more valuable than men and therefore the top women shouldn't run the same risk anyway. This was also written by a woman. Link: http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/issues/summer_2013/3_haring_article.pdf
Oh, and since I see you replying, let me mention that I was interested in the data, not necessarily on arguing, so if anyone else wants to get my place I'm ok with it.
@Bearer Of The Curse
1)so given that some women can achieve the same individually as men and that studies show mixed groups improve collective decision making there seems to be adverse costs of not accepting the opportunity that recruiting women may present
2) the conclusion was also that having female leadership was highly valued and contributed significantly to effect. You are cherry picking conclusions whilst asserting without demonstrating poll bias. Itβs unclear why you believe I would accept this argument
3) a paper being complex or multifaceted shouldnβt be a mark against it nor should challenging intuition. (Or whatever commonsensical is). Iβve already discussed that you would need to demonstrate that data has been manipulated in order for your assertion to be considered anything more than autistic screeching. That a woman wrote something also has no impact on the weight of the argument.
Iβll also take the opportunity to clarify my position in I donβt think the stringent selection standards should be adjusted in order to fulfil a quota. As far as reasonably possible standards should be balanced against lethality and a sufficient pool to supply that capability.
In the west the economic impact of men or women is roughly the same with actuarial studies and is govt estimates giving a figure of roughly $ 10,000,000 regardless of gender. Reproduction plays a very small role here and the cost of losing citizens at all is a very high cost for western militaries so there seems to be little distinction gender holds in the impact caused by loss
you are applying one of the most general, useless observations, that "mixed group" collective decision making is better (how much better, at what) to a very specialized hierarchical organization
