GameBanshee Forums

Re: Menstruation, pregnancy, etc: I think I've posted about this before. At one time the US military was seriously considering forming combat "PMS Brigades". Really. Women who co-habit seem to become synchronized in their monthy cycles. The military tossed the idea around for some time, but eventually threw it out.

However, please note that not *all* women suffer from PMS. There is usually discomfort of some kind during the cycle, but some suffer more than others. For the longest time growing up, I thought PMS was a universal sort of thing...since my mother and sisters turned into hissing vipers like clockwork, once a month. However, since that time I have discovered that is not so. Thank goodness.

By necessity, female soldiers are given special consideration during their cycle. It makes sense, and doesn't really impact the operation of a military unit. They are not excused from their duties, but are permitted to attend to their individual needs when necessary. I'm not going to be graphic, but I am sure most will understand what I am referring to. I am quite sure that in the heat of combat, a female soldier will do what she has to despite anything else. I know I would.

A pregnant female soldier is monitored by medical personnel and issued special maternity uniforms which accomodate the fact that she is pregnant. Obviously, being pregnant precludes her from certain duties. Again, this doesn't impact a unit's operation in a negative way, nor does the maternity leave she is granted after childbirth either. Pregnancy used to result in a medical discharge for females years ago, but this has changed, and I think that was sensible.

EDIT - Note, however, that if a female is found to be pregnant either in Basic Training or Advanced Individual Training, she will be discharged under medical regulations.

[QUOTE=Chanak]However, please note that not *all* women suffer from PMS. [/QUOTE]

Less than 10% of women suffer from PMS, and even fewer (perhaps 2%) suffer from PMDD, the severe form of PMS which really affect functioning in everyday life. Besides, it is very easy to medicate.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Less than 10% of women suffer from PMS, and even fewer (perhaps 2%) suffer from PMDD, the severe form of PMS which really affect functioning in everyday life. Besides, it is very easy to medicate.[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid that the biological makeup of women, like their activities, interests, and personalities, is shrouded by this idiotic mystique in which young adolescent males talk to young adolescent males and develop the same vast quantity of cultural ignorance and misinformation. Just as we've had posters who believe women are by nature emotional vipers, or goddesses fit for mounting only on pedastals, or ready to jump anything that has the proper male parts, or incapable of crossing a street without bursting into tears, so there are people who think PMS strikes every woman, and always in the same way.

@Fable: The funny thing is that a recent British study just reported that males have more PMS symptoms than women, with one sole exception: abdominal swelling. To understand this result, one must know that PMS symptoms are specified as including headache, mood swings, depression, hot flushes, poor concentration, stomach cramps, swelling of the lower abdomen, etc, etc. (I don't remember all the symptoms by heart). In a study where men and women reported how frequently and intensly they felt these symptoms, it turned out that males reported they had more or even of all symptoms except water retention.

This can be explained in 3 different ways I think:
1. The symptoms are very common and not related specifically to PMS, but when women experience these symptoms, people attribute it to PMS, while when men experience the same symtoms people attribute it to other reasons such as being overworked, stressed, or other things.
2. Both women and men frequently have PMS, but males hormonal cycles are less researched.
3. Men and women differ in how they report pain and unpleasant sensations, so they actually don't experience they same, they just report the same. Some previous studies of pain experience have shown that men tend to focus more on pain and unpleasant physical sensations than women, and men also have lower pain theshold and percept pain as more intolerable than women.

It's also interesting to note that according to a recent study, 78% of American men believe PMS is part of the normal menstruation cycle. I wonder if this is something the drug industry propagates in order to sell more SSRI:s?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]The funny thing is that a recent British study just reported that males have more PMS symptoms than women, with one sole exception: abdominal swelling. To understand this result, one must know that PMS symptoms are specified as including headache, mood swings, depression, hot flushes, poor concentration, stomach cramps, swelling of the lower abdomen, etc, etc. (I don't remember all the symptoms by heart). In a study where men and women reported how frequently and intensly they felt these symptoms, it turned out that males reported they had more or even of all symptoms except water retention. .[/quote]

Unless this study actually checked male physiological changes against a lunar cycle, it might as well be about ordinary changes that occur in people from day to day, and thus be irrelevant. Though interesting. FWIW, I've never thought men were free of lunar cycle influence; I never saw any reason for thinking so. Merely because the most obvious symptom of these monthly shifts, menstruation, doesn't occur in males, hardly renders us immune to changes. One might as well think that because the symptoms of a stroke aren't visible, strokes don't occur. Of course, I have no scientific studies to point to for my conclusions regarding male responses to the lunar cycle.

It's also interesting to note that according to a recent study, 78% of American men believe PMS is part of the normal menstruation cycle. I wonder if this is something the drug industry propagates in order to sell more SSRI:s?

When it's part of urban myth among peer groups of early adolescents, nothing else is required to spread the nonsense. But I suspect the drug industry does nothing to promote a better awareness of PMS. That's probably left to physicians, and it's not as though they're going to communicate this knowledge in the course of visits by male patients. Females...well, one hopes.

I no nothing about correlations between physiological changes and the moon, but the British team will continue their investigations at a larger sample and controlling for more variables, so we will have to wait for more results.

How did the PMS thing become part of urban mythology, do you know? My thought was that the drug industry progagate the message that PMS is normal and common, in order to manipulate people to buy more treatment, ie SSRI:s, for it.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I no nothing about correlations between physiological changes and the moon, but the British team will continue their investigations at a larger sample and controlling for more variables, so we will have to wait for more results.[/quote]

I don't mean to sound New Agey on you. I thought you were tying biological cycles to lunar cycles; if not, that's fine. I'm curious in either case to see what turns up.

How did the PMS thing become part of urban mythology, do you know? My thought was that the drug industry progagate the message that PMS is normal and common, in order to manipulate people to buy more treatment, ie SSRI:s, for it.

Those legends about women--and also about men--are far older. Sharp segregation between sexual peer groups at adolescence, combined with parents that traditionally take a secondary role in raising the children, results in all sorts of cultural myths in each group. This kind of action does not differ in type from the stereotyping created by majority cultures against minority ones in their midst, where regular contact and openness is lacking. I'd have to do some research on the exact myths in question, and the cultures typically researched are in the African continent or SE Asia; so I don't know if that will be of particular relevance to you.

On a more general level, I've read evidence of these myths taken seriously in England as far back as post-Civil War, with a Puritan-controlled society that firmly reconstituting sexual roles. Despite the restoration with Charles II, a strong undercurrent of religious fanaticism continued to pervade English society, and it shows up (for example) in period plays and novels where women are often shown as either weak, sensitive creatures, or as calculating she-devils out to trap unsuspecting males.

PMS is never specifically mentioned, because this was taboo in media. But it stands to reason that a culture which regards women as emotionally unstable (and there are surviving French translations of the early Renaissance from original Arabic medical documents) that claim women are inherently insane. I think I can put my hands on an English translation of that.

why do i get this bad feeling that i have created a monster?

I give up. Why do you?

Battles don't last very long, endurance is more of a strength waiting for the battle or alternatively say tolerating gee forces, or say humping stuff to the battlefront, not during the battle.

And as to training that depends on if one has the luxury of putting in the extra time to compensate, which we do in today's military I will not argue about that.

The argument is that predujudice is responsible for the exclusion of women from the military historically and during today from certain roles. Come on does predujudice last over periods of 100s of thousands of years, which is the period men have historically been in combat or fighting as opposed to women.

The counterargument might be made that there are counterexamples, yes there are but are there enough to disprove the rule?

There are women fighting historically but they do not outnumber the men fighting, Is that predujudice?

If women were a asset why have they not been used more often, if they truly were equal with regard to capability to fighting?

One could argue that as the population increases there is less and less need for reproductive females and thus the need for keeping them out is reduced, but why then did not females in many many different societies not then assume more combat centered roles in history.

There has to be a logical reason other then predujudice that men have historically done the fighting, and if so what reason. And is that a single reason or not, and did the role carry on long enough for there to be significant biological changes to occurr, and that perhaps that might change a man's role or not.

It just seems that historically that there might be a downside to having women in the warfare, otherwise societies with women in warfare would have survived, and I wonder if that reason might still be a problem?

InfiniteNature wrote:Battles don't last very long, endurance is more of a strength waiting for the battle or alternatively say tolerating gee forces, or say humping stuff to the battlefront, not during the battle.

Not so. Battles can and do last for long periods...longer than someone with no military experience might think. Hamburger Hill in Vietnam was a lengthy bloodbath. Handling the (loaded) weapons, toting your gear at the same time...it indeed requires both physical and mental endurance. The full array of combat harness, coupled with a kevlar vest, several fragmentation grenades, several high capacity (30 round) banana clips strapped to you, a full canteen of water (a must for emergency first aid), and the rather heavy kevlar helmet on your head all add up. If your rifle is affixed with an M-209 20mm grenade launcher (and most are), then you are also carrying quite a few 20mm grenades. An infantry soldier does not simply show up and remain in one spot. A squad is constantly on the move in combat...and as I can attest, 10 minutes of infantry squad life will leave you breathless, and drawing upon your inner reserve. The soldier that sits still in a combat zone is a dead soldier. There are methods of movement in any situation, even when you are facing supression fire from machine guns and a mortar barrage.

The argument is that predujudice is responsible for the exclusion of women from the military historically and during today from certain roles. Come on does predujudice last over periods of 100s of thousands of years, which is the period men have historically been in combat or fighting as opposed to women.

In ancient times, women were the key to producing sons for families, which in many ancient cultures = power, and the assurance that a family would remain viable. In addition, they were also viewed as property...valuable property not to be sacrificed. A thorough response to this truly belongs in its own thread...but suffice it to say, until recently, the Western world treated females in much the same way.

There are women fighting historically but they do not outnumber the men fighting, Is that predujudice?

If women were a asset why have they not been used more often, if they truly were equal with regard to capability to fighting?

As I've posted previously in this thread, generally speaking, males as a rule possess a higher degree of upper body strength than females do, due to the typical male physique of larger muscle mass and skeletal structure being concentrated in the upper body. Typically, the female body concentrates muscle mass and skeletal support in the pelvic area, hips, and thighs. Weapons are wielded in the hands and arms, whether it is a sword, a musket, or a CAR-15 assault carbine. This has not changed over the many thousands of years of human warfare.

The big change here would be removing all barriers to women in combat roles. The barriers keep women who are otherwise physically qualified for the job from doing it. Removing the barrier should not = changing standards so *any* female, regardless of upper body strength and stamina, can do it. The *requirements* of the combat role are what should determine fitness for combat, not gender, as it currently does.

Today's world is a world of increasingly fluid roles. Not so in ancient cultures, where you were pretty much born into your position. For a woman to work out and build up her biceps, pecs, etc was unthinkable at that time, and probably not possible given the limited scientific knowledge of the day.

There has to be a logical reason other then predujudice that men have historically done the fighting, and if so what reason...

I think I answered this above. Women in many ancient cultures were considered property - valuable property - that assured a family's continued existence in a society. They produced sons. Males dominated most of the ancient cultures, and were the only ones permitted to own property, for example. They were the ones to inherit a father's power and prestige.

It just seems that historically that there might be a downside to having women in the warfare, otherwise societies with women in warfare would have survived, and I wonder if that reason might still be a problem?

Long ago, there was a downside. In this day and age, there isn't. There is no logical reason to deny a physically qualified female a combat role. Modern analysis has revealed there is no psychological basis for exclusion. Males are not necessarily "better suited emotionally" than females are for combat. A good friend of mine that I stay in touch with was a sniper during Desert Storm. He has nightmares about his first kill. When he tells the story, it is unsettling, and surreal. The Iraqi soldier was in his nightvision scope...a man who was targeted for extermination by command. By the way, American troops were conducting operations inside of Iraq weeks before the ground war offically started back in 1990. In the split second it took for him to pull the trigger and place a bullet through the man's heart, he was struck by the horror of it all. Here he was, over 700 meters away, and in an instant, looking through a scope with a sense of detachment, he ended a man's life.

This is more common than you think. Soldiers who have seen combat are haunted for the rest of their lives...some, more severely than others.

[QUOTE=Chanak]The big change here would be removing all barriers to women in combat roles. The barriers keep women who are otherwise physically qualified for the job from doing it. Removing the barrier should not = changing standards so *any* female, regardless of upper body strength and stamina, can do it. The *requirements* of the combat role are what should determine fitness for combat, not gender, as it currently does.[/QUOTE]

This is very important to stress I think. The argument that this and that kind of work requires a specific type of talen or trait should mean you select people on that talent or trait, not that you select people on correlates to that talen or trait. An average swede probably have higher chance to have an engineering exam than an average person coming from a small congelese village. That doesn't meen you should only hire swedes for enginering jobs, instead you should hire people with engineering exams for engineering jobs.

Another thing that is worth pointing out is that many cultures, historically and more recently use, and have used, women in warfare as soon as a situation gets desperate enough. There is ofcourse also many examples of culture acting against this, but it is not like the entire middle age never saw women fight.

i just found out i just screwed up when asking everyones opinions about a topic and now its biting me in the ass. there are just to many long (and wordy) things people have to say about some things. i really think its up to women to choose what they want, but i still feel its my duty to make sure that they dont come to harm thats all

[QUOTE=Demortis]i just found out i just screwed up when asking everyones opinions about a topic and now its biting me in the ass. there are just to many long (and wordy) things people have to say about some things. i really think its up to women to choose what they want, but i still feel its my duty to make sure that they dont come to harm thats all[/QUOTE]

Why is it your duty? Who appointed you to that role? And what is it about women that makes you think they can't take care of themselves? I think these are fair questions to ask, based on above.

[QUOTE=Ariona]I have been in and out of the military myself...a military police officer, in fact! Women (with proper training and understanding) can operate like their male counterparts...just as effectively, I might add! Women's hormonal cycles (minus pregnancies) do not stop women from playing their crucial roles from a military standpoint. The military does not allow such an excuse. Pregnant military personnel, however, are given special considerations (such temporary desk duty or consulting jobs) until their maternity leave is over...[/QUOTE]

Ah, an MP. My very first traffic violation was handed to me by an MP at Ft. Lewis, WA, in 1989. I was cited for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign...a "California roll". I think that might have been the MP's first ticket, too.

I knew female soldiers who were capable of putting out push-ups like any male on their PT test. I have no doubt in my mind they could "hang" humping all the gear they needed to. It's time for the military to remove the direct combat role restriction for females. Females already are permitted to perform in indirect combat functions...as an MP, for example, you could be assigned to an MP company in a combat zone.

Theres quite a division right now in the CF (candian forces) on where and how women should serve. Officially, they can serve any element, even infantry, and I know a few women in the combat arms. Some of them are very good. Some of them are very poor.
Generally though, they make poorer soldiers. I blame this more on a society that constantly tells girls about their roles than some inherint mental or physical weakness. I've seen some exceptional women in the forces.

But a lot of them, especially in the combat trades, lack the endurance and strength of their male counterparts, which breeds a certain resentment in the unit because they can't handle carrying the heavy weapons.

Another argument I've heard but don't really support, is that you have 50 young, unmarried men, and one unmarried women. She tends to stand out, and causes a division of loyalty in the unit.

That's my two cents.

[QUOTE=Demortis]i just found out i just screwed up when asking everyones opinions about a topic and now its biting me in the ass. there are just to many long (and wordy) things people have to say about some things. i really think its up to women to choose what they want, but i still feel its my duty to make sure that they dont come to harm thats all[/QUOTE]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I wonder why you put this thread up at SYM. You now call the thread a monster and screw up because you find people's replies too long and wordy for you, and you have the feeling that it's your duty to protect half the worlds population.

Why you have appointed yourself to take care of 3 billion people who have not asked for this and are your equal in taking care of themselves, is your personal issue, but I seriously think you should analyse your own motives.

Focusing one more time on this:

i really think its up to women to choose what they want, but i still feel its my duty to make sure that they dont come to harm thats all

If I read you correctly, you're saying "Women can believe whatever they want, they're wrong. Men such as myself who are honorable are here to protect the poor creatures."

I see no other way to interpret this. I don't understand your "duty," and I don't understand how you can disparage half the human race by telling them they can believe whatever they think, you know better than they do how men should react around them.

Focusing one more time on this:

i really think its up to women to choose what they want, but i still feel its my duty to make sure that they dont come to harm thats all

If I read you correctly, you're saying "Women can believe whatever they want, they're wrong. Men such as myself who are honorable are here to protect the poor creatures."

I see no other way to interpret this. I don't understand your "duty," and I don't understand how you can disparage half the human race by telling them they can believe whatever they think, you know better than they do how men should react around them

i was rasied with a code of honour. Stating: portect those who can not protect themselves. and Women should be protected at all costs.

"Women can believe whatever they want, they're wrong. Men such as myself who are honorable are here to protect the poor creatures."

no it doesnt relate to this. if women want the protection its there, if not then i wont worry about it till something is said.