posted February 06, 2025 06:01 PM            

What I would like to see is the gender ratio of enlistment AFTER the election. I suspect it is mostly male.

posted February 07, 2025 01:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage2:
Randall is talking about the ones enlisting AFTER the election. PlutoWasHere is talking about the overall enlistment in 2024.

What I would like to see is the gender ratio of enlistment AFTER the election. I suspect it is mostly male.

---

posted February 07, 2025 01:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlutoWasHere:
According to the article, the reasons for more growth potential in female army recruits is they have less chance of having a criminal record and have better results in education. Makes sense, right?

---

Women always had less chance of having a criminal records so that is nothing new and cannot be used as a factor that explains the new growth in female recruits.

On the matter of "better results in education", not sure what you mean.
1) Are saying that women who are entering the army are more educated than their male counterparts? That is possibly true considering women now have more college degrees than men. Or
2) are you saying that women entering the army did better on Army admission tests due to being better educated?

Regardless of the answer, I think this is irrelevant. Being a high school graduate has always been a requirement to enter the Army. Having a college degree was never one. So not sure how that factors in...

The thing is, we are looking at 2 different things.

While you are focusing on the increased female enrollment, the cause of which are debatable, what is not addressed is the decrease in male enrollment which started around 2013.

posted February 07, 2025 01:40 PM            

The truth about having a college degree nowadays:
There are many worthless degrees out there, with many college educated people unemployed, underemployed, or working as baristas in coffee shops, working tables at restaurants, while saddled with student loans. Joining the army is a great career opportunity, if one does not factor in having to fight in combats of course. Most women are not required to be boots on the ground, so the Army might look very attractive right now as a career path with security and benefits. Men do not necessarily have the option of not being boots on the ground, so joining the army for them is more risky... Men really have to be motivated by something more than carrierism.

posted February 08, 2025 04:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage2:
Women always had less chance of having a criminal records so that is nothing new and cannot be used as a factor that explains the new growth in female recruits.

On the matter of "better results in education", not sure what you mean.
1) Are saying that women who are entering the army are more educated than their male counterparts? That is possibly true considering women now have more college degrees than men. Or
2) are you saying that women entering the army did better on Army admission tests due to being better educated?

Regardless of the answer, I think this is irrelevant. Being a high school graduate has always been a requirement to enter the Army. Having a college degree was never one. So not sure how that factors in...

The thing is, we are looking at 2 different things.

While you are focusing on the increased female enrollment, the cause of which are debatable, what is not addressed is the decrease in male enrollment which started around 2013.

Why are less males joining the military since 2013, and was there a surge of male enrollment after the November election? Those are the questions I would have like to see answered.

---

Please just read the articles. You’re not a baby bird, I shouldn’t have to chew on this information to regurgitate it into small bites for you to digest.

70% of the recruits that do not pass entry tests are men. This is about basic skills like reading and writing, not college degrees. The U.S. is failing in educating their children, and it’s boys that suffer the most.

posted February 08, 2025 05:17 AM            

https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/women-in-combat-five-year-status-update

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Air_Force

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_in_the_United_States_military

posted February 08, 2025 05:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage2:
PlutoWasHere, nowhere in your article, nor in the one Randall posted does it say that the december 2024 growth was due to women enlisting.

If it does, please give me an exact quote because I must have missed it...

---

It’s literally in the title of the first article: “A surge in female enlistments helped the Army reach its recruiting goal.” Enlistment of female recruits grew with 18% while enlistment of male recruits grew with 8%. In absolute numbers there were more men that enlisted, but the trend is amplified in female recruits. The Army is happy about the enlistment of women because women have more chances to actually meet the Army’s eligibility criteria. That’s the key takeaway from that story.

Apparently, reading skills are very poor in the U.S. Almost 3 out of 10 adults perform at the lowest levels of literacy.

posted February 08, 2025 05:45 AM            

https://apnews.com/article/pete-hegseth-background-defense-secretary-confirmation-hearing-e160e10c86385a8beff110d9190fb34e

posted February 09, 2025 03:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlutoWasHere:
Please just read the articles. You’re not a baby bird, I shouldn’t have to chew on this information to regurgitate it into small bites for you to digest.

70% of the recruits that do not pass entry tests are men. This is about basic skills like reading and writing, not college degrees. The U.S. is failing in educating their children, and it’s boys that suffer the most.

---

Putting you on notice that from now on, any post where you insist on talking down to me like I am some motherf..ing child of yours, I am not going to acknowledge.

posted February 09, 2025 03:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlutoWasHere:
It’s literally in the title of the first article: “A surge in female enlistments helped the Army reach its recruiting goal.” Enlistment of female recruits grew with 18% while enlistment of male recruits grew with 8%. In absolute numbers there were more men that enlisted, but the trend is amplified in female recruits. The Army is happy about the enlistment of women because women have more chances to actually meet the Army’s eligibility criteria. That’s the key takeaway from that story.

Apparently, reading skills are very poor in the U.S. Almost 3 out of 10 adults perform at the lowest levels of literacy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna183498

---

Because the title says so, without the body of the article providing the specific figures, I am supposed to accept it?

posted February 09, 2025 04:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlutoWasHere:
Belage, are you sure your views aren’t outdated? Women weren’t allowed in combat roles in the U.S. until 2015, but have made great progress after that. Especially in the Air Force, including a 4 star general. Unfortunately, women face more violence from within. Female recruits do take a lot of risks to enlist, even if they are not in combat roles they are exposed to violence. For you to suggest they have it easy, is shameful and ungrateful to these women that protect the U.S.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/women-in-combat-five-year-status-update

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Air_Force

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_in_the_United_States_military

---

I never said women have it easy. I only pointed out that the difference in what can be expected should armed conflict arises. Surely, we can all agree that losing your life in combat is the ultimate sacrifice...

And, there is a marked difference between being ALLOWED in combat, being ALLOWED to serve as boots on the ground, and being REQUIRED to be. Women are ALLOWED, which means a woman can turn down or avoid a combat position. Men may not have that luxury, unless they can show some kind of physical or mental handicap.

posted February 10, 2025 12:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage2:
I never said women have it easy. I only pointed out that the difference in what can be expected should armed conflict arises. Surely, we can all agree that losing your life in combat is the ultimate sacrifice...

And, there is a marked difference between being ALLOWED in combat, being ALLOWED to serve as boots on the ground, and being REQUIRED to be. Women are ALLOWED, which means a woman can turn down or avoid a combat position. Men may not have that luxury, unless they can show some kind of physical or mental handicap.

(Edited for clarity)

---

The men in the U.S. army are not drafted right now, they chose a combat role. Nobody forced them. So your argument doesn’t make sense in the current situation.

Also, women aren’t just “allowed” in combat roles, they were actively denied the “right” to officially fight for their country for very long. But that doesn’t mean they were exempted from the terrors of war, or didn’t fight alongside men unofficially. During WW2 some of the most effective and deadly participants of the resistance in Europe were women. Some of the best snipers in the Russian army were women. Being denied rights isn’t privilege.

Belage, check your internalized misogyny if you think women should just be grateful for what they are “allowed”. Benevolant misogyny is still misogyny. And as a friendly reminder, shouting and cursing aren’t very ladylike. I really don’t care if you react to my posts or not, it’s up to you to decide what you do with this feedback.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism

posted February 10, 2025 01:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage2:
Because the title says so, without the body of the article providing the specific figures, I am supposed to accept it?

---

posted February 10, 2025 01:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlutoWasHere:
The numbers of 18% and 8% can be found in the article. Are you sure you’re actually reading the articles and not just scanning them for confirmation of your bias?

---

Example: An army of 1100 soldiers made up of 100 women and 1000 men.

-18% of women increase will give us: 18 more women
-8% of men increase will give us: 80 more men.

18 women vs 80 men. In the grand new total of 1188 soldiers, the 18 women did not significantly move the needle.

posted February 10, 2025 01:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlutoWasHere:
The men in the U.S. army are not drafted right now, they chose a combat role. Nobody forced them. So your argument doesn’t make sense in the current situation.

---

Nobody is being drafted right now in the US. This has nothing to do with what I am saying.

My point is that men who are joining the US military are doing so knowing that SHOULD ARMED CONFLICT ARISE and the US needs soldiers to go and fight in combat role, they will be expected to be in combat. to be boots on the ground. The expectations are not so for women. Women tend to be placed in a variety of combat support roles.

This pattern is repeated all over the world, even in the Israeli army which makes conscription ie military service mandatory for both males and females. Even in this army, as of 2021 report, women make up 18% of combat roles.
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/israel-defense-forces#pid-18537

posted February 10, 2025 02:08 PM            

Though women make up half of any population, no self-respecting army is going to have women as 50% of combat soldiers. Unless they have already lost so many men that they are just putting in combat any able body they can find, young, old, men, women.

It is not misogyny. Very few women can meet the physical standards and rigors of combat fighting. Some women are going to be "allowed" to be combat because they manage to meet those standards but the army should never be expected to lower the standards just so that women can serve in combat.

posted February 10, 2025 02:17 PM            

If you don't care if I read your posts, then why bother to even address me? You have that much free time on your hands?