The sexual dimorphism of the human species means that there are numerous “hacks” of our bodies created when the various signals regarding sex happen during development. Women’s wider pelvises, the way that their hormone system works, all of that is different from the sort of thing that a male goes through during development and growth. Men are optimized for things like hunting and ranging farther afield, and it’s so subtle that there are even sexual differences you can identify in how the two sexes navigate. Men are more “time, distance, direction” oriented, in general, and women are more “landmark and feel”.
So, that there are differences in injury rates for the same sports, most of which started out as male games in the first place…? Yeah, not surprising: Women are trying to operate on a playing field they are simply not adapted to.
If one were honest, you’d see the same thing in the military whenever some gender-weird decides to integrate women into combat arms elements. Women are simply physically unsuited for the way in which our armies fight in direct combat infantry roles, and their prevalence in guerrilla roles and other things fools the general public into thinking that it’s merely male recalcitrance that doesn’t want them on the front lines. Reality is that it’s these little things like greater propensity towards knee injuries and a far less robust frame that militates towards keeping them out of front-line direct combat.
Mentality? I’m not so sure on that one, but I’d be open to persuasion in either direction, were someone to actually do the research. It’s my opinion that the monthly hormone swing leaves a lot of the female population essentially irrational during the swings, and I’m suspicious of the general ability of the broad class of women to cope with direct combat and/or remain in control of themselves. People joke all the time about PMS and combat, but I’m not gonna do that–What are you going to do when your commander loses her bearings in the middle of things, and calls in fire on militarily unjustifiable targets?
Friend of mine related a situation with a female mid-rank leader in an adjacent unit in Afghanistan, who basically razed a village after one of her troops got hit by fire nearby. He wasn’t sure that the choices she was making in that situation were necessarily rational, or that she was on an even keel, emotionally. From having worked with her for some time, his opinion was that had that soldier been wounded on any other day of her cycle, then that village might not have gotten the treatment it did. Which was, in his judgment, more than slightly excessive…
That, from a guy whose attitude towards Afghans and Muslims in general is basically “…can’t kill enough of them to make me happy…” really makes me wonder what the hell happened that he thought it was over-the-top and not really justified…
Gaikokumaniakku: Tangentially related: 3M22 Zircon: Debunking Misconceptions. At the link, a military expert criticizes Russian hypersonic weapons.
Phileas Frogg: History is a gift and its study a blessing; even the people whose effects I have come to despise are so obviously superior to our present milieu that one can’t help but feel a sort of scruffy abashedness in the presence of their biographies. And, of course, it gets worse the further back you go. One wonders at the impression a fully fledged Adam in the Garden, before the Fall, would have had on us scampering apes. Darwin got it backwards, we didn’t evolve from an ape-like...
Bob Sykes: LBJ also kept a cooler of beer in that Caddy, and he usually was drinking a beer while he drove around.
Phileas Frogg: “Interestingly, working-class Americans are more likely to read local news, while the wealthy and highly educated favor national and global news.” I wonder how much of this is social norms vs self-perception. Do the wealthy and educated feel in touch with (or that they should be in touch with) national and global events, or is it mere mimicry? How about the working-class? The two are necessarily mutually exclusive of course, but I wonder if there’s a different primary...
Phileas Frogg: As advances in weapon’s have improved the range and effectiveness of the individual soldier’s impact on the battlefield, the number of soldiers has increased in importance relative to the quality of any individual soldier. It’s the Thermopylae Principle in reverse because of weapons advancements. Reminds me of RTS balancing, where to effectively implement melee units developers need to give them either unrealistic speed or durability relative to the ranged capabilities of...
Bob Sykes: Calling Mohamed Farrah Aidid’s militia a mob is a bit much, but they were lightly armed and poorly trained. However, they defeated the US/UN mission to Somalia, or at least fought it to a draw. We’re still fighting Aidid’s grandchildren, and we still haven’t won. The war is now in its 4th decade, with no end in sight. Settling aside our Indian Wars (1607 to 1918). Somalia is the longest US war.
McChuck: Anybody who has ever played a wargame can tell you that your defenses can handle a certain amount of opposition, but when enemy numbers, regardless of quality, exceed that number, you get overrun. The mobs in Mogadishu back in 1993 weren’t well organized, weren’t well equipped, weren’t well trained, and weren’t well led. But there sure were a whole lot of them shooting at the Rangers.
Russell: New article about Thorp https://archive.ph/fq5JC
Phileas Frogg: The class divide in the US is as deep and wide as any as has existed in history, but instead of acknowledging the divide, much less trying to bridge it, we have chosen moralization and mutual animosity, which will be the death of us.
Freddo: https://www.zerohedge.co m/geopolitical/us-drones -are-expensive-and-error -prone-so-ukraine-turns- china
Jim: The principle applies whatever the source of the wall-penetrating radio waves in question.
Phileas Frogg: In conjunction with the Rob Henderson excerpt one can safely conclude that neither drug use, nor sexual immorality, can be meaningfully correlated with class. “But poverty causes crime!” Does it?
Bruce: Green energy is a patronage fraud, and Terraform Industries is working with it. But their tech isn’t a fraud.
Handle: What is Henderson taking about? I was under the impression that it was a broadly believed meme and one frequently portrayed in popular entertainment for several generations before Henderson was born that college kids got drunk and enjoyed / experimented with recreational drugs quite a lot. Maybe Rob’s poorer friends couldn’t afford to watch those episodes of South Park or didn’t hear about George W Bush’s “youthful indiscretions”? Man, the left really is...
Bob Sykes: How effing stupid are we supposed to be. The energy input to make the methane will be several times the energy of combustion when the methane is burned. And, of course, all the methane will become exactly the amount of carbon dioxide originally removed from the atmosphere. Net, no carbon dioxide removal. And considering all the carbon produced during the manufacture of the Terraform system and the solar/wind systems, this proposal actually increases atmospheric CO2. And the cost claims are...
Gaikokumaniakku: If it’s “synthetic,” they could just call it “synthetic methane,” right? Calling it “synthetic natural gas” makes my brain hurt because I like to think that natural things are not synthetic. I love methane tech because I was raised on Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. Typically I like to see it as a way of dealing with dung from agriculture, but I am a fan of methane tech regardless of how they make it.
Bruce: Very glad to see @TerraformIndies here. This could be really big. For example, why not put a Terrform Indies converter on every nuclear power plant in front of those electric heaters in the cooling towers? Closer to where people need natural gas than oil wells where they just burn the natural gas off because it’s not worth transport costs. And if CO2 is bad, like the climate change people say, it’s great to have a way to turn CO2 to something useful. And worse case, it’s a...
Women are at higher risk of knee injury in sports because of the way they cut and plant. Seems this is especially endemic in women’s soccer.
The sexual dimorphism of the human species means that there are numerous “hacks” of our bodies created when the various signals regarding sex happen during development. Women’s wider pelvises, the way that their hormone system works, all of that is different from the sort of thing that a male goes through during development and growth. Men are optimized for things like hunting and ranging farther afield, and it’s so subtle that there are even sexual differences you can identify in how the two sexes navigate. Men are more “time, distance, direction” oriented, in general, and women are more “landmark and feel”.
So, that there are differences in injury rates for the same sports, most of which started out as male games in the first place…? Yeah, not surprising: Women are trying to operate on a playing field they are simply not adapted to.
If one were honest, you’d see the same thing in the military whenever some gender-weird decides to integrate women into combat arms elements. Women are simply physically unsuited for the way in which our armies fight in direct combat infantry roles, and their prevalence in guerrilla roles and other things fools the general public into thinking that it’s merely male recalcitrance that doesn’t want them on the front lines. Reality is that it’s these little things like greater propensity towards knee injuries and a far less robust frame that militates towards keeping them out of front-line direct combat.
Mentality? I’m not so sure on that one, but I’d be open to persuasion in either direction, were someone to actually do the research. It’s my opinion that the monthly hormone swing leaves a lot of the female population essentially irrational during the swings, and I’m suspicious of the general ability of the broad class of women to cope with direct combat and/or remain in control of themselves. People joke all the time about PMS and combat, but I’m not gonna do that–What are you going to do when your commander loses her bearings in the middle of things, and calls in fire on militarily unjustifiable targets?
Friend of mine related a situation with a female mid-rank leader in an adjacent unit in Afghanistan, who basically razed a village after one of her troops got hit by fire nearby. He wasn’t sure that the choices she was making in that situation were necessarily rational, or that she was on an even keel, emotionally. From having worked with her for some time, his opinion was that had that soldier been wounded on any other day of her cycle, then that village might not have gotten the treatment it did. Which was, in his judgment, more than slightly excessive…
That, from a guy whose attitude towards Afghans and Muslims in general is basically “…can’t kill enough of them to make me happy…” really makes me wonder what the hell happened that he thought it was over-the-top and not really justified…