Do you think women should be allowed in the infantry?
*Note this is not the same as women in the army/marines/navy. There is no problem with that. This is the front lines and battles of war we are talking about. The grunt work.
So I was watching this thing on MSNBC (or some news channel) this morning and they were discussing the issues of women not being allowed to work in ranks like combat medic, and other physically demanding front line infantry positions.
Some people were calling in to voice their opinion and some brought up good points:
Women/men would be distracting to themselves. Then if something were to happen, there would possibly be emotional damage and even more distraction. Men have an inherent instinct to protect women and that is well known. With women in the trenches of war there is a greater chance of sexual assault/harassment not only just from the fellow infantry units but in the event of capture/pow (this is especially bad in places in the middle east where women have little or no rights). The facilities would have to be overhauled to not be unisex and more accommodating to women instead of just men. Then there is the mess if a women was pregnant in a battle. Health costs for women are greater and injuries are more frequent. In truth, the military budget is taking a colossal hit. and of course, most importantly, men are faster and stronger than women. I'm sure there are many other reasons why, please post those if you think of them.
On the pro side of the argument, people (mostly women/feminists ofc) are saying that women are equal and have equal rights and should be able to/are just as able to fight in a war as men.
Imo this is not a political or social issue, It's just a fact of nature. Nature lays down the laws, we just back them up.
When I was in boot camp more than twenty years ago, my platoon sergeant told of his experiences training women Marines. The idea, at that time, was to subject the best and most motivated women to the same training as men. "They were great women," he said, "but after a few days they were all in tears."
Women cannot endure the same training that men endure.
The United States Army was created for one purpose -- the defense of our country. It was not created as a laboratory for social experimentation. It is not an arena for correcting nature's inequities We already know from common observation that women lack upper body strength. Furthermore, the very advantages that women possess over men -- emotional intelligence and sensitivity -- work against them on the battlefield. At the same time, the very emotional cluelessness and blockheaded insensitivity of men serves them well in the most brutal of all human activities.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry. Worse yet, it is unacceptable for military personnel to complain about the danger that women pose to the combat readiness of their units. According to the sergeant, the imperatives of basic military toughness and discipline have been sacrificed in the U.S. Army so that women can get through the training. This cannot fail to have a negative effect on the male troops. Sexual harassment is another difficulty that arises. Disruptions of all kinds mount on every side. In addition, women cost more than men do. Health costs for women are greater and injuries are more frequent. In truth, the military budget is taking a colossal hit.
If motherhood is not a man's right, why should manhood be a woman's right?
Obviously this OP is a little biased, but I am totally open to counter opinions and arguments.
A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military.
I'm sure there are some crazy bitches out there that could handle it (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc)..... But, how would they affect the rest of the unit they were with? Would it be positive or negative?
I can't see it being a positive..... Hence I vote "no".
However, this does not mean that I don't think women should be in the military. There are a lot of places where they could make a huge impact. Just not on the front lines.
On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military.
That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever.
Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
Only problem I see with women in the infantry is what happens if a female soldier is captured during a battle and how many are going to get killed trying to get her back. I mean if the enemy, for example the Taliban, know our view on Women they might become more aggressive to capture female soldiers leading to greater harm and danger than there already is for our troops. Knowing as a country we will do everything possible to get them back.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
Men are generally stronger and faster than women, this is true. But I would think that many women meet or exceed the physical requirements for any combat job. If this is the case(and I'd be shocked if it weren't) then any argument from a 'not strong or fast enough' position is tossed out. Set the physical standards, and anyone who meets or exceeds them is physically qualified for the job, gender is irrelevant.
Now, many of the other issues you raised are still very relevant.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully.
On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military.
That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever.
Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military.
That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever.
Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
In the Canadian army at least, I know the women have different standard than men. Actually, much weaker standards, which is strange if you think about it. The standards should be the same, if you can't pull your weight, why should we rely on you in times of dire need. But the advocates of this are right, women's bodies are different and can't generally handle the same stress a mans can, but to me... this means they shouldn't be allowed to fight, not "give them different standards".
I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military.
That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever.
Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
lol, why don't you think a little more about it.
What about having a man and a women in the cockpit of a plane?
What about having men and women in an Operating room during open heart surgery? Im not talking about a fuckin cashier job at a grocery store, im talkign abotu when lives can be lost (and my examples are far more likely to have gendre conflicts then while people are shooting at you :D)
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully.
So why the Op is about trenche war lol ? There are a lot of paperwork jobs in the army i don't understand what is your problem if weak men or weak women are recruited to do this.
Don't really know how the US army recruitment system works but i guess that you just need to test the physical abilities of people regarding their speciality ( infantry, telecommunications, etc ... ).
If they fail the badass grunt course with the 30kg backpack well maybe they can still apply to work in an office or as mechanic, cook etc ...
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
yes, exactly. Many people don't understand this. And it applies for minority races as well. You don't see a lack of black or mexican in the army do you?
On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military.
That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever.
Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
lol, why don't you think a little more about it.
What about having a man and a women in the cockpit of a plane?
What about having men and women in an Operating room during open heart surgery? Im not talking about a fuckin cashier job at a grocery store, im talkign abotu when lives can be lost (and my examples are far more likely to have gendre conflicts then while people are shooting at you :D)
Read the thread and you would have known that we are strictly talking about the front lines of battle.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
This is complete hogwash. There is nothing inherent or "human nature" about what you're saying.
Mongolian women fought in Genghis Khan's army in large numbers. Women from the steppe tribes joined in on tribal raids and full-scale wars all the time actually. Not just during Genghis' time.
Chinese women from the military aristocracy were trained since birth and fought as soldiers/officers for centuries.
Shaka Zulu had complete corps of all-female troops. Although, later on, he did use them in odd and sexually demeaning ways, especially after his mother died. But then one could make an argument that Shaka was half-nutty by that point. African women soldiers were pretty common outside of this as well.
Scythian women went to war just as often as the men.
I could probably dig up an entire book's worth of other examples but these are the ones just off the top of my head. There is absolutely nothing that makes women less combat effective. Especially in an era where all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack. Peasant women of the past regularly carried much heavier things like hauling water from a river or carrying huge basins of wet laundry back home.
Just because the modern era (and Western society) have made it seem like women are these soft, effeminate, frivolous creatures doesn't make that their "nature." Women can be some seriously BAMFs.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully.
So why the Op is about trenche war lol ? There are a lot of paperwork jobs in the army i don't understand what is your problem if weak men or weak women are recruited to do this.
Don't really know how the US army recruitment system works but i guess that you just need to test the physical abilities of people regarding their speciality ( infantry, telecommunications, etc ... ).
If they fail the badass grunt course with the 30kg backpack well maybe they can still apply to work in an office or as mechanic, cook etc ...
I AGREE, you do not understand the point of this thread.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully.
So why the Op is about trenche war lol ? There are a lot of paperwork jobs in the army i don't understand what is your problem if weak men or weak women are recruited to do this.
Don't really know how the US army recruitment system works but i guess that you just need to test the physical abilities of people regarding their speciality ( infantry, telecommunications, etc ... ).
If they fail the badass grunt course with the 30kg backpack well maybe they can still apply to work in an office or as mechanic, cook etc ...
I AGREE, you do not understand the point of this thread.
The point of the thread is to start an useless argument i'm right ? Anyway goodnight.
On November 12 2009 07:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Only problem I see with women in the infantry is what happens if a female soldier is captured during a battle and how many are going to get killed trying to get her back. I mean if the enemy, for example the Taliban, know our view on Women they might become more aggressive to capture female soldiers leading to greater harm and danger than there already is for our troops. Knowing as a country we will do everything possible to get them back.
Have you seen what some of these Muslim extremists and Pakistani hill tribes do to other men? Anal sex is a form of degradation in that culture and many of the resistance fighters wouldn't blink twice before raping a male POW.
I've got two friends who are special forces and did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have some wtf stories to tell, many of them involving accounts of guys getting anal raped as a form of torture/humiliation.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully.
So why the Op is about trenche war lol ? There are a lot of paperwork jobs in the army i don't understand what is your problem if weak men or weak women are recruited to do this.
Don't really know how the US army recruitment system works but i guess that you just need to test the physical abilities of people regarding their speciality ( infantry, telecommunications, etc ... ).
If they fail the badass grunt course with the 30kg backpack well maybe they can still apply to work in an office or as mechanic, cook etc ...
I AGREE, you do not understand the point of this thread.
The point of the thread is to start an useless argument i'm right ?
and btw 'trenches of war' is a figure of speech. stop trolling man, (or learn english better). you are really missing the point.
On November 12 2009 07:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: There is absolutely nothing that makes women less combat effective. Especially in an era where all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack.
Apparently this isn't so.
Most people should know that there have been many women throughout history that fought in battle successfully, yeah, but obviously they proved themselves in battle instead of letting some goddamned affirmative action help them get their jobs when they can't perform to the levels of the other soldiers that have to work with them.
On November 12 2009 07:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Only problem I see with women in the infantry is what happens if a female soldier is captured during a battle and how many are going to get killed trying to get her back. I mean if the enemy, for example the Taliban, know our view on Women they might become more aggressive to capture female soldiers leading to greater harm and danger than there already is for our troops. Knowing as a country we will do everything possible to get them back.
Have you seen what some of these Muslim extremists and Pakistani hill tribes do to other men? Anal sex is a form of degradation in that culture and many of the resistance fighters wouldn't blink twice before raping a male POW.
I've got two friends who are special forces and did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have some wtf stories to tell, many of them involving accounts of guys getting anal raped as a form of torture/humiliation.
yea, now imagine how much worse that situation would be for a woman.
On November 12 2009 07:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: There is absolutely nothing that makes women less combat effective. Especially in an era where all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack.
Apparently this isn't so.
Most people should know that there have been many women throughout history that fought in battle successfully, yeah, but obviously they proved themselves in battle instead of letting some goddamned affirmative action help them get their jobs when they can't perform to the levels of the other soldiers that have to work with them.
Well, obviously, a smaller percentage of women would qualify than the percentage of men. But for women to be banned completely on the front lines, you're essentially saying that all of the front line fighters are stronger and faster than all the women who want to volunteer for those positions. If they can do it, no reason for them not to.
I was under the impression that in many cultures, the reason women are banned from fighting in the front lines is because they replenish the population faster after a long war. Men are more expendable that way.
On November 12 2009 06:57 CharlieMurphy wrote: To my amazement the poll was something like 65% yes, 35% no.
I think the news poll results are from people voting without reading or anything, I'm not sure though. I think that women shouldn't be allowed in the military, it's a machine, not a charity, and inferior(+ more expensive) parts are simply not allowed in an efficient machine.
I'm not saying women are inferior I'm just saying that they are for this specific occasion.
Also if anyone knows please share, how exactly would a woman's menstrual shit affect them or be taken care of in the long term military environment? Isn't it unrealistic? nobody's gonna stop if she gets a cramp lol...
On November 12 2009 07:32 Thratur wrote: Well, if they want to become a grunt, why should we stop them? If they don't want to, well they just have to say it.
1) they are defending our country 2) they are representing us in foreign places. They don't just send random people over there or else we would have prison convict transfer system or some stupid shit (like Starcraft does). 3) For the other reasons I listed in the OP.. Money/Social issues.
The other ones are either BS or can be accommodated. If a woman is strong enough and fast enough, she should get in. Ultimately, war is still a numbers game even with all the high tech toys we have. If we can add 25% more frontline troops, as an example, by allowing women, we'd be more effective in our current wars.
Like the poster above mentioned, ancient races like the Mongols and Scythians allowed their women in battle. And I can tell you for sure that Genghis Khan didn't do it for affirmative action.
I'd like to say that I have no problem with women being on the frontlines and in a perfect world there would be no wars. Considering what the world looks like and how badly women are treated in many cultures I'm gonna be practical here and say that I don't think that women should be front-line infantry. However I have no problem with women in the army otherwise at all
The manhood/motherhood thing was a bit silly and if something, just works to maintain women and men as separate entities which is a bad thing. Keep in mind also that alot of these arguments about women and men having different cemented roles come from religious people and older generations. Secular people and humanists tend to be more on the liberal/feminist side.
War is an extreme event and I don't think either men or women should fight in wars unless necessary. Now IF women and men ALREADY had the same status around the world in every culture, then yes I think women should be able to fight on the frontlines. Because it's not like that, no.
On November 12 2009 07:34 andrewlt wrote: The other ones are either BS or can be accommodated. If a woman is strong enough and fast enough, she should get in. Ultimately, war is still a numbers game even with all the high tech toys we have. If we can add 25% more frontline troops, as an example, by allowing women, we'd be more effective in our current wars.
That may be true, but we may take 50% more losses in injuries, accommodations, etc. You can't just say it has all pros and no cons like that.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
Yeah, you're saying this from a male perspective. I don't see you arguing that men shouldn't be in some places where women might be better suited for the tasks. I'm thinking communications in general (although I believe this is the result of socialization to a large degree). I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with.
You are basically saying that if women can live up to the higher male standards of functioning, they are welcome up on the male piedestal. Otherwise they should remain in their inferior position.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully.
So why the Op is about trenche war lol ? There are a lot of paperwork jobs in the army i don't understand what is your problem if weak men or weak women are recruited to do this.
Don't really know how the US army recruitment system works but i guess that you just need to test the physical abilities of people regarding their speciality ( infantry, telecommunications, etc ... ).
If they fail the badass grunt course with the 30kg backpack well maybe they can still apply to work in an office or as mechanic, cook etc ...
I AGREE, you do not understand the point of this thread.
The point of the thread is to start an useless argument i'm right ?
and btw 'trenches of war' is a figure of speech. stop trolling man, (or learn english better). you are really missing the point.
And what is the "point" ? That women are creatures inherently weaker and thus should not be allowed to serve in the army even if some manage to get the same results in tests than their male counterparts ? It seems that you are the troll Charlie, especially if we take a closer look at your ban history.
This is complete hogwash. There is nothing inherent or "human nature" about what you're saying.
Mongolian women fought in Genghis Khan's army in large numbers. Women from the steppe tribes joined in on tribal raids and full-scale wars all the time actually. Not just during Genghis' time.
Chinese women from the military aristocracy were trained since birth and fought as soldiers/officers for centuries.
Shaka Zulu had complete corps of all-female troops. Although, later on, he did use them in odd and sexually demeaning ways, especially after his mother died. But then one could make an argument that Shaka was half-nutty by that point. African women soldiers were pretty common outside of this as well.
Scythian women went to war just as often as the men.
I could probably dig up an entire book's worth of other examples but these are the ones just off the top of my head. There is absolutely nothing that makes women less combat effective. Especially in an era where all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack. Peasant women of the past regularly carried much heavier things like hauling water from a river or carrying huge basins of wet laundry back home.
Just because the modern era (and Western society) have made it seem like women are these soft, effeminate, frivolous creatures doesn't make that their "nature." Women can be some seriously BAMFs.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with.
so by this logic, then why should women be there to fight in our bullshit?
Bobolion, you're derailing the thread. Everyone else understands the thread but you. I'm not gonna respond to you anymore.
There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
On November 12 2009 07:33 Phrujbaz wrote: They can fight, if they pass the same standards as men. Which they don't.
How often do we define the standards women have and that men have to live up to?
What you're saying is just the result of an ongoing discourse about man being the norm in the western society and the characteristics he "has" as a result of social constructions.
This is complete hogwash. There is nothing inherent or "human nature" about what you're saying.
Mongolian women fought in Genghis Khan's army in large numbers. Women from the steppe tribes joined in on tribal raids and full-scale wars all the time actually. Not just during Genghis' time.
Chinese women from the military aristocracy were trained since birth and fought as soldiers/officers for centuries.
Shaka Zulu had complete corps of all-female troops. Although, later on, he did use them in odd and sexually demeaning ways, especially after his mother died. But then one could make an argument that Shaka was half-nutty by that point. African women soldiers were pretty common outside of this as well.
Scythian women went to war just as often as the men.
I could probably dig up an entire book's worth of other examples but these are the ones just off the top of my head. There is absolutely nothing that makes women less combat effective. Especially in an era where all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack. Peasant women of the past regularly carried much heavier things like hauling water from a river or carrying huge basins of wet laundry back home.
Just because the modern era (and Western society) have made it seem like women are these soft, effeminate, frivolous creatures doesn't make that their "nature." Women can be some seriously BAMFs.
You OBVIOUSLY can quote history, but you don't have a clue as to what is needed in an actual combat situation now a days.
"all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack"
This quote basically makes you lose ALL credibility, because it is complete BS. I'm a retired Marine, and I can tell you FOR A FACT, that the men doing patrols over in the middle east carry AT LEAST 75 lb packs, plus rifles (if you're lucky enough to even carry a light 8 lb rifle compared to a 17 lb SAW) plus extra ammo, plus anything else that is necessary. I'm not even telling you all the extra things that they have to carry for even longer partols.
Before you start spouting nonsense, you might want to actually read up or even ask someone that knows what they're talking about concerning these things.
Now, onto the real matter. I personally think that women should not be allowed on the front lines, because of many of the reasons that were stated by the OP. They are in fact the truth. Take the Marine Corps for example. Physical standards for men and women are different. Women have more lax standards, and are given special compensation for certain things. This is not saying that SOME women can't compete with the men, because there are, it's that the majority of them can't.
Now, as for the mental part. That depends. Some women can hack it, just like some men. Others can't. But you'll find a LOT more men that can than women. Don't ask me why, but that's just the way it is.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
Yeah, you're saying this from a male perspective. I don't see you arguing that men shouldn't be in some places where women might be better suited for the tasks. I'm thinking communications in general (although I believe this is the result of socialization to a large degree). I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with.
You are basically saying that if women can live up to the higher male standards of functioning, they are welcome up on the male piedestal. Otherwise they should remain in their inferior position.
If men can't perform some tasks as well as women, then obviously they shouldn't be sent to the sheer front of the work since they're inferior performers. I'm not saying this just in a pure gender way. In any kind of specialized profession only those who perform the best should be used up in the front. The only reason I divided the whole thing into men and women is because the topic was about how women are generally worse soldiers than men in the front lines of battle. Regardless of gender, age, race, social class, etc., if you're worse at something then obviously the better performers should be prioritized in use in front of you.
Just for clarification. Women are allowed in the US Army, just not in 1st line duties (infantry, armored etc). From my experience some of the most hardcore infanteers i ever met were women, and some of the biggest sacks of shit i met were women aspiring to be infantry/armored etc.
The system weeds people like that out though. US Army is a very different environment than Canadian though...i'd be surprised if we didn't see it happen soon though.
Whether or not you should be allowed in the military or to be in the infantry specifically should be dictated by a set of gender-neutral requirements. Any woman who can meet these requirements should be allowed to do the same job as the men who can do it. Of course, the grand majority of people passing the more strict physical tests will be male due to physiological differences, but this is not the result of any unnecessary social bias.
edit: most counterarguments seem to be that it will mess up the way things are already done (i.e. male-only facilities) if we let women do things... but since it was our mistake to bar women from doing certain things originally... we have no right to deny them access.
On November 12 2009 07:34 andrewlt wrote: The other ones are either BS or can be accommodated. If a woman is strong enough and fast enough, she should get in. Ultimately, war is still a numbers game even with all the high tech toys we have. If we can add 25% more frontline troops, as an example, by allowing women, we'd be more effective in our current wars.
That may be true, but we may take 50% more losses in injuries, accommodations, etc. You can't just say it has all pros and no cons like that.
Why would we? No matter what people nowadays say, war was more physically demanding in the middle ages. If people like Genghis Khan have women in his army, the only issue is cultural. Keep in mind that Genghis Khan's logistics was so good he could move his army as fast if not faster than a modern army.
This is not saying that SOME women can't compete with the men, because there are, it's that the majority of them can't.
And therefore, all the women who can compete with the men should be allowed to.
I am a man, and I can't compete with soldiers physically. Does that mean that men shouldn't be allowed in infantry combat? Of course not. Just because some women can't hack it doesn't mean that all women should automatically be prevented from having the opportunity to try.
So long as the standards are the same, and these standards are what is necessary to achieve the goals of an infantry soldier, there is little reason not to.
No matter what people nowadays say, war was more physically demanding in the middle ages.
Um, not really. Oh, they had to wear armor and so forth. But they only wore it when they were actually about to go into battle. Until then, you generally stowed it on your wagon or whatever and let the horses pull it.
Actual combat was more physically demanding. But the getting there and getting back was, basically, just walking. Or in the case of horsemen, riding.
Food was gathered by hunting in the forests, or pulled along by horsedrawn carts. Or the occasional farm raid.
If a woman can stay healthy, do the job, carry the weight, throw a grenade, and overall perform the same functions as a man, fine, let 'em serve. But almost all of them CAN'T, therefore, NO. I can understand some opinions about letting them in, but they complicate things unnecessarily for now, so its just easier for everyone in the sytem to not allow women to perform 1st line duties.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with.
so by this logic, then why should women be there to fight in our bullshit?
Well, I don't believe it's as simple as that of course. But war is basically an extension of "male" characteristics where pride, dominance, glory and balls make men seek out conflicts in order to be successful and dominant (most countries have male dominated positions of power). People need to look more at the underlying big picture in order to get a better understanding of why things are the way they are imo.
Wars don't just happen. And they don't just happen because of difference in religion and interests in general. They happen because of the "male" characteristics we learn to embrace as a result of socialization, and these beliefs force wars to happen.
Women are of course affected by what men do as well and in the big picture they have no other option to get involved in one way or another (because men take decisions at large). I'm not saying that women should specifically fight on the front-lines. I'm saying that if the world was a more equal place and there was more harmony between men and women to the degree where people thought of people more as individuals instead of man/woman, the male/female constructed characteristics would tone down and wars would more few and far between.
This is not saying that SOME women can't compete with the men, because there are, it's that the majority of them can't.
And therefore, all the women who can compete with the men should be allowed to.
I am a man, and I can't compete with soldiers physically. Does that mean that men shouldn't be allowed in infantry combat? Of course not. Just because some women can't hack it doesn't mean that all women should automatically be prevented from having the opportunity to try.
So long as the standards are the same, and these standards are what is necessary to achieve the goals of an infantry soldier, there is little reason not to.
The issue is that women have more lax requirements than men, so therefore inferior soldiers are being sent out. Obviously if anyone can compete with what is required of the regular male soldiers then there is no reason for them to not be allowed to go to the front.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully.
So why the Op is about trenche war lol ? There are a lot of paperwork jobs in the army i don't understand what is your problem if weak men or weak women are recruited to do this.
Don't really know how the US army recruitment system works but i guess that you just need to test the physical abilities of people regarding their speciality ( infantry, telecommunications, etc ... ).
If they fail the badass grunt course with the 30kg backpack well maybe they can still apply to work in an office or as mechanic, cook etc ...
I AGREE, you do not understand the point of this thread.
The point of the thread is to start an useless argument i'm right ?
and btw 'trenches of war' is a figure of speech. stop trolling man, (or learn english better). you are really missing the point.
And what is the "point" ? That women are creatures inherently weaker and thus should not be allowed to serve in the army even if some manage to get the same results in tests than their male counterparts ? It seems that you are the troll Charlie, especially if we take a closer look at your ban history.
You really are ignoring other stuff said in the OP.
I simply wouldn't feel safe being in a platoon with a women and trusting my life to the ability and skill of the women next to me. Sure there is that one in the bunch that would be great at it, but the majority of women they let in would be shitty soldiers compared to the men.
It makes me think of women police officers. Most of them are a joke.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
What's the problem really? Social constructs are ever changing and we re-create reality all the time in social relations. Would it be so bad if the male/female discourse would become more about different individuals regardless of biological gender?
Chivalry, self-sacrifice and duty are all quite the "male" characteristics. Are you afraid that your own identity would change? Why can't these characteristics apply to both men and women? In a post-modern world more and more of these earlier considered male/female characteristics will loosen up over time.
But yeah, I get your point about loss of identity in general. It's an issue because we need some sort of identity in order to be considered "sane" by the norms of society. But these roles don't have to be about male/female but more individual.
I had women in the army with me, as grunts i guess. Of course there were far less of them than then men and some did wash out quickly. Most of the ones who stayed were fine though. Some shit ones, but that's also true for the men.
Norway allows women into any position in the military afaik (maybe submarines or something has other rules, but i doubt it). We do however have some ....elite squads i guess you could call them. Navy seal kinda similar thing. They have entrance exams which quite a few women have taken, but as far as i know non have passed, ever. If one were to pass, she'd be on the squad.
Actually, let me do this properly.
1) Women/men would be distracting to themselves. Then if something were to happen, there would possibly be emotional damage and even more distraction. Men have an inherent instinct to protect women and that is well known. 2) With women in the trenches of war there is a greater chance of sexual assault/harassment not only just from the fellow infantry units but in the event of capture/pow (this is especially bad in places in the middle east where women have little or no rights). 3) The facilities would have to be overhauled to not be unisex and more accommodating to women instead of just men. 4) Then there is the mess if a women was pregnant in a battle. 5) Health costs for women are greater and injuries are more frequent. In truth, the military budget is taking a colossal hit. and of course, most importantly, 6) men are faster and stronger than women. I'm sure there are many other reasons why, please post those if you think of them.
1) Yes women are a distraction to a certain point..... However this sounds a lot like the arguments against gays in the military as well as the one used against blacks in the past in the us. It would be distracting and detrimental to unit cohesion etc. And frankly... any frontline unit (which is what we're talking about here correct?) has a solid instinct to protect each other regardless. I really don't think this will be amplified/lessened/skewed by women's presence.
2) Sexual harassment, yeah... sure. Any situation that puts men and women that closely together over long periods of time will have this kinda problem. I don't think it's enough for exclusion. And the capture/pow thing is ...sorry, but utter crap. If they're willing to rape a female pow im sure they aren't nice to their male pows either.
3) Facilities? As you repeatedly say in the op these are grunts we're talking about. It's the outdoors.. a bag... that kinda thing. They'll make due like everyone else. Next.
4) They get pregnant, they go on leave. Not ideal I guess, but hey.
5) To be honest, i know little about health costs and frequency... but I imagine this to not be properly backed up with facts (keeping in mind we're not talking about an entire nation here, just soldiers, which excludes and whole bunch of ages and conditions etc). So I will concede this... sorta. Since I know next to nothing about it.
6) In general yes... but have you seen some of the "female" weight lifters? Hey that would also fix the whole sexual harassment problem. No one wants a piece of that:D The point is some women are capable of such work even if the percentage is clearly larger on the male side. If they can do the job, let them. Treat them the same, expect the same from them, boot them out the same if they don't deliver. Simple in my mind.
Hopefully my argument isn't too packed with bs^^ I'm sure someone will quickly call me on it if it is though. In short, I see no good reason why they shouldn't be able, if they indeed are able.
If women are able to satisfy a certain standard that is required to be met by all, I see no reason why they should be disallowed from fighting in the front lines.
Health care costs? Women who risk life for duty is a greater benefit to the country than any costs for incorporating them into the system.
Sexual harassment? Men are just as much at fault as the women are. If each side contributed equally to this problem, it seems pretty unjust to place the entire burden of preventing this on only the women (by disallowing them to fight).
POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Except we are kinda obligated to go out and rescue her, so it isnt really only a bad decision for her.
On November 12 2009 08:04 KaasZerg wrote: Taliban and the like would capture and rape the shit out of GI Janes. And release them when the rapebabies are born. How is that for morale.
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes.
and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully.
So why the Op is about trenche war lol ? There are a lot of paperwork jobs in the army i don't understand what is your problem if weak men or weak women are recruited to do this.
Don't really know how the US army recruitment system works but i guess that you just need to test the physical abilities of people regarding their speciality ( infantry, telecommunications, etc ... ).
If they fail the badass grunt course with the 30kg backpack well maybe they can still apply to work in an office or as mechanic, cook etc ...
I AGREE, you do not understand the point of this thread.
The point of the thread is to start an useless argument i'm right ?
and btw 'trenches of war' is a figure of speech. stop trolling man, (or learn english better). you are really missing the point.
And what is the "point" ? That women are creatures inherently weaker and thus should not be allowed to serve in the army even if some manage to get the same results in tests than their male counterparts ? It seems that you are the troll Charlie, especially if we take a closer look at your ban history.
You really are ignoring other stuff said in the OP.
You mean the lame excuses like " they could be harassed or raped", "they get injured more often" ( sources ? ) or " they can distract our good boys" ?
If those guys can't control their libido eh i don't think that they can be trusted to obey orders and they would not be good soldiers anyway.
edit: an army of sexual harrassers and rapists lol.
On November 12 2009 07:53 Physician wrote: "Do you think women should be allowed in the infantry?"
only if there is no men left to do the job..
I suspect that we are thinking in terms of outdated models and examples. Today war is a savage experience imposed on entire societies, sparing neither woman nor child.
For my own country, in so far as the duties of our armed forces are limited to peacekeeping, police and rescue duties, there is no reason to include women in the armed forces. If some national emergency besets us, it would depend on the threat and its gravity. I see no reason for us to be in Afghanistan so I am excluding participation in NATO nation-building wars.
For Western Europe and the United States, I would apply similar criteria and expectations.
The issue is that the standards are not neutral.
Is that the only issue at stake? My personal impressions of many of the rank and file of the American army is that worse cannot be expected from impressed sailors. Their behaviour and morals are in many instances repulsive, and one gets the impression that they are scraped up from the dregs of society, men who have no interest in the army other than seeing it as an employer of last resort.
Officers tend to be more civilized, but in general, one suspects that there is something terribly wrong with the woman who hires herself to serve a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. Looking at the matter more broadly, I take back what I said earlier, and I will give the same advice to men as to women: do not join the army.
On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Except we are kinda obligated to go out and rescue her, so it isnt really only a bad decision for her.
Are women more susceptible to getting captured than men?
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
Yeah, you're saying this from a male perspective. I don't see you arguing that men shouldn't be in some places where women might be better suited for the tasks. I'm thinking communications in general (although I believe this is the result of socialization to a large degree). I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with.
You are basically saying that if women can live up to the higher male standards of functioning, they are welcome up on the male piedestal. Otherwise they should remain in their inferior position.
If men can't perform some tasks as well as women, then obviously they shouldn't be sent to the sheer front of the work since they're inferior performers. I'm not saying this just in a pure gender way. In any kind of specialized profession only those who perform the best should be used up in the front. The only reason I divided the whole thing into men and women is because the topic was about how women are generally worse soldiers than men in the front lines of battle. Regardless of gender, age, race, social class, etc., if you're worse at something then obviously the better performers should be prioritized in use in front of you.
Yeah in theory it should be like that.
However men have grabbed pretty much all the positions of power historically regardless if women could possibly do these tasks better. So there's a powerful discourse that hints that men are better at "important" things than women in general. My point is that women don't really get the chance to show that they are better professors, or engineers or what not because men have already claimed these positions and aren't considering the fact that women might be better at these things. The historical western discourse of men being more practical, decisive, more intelligent etc live on to this day, although less outspoken and less clear-cut.
Also you're saying "if men can't perform some tasks as well as women" implying that it's not certain that those tasks exist. At the same time you're assuming that there ARE tasks that men simply do better than women.
On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Except we are kinda obligated to go out and rescue her, so it isnt really only a bad decision for her.
We are just as obligated or not obligated to rescue men.
Again, an uncultured barbarian like Genghis Khan back in the middle ages had women in his army. If he can grapple with the logistics of it, why can't so-called more modern armies? Or are the organization of our current armies more backwards nowadays?
On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Except we are kinda obligated to go out and rescue her, so it isnt really only a bad decision for her.
Are women more susceptible to getting captured than men?
Its a much bigger media event when a woman is captured/tortured/whatevered as a POW. Plus it looks alot worse when a woman is captured.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
Yeah, you're saying this from a male perspective. I don't see you arguing that men shouldn't be in some places where women might be better suited for the tasks. I'm thinking communications in general (although I believe this is the result of socialization to a large degree). I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with.
You are basically saying that if women can live up to the higher male standards of functioning, they are welcome up on the male piedestal. Otherwise they should remain in their inferior position.
If men can't perform some tasks as well as women, then obviously they shouldn't be sent to the sheer front of the work since they're inferior performers. I'm not saying this just in a pure gender way. In any kind of specialized profession only those who perform the best should be used up in the front. The only reason I divided the whole thing into men and women is because the topic was about how women are generally worse soldiers than men in the front lines of battle. Regardless of gender, age, race, social class, etc., if you're worse at something then obviously the better performers should be prioritized in use in front of you.
Also you're saying "if men can't perform some tasks as well as women" implying that it's not certain that those tasks exist. At the same time you're assuming that there ARE tasks that men simply do better than women.
wut. now you're just being absurd.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: If women are able to satisfy a certain standard that is required to be met by all, I see no reason why they should be disallowed from fighting in the front lines.
Health care costs? Women who risk life for duty is a greater benefit to the country than any costs for incorporating them into the system.
Sexual harassment? Men are just as much at fault as the women are. If each side contributed equally to this problem, it seems pretty unjust to place the entire burden of preventing this on only the women (by disallowing them to fight).
POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Finally a good counter argument.
The point is the costs are X now, and if women (who are fewer) are incorporated here the cost goes up by a larger percentage than the women making the cut. It's not efficient. All the other reasons about them being weaker etc is just more side bullshit basically to justify this main point imo.
2) These are true, but we can't account for the enemy soldiers and foreign civilians.
You still can't really argue against the distraction between the sexes in the same ranks though imo.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
I think society was nice and just gave them the benefit of the doubt though. When we are talking about a well oiled war machine we can't afford to take these risks. This isn't a social experiment it's war. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
This is complete hogwash. There is nothing inherent or "human nature" about what you're saying.
Mongolian women fought in Genghis Khan's army in large numbers. Women from the steppe tribes joined in on tribal raids and full-scale wars all the time actually. Not just during Genghis' time.
Chinese women from the military aristocracy were trained since birth and fought as soldiers/officers for centuries.
Shaka Zulu had complete corps of all-female troops. Although, later on, he did use them in odd and sexually demeaning ways, especially after his mother died. But then one could make an argument that Shaka was half-nutty by that point. African women soldiers were pretty common outside of this as well.
Scythian women went to war just as often as the men.
I could probably dig up an entire book's worth of other examples but these are the ones just off the top of my head. There is absolutely nothing that makes women less combat effective. Especially in an era where all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack. Peasant women of the past regularly carried much heavier things like hauling water from a river or carrying huge basins of wet laundry back home.
Just because the modern era (and Western society) have made it seem like women are these soft, effeminate, frivolous creatures doesn't make that their "nature." Women can be some seriously BAMFs.
You OBVIOUSLY can quote history, but you don't have a clue as to what is needed in an actual combat situation now a days.
"all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack"
This quote basically makes you lose ALL credibility, because it is complete BS. I'm a retired Marine, and I can tell you FOR A FACT, that the men doing patrols over in the middle east carry AT LEAST 75 lb packs, plus rifles (if you're lucky enough to even carry a light 8 lb rifle compared to a 17 lb SAW) plus extra ammo, plus anything else that is necessary. I'm not even telling you all the extra things that they have to carry for even longer partols.
Before you start spouting nonsense, you might want to actually read up or even ask someone that knows what they're talking about concerning these things.
Now, onto the real matter. I personally think that women should not be allowed on the front lines, because of many of the reasons that were stated by the OP. They are in fact the truth. Take the Marine Corps for example. Physical standards for men and women are different. Women have more lax standards, and are given special compensation for certain things. This is not saying that SOME women can't compete with the men, because there are, it's that the majority of them can't.
Now, as for the mental part. That depends. Some women can hack it, just like some men. Others can't. But you'll find a LOT more men that can than women. Don't ask me why, but that's just the way it is.
My apologies on getting the specifics wrong. Although, I think it would be idiotic to try debating which was more physically strenuous, war in the medieval ages as a Mongol cavalry archer or as a US Marine now. I think it's pretty short-sighted to think there is a definitive answer, though.
Btw, before you start spouting nonsense you should understand allowing women on the front lines doesn't mean you're recruiting the majority of women to stand on the front-lines. This is basic reading comprehension here. Do the majority of American men serve in the US Marines?
What's the problem really? Social constructs are ever changing and we re-create reality all the time in social relations. Would it be so bad if the male/female discourse would become more about different individuals regardless of biological gender?
I'm not certain which line to take with this, so I will take both:
Social constructs as you call them are not arbitrary or without value, as I indicated. Saying that they change does not address the question of whether they should change, and what the probable gains and losses are likely to be. I have already stated what I suspect will be the losses to society, one which will immediately and directly impact our very conception of what it means to serve in the army.
What are the probable benefits? More manpower to fight in godforsaken countries and a victory in the long crusade for gender equality. Some may see the latter objective as a virtue in itself. I see differently: gender equality of the theoretical and institutional kind does not necessarily mean any tangible benefit. Men today are more ready than ever to admit the equality of women in most every field of life, at the same time, they respect women less. Women at the same time have suffered in the opposite direction: the boredom of living with weak and mute men.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
I think the main issues here are that the standards for entry need to be equal, and that women still would cost more to deploy, (not sure if the latter is true) *edited for clarification
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
Yeah, you're saying this from a male perspective. I don't see you arguing that men shouldn't be in some places where women might be better suited for the tasks. I'm thinking communications in general (although I believe this is the result of socialization to a large degree). I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with.
You are basically saying that if women can live up to the higher male standards of functioning, they are welcome up on the male piedestal. Otherwise they should remain in their inferior position.
If men can't perform some tasks as well as women, then obviously they shouldn't be sent to the sheer front of the work since they're inferior performers. I'm not saying this just in a pure gender way. In any kind of specialized profession only those who perform the best should be used up in the front. The only reason I divided the whole thing into men and women is because the topic was about how women are generally worse soldiers than men in the front lines of battle. Regardless of gender, age, race, social class, etc., if you're worse at something then obviously the better performers should be prioritized in use in front of you.
Also you're saying "if men can't perform some tasks as well as women" implying that it's not certain that those tasks exist. At the same time you're assuming that there ARE tasks that men simply do better than women.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
The M67 can be thrown about 30 meters by the average soldier. It has a 5.0 second fuse that ignites explosives packed inside a round body. Shrapnel is provided by the grenade casing and produces a casualty radius of 15 meters, with a fatality radius of 5 meters, though some fragments can disperse as far out as 230 meters. Its effectiveness is not just its blast radius, which measures approximately 45 feet (13.7 m) since shrapnel fly much further.
When the pin is pulled, the user must pull hard enough to straighten the pin as it comes out.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
I think society was nice and just gave them the benefit of the doubt though. When we are talking about a well oiled war machine we can't afford to take these risks. This isn't a social experiment it's war. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
There is nothing well-oiled about America's war machine lol. Sers Charlie, if you're going to try using "economic efficiency" as a justification for how America operates their military, you are barking up the wrong tree. Like, I can't even begin to describe how poorly conceived an argument that would be.
On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: If women are able to satisfy a certain standard that is required to be met by all, I see no reason why they should be disallowed from fighting in the front lines.
Health care costs? Women who risk life for duty is a greater benefit to the country than any costs for incorporating them into the system.
Sexual harassment? Men are just as much at fault as the women are. If each side contributed equally to this problem, it seems pretty unjust to place the entire burden of preventing this on only the women (by disallowing them to fight).
POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Finally a good counter argument.
The point is the costs are X now, and if women (who are fewer) are incorporated here the cost goes up by a larger percentage than the women making the cut. It's not efficient. All the other reasons about them being weaker etc is just more side bullshit basically to justify this main point imo.
2) These are true, but we can't account for the enemy soldiers and foreign civilians.
You still can't really argue against the distraction between the sexes in the same ranks though imo.
It doesn't matter what X costs now. The only argument should be whether the marginal benefit beats the marginal costs. Some cultures were able to do it in the middle ages, the dark ages, etc.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
Yeah, you're saying this from a male perspective. I don't see you arguing that men shouldn't be in some places where women might be better suited for the tasks. I'm thinking communications in general (although I believe this is the result of socialization to a large degree). I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with.
You are basically saying that if women can live up to the higher male standards of functioning, they are welcome up on the male piedestal. Otherwise they should remain in their inferior position.
If men can't perform some tasks as well as women, then obviously they shouldn't be sent to the sheer front of the work since they're inferior performers. I'm not saying this just in a pure gender way. In any kind of specialized profession only those who perform the best should be used up in the front. The only reason I divided the whole thing into men and women is because the topic was about how women are generally worse soldiers than men in the front lines of battle. Regardless of gender, age, race, social class, etc., if you're worse at something then obviously the better performers should be prioritized in use in front of you.
Also you're saying "if men can't perform some tasks as well as women" implying that it's not certain that those tasks exist. At the same time you're assuming that there ARE tasks that men simply do better than women.
wut. now you're just being absurd.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
That's my entire point though lol
You're just grasping at straws trying to imply that I'm a sexist. The article clearly states some aspects that women fail at compared to men when it comes to activity in the front lines. If you find an article that says that men fail at a certain activity compared to females then I'd say the same things.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
READ.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry.
What's the problem really? Social constructs are ever changing and we re-create reality all the time in social relations. Would it be so bad if the male/female discourse would become more about different individuals regardless of biological gender?
I'm not certain which line to take with this, so I will take both:
Social constructs as you call them are not arbitrary or without value, as I indicated. Saying that they change does not address the question of whether they should change, and what the probable gains and losses are likely to be. I have already stated what I suspect will be the losses to society, one which will immediately and directly impact our very conception of what it means to serve in the army.
What are the probable benefits? More manpower to fight in godforsaken countries and a victory in the long crusade for gender equality. Some may see the latter objective as a virtue in itself. I see differently: gender equality of the theoretical and institutional kind does not necessarily mean any tangible benefit. Men today are more ready than ever to admit the equality of women in most every field of life, at the same time, they respect women less. Women at the same time have suffered in the opposite direction: the boredom of living with weak and mute men.
That's because many men don't really admit the equality between men and women, it's merely for show so to speak. It's politically correct and a popular opinion but their socialization weighs heavier. I think you're generalizing women too heavily and they are also a result of socialization. What you're saying just caters to constructed male/female characteristics. Men and women think like that because of they have learned to think. Why not change the way we think?
Are you saying that being "weak and mute" is the opposite of manliness, ie. female characteristics?
The M67 can be thrown about 30 meters by the average soldier. It has a 5.0 second fuse that ignites explosives packed inside a round body. Shrapnel is provided by the grenade casing and produces a casualty radius of 15 meters, with a fatality radius of 5 meters, though some fragments can disperse as far out as 230 meters. Its effectiveness is not just its blast radius, which measures approximately 45 feet (13.7 m) since shrapnel fly much further.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
Yeah, you're saying this from a male perspective. I don't see you arguing that men shouldn't be in some places where women might be better suited for the tasks. I'm thinking communications in general (although I believe this is the result of socialization to a large degree). I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with.
You are basically saying that if women can live up to the higher male standards of functioning, they are welcome up on the male piedestal. Otherwise they should remain in their inferior position.
If men can't perform some tasks as well as women, then obviously they shouldn't be sent to the sheer front of the work since they're inferior performers. I'm not saying this just in a pure gender way. In any kind of specialized profession only those who perform the best should be used up in the front. The only reason I divided the whole thing into men and women is because the topic was about how women are generally worse soldiers than men in the front lines of battle. Regardless of gender, age, race, social class, etc., if you're worse at something then obviously the better performers should be prioritized in use in front of you.
Also you're saying "if men can't perform some tasks as well as women" implying that it's not certain that those tasks exist. At the same time you're assuming that there ARE tasks that men simply do better than women.
wut. now you're just being absurd.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
That's my entire point though lol
You're just grasping at straws trying to imply that I'm a sexist. The article clearly states some aspects that women fail at compared to men when it comes to activity in the front lines. If you find an article that says that men fail at a certain activity compared to females then I'd say the same things.
No, I'm not putting any labels on you at all. I'm just analyzing what you're saying through the words you choose to use to describe your thoughts.
Yeah it's a bit more complicated than that, but we can keep it simple for the sake of mutual discussion.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
READ.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
I lol'ed We should contact Rekrul about this, I heard he has connections with the Mongols.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
Would you god damn read instead of just seeing the word "no" and responding in a misinformed fashion?
Read again man.
I said if they can MEET THE MINIMAL STANDARDS (which includes throwing a high explosive past its blast range) than they can be in the infantry... I don't care.
If they CAN'T than I don't freaking want them anywhere near me.
The fact of the matter is that most "women" are either "95 lb 5'2" girls as you put it or "305lb 5'2" girls. Very few in today's culture have the ability to physically do what would be required of them. This is fact and believing otherwise is ignorant.
I am fully aware that there are women out there bench press more than I do, run faster than I do, or could kick my ass and I would have absolutely no problem fighting along side those people. If you don't meet the minimal standards though...
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry.
I read that he's a U.S. Army sergeant. How many female recruits do you think a single US army sergeant has trained in his career? Especially considering the many barriers currently in place for women in the USA, the cultural barriers, and the male-dominated culture the US armed forces cultivates.
Now knowing these figures, how scientific do you think his testimonial is in a statistical sense?
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
READ.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
lol stop it
this cracked me up and I dropped chewing tobacco all over my shirt. ew
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
As far as I am aware, the distinctions to which I am sentimentally attached are Victorian, with a touch of Austenian liberality and Edwardian reflectivity. The distinctions I am complaining against are the non-existent ones of post-modernism, precisely the kind of relativism you espouse which focuses on mutability, without stopping to think what is being mutated from what.
Thus I would argue that my perspective is the more historical one, whereas yours is one more questionably mired in contemporary dogma.
Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
I see declining birth rates and increasing divorce rates, broken homes and the evaporation of bourgeois family life, increasing emotional desperation and disenchantment, the abandonment of parental breeding to the state, the alienation of urban neighbours, the declining quality of domestic meals, etc. Not all of these are attributable to the two-income family alone. Not all of these are unmitigated flaws, but yes, the phenomenon you have described does exist in my view.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
Would you god damn read instead of just seeing the word "no" and responding in a misinformed fashion?
Read again man.
I said if they can MEET THE MINIMAL STANDARDS (which includes throwing a high explosive past its blast range) than they can be in the infantry... I don't care.
If they CAN'T than I don't freaking want them anywhere near me.
The fact of the matter is that most "women" are either "95 lb 5'2" girls as you put it or "305lb 5'2" girls. Very few in today's culture have the ability to physically do what would be required of them. This is fact and believing otherwise is ignorant.
I am fully aware that there are women out there bench press more than I do, run faster than I do, or could kick my ass and I would have absolutely no problem fighting along side those people. If you don't meet the minimal standards though...
Men and Women alike would be a no go.
True. Some people here are claiming that the women who meet the standards would still be a no go, though. Mostly because of some logistical issues that were solved by ancient cultures more than 2000 years ago.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
Would you god damn read instead of just seeing the word "no" and responding in a misinformed fashion?
Read again man.
I said if they can MEET THE MINIMAL STANDARDS (which includes throwing a high explosive past its blast range) than they can be in the infantry... I don't care.
If they CAN'T than I don't freaking want them anywhere near me.
The fact of the matter is that most "women" are either "95 lb 5'2" girls as you put it or "305lb 5'2" girls. Very few in today's culture have the ability to physically do what would be required of them. This is fact and believing otherwise is ignorant.
I am fully aware that there are women out there bench press more than I do, run faster than I do, or could kick my ass and I would have absolutely no problem fighting along side those people. If you don't meet the minimal standards though...
Men and Women alike would be a no go.
My bad for misinterpreting you Jayme. I was confused because the original topic was whether women should be allowed by LAW to see combat duty on the front lines. Of course, nobody who is physically incapable should be allowed on the front lines. That was never even a question. Nobody's going to put a skinny nerd who can't curl a 5 lb dumbbell into combat, boy or girl.
That's because many men don't really admit the equality between men and women, it's merely for show so to speak. It's politically correct and a popular opinion but their socialization weighs heavier. I think you're generalizing women too heavily and they are also a result of socialization. What you're saying just caters to constructed male/female characteristics. Men and women think like that because of they have learned to think. Why not change the way we think?
Are you saying that being "weak and mute" is the opposite of manliness, ie. female characteristics?
Why change the way we think? Is the better question. In other words, what are the benefits?
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
That's a byproduct of the retarded system we have, however. There's no reason for women to be given lower requirements.
Firing a gun is still easier than shooting a Mongol composite bow with enough force to kill an armored western knight in the middle ages.
Mongols were also very lightly armored horse-riding nomads. The fighting was completely different. These women didn't have to wear fucking 75 pounds worth of gear and the horses did a lot of the traveling work within battle. They didn't have to run around on foot with 75 pounds worth of shit. Firing a gun may be easier, but when you are trained to use a single weapon for your entire life the whole skill thing is ignorable, and it does help when your opponents didn't have weaponry that matched your weapon.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on? + Show Spoiler +
Her?
Or one of them?
This is pretty biased, we need some picture of Mongol women ASAP. + Show Spoiler +
On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military.
That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever.
Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
lol, why don't you think a little more about it.
What about having a man and a women in the cockpit of a plane?
What about having men and women in an Operating room during open heart surgery? Im not talking about a fuckin cashier job at a grocery store, im talkign abotu when lives can be lost (and my examples are far more likely to have gendre conflicts then while people are shooting at you :D)
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
That's a byproduct of the retarded system we have, however. There's no reason for women to be given lower requirements.
Firing a gun is still easier than shooting a Mongol composite bow with enough force to kill an armored western knight in the middle ages.
Mongols were also very lightly armored horse-riding nomads. The fighting was completely different. These women didn't have to wear fucking 75 pounds worth of gear and the horses did a lot of the traveling work within battle. They didn't have to run around on foot with 75 pounds worth of shit. Firing a gun may be easier, but when you are trained to use a single weapon for your entire life the whole skill thing is ignorable, and it does help when your opponents didn't have weaponry that matched your weapon.
This isn't so in modern-day warfare.
Training isn't the only thing needed for shooting a bow. The composite bows used by the Mongols pack a punch almost like the English longbow. They require a lot of strength to draw in the first place.
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
Look buddy if that woman next to me can't throw her grenade PAST THE BLAST RADIUS I don't want her anywhere near me or anyone else.
If she can meet the minimal required standards that men have to meet than by all means let her in but forgive me if I'd rather not get my ass blown up because someone couldn't throw a grenade outside of the blast radius.
it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before?
It's not exactly a cake walk.
Stop imagining "women" as 95 lb 5'2" blonde girls and maybe you won't type warped posts like this. Yeah, I'm sure no woman can throw a grenade past the blast radius. Sers, what in the hell man.
READ.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry.
I read that he's a U.S. Army sergeant. How many female recruits do you think a single US army sergeant has trained in his career? Especially considering the many barriers currently in place for women in the USA, the cultural barriers, and the male-dominated culture the US armed forces cultivates.
Now knowing these figures, how scientific do you think his testimonial is in a statistical sense?
Quite a bit, because this isn't the first time articles like these have come up. This has been a question that has been debated for a long time, and every single time it has been shown that women do have more lax requirements to join and they possess generally lesser physical capabilities. It's really not that much of a leap of faith to believe what this sergeant has said because it has been said by many others before him.
On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military.
That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever.
Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
lol, why don't you think a little more about it.
What about having a man and a women in the cockpit of a plane?
What about having men and women in an Operating room during open heart surgery? Im not talking about a fuckin cashier job at a grocery store, im talkign abotu when lives can be lost (and my examples are far more likely to have gendre conflicts then while people are shooting at you :D)
Did you not even read the OP?
This is about women in the INFANTRY.
I think he was just making an analogy/comparison here.
That's because many men don't really admit the equality between men and women, it's merely for show so to speak. It's politically correct and a popular opinion but their socialization weighs heavier. I think you're generalizing women too heavily and they are also a result of socialization. What you're saying just caters to constructed male/female characteristics. Men and women think like that because of they have learned to think. Why not change the way we think?
Are you saying that being "weak and mute" is the opposite of manliness, ie. female characteristics?
Why change the way we think? Is the better question. In other words, what are the benefits?
I'll take a feminist stance on this one and say that the reason we should change the way we think is to strengthen the role of women in a society where women only were considered eligible to vote some hundred years ago. It's easy to have your opinion coming from a man's viewpoint in a traditionally "male" culture.
I do get what you're saying though and the post-modern, relativist society might result in people being depressed and have no sense of identity. However I think we should embrace and create a new discourse of what "identity" is at it's core. Do you HAVE to "be" something specific in order to be considered normal? Why do we need all these identities. Do they not in fact limit our potential?
Girl are weak and would just be a liability in the infantry. Then again, i know many girls way stronger, faster, and generally more tenacious than myself, and I'm pretty sure the army would take me if I enlisted given the current supply/demand for troops. Actually probably not, given my anemic tendencies.
Off topic: If somehow a girl was on infantry, she'd be the hottest bamf like ever, and I would want to be her boyfriend.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
As far as I am aware, the distinctions to which I am sentimentally attached are Victorian, with a touch of Austenian liberality and Edwardian reflectivity. The distinctions I am complaining against are the non-existent ones of post-modernism, precisely the kind of relativism you espouse which focuses on mutability, without stopping to think what is being mutated from what.
Thus I would argue that my perspective is the more historical one, whereas yours is one more questionably mired in contemporary dogma.
Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
I see declining birth rates and increasing divorce rates, broken homes and the evaporation of bourgeois family life, increasing emotional desperation and disenchantment, the abandonment of parental breeding to the state, the alienation of urban neighbours, the declining quality of domestic meals, etc. Not all of these are attributable to the two-income family alone. Not all of these are unmitigated flaws, but yes, the phenomenon you have described does exist in my view.
The Victorian era is bullshit. You're looking at it through extremely rose-colored lenses. Cultures in Asia had no Victorian crap and still function well. The Victorian era is an extremely priggish era. Declining birth rates are actually a good thing for our society. The birth rate to prevent more population should be 2.1 per couple. The current generation of parents are helicopter parents whose flaws are that they are actually too involved and overbearing. Declining quality of domestic meals is laughable since the British are known for bad food, anyway. All the rest exist within all eras or have no bearing to quality of life whatsoever.
I don't see any reason why a woman that can pass all the tests requires and peform just as well as the rest of her squad or whatever then I think it's a non issue...
And just like all women can't handle the requirements of becomming infantry, I'm sure there are men in the same boat.
Haven't had time to read the entire thread yet, just the OP. My opinion is, yes. They should be allowed, if they pass the test. We got that system in Sweden (for whatever that matters. Not much of an army left nowadays), and it seems to work. Females aren't drafted like males are, but they're allowed to fill an application to go through it if they want to. They get the *exact* same treatment as males, sleep in the same rooms, shower in the same showers, share the same loads etc...
Worked out where I was, at least. Engineer platoon, one female for every 40 males. They know fully well what they're getting into, so there's no more emotional problems with them than with the males. And the whole sexual thing kindof disappears after a month. We just saw her as another male, only with boobs.
I think the real question is what role infantry really plays in modern warfare and politics. The truth is that after WWII, infantry's role has become extremely similar to that of a policeman in the middle of a gang war. There no question that men's bodies are stronger and more able to handle physical duress. However, this does not mean that women cannot be in the infantry. The infantry does not need to be able to handle physical duress, they just need to be extremely cool headed, careful, and good shots. There is no doubt that life as a soldier in iraq is more physically demanding than most other things, but it is nothing like the conditions that old style war created, the conditions that the army seems to still be training for, even though they no longer exist. The truth is that just as the gun replaced the sword, the tank replaced the gun, and now the missile has now replaced the tank: A pale nerd's pinky finger has the strength to fight modern war.
If an empire wants to occupy and control another nation, a legion of police is needed, and women can surely oppress just as readily as men. But... Do we really need to be doing this?
So, my question is, should there be people in the infantry at all?
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
As far as I am aware, the distinctions to which I am sentimentally attached are Victorian, with a touch of Austenian liberality and Edwardian reflectivity. The distinctions I am complaining against are the non-existent ones of post-modernism, precisely the kind of relativism you espouse which focuses on mutability, without stopping to think what is being mutated from what.
Thus I would argue that my perspective is the more historical one, whereas yours is one more questionably mired in contemporary dogma.
Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
I see declining birth rates and increasing divorce rates, broken homes and the evaporation of bourgeois family life, increasing emotional desperation and disenchantment, the abandonment of parental breeding to the state, the alienation of urban neighbours, the declining quality of domestic meals, etc. Not all of these are attributable to the two-income family alone. Not all of these are unmitigated flaws, but yes, the phenomenon you have described does exist in my view.
You ended on a line that kind of denies any rebuttal by saying "not all of these are unmitigated flaws and not all are atrributable to the two-income family" but I feel the need to respond because I do think very differently from your views. Not only is a two-income family not necessarily at fault, but some of these aren't even flaws at all!
Also, the historical trends you see, in regards to the rot of society, are limited only to the very short window of time that demographic records were even being kept. The actual historical trend may be something much more up and down than what we're seeing now. I'm sure the percentage of broken homes is much lower now than during the fall of the Roman empire for instance. Or during the colonial ages of W. Europe. Or during the civil war in China during WW2.
Also, it's debatable whether decreasing birth rates is a negative. The evidence is very inconclusive on whether children improve a couple's happiness. And I've seen numerous studies that show childless couples have higher rates of satisfaction and happiness. Not saying I believe one way or the other but it's difficult to label that as inherently bad.
Same with divorce rates. You could argue that divorce is more a product of secularization of society and behavioral habits caused by consumerist culture rather than women getting jobs.
Also, who's to say all divorces are bad? Many many divorces should have occurred in the past, but didn't because women weren't even regarded as legal entities. I'd say it's progress that women can choose to divorce now. Why would it be beneficial to anyone for an unhappy couple to stay married? Maybe for the children, but again that's debatable. A house with two unhappy adults raging and fighting all the time is not a proper environment for a child. A broken home isn't great, but sometimes it's better than a strife-filled home.
And in terms of emotional desperation and disenchantment, I'd say that's a product of consumerist culture. Anybody would feel hollow if they thought all the hours in their day was dedicated solely to the accumulation of wealth. While women getting jobs does entail earning a salary, accumulation of wealth is only a very small component in that. Much more importance is the economic freedom it gives women, the societal respect it gains them, and the internal confidence they gain by realizing they can be independent and put food on their own table.
The decline in quality of domestic meals probably has more to do with the increasing abundance of processed and prepackaged foods rather than because mom's don't have enough time to cook at home.
The alienation of urban neighbors could be blamed just as easily on the television and the increasingly insular lifestyle that people have due to powerful advances in communications technology that allows people to seek out more tightly focused interest groups rather than rely on the sole filter of proximity like in the past. And it's debatable whether this is even a bad thing or rather just a normative change that people are resisting.
And altogether, I think a situation in which women were not allowed to get jobs outside the home, were not allowed to vote, and were seen as child-makers was a terrible time for women and it is NOT their natural state of being.
How can you say it was better for society when women had all avenues of life shut off from them except for making kids, cooking, cleaning, and entertaining her husband? That sounds like a nice society to you? Where half the population is constantly servicing the other half and is seen as a family appendage rather than a fully-realized human being?
Yes, of course when women are given the choice they will have less babies, NOT stay married to assholes, not gossip with the neighbors all day, and not cook all the time! How is this a bad thing?
On November 12 2009 08:58 baal wrote: I think everyone has the right to die protecting the economical interests of their corrupt politicians, regardless of gender and sex.
Who are we to say to women "no, you cannot throw your life away raping a sovereign country so EXXON can pump oil out of it".
Cultures in Asia had no Victorian crap and still function well.
I will excuse this silliness by assuming that you are completely ignorant of the conditions of family life, both for children and for women, both in the past and in the present. There is simply no other way to comprehend such a remarkable statement.
Declining birth rates are actually a good thing for our society. The birth rate to prevent more population should be 2.1 per couple.
I'm certain that we have now arrived at such a stage in civilization, where the most intelligent among us has become capable of exorcising himself from his humanity, and look at reality in its statistical brutality. Never mind that the birth rate of the White race is far below 2.1 in the world. Never mind that the races which are now in demographic explosion are the inhabitants of the third world, whose explosion poses direct problems for civilized nations. Never mind that the causes of declining birth rates belong to neither Malthusian prevention nor positive controls, but to a social sickness within Western civilization. This lack of regard for progeny occurs from the same hedonism which has produced our lack of regard for our ancestors. It is symptomatic of a kind of society which has long ceased to contribute, build or invest, but is leeching away both past and future for what only be called instant gratification. It would be nice, but 1.4 children per mother does not build a sustainable way of life.
The current generation of parents are helicopter parents whose flaws are that they are actually too involved and overbearing.
Yes. If only children can be allowed to extract their virtues from their innate goodness, the fallacious notion of breeding can be done away with once and for all. I believe Schiller was referring to this kind of self-satisfied nihilism when he wrote:
The child of Nature, when he breaks loose, becomes a maniac, the creature of civilization a knave...we disown nature in her rightful sphere only to submit to her tyranny in the sphere of morality, while resisting her impact on our senses, we take from her our principles.
On November 12 2009 08:21 benjammin wrote: it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
This makes all these arguments obsolete. Men want to talk about carrying 75 lb packs and all this other gear? PFFFT.
Robots don't need food. They don't need water. They don't sleep. They don't get angry. They don't get horny. They don't get scared. They don't need pay. They don't need 18 years of upraising. They don't need medical care. They don't need veteran's services.
This is the only thing that should be enlisted in any military.
And wars should only be fought in domed arenas for the viewing pleasure of civilization.
And the people who should be controlling these armies?
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on?
Her?
Or one of them?
This
Are you being metaphorical here :D?
haha not really. However i think it is kinda funny that people are so worried about the physical abilities of the average grunt whereas technology is the most important thing nowadays if you want to be the predominant power. A kid with a gun can kill an highly trained and competent soldier with ease. The bravery and the physical fitness of the Pole cavalry didn't save them from the German tanks either... You guys are talking like if war was the same than in Middle Ages.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on?
Her?
Or one of them?
This
Are you being metaphorical here :D?
haha not really. However i think it is kinda funny that people are so worried about the physical abilities of the average grunt whereas technology is the most important thing nowadays if you want to be the predominant power. A kid with a gun can kill an highly trained and competent soldier with ease. The bravery and the physical fitness of the Pole cavalry didn't save them from the German tanks... You guys are talking like if war was the same than in Middle Ages.
I disagree with your sentiments good sir. I demand that we duel with pistols at dawn, followed by arm wrestling.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on?
Her?
Or one of them?
This
Are you being metaphorical here :D?
haha not really. However i think it is kinda funny that people are so worried about the physical abilities of the average grunt whereas technology is the most important thing nowadays if you want to be the predominant power. A kid with a gun can kill an highly trained and competent soldier with ease. The bravery and the physical fitness of the Pole cavalry didn't save them from the German tanks either... You guys are talking like if war was the same than in Middle Ages.
Yeah but you need to be able to carry a lot of shit. Do you know how heavy all that equipment is plus all the other stuff you need? You have to be able to travel large distances at speed while carrying a ridiculous amount of stuff.
Some of the most bad ass infanteers i know are women. Some of the biggest sack of shit infanteers i know are men. Once Obama gets rid of don't ask don't tell, women in front line army roles will probably be next.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on?
Her?
Or one of them?
This
Are you being metaphorical here :D?
haha not really. However i think it is kinda funny that people are so worried about the physical abilities of the average grunt whereas technology is the most important thing nowadays if you want to be the predominant power. A kid with a gun can kill an highly trained and competent soldier with ease. The bravery and the physical fitness of the Pole cavalry didn't save them from the German tanks either... You guys are talking like if war was the same than in Middle Ages.
Yeah but you need to be able to carry a lot of shit. Do you know how heavy all that equipment is plus all the other stuff you need? You have to be able to travel large distances at speed while carrying a ridiculous amount of stuff.
On November 12 2009 09:27 Kennigit wrote: Some of the most bad ass infanteers i know are women. Some of the biggest sack of shit infanteers i know are men. Once Obama gets rid of "don't ask don't tell", women in front line army roles will probably be next.
On November 12 2009 09:27 Kennigit wrote: Some of the most bad ass infanteers i know are women. Some of the biggest sack of shit infanteers i know are men. Once Obama gets rid of don't ask don't tell, women in front line army roles will probably be next.
It should be case-by-case since it's a physically and emotionally demanding job. Can't just say "all men yes, all women no"
I'm worried there would be male/female quotas if this were enacted though, which I'm against.
Why are people talking about physical ability in the first place? Would your army send someone to the frontlines if he couldnt carry his 40kg anyway? Or if he couldn't throw his grenade far enough? What kind of discussion is that?
Anyone who can handle it and live up to the needed standard of a soldier should be allowed to fight. Sometimes it reads like no matter how strong a women is, the requirement is allways a notch higher. Proper trained combat soldiers are way more than donkeys. Plus history showed us some badass women soldiers. It's not like the infantry would get flooded by women. Not in the states anyway...
On November 12 2009 09:39 Jayson X wrote: Anyone who can handle it and live up to the needed standard of a soldier should be allowed to fight. Sometimes it reads like no matter how strong a women is, the requirement is allways a notch higher.
If even one woman can meet the physical requirements she should be allowed to serve.
Im gonna look into starcraft for reference, there Woman can serve in the frontline in medic battlesuits, and theoretically the medic uses a granade launcher.
So give the girls some RPGs and Granade Launchers and put them in the front line and it should be good.
If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
Infantry are slower and weaker than planes and tanks. Why do we send them in?
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
Infantry are slower and weaker than planes and tanks. Why do we send them in?
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
Infantry are slower and weaker than planes and tanks. Why do we send them in?
On November 12 2009 10:12 koreasilver wrote: If you're asking that question seriously then I have nothing to say.
On November 12 2009 09:00 StorkHwaiting wrote:etc.
You ended on a line that kind of denies any rebuttal by saying "not all of these are unmitigated flaws and not all are atrributable to the two-income family" but I feel the need to respond because I do think very differently from your views. Not only is a two-income family not necessarily at fault, but some of these aren't even flaws at all!
Also, the historical trends you see, in regards to the rot of society, are limited only to the very short window of time that demographic records were even being kept. The actual historical trend may be something much more up and down than what we're seeing now. I'm sure the percentage of broken homes is much lower now than during the fall of the Roman empire for instance. Or during the colonial ages of W. Europe. Or during the civil war in China during WW2.
Also, it's debatable whether decreasing birth rates is a negative. The evidence is very inconclusive on whether children improve a couple's happiness. And I've seen numerous studies that show childless couples have higher rates of satisfaction and happiness. Not saying I believe one way or the other but it's difficult to label that as inherently bad.
Same with divorce rates. You could argue that divorce is more a product of secularization of society and behavioral habits caused by consumerist culture rather than women getting jobs.
Also, who's to say all divorces are bad? Many many divorces should have occurred in the past, but didn't because women weren't even regarded as legal entities. I'd say it's progress that women can choose to divorce now. Why would it be beneficial to anyone for an unhappy couple to stay married? Maybe for the children, but again that's debatable. A house with two unhappy adults raging and fighting all the time is not a proper environment for a child. A broken home isn't great, but sometimes it's better than a strife-filled home.
And in terms of emotional desperation and disenchantment, I'd say that's a product of consumerist culture. Anybody would feel hollow if they thought all the hours in their day was dedicated solely to the accumulation of wealth. While women getting jobs does entail earning a salary, accumulation of wealth is only a very small component in that. Much more importance is the economic freedom it gives women, the societal respect it gains them, and the internal confidence they gain by realizing they can be independent and put food on their own table.
The decline in quality of domestic meals probably has more to do with the increasing abundance of processed and prepackaged foods rather than because mom's don't have enough time to cook at home.
The alienation of urban neighbors could be blamed just as easily on the television and the increasingly insular lifestyle that people have due to powerful advances in communications technology that allows people to seek out more tightly focused interest groups rather than rely on the sole filter of proximity like in the past. And it's debatable whether this is even a bad thing or rather just a normative change that people are resisting.
And altogether, I think a situation in which women were not allowed to get jobs outside the home, were not allowed to vote, and were seen as child-makers was a terrible time for women and it is NOT their natural state of being.
How can you say it was better for society when women had all avenues of life shut off from them except for making kids, cooking, cleaning, and entertaining her husband? That sounds like a nice society to you? Where half the population is constantly servicing the other half and is seen as a family appendage rather than a fully-realized human being?
Yes, of course when women are given the choice they will have less babies, NOT stay married to assholes, not gossip with the neighbors all day, and not cook all the time! How is this a bad thing?
I am less enthusiastic about history as a hard statistical science than you, but I will give you the information:
In 1900, the functional illiteracy in America was 11%, today according to some sources, it is double that. In 1960, the ratio of divorce to marriage was 1:4, today it's well above 1:2 By 1980, half of American children were likely to live in single-mother households before they reach the age of eighteen.
But history is not a hard science. We do not deduce what happened in the past from census data or opinion polls. Hence I'm tempted here to make a brief and necessarily superficial outline of the historical status of North American women in its recent history.
In the historical context, there is something which needs to be added to the previously-stated trends: It was during 19th century in most industrialized countries, when women began to be forced to work. By the early 20th century, most women were again liberated from the need to work. Then sometime during the 60s, women began accumulating in the workforce again. During the single-income period in American history, approximately 1900-1960, American women largely thought of themselves as better off than any other womenfolk in the history of the world. Prior to around 1920, the pleasures of American women were mainly social, after the 20's, the woman's responsibilities became increasingly domestic. Nevertheless, the social and cultural achievements of American women in these three generations were considerable. They were the primary patrons of arts, social volunteers, philanthropy, organizers of domestic and civic entertainment.
The decision of women to gradually enter the workforce may have had material causes, but it was more dependent on the revolutionary attitudes of the generation, including the decreasing interdependence of men and women, as well as of parents and children. Let us admit that the revolution in women's rights which exploded in the sixties had legitimate causes. They were revolting not against a tyrannical patriarchy, but a generation of men far weaker than their pretensions to predominance permitted. The revolt addressed authentic problems, even if it had a skewed understanding of their causes. Women revolted against the institutional predominance of masculine power, but the underlying problem was the declining respect and courtesy they received from men. They demanded increasing freedom not for its own sake, but because men had become weaker, less self-confident, and coarser than satisfaction allowed. It was during this decade that modern pornography began becoming mainstream, Simone de Beauvoir announced that she performed an abortion, and that young people came into the possession of automobiles, all of which symptoms of relaxing social cohesion.
The historical imagination of some brutal, backward, patriarchal past seems to refer more to ancient mythology than to the bourgeois nineteenth century. The Victorians were sufficiently prudish and hypocritical to not regard women as baby-machines. The population explosion of the 19th century was accompanied by a romanticized conception of family life. It was the century in which the notion of childhood was conceived as a period of liberal play and imagination. The length of childhood was extended. Parents kept their children at home longer and gave prolonged attention to their upbringing. Decreased infant mortality probably had a hand in increasing prolonged attachment to children also. Whatever the case, much of what we conceive today as bourgeois family life began appearing in all classes during the 19th century, an achievement we today are largely disposed to ignore because we are ignorant of what had preceded it.
Yes, much of the fault lies with men, but not because of our overbearing aggression. In many ways we are now the precise opposite, and conversely, their inability to play meaningful roles in present-day relationships must be suspected to encourage their increasingly de-romanticized views on relationships and marriage. And because lack of strength and conviction is the current state of most civilized men, many women become drawn to a primal kind of masculine savagery with which I think we are all too familiar.
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
If you take the 100 fittest people then you're gonna get 100 men. But armies generally number more than that. Once you get into the thousands then the strongest, fastest and fittest include some women.
The sports example fails because sports only looks at the very best.
Also Charlie is an idiot.
Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of racism.
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
If you take the 100 fittest people then you're gonna get 100 men. But armies generally number more than that. Once you get into the thousands then the strongest, fastest and fittest include some women.
The sports example fails because sports only looks at the very best.
Also Charlie is an idiot.
Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of racism sexism and backwardism.
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
If you take the 100 fittest people then you're gonna get 100 men. But armies generally number more than that. Once you get into the thousands then the strongest, fastest and fittest include some women.
The sports example fails because sports only looks at the very best.
Also Charlie is an idiot.
Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of racism.
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
If you take the 100 fittest people then you're gonna get 100 men. But armies generally number more than that. Once you get into the thousands then the strongest, fastest and fittest include some women.
The sports example fails because sports only looks at the very best.
Also Charlie is an idiot.
Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of racism.
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
If you take the 100 fittest people then you're gonna get 100 men. But armies generally number more than that. Once you get into the thousands then the strongest, fastest and fittest include some women.
The sports example fails because sports only looks at the very best.
Also Charlie is an idiot.
Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of racism sexism and backwardism.
But i like Moltke ;D
<3
Well I don't quite understand how refusing to tow the line of feminism is "sexist." It smacks of the lack of imagination one once heard in Soviet propaganda, in calling everything non-communist "bourgeois-imperialistic-fascism."
I'm not particularly backward though. I'm not sufficiently polite to women.
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
Infantry are slower and weaker than planes and tanks. Why do we send them in?
Because infantry are necessary to control the ground? For the same reason I suppose, that we don't equip our police forces with F-16s.
Can people still be this sexist? If a woman wants to die in battle, better her than me!
You are on the failing Titanic. Lt. Murdoch is calling for women and children to step forward to the lifeboats. Would you have put on a wig and a dress?
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
If you take the 100 fittest people then you're gonna get 100 men. But armies generally number more than that. Once you get into the thousands then the strongest, fastest and fittest include some women.
The sports example fails because sports only looks at the very best.
Also Charlie is an idiot.
Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of racism sexism and backwardism.
But i like Moltke ;D
<3
Well I don't quite understand how refusing to tow the line of feminism is "sexist." It smacks of the lack of imagination one once heard in Soviet propaganda, in calling everything non-communist "bourgeois-imperialistic-fascism."
I'm not particularly backward though. I'm not sufficiently polite to women.
Actually Moltke i hate all the -ism and ideologies. And please don't call me a commie lol. My political opinions are really more complex than you think and i can't even really define myself. It is a mess and quite dependent of my mood or interests. I have been called a facist / bourgeois / commie / macho etc before because it seems that people are agressive and try to categorize you when you disagree with them even if you have no ideological preferences.
I can't believe this was asked on a forum made up of 90% women, 1% armed forces, 00.001% (me) US A airborne infantry-I couldn't imagine less of an uninformed audience, well o-k, cockroaches are nipping at the heels of 1st place here.
I just want to address the women in ancient armies theory, it doesn't hold up to gunpowder. Throw that shit out. How could you even compare people from different centuries, not to mention culture, not to mention the constant desensitized male gene over the years; how could you?
From actual experience, women have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times other squad members slack. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Really? No I'm all for it. Please try, form an infantry unit of all women, let's let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before? They can do it. Yes they can! If they don't do it no one can! (Pardon the play on words)
And as always, feminists go too far. I don't even disagree with the majority of shit they talk about but why do we have to punish males with a 100% woman-oriented society because we had a 100% males previously? Does no one see that we can't go 50-50 here?
Can I stop banging my head on my desk now? And you uninformed girlyguys stop discussing this.
On November 12 2009 10:53 Xenixx wrote: I can't believe this was asked on a forum made of 90% women, 1% armed forces, 00.001 (me) US A infantry-I couldn't imagine less of an uninformed audience, well o-k, cockroaches are nipping at the heels of 1st place here.
I just want to address the women in ancient armies theory, it doesn't hold up to gunpowder. Throw that shit out. How could you even compare people from different centuries, not to mention culture, not to mention the constant desensitized male gene over the years; how could you?
From actual experience, women-with plenty of exceptions-have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times squad members. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Please try, form a unit of all women, lets let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before?
And as always, feminists go too far. I don't even disagree with the majority of shit they talk about but why do we have to punish males with a 100% woman-oriented society because we had a 100% males? Does no one see that we can't go 50-50 here?
Can I stop banging my head on my desk now?
The Mongols conquered Russia. These are the people who had women in their military. Thanks for contributing.
Also, still on the topic of Russia, and about your absurd point of "gunpowder makes women obsolete," maybe you should have read about the Russian Battalion of Death before ever putting your hands on a keyboard.
Oh, that's right. A unit exclusively of women, formed by those Russians you declare are invincible, and used effectively in a combat role. GJ man!
Also, wth kind of argument would it be to say "form a unit of all-women" and then tell them to conquer Russia. Sure, coz any single all-male infantry unit could do the same?? Respect to your time in the service, but I think it might have addled your wits on this topic.
On November 12 2009 10:53 Xenixx wrote: From actual experience, women-with plenty of exceptions-have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times squad members. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Please try, form a unit of all women, lets let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before?
The general consensus of people who are fine with women in the front lines has been that they must prove themselves capable soldiers to the same bar that men have to meet. Not allowing the exceptions (ie the ones who are as good as the men) to fight is just self sabotage. You're better off taking a competent woman than an incompetent man to make up the numbers.
On November 12 2009 10:53 Xenixx wrote: I can't believe this was asked on a forum made of 90% women, 1% armed forces, 00.001 (me) US A infantry-I couldn't imagine less of an uninformed audience, well o-k, cockroaches are nipping at the heels of 1st place here.
I just want to address the women in ancient armies theory, it doesn't hold up to gunpowder. Throw that shit out. How could you even compare people from different centuries, not to mention culture, not to mention the constant desensitized male gene over the years; how could you?
From actual experience, women-with plenty of exceptions-have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times squad members. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Please try, form a unit of all women, lets let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before?
And as always, feminists go too far. I don't even disagree with the majority of shit they talk about but why do we have to punish males with a 100% woman-oriented society because we had a 100% males? Does no one see that we can't go 50-50 here?
Can I stop banging my head on my desk now?
The Mongols conquered Russia. These are the people who had women in their military. Thanks for contributing.
Also, still on the topic of Russia, and about your absurd point of "gunpowder makes women obsolete," maybe you should have read about the Russian Battalion of Death before ever putting your hands on a keyboard.
Oh, that's right. A unit exclusively of women, formed by those Russians you declare are invincible, and used effectively in a combat role. GJ man!
Also, wth kind of argument would it be to say "form a unit of all-women" and then tell them to conquer Russia. Sure, coz any single all-male infantry unit could do the same?? Respect to your time in the service, but I think it might have addled your wits on this topic.
Funny, because only the Bochkareva's 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death actually participated in battle, and the entirety of the Women's Battalion was discontinued shortly after.
Also, someone give an actual source to the women in the Mongolian army thing.
Of course we can't go 50-50, men are stronger than women on average. Choosing the most qualified soldiers will give you 100-0 most of the time and 99-1 sometimes. But we have the ability to find those athletic women. If the women can also handle the emotional pressure, then they should be able to fight on the front lines.
Doing things fairly would still result in a mostly, if not all, male front line.
Any human being, man, woman or hermaphrodite, capable of meeting the expectations of the army, should be fully allowed. Medical costs are different per person and the numbers seem inflated from intentionally putting in incapable women as some sort of political motive. If the vast majority of male frontline soldiers we allowed in never passed their tests successfully, I bet the average male cost would go up too. Cut the crap and hold every person to the regular standards and there will be plenty of women who pass and are valuable soldiers.
Any soldier guilty of sexual harassment of another officer shouldn't have been a soldier to begin with. If they don't have the mental stability to stop from treating other human beings as dirt when the time calls for it, then they're the exact opposite of the person we'd want representing us. This goes for both men and women assaulters.
It's disgraceful and plain disgusting to automatically disregard women of being capable of fighting. It's obvious that the average woman in western society isn't fit for it, but neither is the average male in America, either. The sexism in this thread is putrid and it's upsetting that so many people voted so black and white on "No" for allowance.
On November 12 2009 11:19 TwoToneTerran wrote: The sexism in this thread is putrid and it's upsetting that so many people voted so black and white on "No" for allowance.
I didn't vote either way. "Yes" could be interpreted as forced diversity, which is already hurting America and could destroy our infantry. "No" could rob potential skilled female soldiers of an opportunity to serve their country.
Saying the average male is stronger and faster than the average female is not sexist, by the way.
On November 12 2009 10:53 Xenixx wrote: I can't believe this was asked on a forum made of 90% women, 1% armed forces, 00.001 (me) US A infantry-I couldn't imagine less of an uninformed audience, well o-k, cockroaches are nipping at the heels of 1st place here.
I just want to address the women in ancient armies theory, it doesn't hold up to gunpowder. Throw that shit out. How could you even compare people from different centuries, not to mention culture, not to mention the constant desensitized male gene over the years; how could you?
From actual experience, women-with plenty of exceptions-have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times squad members. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Please try, form a unit of all women, lets let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before?
And as always, feminists go too far. I don't even disagree with the majority of shit they talk about but why do we have to punish males with a 100% woman-oriented society because we had a 100% males? Does no one see that we can't go 50-50 here?
Can I stop banging my head on my desk now?
The Mongols conquered Russia. These are the people who had women in their military. Thanks for contributing.
Also, still on the topic of Russia, and about your absurd point of "gunpowder makes women obsolete," maybe you should have read about the Russian Battalion of Death before ever putting your hands on a keyboard.
Oh, that's right. A unit exclusively of women, formed by those Russians you declare are invincible, and used effectively in a combat role. GJ man!
Also, wth kind of argument would it be to say "form a unit of all-women" and then tell them to conquer Russia. Sure, coz any single all-male infantry unit could do the same?? Respect to your time in the service, but I think it might have addled your wits on this topic.
Funny, because only the Bochkareva's 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death actually participated in battle, and the entirety of the Women's Battalion was discontinued shortly after.
Also, someone give an actual source to the women in the Mongolian army thing.
Funny because it only takes one example to disprove a theory. And funny how you cherry pick one line out of the entire article even though that line is embedded in an entire paragraph explaining why the other units didn't see combat and how poorly led and supported the units were due to the all-male leadership being unsure of how to use them or their worth.
Also, I'd cite some sources on Mongolian women in the army but the manner in which you ask is rude. It makes me not want to spend my time sharing info. From looking back through the thread, it looks like all you've done is repeat the same generic comment that women are physically inferior to men. If you've got nothing more interesting to contribute to the topic then just don't join in man. You've got your opinion, be happy with it. But don't waste space typing the same thing over again.
At least Moltke brings up some interesting points even if they are kind of oddly Fabian-esque and Western-centric.
On November 12 2009 11:20 EvilSky wrote: I dont remeber who said it but any person dumb enough to wanna join the military should be allowed.
Probably someone in your country when it was communist? Lol.
Actually I just remembered and it was Bill Hicks, who is from YOUR country. And wtf does that even mean anyway?
I posted a link to Hicks saying that earlier at the end of my post. Guess it got skipped over, I thought it would. I spoilered it so not to draw too much attention. I didn't think it would be appropriate to turn this into a youtube thread.
On November 12 2009 10:53 Xenixx wrote: I can't believe this was asked on a forum made of 90% women, 1% armed forces, 00.001 (me) US A infantry-I couldn't imagine less of an uninformed audience, well o-k, cockroaches are nipping at the heels of 1st place here.
I just want to address the women in ancient armies theory, it doesn't hold up to gunpowder. Throw that shit out. How could you even compare people from different centuries, not to mention culture, not to mention the constant desensitized male gene over the years; how could you?
From actual experience, women-with plenty of exceptions-have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times squad members. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Please try, form a unit of all women, lets let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before?
And as always, feminists go too far. I don't even disagree with the majority of shit they talk about but why do we have to punish males with a 100% woman-oriented society because we had a 100% males? Does no one see that we can't go 50-50 here?
Can I stop banging my head on my desk now?
The Mongols conquered Russia. These are the people who had women in their military. Thanks for contributing.
Also, still on the topic of Russia, and about your absurd point of "gunpowder makes women obsolete," maybe you should have read about the Russian Battalion of Death before ever putting your hands on a keyboard.
Oh, that's right. A unit exclusively of women, formed by those Russians you declare are invincible, and used effectively in a combat role. GJ man!
Also, wth kind of argument would it be to say "form a unit of all-women" and then tell them to conquer Russia. Sure, coz any single all-male infantry unit could do the same?? Respect to your time in the service, but I think it might have addled your wits on this topic.
Funny, because only the Bochkareva's 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death actually participated in battle, and the entirety of the Women's Battalion was discontinued shortly after.
Also, someone give an actual source to the women in the Mongolian army thing.
Funny because it only takes one example to disprove a theory. And funny how you cherry pick one line out of the entire article even though that line is embedded in an entire paragraph explaining why the other units didn't see combat and how poorly led and supported the units were due to the all-male leadership being unsure of how to use them or their worth.
Also, I'd cite some sources on Mongolian women in the army but the manner in which you ask is rude. It makes me not want to spend my time sharing info. From looking back through the thread, it looks like all you've done is repeat the same generic comment that women are physically inferior to men. If you've got nothing more interesting to contribute to the topic then just don't join in man. You've got your opinion, be happy with it. But don't waste space typing the same thing over again.
At least Moltke brings up some interesting points even if they are kind of oddly Fabian-esque and Western-centric.
Your entire example was completely retarded because the Women's Battalion didn't do much at all. That one line is enough to completely dismiss your argument because it shows that the Battalion didn't exist long enough to prove itself, nor did they really do a whole lot during their existence anyway. If you're going to give historical examples you're going to have to do fucking better than some ignorable shit like that.
And seriously, the fact that women can not carry out the same physical acts that is required out of men is pretty much all you need to argue in this. Women shouldn't be barred from fighting in the front lines, but they shouldn't be given lower standards to pass either.
For most of the reasons posted in the OP, which don't need restating by me. Plus I don't want those nutjobs over there getting a hold of women POW's for one, god knows what they would do to them.
I don't really see how it's sexist, unless you somehow think that acknowledging the inherent differences between men and women is "sexism".
On November 12 2009 10:53 Xenixx wrote: I can't believe this was asked on a forum made of 90% women, 1% armed forces, 00.001 (me) US A infantry-I couldn't imagine less of an uninformed audience, well o-k, cockroaches are nipping at the heels of 1st place here.
I just want to address the women in ancient armies theory, it doesn't hold up to gunpowder. Throw that shit out. How could you even compare people from different centuries, not to mention culture, not to mention the constant desensitized male gene over the years; how could you?
From actual experience, women-with plenty of exceptions-have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times squad members. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Please try, form a unit of all women, lets let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before?
And as always, feminists go too far. I don't even disagree with the majority of shit they talk about but why do we have to punish males with a 100% woman-oriented society because we had a 100% males? Does no one see that we can't go 50-50 here?
Can I stop banging my head on my desk now?
The Mongols conquered Russia. These are the people who had women in their military. Thanks for contributing.
Also, still on the topic of Russia, and about your absurd point of "gunpowder makes women obsolete," maybe you should have read about the Russian Battalion of Death before ever putting your hands on a keyboard.
Oh, that's right. A unit exclusively of women, formed by those Russians you declare are invincible, and used effectively in a combat role. GJ man!
Also, wth kind of argument would it be to say "form a unit of all-women" and then tell them to conquer Russia. Sure, coz any single all-male infantry unit could do the same?? Respect to your time in the service, but I think it might have addled your wits on this topic.
Well hold on here baby, let me first unravel my confusing words and metaphors I used.
When I talk about the modern infantry role in modern society and you talk about horse archers or mongolian light infantry from cold harsh life on the steppes would you agree they are very different?
So when I use a metaphor comparing the invention of gunpowder to the juncture of time you can see what I mean. It really is the perfect metaphor when comparing the ancient world and the modern world. Thanks for contributing. Do I really have to break this one down any further or can you grasp what diction I'm using? Let me know baby.
The Russian Battalion of Death, never heard of them, did like you suggest and used your same source and found out that it wasn't a modern infantry unit. Well I read the rest for a fun history lesson but thanks for sharing! Oh and in addition, from your own sources, no where is it claimed the all female-lol- battalion of death was credited in any war with being a combat effective unit. In fact what I read showed how ineffective they all were. Disbanded units, failed aggressive tactics (tho thru no mmisgivings of their own so a lil bit inconclusive), publicity stunts, 2,000 enlistees with only 300 making the regular male demands (do you disagree?), the unit being captured, lol did you even read this crap? Get this "The only women's combat unit to participate in battle was Bochkareva's 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Battalion_of_Death fate of the women's battalions) Your wiki source goes on to talk about how they didn't run but didn't achieve victory... This article summarizes that an all-woman's battalion of infantry as a practicality was a failure. Did you read it?
A unit is any group of persons as an entity ... that was pretty easy ... why ... you still here?
And for a bit of a history lesson, the Mongols never conquered Russia. Sec, I got something for you homey; Conquer; to gain or acquire by force of arm. So to say that the Mongols conquered Russia, including the Russian Principalities, Novgorod, and the arctic fucking circle (another metaphor, stay with me baby) isn't accurate. When historians draw boundary line around empires it is for a good reason, as seen in Mongolia by the 13th century Mongols which is directly under Mongols. I noticed you being a dunce the entire thread chief, the coaches of your golf team never said consistency was a bad thing right?
p.s. I did enjoy the Battalion of Death though, that was interesting!
Of course we can't go 50-50, men are stronger than women on average. Choosing the most qualified soldiers will give you 100-0 most of the time and 99-1 sometimes. But we have the ability to find those athletic women. If the women can also handle the emotional pressure, then they should be able to fight on the front lines.
Doing things fairly would still result in a mostly, if not all, male front line.
No, no, no, no going 50-50 would mean recognizing that men are built for such activities and women clearly aren't. By going 50-50 you don't comprimise and do half women and half men!
It's not emotional pressure that keep women out of the front lines by the way.
Of course we can't go 50-50, men are stronger than women on average. Choosing the most qualified soldiers will give you 100-0 most of the time and 99-1 sometimes. But we have the ability to find those athletic women. If the women can also handle the emotional pressure, then they should be able to fight on the front lines.
Doing things fairly would still result in a mostly, if not all, male front line.
No, no, no, no going 50-50 would mean recognizing that men are built for such activities and women clearly aren't. By going 50-50 you don't comprimise and do half women and half men!
It's not emotional pressure that keep women out of the front lines by the way.
Yawn. If they want to go to the front lines let them. I honestly don't believe that there'd be a great enough flood of women to the front lines to cause any real harm.
For most of the reasons posted in the OP, which don't need restating by me. Plus I don't want those nutjobs over there getting a hold of women POW's for one, god knows what they would do to them.
I don't really see how it's sexist, unless you somehow think that acknowledging the inherent differences between men and women is "sexism".
How is judging the stronger women according to the average ability of the weaker women not sexism?
A woman wants to do something but is excluded because most other women are unable to? That's sexist.
And for a bit of a history lesson, the Mongols never conquered Russia. Sec, I got something for you homey; Conquer; to gain or acquire by force of arm. So to say that the Mongols conquered Russia, including the Russian Principalities, Novgorod, and the arctic fucking circle (another metaphor, stay with me baby) isn't accurate. When historians draw boundary line around empires it is for a good reason, as seen in Mongolia by the 13th century Mongols which is directly under Mongols. I noticed you being a dunce the entire thread chief, the coaches of your golf team never said consistency was a bad thing right?
Just a slight correction, they actually kind of did conquer Russia (and they are the only group in history credited with doing so). They conquered the various different principalities and forced them to give tribute to the Mongolian throne. Another important note to mention is that Russia wasn't actually a centralized country at the time of the Mongolian Horde, so it's a little bit more complicated to define Russia as being "conquered", but they are.
On November 12 2009 11:19 TwoToneTerran wrote: Any human being, man, woman or hermaphrodite, capable of meeting the expectations of the army, should be fully allowed. Medical costs are different per person and the numbers seem inflated from intentionally putting in incapable women as some sort of political motive. If the vast majority of male frontline soldiers we allowed in never passed their tests successfully, I bet the average male cost would go up too. Cut the crap and hold every person to the regular standards and there will be plenty of women who pass and are valuable soldiers.
Any soldier guilty of sexual harassment of another officer shouldn't have been a soldier to begin with. If they don't have the mental stability to stop from treating other human beings as dirt when the time calls for it, then they're the exact opposite of the person we'd want representing us. This goes for both men and women assaulters.
It's disgraceful and plain disgusting to automatically disregard women of being capable of fighting. It's obvious that the average woman in western society isn't fit for it, but neither is the average male in America, either. The sexism in this thread is putrid and it's upsetting that so many people voted so black and white on "No" for allowance.
Dude, you have NO idea what you are talking about. Period.
The topic at hand is women in the fucking INFANTRY. You all cling on to this politically correct idea of "if a man can do it, so can a woman" just to be looked upon as mature and a modern day asshole.
You have to look at the facts. Which the OP did in fact post.
The facts are: Women lack the upper body strength - And no I don't mean getting through fucking boot camp. I mean carrying 80 LBS of gear during a fight, or possibly having to carry a wounded soldier to safety, or a million other things required on the field of battle. Women are a distraction to the male soldiers. There is sort of a beer goggles effect when in a theater of operations. Every female looks more attractive. This is common knowledge in the military community. Men have a carnal instinct to protect women. This would be magnified on the field of battle when a female infantry solider gets torn up. Men might crap out on their training and do something to endanger themselves or those around them. Everything would have to change to cater to a woman's need on the front lines. new rules would be created, new facilities. Men are faster, stronger, and can take more punishment. And when it comes down to a battle confidence and troop morale is everything. If soldier's don't trust each other outside the wire they cannot succeed. All they have is each other. How would a male soldier fight along side of a woman if he felt someone better could be in her place instead? All this just to have fairness and equality? This would cost lives.
"Cut the crap and hold every person to the regular standards and there will be plenty of women who pass and are valuable soldiers." In the Army? Yes defiantly, pile the women in line. In the Infantry? No.
"If they don't have the mental stability to stop from treating other human beings as dirt when the time calls for it, then they're the exact opposite of the person we'd want representing us." Are you sure about this? Think about the people in the infantry. They almost have to be able to do such things. An infantry solider has to lose all feeling, push on, and destroy human beings. This is something you just don't understand, and never could. Trust me, you want these people out there in the fight.
"plain disgusting to automatically disregard women of being capable of fighting" It's very interesting you said this actually. Because you automatically disregard women of NOT being capable of fighting when you, in fact, have no idea about it at all.
I am all for women in the military. And I do not discriminate. But there is no way in hell I would want one fighting by my side in the shit.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
On November 12 2009 08:58 baal wrote: I think everyone has the right to die protecting the economical interests of their corrupt politicians, regardless of gender and sex.
Who are we to say to women "no, you cannot throw your life away raping a sovereign country so EXXON can pump oil out of it".
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Some women are, but I think women are held to different standards in the military. So ultimately, you have inferior soldiers.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
This is what we like to call a bell curve. The shaded area is the people capable of being in the infantry. The blue line are men, the red women.
Notice that the people who meet the fitness criteria here, which are the same for both men and women, are predominantly men. Notice also that some of the freaks who fall on the outside of the bell curve for women are inside the shaded area. They should be able to serve in the infantry.
Also the men for whom the opposite is true shouldn't.
That small portion of women who fall under the category you mentioned can succeed in combat arms. Artillery Soldiers(field), FO's (forward observers), Air defence soldiers, Medics, RO (radio operators) and Combat Engineers.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that?
And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
There are plenty of women in the United States. Some of them are physically fit. Some of them are cold blooded. A minority of them are both. I fail to see how you're not understanding this. It's a bell curve. The majority may not fall within the requirements of the army but a minority will. Those minorioty are capable. I understood your point completely, I just didn't feel like image searching for a cold blooded woman. Which is why I said she could keep up with you. Please read more carefully.
On November 12 2009 13:31 EniraM(CA) wrote: That small portion of women who fall under the category you mentioned can succeed in combat arms. Artillery Soldiers(field), FO's (forward observers), Air defence soldiers, Medics, RO (radio operators) and Combat Engineers.
Not Infantry...
The small portion of women who are physically and mentally as fit as the men who are allowed in the infantry should be allowed in the infantry.
By the way, if women aren't capable it really is a non issue. For example the British Royal Marines have an equal opportunity recruitment policy. Women are allowed to join. That said, no woman has ever passed their entrance tests (though a few have come close). If you look back to my graphs, the shaded area for the Royal Marines is the far side of the men line which excluses 90% of men and even the most freakishly fit of women.
You can allow women in without compromising the unit as long as you don't lower standards for entry. If they meet the standards they're good enough, if they don't, they're not. Ruling them out is hypocritical, if you really believe they can't handle it then let them prove it to you.
On average men are about 30 % stronger than women. However, if a women can go through all of the SAME combat competency tests as men, and pass- there is no reason she should not be on the front line. Women are not emotionally weaker lol That is a bunch of bull shit. If the women has the drive to fight in the infantry and wants to be there, i can guarantee that she like all of the other men will not have a single problem.
At the same time- should women be allowed to go into front line battle without having to pass through the normal competency course? NO! don't lower standards people, that will only create inferior soldiers.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that?
And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
You have no idea what the infantry does. Stop posting here, you are embarrassing yourself.
On November 12 2009 13:39 KwarK wrote: By the way, if women aren't capable it really is a non issue. For example the British Royal Marines have an equal opportunity recruitment policy. Women are allowed to join. That said, no woman has ever passed their entrance tests (though a few have come close). If you look back to my graphs, the shaded area for the Royal Marines is the far side of the men line which excluses 90% of men and even the most freakishly fit of women.
You can allow women in without compromising the unit as long as you don't lower standards for entry. If they meet the standards they're good enough, if they don't, they're not. Ruling them out is hypocritical, if you really believe they can't handle it then let them prove it to you.
Dude I agree with this. 100%. This is what you all don't understand. Its not about standards, and how well they can do in boot camp. Its a much more broad issue.
Ok, I had enough trying to get my point across. But it's just impossible to understand unless you know the Infantry.
For those of you who want to remain ignorant of how amazing the infantry is. Go on living normally. For those of you who want to know.... read this book.
Now, picture a woman in the same situation as Staff Sargent Bellavia. Does it seem believable in your mind?
On November 12 2009 13:25 Culture wrote: You're forgetting a really important thing:
If women were in the military, we'd not have as many wars / rape / violence / etc.
We're talking about the infantry... I fail to see how women in the infantry would prevent wars or violence. Rape, maybe?
Sigh, I think this is the last time I'm visiting this thread. There is just too much ignorance here. Women rape women too. Rape isn't about sex the vast majority of the time. It's about power and control and victimization. Women are just as susceptible to this as men. Women can and have sexually abused other women. I personally know of a girl who went to jail and was severely injured by another woman with a mop handle. It wasn't pretty.
On November 12 2009 13:39 KwarK wrote: By the way, if women aren't capable it really is a non issue. For example the British Royal Marines have an equal opportunity recruitment policy. Women are allowed to join. That said, no woman has ever passed their entrance tests (though a few have come close). If you look back to my graphs, the shaded area for the Royal Marines is the far side of the men line which excluses 90% of men and even the most freakishly fit of women.
You can allow women in without compromising the unit as long as you don't lower standards for entry. If they meet the standards they're good enough, if they don't, they're not. Ruling them out is hypocritical, if you really believe they can't handle it then let them prove it to you.
Dude I agree with this. 100%. This is what you all don't understand. Its not about standards, and how well they can do in boot camp. Its a much more broad issue.
The result is not what's important to me. I don't care if there are women serving in the infantry or not. But it's unfair that they don't get to try (in the US). We don't have equal opportunity and that's wrong.
Many people are making the underlying assumptions that it's possible to come up with: 1. a clear definition of what fitness to fight means 2. a method which easily distinguishes whether or not a person fits this criteria
It's too bad things are never that simple.
One reason why people purport disallowing women from joining the front lines is to adopt a prophylactic rule that covers more than is necessary. This allows you to fully cover those who are not "fit to fight" but at the same time its downside is to cut into the minority women who would be "fit to fight".
The adoption of whether you would want a broad rule (don't let women in) vs. a narrow rule (pass a test and you're in) attacks the exact same problem (no incompetents) but in different ways. The former keeps the incompetents out at the expense of those minority who are fit whereas the latter allows this minority in but with the additional risk to also include the incompetents.
Of course choosing which course to take should just be a starting point in the analysis.
Edit: haha...this seems kinda out of place so it's just a thought that I had while reading.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
Are you seriously arguing that there are no women out there who are cold blooded enough? How the hell would you even go about and test this? And if it's possible to test this, what makes you think no woman will pass?
I have personal experience with the kind of females that join the marines. About one in fifteen is that kind of hardcore nut that can keep up with all the guys. The other fourteen are fucking drama queens that you don't want anywhere near the front lines. It's best the way it is, TRUST ME.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that?
And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
You have no idea what the infantry does. Stop posting here, you are embarrassing yourself.
Riddle me this: If women can serve as United States astronauts, why the hell would they be physically incapable of being a G.I.? You telling me the physical and psychological demands of a ground pounder are that much more strenuous than going into the void of space?
And looking at the later posts, it's kind of funny because I listed out the cliched arguments that people would use earlier in the thread. And a whole ton of new people show up and say exactly what I listed. Women are a distraction. Women are emotionally unstable. Women are physically incapable. Etc etc ad nauseum.
Then there's the random US G.I. who thinks he's some kind of elite super soldier that eats bullets for breakfast and hoists tanks across the Sahara in the afternoon. Yeah, military people are a cut above the average fat, lazy, very out-of-shape citizen, but one Y-chromosome doesn't turn them into a genetic freak that can outmatch every woman on Earth. I routinely see ex-G.I.s at the gym and they get blown out by the men AND women that make working out a way of life. There is nothing that elite about them. Maybe if you were talking about Navy SEALs, it'd be a different story. But just the army? Give me a break.
On November 12 2009 13:55 lvatural wrote: Many people are making the underlying assumptions that it's possible to come up with: 1. a clear definition of what fitness to fight means 2. a method which easily distinguishes whether or not a person fits this criteria
It's too bad things are never that simple.
One reason why people purport disallowing women from joining the front lines is to adopt a prophylactic rule that covers more than is necessary. This allows you to fully cover those who are not "fit to fight" but at the same time its downside is to cut into the minority women who would be "fit to fight".
The adoption of whether you would want a broad rule (don't let women in) vs. a narrow rule (pass a test and you're in) attacks the exact same problem (no incompetents) but in different ways. The former keeps the incompetents out at the expense of those minority who are fit whereas the latter allows this minority in but with the additional risk to also include the incompetents.
Of course choosing which course to take should just be a starting point in the analysis.
Edit: haha...this seems kinda out of place so it's just a thought that I had while reading.
Oh, that doesn't apply to just women. The need to weed out incompetence has been enough of a problem throughout history, even with all male armies.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that?
And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
You have no idea what the infantry does. Stop posting here, you are embarrassing yourself.
Riddle me this: If women can serve as United States astronauts, why the hell would they be physically incapable of being a G.I.? You telling me the physical and psychological demands of a ground pounder are that much more strenuous than going into the void of space?
Women are a distraction. Women are emotionally unstable. Women are physically incapable
But just the army? Give me a break.
Lol this guy is either the biggest troll or just the dumbest kid alive. Homeschooled or junior college definitely in your past/future.
there's no logical or moral justification for women to not be in the shit. it's patriarchal to say that women should stay home and be protected. women oughta fight for their country, be killed, captured and tortured/raped just as much as men, if that's their choice to enlist.
the big obstacles are the logistics, and traditional thinking of course
On November 12 2009 14:03 Draconizard wrote: It's OK. Soon, all wars will be fought by robots, and soldiers' tasks will be in the production, maintenance, and control of said robots.
And when that day comes, I'm pretty sure someone will make this thread: "[P]Should foreigners be allowed in the military?".
lyudmila mikhailivna pavlichenko was a soviet sniper during WWII and had three hundred and nine confirmed kills
i am reasonably sure she was both cold-blooded enough and physically competent enough to fight on a battlefield
if there are criteria for front-line infantry that the vast majority of women cannot meet then the vast majority of them should not be front-line infantry; if there are ones who can then they should be allowed to
but the whole social cohesion thing is not as good of an argument in my opinion; otherwise why bother desegregating the army it can only increase tensions
Personally, if i want someone in my unit/platoon it doesn't matter if the person is a man or woman. The question is can the person do the job?
This would be my personal criteria for woman.
Can she provide accurate fire to take down targets or provide covering fire. Does she have the physical strength to carry me to safety if i was wounded/shot down. Will she accept all combat orders given to her by her superior? Will she compromise the cohesiveness or moral of the unit because of her gender? Does she know basic combat first aid? Does she understand the tactics and strategies in the unit? Does she know the in's and out of the weapon that she carries?
These are pretty simple things in my opinion that any soldier needs to do and if a women can do that she is able to join the army. You don't have to be extremely fit, you just have to be strong enough to hold your on in a melee and to be able to carry other personnel to safety or to the medical stations.
Women should not be in the army due to quota though. That's a big no in my books.
Hmm, ive been in the US Army for 5 years now and i can tell u now that women in the infantry will be a horrible idea. There is so much shit that happens, even in regular support units, its ridicolous. The majority of the females serving in the military are overweight and cant even pass their PT test which has been dumbed down ALOT in the last couple of years. They are a big distraction off and on the battlefield. And many of you have no idea how RIGHT the OP is when he quoted until you have actually been there and seen it.
When I was in boot camp more than twenty years ago, my platoon sergeant told of his experiences training women Marines. The idea, at that time, was to subject the best and most motivated women to the same training as men. "They were great women," he said, "but after a few days they were all in tears."
Women cannot endure the same training that men endure.
The United States Army was created for one purpose -- the defense of our country. It was not created as a laboratory for social experimentation. It is not an arena for correcting nature's inequities We already know from common observation that women lack upper body strength. Furthermore, the very advantages that women possess over men -- emotional intelligence and sensitivity -- work against them on the battlefield. At the same time, the very emotional cluelessness and blockheaded insensitivity of men serves them well in the most brutal of all human activities.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry. Worse yet, it is unacceptable for military personnel to complain about the danger that women pose to the combat readiness of their units. According to the sergeant, the imperatives of basic military toughness and discipline have been sacrificed in the U.S. Army so that women can get through the training. This cannot fail to have a negative effect on the male troops. Sexual harassment is another difficulty that arises. Disruptions of all kinds mount on every side. In addition, women cost more than men do. Health costs for women are greater and injuries are more frequent. In truth, the military budget is taking a colossal hit.
Also to go against someone elses argument by having women "atleast" try. The military cant afford that type of money. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to train 1 soldier. 1 SOLDIER. You think the government is going to waste that money on just giving someone a chance? Sorry buddy, it doesnt work that way; Accept reality
On November 12 2009 17:36 Tenryu wrote: Also to go against someone elses argument by having women "atleast" try. The military cant afford that type of money. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to train 1 soldier. 1 SOLDIER. You think the government is going to waste that money on just giving someone a chance? Sorry buddy, it doesnt work that way; Accept reality
It doesn't cost that much to train one soldier and if they were incapable they would be weeded out early in the training. Plus that ignores the fact that you let men try and fail. The military can't afford to waste that money giving men a chance.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that?
And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
You have no idea what the infantry does. Stop posting here, you are embarrassing yourself.
Riddle me this: If women can serve as United States astronauts, why the hell would they be physically incapable of being a G.I.?
People in the comfortable society are sometimes not so much in touch with reality. The hear "women" and they immediately say "yes of course they can do whatever a man can!" even though this is not by any means true. And obviously, I am just talking physically right now, the only fact of the matter is that women cannot handle physical tasks as well as men, which is why we separate women and men in the olympic events.
War is not a natural act. Neither men or women really belong at the front lines. But if it had to be done, having men do it would be the, to me, obvious choice.
That being said, I fucking love Starship Troopers.
On November 12 2009 17:36 Tenryu wrote: Also to go against someone elses argument by having women "atleast" try. The military cant afford that type of money. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to train 1 soldier. 1 SOLDIER. You think the government is going to waste that money on just giving someone a chance? Sorry buddy, it doesnt work that way; Accept reality
It doesn't cost that much to train one soldier and if they were incapable they would be weeded out early in the training. Plus that ignores the fact that you let men try and fail. The military can't afford to waste that money giving men a chance.
The chances of a male soldier passing basic training and the additional training required will be much higher then that of a female. Infact, the chances of a male soldier passing basic alone, infantry or not, is much higher then that of a female. And the sad thing is that the requirments and the state of training in basic training has been dumbed down immensley in the past couple of years.
You can argue all you want but unless you have experience in the situation, i dont wanna hear it =\
Well said Tenryu. It all sounds fine and well in theory that women can jump in the infantry, but in reality that is not the case. Some of these guys watch way too much feminist trash on TV. Funny thing is they actually believe that women and men are equal in all aspects. What nonsense! We both have our advantages and disadvantages. It just so happens that men are far superior when it comes to physically demanding and emotionally draining tasks. I hope I didn't hurt the feminists feelings...
Feminist: "but women and men are the same, it's only our culture that has shaped women's roles" lol!!!! Nature, look it up in the dictionary...
no, the very strength of the army as we know it is that there are no women - no distractions, no overboiling testosterone... funnily there are WoW guilds that intentionally go without women for exactly these reasons.
So... anybody else read the OP and feel unable to resist the thought entering their head about whether she's good looking or not? Rather than whether she's combat capable....
I know, I know. Serious discussion and all... But I couldn't help it. It just popped in there.
could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
haha
Have you ever watched high level women judo/wrestling/mma/boxing ?
Sure they are not on the same level than their top male counterparts but they will RAPE your average grunt. Ktfo-ed, ippon-ed or subbed.
On November 12 2009 19:26 Railxp wrote: Your life, do whatever you want with it. Women are allowed to get themselves killed just as much as men are. By all means go ahead.
I don't think physical differences should matter as much in this day and age.
Theres the physical tests which both should pass and even if a male soldier that passed them is still stronger than a woman, grunts and such get usually pumped with steroids or get blood doped or get high on extasis or whatever other shit before combat or various other stuff that can bridge the difference a little.
The issue about equality and all that crap about everyone having a right to fight (I wouldn't fight if I was forced to and fuck it) is bigger anyway.
However the main deterrent would be psychological capabilities, and I believe men are genetically more aggressive and colder. And well even for average male grunts, one war is already too many.
I think the emotional attachment argument is fallacious given that the army does everything it can to instill in its recruits a sense of "bonding" and "brotherhood" anyways
If she can pass the tests, then great. If not, then you have to fail her. Equal protection should only provide the opportunity to be tested, not guarantee entrance.
If you have a lot of women passing the test, then I think the test is not hard enough. It is only nature, that in general, men are more athletically gifted than women and so the tests should bear that out. Obviously, some women will be able to also pass the hypothetical "more difficult" test, and they should be allowed to join.
On November 12 2009 07:25 StorkHwaiting wrote: Have you seen what some of these Muslim extremists and Pakistani hill tribes do to other men? Anal sex is a form of degradation in that culture and many of the resistance fighters wouldn't blink twice before raping a male POW.
I've got two friends who are special forces and did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have some wtf stories to tell, many of them involving accounts of guys getting anal raped as a form of torture/humiliation.
yea, now imagine how much worse that situation would be for a woman.
I'm pretty sure sexual humiliation feels pretty much the same regardless of gender.
Other than that it's pretty amazing how some people believe, in the year of 2009, that men by nature are born more cold-minded and focused than women. That's like 50 years ago to me.
Women should be allowed to participate. If you pass the physical test you're in. Maybe talk to a shrink as well to make sure these oh so fragile beings have the balls to fire a gun and keep calm in combat.
I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them.
Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think?
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
Emotional damage? Eh, sounds like the same reason ppl say gays shouldn't be in the army. Men get just as emotionally attached to other men that are friends, which is why they say you shouldn't get that close to whoever you are fighting alongside with.
Sexual assault/harassment is irrelevant - it is up to the woman to decide whether or not it is worth it. Are we going to ban women from walking alone in the street at night and only permit men to do so simply because women are more likely to be sexually assaulted? Bah...
Don't let pregnant women fight..?
Military budget is in a crisis - I wouldn't doubt it. But we are also SEVERELY lacking "man"power (haha) and we are in desperate need of whoever we can get.
The men being physically stronger is completely irrelevant to me. It should rather be if you possess a certain amount of physical strength/endurance (etc.), say "X" amount, that you can be qualified for doing what you want. Maybe men on average will achieve X 300% of the time more than women, but the women who CAN achieve X should be able to join.
Being in the French army (if I may say so, I'm a student in polytechnique for those who know what that means...), it seems to me that some, (well "some", a few I guess) women would be more capable in combat than many men. Physics does count, but some do have it, and moreover, I think they can earn the respect necessary to do their job properly, and have a psychological edge on a lot of men, and that is also very important in many tough situations. Of course there are drawbacks to being a woman in such situations, but I think some woman would be better at the job than a lot of men.
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them.
Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think?
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire.
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
Would you say that if you were a woman though?
Oh, most definitely. And I'm pretty sure the majority of women wouldn't want be in direct combat in the first place.
Thanks heaven I'm a guy though, things are simpler!
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
Would you say that if you were a woman though?
Umm this is bullshit reasoning, there are all sorts of logical reasons why women shouldn't be allowed in the thread.
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them.
Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think?
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire.
People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women. Don't give me bullshit about nature.
You have no science backing up your fundamentally sexist assumptions. As micronesia pointed out to your earlier sexist comment you can simply go.
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to work in general and will create a mess in the workplace.
I think making it a general rule that women should not be allowed to serve as infantry soldiers is ridiculous. I think the only arguement that really holds up to scutiny against this would be that a well-trained woman will almost always be physically weaker than a well-trained man. It should be up to lower level officers if they can have women in their team or not. Having a larger recruitment base will make it easier to find the qualities you are looking for. Being a good infantry member is more than about how fast you can run and how much you can carry. You also need individuals that are able to make the right decisions fast under stress. You also need people who can handle situations dealing with civilians.
Lol ok, this really is a pointless debate. Mainly because very few people here have experience in the "US Army". And i can tell you right now, a good 95% if not higher of the soldiers currently in the US Army will agree that women do not belong in infantry.
Civil rights and all that shit has nothing to do with fighting wars. Soldiers sacrifice their freedom's and civil liberties so that citizens of the country will not have to. Im sure some people in the US Army has heard something similar to that.
There is just about no reason to not allow Womens in the military if they make the cut. No matter how many time you say they do not belong. Gays also did not belong, blacks did not belong... That argument is just retarded.
On November 13 2009 20:49 Tenryu wrote: Soldiers sacrifice their freedom's and civil liberties so that citizens of the country will not have to. Im sure some people in the US Army has heard something similar to that.
Lawl... When do you start fighting countries that actually attack you, or have the technology to attack you?
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them.
Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think?
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire.
People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women. Don't give me bullshit about nature.
You have no science backing up your fundamentally sexist assumptions. As micronesia pointed out to your earlier sexist comment you can simply go.
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to work in general and will create a mess in the workplace.
It seems you like this little word replacement game lol. Well men are definitely a lot more capable. Nature isn't bullshit but whatever, argueing about this is pointless. It doesn't do any good and nothing will change.
I can't convince you and vice versa, you have your opinion and I have mine.
I think if women pass the same exams and meet all requirements, they should be allowed in the forces. The extra "health care" provisions shouldn't cost too much.
However from a more personal point of view, it'll be especially hard for men to see women being cut to pieces in an intense war. Insurgent fighting is very asymmetrical and comparably "easier" than more conventional wars. In more difficult battles the extra psychological burden wouldn't be helpful.
Just imagine the beach scene of saving private ryan, and instead of a guy lying on the beach crying for mama with his intestines hanging out, it's a woman lying of the beach crying for daddy with a breast shot off and lungs on her belly. Or when the ramp falls, a boat full of women get shredded into pieces in fifteen seconds. As a man, I would find this even more horrifying than the actual movie, which was already very bloody.
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them.
Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think?
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire.
People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women. Don't give me bullshit about nature.
You have no science backing up your fundamentally sexist assumptions. As micronesia pointed out to your earlier sexist comment you can simply go.
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to work in general and will create a mess in the workplace.
Well men are definitely a lot more more capable.
Than all women? Or just most? If you take the 100 most capable people for front line service, you'll probably get 100 men. But the 1st most capable woman is gonna be more capable than the 100,000th most capable man. It's a numbers game, as the size of the army increases the quality of soldiers you let in decreases. Eventually you're gonna get freakishly capable women being better than the averagely capable men you're trying to recruit.
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them.
Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think?
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire.
People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women. Don't give me bullshit about nature.
You have no science backing up your fundamentally sexist assumptions. As micronesia pointed out to your earlier sexist comment you can simply go.
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to work in general and will create a mess in the workplace.
Well men are definitely a lot more more capable.
Than all women? Or just most? If you take the 100 most capable people for front line service, you'll probably get 100 men. But the 1st most capable woman is gonna be more capable than the 100,000th most capable man. It's a numbers game, as the size of the army increases the quality of soldiers you let in decreases. Eventually you're gonna get freakishly capable women being better than the averagely capable men you're trying to recruit.
I'm wondering if maybe he meant that statement generally rather than specifically for combat.
People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women.
Humans have genetic tendencies. Male genetics lend themselves to the battlefield much more than women do. It's stupid to completely disregard genetic tendencies. I'm not saying that you should disallow women from serving just because of this, but, like I said, it's stupid to say that there aren't any genetic tendencies in humans when it's obvious that there are.
Emotional damage? Eh, sounds like the same reason ppl say gays shouldn't be in the army. Men get just as emotionally attached to other men that are friends, which is why they say you shouldn't get that close to whoever you are fighting alongside with.
This is just straight up not true. Humans are animals, and like the vast majority of animals, we have a genetic instinct to fight for and protect the opposite sex because not only is the emotional attachment to them stronger than your average emotional attachment to a fellow male (especially if a relationship starts between two soldiers, another situation you'd definitely want to avoid), but we have a genetic desire to protect females because they're more valuable to the continuance of the human race.
We just need people in the army. Right now, no one wants to be in the army because negative public opinion of the wars we are in among many other reasons. Recruitment is the lowest its been in 30 years.
We don't need skill and strength... we need physical bodies. Arguing semantics about man and woman are fine from a theoretical standpoint, but they really hold no value.
Like Chris Rock said, "if they want to fight let them fight... cause I ain't going to fight. Call me a faggot, I'll be the faggot with two legs."
On the more idiosyncratic argument:
You ought to judge people not by a huge generalization, but how they perform individually. On average women are shorter, less strong, and slower than men. That doesn't say anything about the women who want to join the military. As long as they can perform more power to them. Obviously if they can't perform don't let them be in the military.
In terms of separate raxes and so forth, the military is a shitload of money ... as long as there are enough women they should get their own raxes.
Rape... that's something that could happen every day and signing up for the military they should be aware of the risks.
So, I believe yes that women should be sign up for the military.
Yes. Better them than me. Same thing goes for gays.
I don't believe in war and I don't believe in killing innocent people, so if there ever is a mandatory draft, Im letting anyone who wants to take my place the go ahead.
On the men protecting women aspect, I think a lot of people don't understand the mindset the army creates. Soldiers don't fight for their ideals, they don't fight for their country, they fight for their mates. The purpose of a lot of the training is, and has always been, to bond the unit into a family. You eat together, sleep together, party together and go through the same shit together. Your good days are their good days, your successes are theirs, your failures are shared, you overcome challenges together. The purpose of all this is so when they fly the group out and put them together in a warzone they'll kill to protect their friends, they'll fight to protect their friends and when it matters they just won't stop. The urge to protect your comrades is pretty much maxed out, regardless of gender. I've always thought it's kind of ironic when two nations who both use this form of training fight. You get two groups of friends and tell each of them that the other wants to shoot their best mate.
On November 14 2009 04:38 TwoToneTerran wrote: Men have low hanging, superfluous genitalia that is an obvious weakpoint on the battlefield, and thus should not be used for battle.
ps: women, on average, have a smaller profile and are thus more suited for ranged combat that modern firearms forces.
pps: the female brain is better at multitasking which is the prime mental asset for squad leaders in any infantry unit.
ppps: Sexism is garbage.
You're points aren't valid because on average women still can't perform the basic physical tasks (compared to the way the average man can) to get to the point where a smaller profile would be worth accounting for.
Oh, and noticing the genetic differences between the two sexes isn't sexism.
On November 14 2009 04:11 outqast wrote: I'm not sure if people made this argument before.
We just need people in the army. Right now, no one wants to be in the army because negative public opinion of the wars we are in among many other reasons. Recruitment is the lowest its been in 30 years.
We don't need skill and strength... we need physical bodies. Arguing semantics about man and woman are fine from a theoretical standpoint, but they really hold no value.
Like Chris Rock said, "if they want to fight let them fight... cause I ain't going to fight. Call me a faggot, I'll be the faggot with two legs."
On the more idiosyncratic argument:
You ought to judge people not by a huge generalization, but how they perform individually. On average women are shorter, less strong, and slower than men. That doesn't say anything about the women who want to join the military. As long as they can perform more power to them. Obviously if they can't perform don't let them be in the military.
In terms of separate raxes and so forth, the military is a shitload of money ... as long as there are enough women they should get their own raxes.
Rape... that's something that could happen every day and signing up for the military they should be aware of the risks.
So, I believe yes that women should be sign up for the military.
This isn't really a topic about women being able to sign up for the military, as it is women being able to fill the front lines, there is a gigantic difference in the two.
In my opinion, if you are unable to meet the requirements to be in the front lines, you shouldn't be in them, regardless of gender. I don't think I'd be able to make the front lines, I'm not physically strong enough, and it would be a stupid decision to place me there when I can fulfill a job that I do meet the requirements and my stature isn't a problem.
This would be the same for a women that is unfit to work in the front lines. If there is such a short amount of recruitment, why would you then place anyone in a certain position over someone entirely superior? The goal would be to get the most out of your recruits and an unfit women in the front lines would not be achieving this.
Notice I keep saying unfit, because the women that can however perform the same as the men who also meet the requirements for the front lines, then by all means, they should be allowed there.
This issue should already be ended. I voted no because the Israeli military used women as part of their front line forces when fighting against one of the other middle east nations (I forget which and I'm too lazy to check) Their enemies took this as an insult and began attacking more aggressively and mercilessly, especially to the women. Also, as the op said, women can cause different negative effects on their allies morale, as well as distort their decision making. Due to these facts, I do not understand how there can be an argument. Why would you want to recruit women if they are physically and emotionally less suited for front line work than men, when they also cause a negative morale effect on your troops as well potentially aiding your enemies? This is only one matter as well, the expenses would be increased as already stated, And I'm assuming those of you saying "You have lots of money for military, just build them barracks" would probably be upset when you discovered they're building all of these things which would become necessities by increasing the taxes you pay.
On November 14 2009 04:38 TwoToneTerran wrote: Men have low hanging, superfluous genitalia that is an obvious weakpoint on the battlefield, and thus should not be used for battle.
ps: women, on average, have a smaller profile and are thus more suited for ranged combat that modern firearms forces.
pps: the female brain is better at multitasking which is the prime mental asset for squad leaders in any infantry unit.
ppps: Sexism is garbage.
You're points aren't valid because on average women still can't perform the basic physical tasks (compared to the way the average man can) to get to the point where a smaller profile would be worth accounting for.
Oh, and noticing the genetic differences between the two sexes isn't sexism.
Just sayin'.
The points are perfectly valid, unlike how "all men are better," seems to be vomiting in this thread. With these standards, any woman who can pass the military's standards would actually be more worthwhile as a soldier than a man who performs specifically as well, just because of 'genetic differences.'
Genetic differences are generalizations, non-specific, and a tool to justify broad sweeping sexism like "Boobs don't belong on the battlefield." (as if any woman who's qualified to be a frontline soldier would have boobs to speak of)
Also, it was tongue in cheek. I can say "No, women are better hth." but it's pointless because it's a broad, dumb generalization. Why? Because some women are over six feet and don't have smaller profiles, some women aren't good multitaskers. I've never really heard of a bona fide woman with low hanging genitalia but hell if there might not be one whose labia is engorged as hell.
Point is, citing genetic differences as law is for retards.
On November 14 2009 05:02 Sha[DoW] wrote: This issue should already be ended. I voted no because the Israeli military used women as part of their front line forces when fighting against one of the other middle east nations (I forget which and I'm too lazy to check) Their enemies took this as an insult and began attacking more aggressively and mercilessly, especially to the women. Also, as the op said, women can cause different negative effects on their allies morale, as well as distort their decision making. Due to these facts, I do not understand how there can be an argument. Why would you want to recruit women if they are physically and emotionally less suited for front line work than men, when they also cause a negative morale effect on your troops as well potentially aiding your enemies? This is only one matter as well, the expenses would be increased as already stated, And I'm assuming those of you saying "You have lots of money for military, just build them barracks" would probably be upset when you discovered they're building all of these things which would become necessities by increasing the taxes you pay.
If your troop's morale is so ridiculously fickle as to fall because they're working alongside women, then they probably aren't mentally capable of handling frontline war duty. Either that or their training is too insufficient to make that the least important thing in mind. Also, the "enemies will be more aggressive if they know women are in the opposing force's ranks!" argument, oh man, that is just precious. We have and will continue to have women in our military, plain and simple. Any culture who's aggressively opposed to this A) already hates our culture, B) "being more aggressive" is a catchall with no basis as they've already gone with incredibly effective and aggressive guerilla warfare, and C) is already insulted because we still use women in military anyhow. On top of that, when specifically talking about frontline duties, most combatants wouldn't be able to differentiate our uniform and bulky soldiers in battle, despite women's, on average, smaller frames.
And yeah, I can pay some fucking taxes to get rid of dumb ass inequalities that are just the last stronghold for maniacal patriarchy.
PS: the costs are uncited and almost entirely a cause of shoehorning of women into the military as a whole, not a specific branch with requirements. Women would cost no more medically for frontline soldiers as long as they're up to the performance standards of their comrades. Just like it doesn't cost any company more to use female labor that's as skilled and effective as male labor.
I mean, seriously, stop me if this sounds odd to some of you.
"Black people aren't capable of being in the army. They'll lower troop morale, which will cause for poor decision making. They aren't 'genetically superior' in intelligence/fitness because society has been based around stunting this potential of theirs thusfar and our white/patriarchal ways don't want to leave that comfort zone, and will continue to be hardheaded instead of accepting long-term beneficial change, both socially and militaristically WE HAVE STATISTICS THAT PROVE OTHERWISE IN GENERALIZATIONS THAT ARE INFALLIBLE. Their lack of talent that we previously mentioned would incur more costs, which would raise taxes! We'd have to build separate everythings!"
It's called war, like many of you say, stop thinking with societal dos and don'ts, or if you do, stop being sexists.
Voted no. If they want in they should follow the same standards as men. If it turns out less women make it through then so be it.
This "fake" push for equality leading to a double standard affects everything in the US, including selection of college sports, college admittance, the police force, firefighters, and the military. I'm sorry, but a double-standard is in no way proving that your gender is equal. I would not have an issue but these kinds of backwards policies affect a lot of our day to day lives.
On November 14 2009 06:33 TwoToneTerran wrote: If you think women should be allowed and be held to the same standard, why did you vote no?
I don't think they should be allowed at all. If they want to argue that they should, then they should follow the same standards. But ideally, no women in the police force, no women in firefighting, no women in the military. Sure you consider it a broad generalization, but how far off % wise do you think it is of the populace in those current positions? Less than 1%? I'd bet.
I voted no because I am not stupid enough to believe that women can do everything men can. Sure some women are stronger than some men. But chances are those men shouldn't be in the military either.
I'm glad you're completely certain that all men on the frontlines are more capable than every woman in the world.
Here's a hint: you're absolutely wrong and are completely buying in to societal dictations that military standards are just somehow far above a woman's ability to compete. The capability of excellent women is far more likely and it's completely disgusting of you to think we should adopt sexist policy to exclude those impressive percentile of women who meet the standards just...because it's a "men." thing.
On November 14 2009 06:40 TwoToneTerran wrote: I'm glad you're completely certain that all men on the frontlines are more capable than every woman in the world.
Here's a hint: you're absolutely wrong and are completely buying in to societal dictations that military standards are just somehow far above a woman's ability to compete.
I'm sorry that speaking out that men can perform certain jobs better than women somehow makes me a sexist. Rather than arguing the purely theoretical ("women COULD be just as good as men,") you need to be realistic and look at the actual situation as it is right now.
Speaking that men can perform certain jobs better than ALL men is sexist and incorrect.
You know, aside from things directly related to them, like male insemination and pregnancy and such.
It's been said before, take the top 100 capable people in a certain physical aspect and you'll most certainly get Men, but I assure you there is a vastly higher number than 100 for frontline soldiers, which is where the argument lies in allowing women.
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
If you think that women can't do the physical work of a man - on average, you may be right. But there are definitely some women who could do it.
As for the psychological aspect - yet again, on average, you may be right in saying that women can't handle it as well as men, but there are definitely some women who could handle it.
If they can compete physically and psychologically with men, why should they be shunned from the infantry?
Personally, I think that the effect on the others in the unit needs to be considered as well. Are the men in the unit going to be able to adjust to having women in the ranks? Are they going to treat them the same as the men in the unit? Are they going to be professional around the women? Are there any other foreseeable problems which may arise? If they are, they need to be looked at against the positives of having women in the infantry. If the positives outweigh the negatives, then it is obvious what the right choice is..... Unfortunately, I doubt that is the case. It's not that women couldn't do the same job, it's that they would inevitably affect the rest of the unit in a more negative way than the positives gained from them joining the rank.
On November 14 2009 06:46 TwoToneTerran wrote: Speaking that men can perform certain jobs better than ALL men is sexist and incorrect.
You know, aside from things directly related to them, like male insemination and pregnancy and such.
It's been said before, take the top 100 capable people in a certain physical aspect and you'll most certainly get Men, but I assure you there is a vastly higher number than 100 for frontline soldiers, which is where the argument lies in allowing women.
If it's an argument about raw numbers, then sure throw anybody that is willing to sign up.
I suppose more or less I voted no because the current system is shot to shit, and voting yes would seem to somehow support the way it is currently employed (i.e. a double standard). In an ideal world? Women should not be in the line of fire. It's not in their genetics both mentally and physically.
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
If you think that women can't do the physical work of a man - on average, you may be right. But there are definitely some women who could do it.
As for the psychological aspect - yet again, on average, you may be right in saying that women can't handle it as well as men, but there are definitely some women who could handle it.
If they can compete physically and psychologically with men, why should they be shunned from the infantry?
Personally, I think that the effect on the others in the unit needs to be considered as well. Are the men in the unit going to be able to adjust to having women in the ranks? Are they going to treat them the same as the men in the unit? Are they going to be professional around the women? Are there any other foreseeable problems which may arise? If they are, they need to be looked at against the positives of having women in the infantry. If the positives outweigh the negatives, then it is obvious what the right choice is..... Unfortunately, I doubt that is the case. It's not that women couldn't do the same job, it's that they would inevitably affect the rest of the unit in a more negative way than the positives gained from them joining the rank.
Please replace every aspect of women in your spoiler with "black people" and understand how stupid an argument that is. It was LITERALLY the exact same thing at the beginning of the last century.
On November 14 2009 06:46 TwoToneTerran wrote: Speaking that men can perform certain jobs better than ALL men is sexist and incorrect.
You know, aside from things directly related to them, like male insemination and pregnancy and such.
It's been said before, take the top 100 capable people in a certain physical aspect and you'll most certainly get Men, but I assure you there is a vastly higher number than 100 for frontline soldiers, which is where the argument lies in allowing women.
If it's an argument about raw numbers, then sure throw anybody that is willing to sign up.
I suppose more or less I voted no because the current system is shot to shit, and voting yes would seem to somehow support the way it is currently employed (i.e. a double standard). In an ideal world? Women should not be in the line of fire. It's not in their genetics both mentally and physically.
There is no mental conditioning that's genetically inherent to men. There's societal conditioning that you're used to, but guns are completely unnatural to evolutionarily advantageous human fighting. If we had to wrestle and choke our opponents to death one by one, then you'd have a point.
If you think that being in a war and out on the battlefield is purely a trained conditioning and nothing more then* you have no understanding of the emotional draining and natural instincts that come into play when you are tired, dirty, and have your life at risk.
I'm sure it's just like starcraft!
You seriously live in some kind of rose-colored world if you think there is no inevitable sexual effect by having men and women in the same unit.
There's evolutionary principle behind xenophobia. Human conditioning, and specifically military training, are made to get over that. The military does not give a shit if you can't stand black people, you will work as a unit and you will not complain about it if you are assigned to the same unit as one -- this should go for women as well. You live in some shit covered world if you think there's no possible way for a unit to function with both men and women and different races and people from different countries and any other tripe differences that aren't the real issue here.
Also, there's no such thing as male mental superiority that's genetically defined, so there's no basis for your "being tired and dirty and having your life at risk is something women can't take!!!!" I could give no fuck about your ad hominem attacks on how you totally know everything there is to every combat situation while I don't.
Hey maybe I was in the marine corps for 2 services! (Not really, but more than half my living male relatives have been in the military, and most during wartime)
edit: Not in direct reply to the above post, but honestly, I'm completely fed up with the "Sexual attraction" nonsense about military service. Regardless of don't ask don't tell, there have been MANY successful, very gay officers who had never had their prowess questioned, even though they had the very likely chance to be sexually attracted to other squadmates. There are millions of urges and emotions you have to control in service, sexual attraction should not be some shining exclusion just because outdated principles deem it so.
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
Pole dance in a bikini? I don't think there are too many men in the military that can summon the nerve to do something like that.
btw most of that video is technique that almost anyone can do with enough training. You can just as easily post a video of 15 year old girls doing gymnastics and ask how many guys in the military can do that, but that doesn't mean we want 15 year old girls on the front lines ;o
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
If you think that women can't do the physical work of a man - on average, you may be right. But there are definitely some women who could do it.
As for the psychological aspect - yet again, on average, you may be right in saying that women can't handle it as well as men, but there are definitely some women who could handle it.
If they can compete physically and psychologically with men, why should they be shunned from the infantry?
Personally, I think that the effect on the others in the unit needs to be considered as well. Are the men in the unit going to be able to adjust to having women in the ranks? Are they going to treat them the same as the men in the unit? Are they going to be professional around the women? Are there any other foreseeable problems which may arise? If they are, they need to be looked at against the positives of having women in the infantry. If the positives outweigh the negatives, then it is obvious what the right choice is..... Unfortunately, I doubt that is the case. It's not that women couldn't do the same job, it's that they would inevitably affect the rest of the unit in a more negative way than the positives gained from them joining the rank.
Please replace every aspect of women in your spoiler with "black people" and understand how stupid an argument that is. It was LITERALLY the exact same thing at the beginning of the last century.
So, if soldiers lives were in more danger because women were there, would you feel the same?
Like I said - I don't personally have a problem with women in the infantry. I could stay professional around them. But what about the other few hundred thousand guys with me? Would they all be able to act the same?
Okay, so, lets kick out the guys that can't handle being around women. Are there more women applying for the infantry than the number of men that would be kicked out? Then, from the sheer mathematics of it, which is the better choice?
What about an all-female regiment? Well, how about when they have to interact with other regiments? Are there going to be any side-effects and added dangers, because guys are, generally, stupid?
Yes, the same thing was said about "black people", or "gays", or any other minority that was shunned from the military, however, society changed. It didn't happen all of a sudden, it happened gradually. It's not perfect, but it's better than it used to be.
If you didn't know - in many sporting events, women's results in the Olympics are getting better faster than the results for men in the same events. It is estimated that by 2150 women will actually start to outperform men in Olympic events, assuming that the results follow as extrapolated (they have both followed logistic curves since the results for events were first recorded). By then, there will be little doubt that women can handle the same physical jobs as me.
But, currently, there are other effects that need to be considered. If a "black man" was in the army a hundred years ago, would the rest of his unit react to him the same as any other member of the unit? Would his safety, and the safety of the rest of his unit be compromised because of it? The same can be said for other groups shunned from the military.
It is stupid, sexist/racist behavior, but it does happen, and you can't suddenly change everyone. Thinking that you can is foolish.
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
Pole dance in a bikini? I don't think there are too many men in the military that can summon the nerve to do something like that.
btw most of that video is technique that almost anyone can do with enough training. You can just as easily post a video of 15 year old girls doing gymnastics and ask how many guys in the military can do that, but that doesn't mean we want 15 year old girls on the front lines ;o
Is there any doubt about their physical abilities? That shit is far from easy.....
On November 14 2009 04:11 outqast wrote: I'm not sure if people made this argument before.
We just need people in the army. Right now, no one wants to be in the army because negative public opinion of the wars we are in among many other reasons. Recruitment is the lowest its been in 30 years.
if the jobs market keeps going the way it is i don't think there will be any problem with recruitment numbers....
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
If you think that women can't do the physical work of a man - on average, you may be right. But there are definitely some women who could do it.
As for the psychological aspect - yet again, on average, you may be right in saying that women can't handle it as well as men, but there are definitely some women who could handle it.
If they can compete physically and psychologically with men, why should they be shunned from the infantry?
Personally, I think that the effect on the others in the unit needs to be considered as well. Are the men in the unit going to be able to adjust to having women in the ranks? Are they going to treat them the same as the men in the unit? Are they going to be professional around the women? Are there any other foreseeable problems which may arise? If they are, they need to be looked at against the positives of having women in the infantry. If the positives outweigh the negatives, then it is obvious what the right choice is..... Unfortunately, I doubt that is the case. It's not that women couldn't do the same job, it's that they would inevitably affect the rest of the unit in a more negative way than the positives gained from them joining the rank.
Please replace every aspect of women in your spoiler with "black people" and understand how stupid an argument that is. It was LITERALLY the exact same thing at the beginning of the last century.
So, if soldiers lives were in more danger because women were there, would you feel the same?
Like I said - I don't personally have a problem with women in the infantry. I could stay professional around them. But what about the other few hundred thousand guys with me? Would they all be able to act the same?
Okay, so, lets kick out the guys that can't handle being around women. Are there more women applying for the infantry than the number of men that would be kicked out? Then, from the sheer mathematics of it, which is the better choice?
What about an all-female regiment? Well, how about when they have to interact with other regiments? Are there going to be any side-effects and added dangers, because guys are, generally, stupid?
Yes, the same thing was said about "black people", or "gays", or any other minority that was shunned from the military, however, society changed. It didn't happen all of a sudden, it happened gradually. It's not perfect, but it's better than it used to be.
If you didn't know - in many sporting events, women's results in the Olympics are getting better faster than the results for men in the same events. It is estimated that by 2150 women will actually start to outperform men in Olympic events, assuming that the results follow as extrapolated (they have both followed logistic curves since the results for events were first recorded). By then, there will be little doubt that women can handle the same physical jobs as me.
But, currently, there are other effects that need to be considered. If a "black man" was in the army a hundred years ago, would the rest of his unit react to him the same as any other member of the unit? Would his safety, and the safety of the rest of his unit be compromised because of it? The same can be said for other groups shunned from the military.
It is stupid, sexist/racist behavior, but it does happen, and you can't suddenly change everyone. Thinking that you can is foolish.
We should not recognize bigotry and accept it, or even be passive about it. Passive indifference might as well be the same thing as supporting it. The only reason racism is not tolerated in the military today (by policy, atleast. in practice it is obviously much different) is because people fought against what is plain wrong. Sexism, and sexual orientation discrimination should neither be accepted as racism was a hundred years ago -- even if the overwhelming majority agree (as seen by the nice sample in this thread).
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
If you think that women can't do the physical work of a man - on average, you may be right. But there are definitely some women who could do it.
As for the psychological aspect - yet again, on average, you may be right in saying that women can't handle it as well as men, but there are definitely some women who could handle it.
If they can compete physically and psychologically with men, why should they be shunned from the infantry?
Personally, I think that the effect on the others in the unit needs to be considered as well. Are the men in the unit going to be able to adjust to having women in the ranks? Are they going to treat them the same as the men in the unit? Are they going to be professional around the women? Are there any other foreseeable problems which may arise? If they are, they need to be looked at against the positives of having women in the infantry. If the positives outweigh the negatives, then it is obvious what the right choice is..... Unfortunately, I doubt that is the case. It's not that women couldn't do the same job, it's that they would inevitably affect the rest of the unit in a more negative way than the positives gained from them joining the rank.
Please replace every aspect of women in your spoiler with "black people" and understand how stupid an argument that is. It was LITERALLY the exact same thing at the beginning of the last century.
So, if soldiers lives were in more danger because black people were there, would you feel the same?
Like I said - I don't personally have a problem with black people in the infantry. I could stay professional around them. But what about the other few hundred thousand guys with me? Would they all be able to act the same?
Okay, so, lets kick out the guys that can't handle being around black people. Are there more black people applying for the infantry than the number of men that would be kicked out? Then, from the sheer mathematics of it, which is the better choice?
What about an all-black people regiment? Well, how about when they have to interact with other regiments? Are there going to be any side-effects and added dangers, because guys are, generally, stupid?
Yes, the same thing was said about "black people", or "gays", or any other minority that was shunned from the military, however, society changed. It didn't happen all of a sudden, it happened gradually. It's not perfect, but it's better than it used to be.
If you didn't know - in many sporting events, women's results in the Olympics are getting better faster than the results for men in the same events. It is estimated that by 2150 women will actually start to outperform men in Olympic events, assuming that the results follow as extrapolated (they have both followed logistic curves since the results for events were first recorded). By then, there will be little doubt that women can handle the same physical jobs as me.
But, currently, there are other effects that need to be considered. If a "black man" was in the army a hundred years ago, would the rest of his unit react to him the same as any other member of the unit? Would his safety, and the safety of the rest of his unit be compromised because of it? The same can be said for other groups shunned from the military.
It is stupid, sexist/racist behavior, but it does happen, and you can't suddenly change everyone. Thinking that you can is foolish.
We should not recognize bigotry and accept it, or even be passive about it. Passive indifference might as well be the same thing as supporting it. The only reason racism is not tolerated in the military today (by policy, atleast. in practice it is obviously much different) is because people fought against what is plain wrong.
You think that. I think that. However, what about the majority? Even if the majority also believes that, what if 40% (pulled completely out of my ass at the moment) are against it? Are you telling me that 40% of the army not being able to handle being around women, and then shoving women into their units, would not cause problems?
Okay, what if it is only 10%? do we kick those 10% out (just like the military tries to stop people who are homophobic from getting in, we could do the same for those who are against women) and only replace 1/2 of them with the women that sign up in their place?
It's a numbers game. And, right now, society isn't ready for it. Sure, we should try to change that. But don't live in some fairy-tale that everyone has the same beliefs as you. People, as a whole, are stupid..... I could give you countless examples of that. G.W.Bush was one of the greatest ones.....
Funny thing is I just made an edit about the majority.
EQUAL (not equal with special treatment) Rights has always had to be forced, since Truman forced segregation out of the army, or since the civil rights bill was passed, but it does need SOME support to show that it makes sense.
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
Pole dance in a bikini? I don't think there are too many men in the military that can summon the nerve to do something like that.
btw most of that video is technique that almost anyone can do with enough training. You can just as easily post a video of 15 year old girls doing gymnastics and ask how many guys in the military can do that, but that doesn't mean we want 15 year old girls on the front lines ;o
Is there any doubt about their physical abilities? That shit is far from easy.....
Far from easy but can probably be done without having exceptional strength.
Could try putting them up against the average marine in arm wrestling and see how they do.
On November 14 2009 07:30 TwoToneTerran wrote: Funny thing is I just made an edit about the majority.
EQUAL (not equal with special treatment) Rights has always had to be forced, since Truman forced segregation out of the army, or since the civil rights bill was passed, but it does need SOME support to show that it makes sense.
Yes. But forcing people to do it is not always a smart move. And it is sometimes impossible.
You cannot force a sociopath to respect the rights of others - you can only discourage him with the threat of punishment. It does nothing to stop him from actually doing something wrong. And you cannot make him feel guilty for it.
You cannot force someone to think the way you want them to, nor act the way you want them to. You can try to change their minds about it, impose physical restraints, or threaten punishments, but you cannot force them. It just doesn't work.
You have to be brought up in a generation that believes it is okay. You need to be brought up where it exists, not necessarily common, but exists. We are probably the generation where that change will happen. But it has not happened yet.
I really like your first comment against me - it made me sound like I'm sexist. I'm not a sexist, I'm a realist. I look at the whole picture, rather than have an emotional response. I find society is dumb, and is always behind the times. But it has always been like that, and all we can do is try to change it for the better. And hope we teach the next generation to do the same.
I would like to know if any of the guys in the military could do that.....
Pole dance in a bikini? I don't think there are too many men in the military that can summon the nerve to do something like that.
btw most of that video is technique that almost anyone can do with enough training. You can just as easily post a video of 15 year old girls doing gymnastics and ask how many guys in the military can do that, but that doesn't mean we want 15 year old girls on the front lines ;o
Is there any doubt about their physical abilities? That shit is far from easy.....
Far from easy but can probably be done without having exceptional strength.
Could try putting them up against the average marine in arm wrestling and see how they do.
Sounds like it would be interesting. I think you're underestimating how strong some women can be.
On November 14 2009 06:46 TwoToneTerran wrote: Speaking that men can perform certain jobs better than ALL men is sexist and incorrect.
You know, aside from things directly related to them, like male insemination and pregnancy and such.
It's been said before, take the top 100 capable people in a certain physical aspect and you'll most certainly get Men, but I assure you there is a vastly higher number than 100 for frontline soldiers, which is where the argument lies in allowing women.
If it's an argument about raw numbers, then sure throw anybody that is willing to sign up.
I suppose more or less I voted no because the current system is shot to shit, and voting yes would seem to somehow support the way it is currently employed (i.e. a double standard). In an ideal world? Women should not be in the line of fire. It's not in their genetics both mentally and physically.
You're doing the expansion to absurdity straw man. Yes, if you want the army to be as big as it can be then standards don't matter, you accept anyone. Yes, if you want the army to be tiny you accept the very best, who are all men. For armies between those sizes you accept the most fit, of whom the majority are men and a minority are women.
On November 14 2009 07:30 TwoToneTerran wrote: Funny thing is I just made an edit about the majority.
EQUAL (not equal with special treatment) Rights has always had to be forced, since Truman forced segregation out of the army, or since the civil rights bill was passed, but it does need SOME support to show that it makes sense.
Yes. But forcing people to do it is not always a smart move. And it is sometimes impossible.
You cannot force a sociopath to respect the rights of others - you can only discourage him with the threat of punishment. It does nothing to stop him from actually doing something wrong. And you cannot make him feel guilty for it.
You cannot force someone to think the way you want them to, nor act the way you want them to. You can try to change their minds about it, impose physical restraints, or threaten punishments, but you cannot force them. It just doesn't work.
You have to be brought up in a generation that believes it is okay. You need to be brought up where it exists, not necessarily common, but exists. We are probably the generation where that change will happen. But it has not happened yet.
I really like your first comment against me - it made me sound like I'm sexist. I'm not a sexist, I'm a realist. I look at the whole picture, rather than have an emotional response. I find society is dumb, and is always behind the times. But it has always been like that, and all we can do is try to change it for the better. And hope we teach the next generation to do the same.
Forcing people has always been the way. Did you REALLY think the army was okay with forced integration in the 40s? President laid down the law. Equal rights act? Congress, LBJ, and a tragedy later, it was forced. School systems? Supreme Court.
Equal rights is ALWAYS forced, usually at the distaste of the majority, because the majority is pretty dumb, honestly, and it's very documented that it will be the majority that agrees in the future once that first, very forced step is made.
Also, you may not be a sexist. You seem to very well agree with me, but what you decide as to what should be done may very well be sexist. It's like George Wallace. Sure, he fought heart and soul for segregation, but everyone who knew him said he didn't actually hate black people, it was just the majority's decision and he saw no other way to act as governor. He, personally, wasn't a racist, but his actions were no different.
You can force women into a unit where men do not accept the woman. But you cannot force those same men to treat the woman the same as the men in the unit. You can threaten the men with punishment if they do not accept women in the army, but you cannot actually force them to accept the women in the unit.
If this compromises the stability of the unit, and results in casualties, is it worth it?
If this causes the numbers in the military to decline further (due to men being kicked out/voluntarily leaving, yet not enough women signing up to fill the deficit), is it worth it (when the military is already hurting for recruits)?
Are you willing to currently compromise the strength of the infantry, and put lives unnecessarily in danger, to allow women in the army?
Men were kicked out of the military in the 40's for not accepting integration. There were men who deserted as well. But look at the size of the pool of potential recruits at the time. It was huge. Much more than were lost. That is not the case now.
Numbers supported the decision back then. So that case is completely different. What is the "right thing" when the numbers do not support you though?
George Wallace was in a tough spot, and you know it. You can't make changes if you aren't in office - and by being in office, even though he didn't make all of the changes he wanted, he had the opportunity to do some things. To stay in office, you have to appease the majority. Politics is bullshit, which is why I try to stay away from it.
I think you could avoid many of the problems of integration by putting women in separate units than men. That eliminates any kind of emotional attachment on the battlefield that shouldnt be there.
For those who make the argument that having women in the infantry is comparable to having blacks/asians in the army, it is not a reasonable comparison.
There's not significant physical or mental differences between men or different races. There might a slight discrepancy in height/body build (most of which is dietary and not genetics anyways, the genetic difference is very small). If you want to argue differently, then you are probably racist and I don't want to hear it.
On the other hand, the physical and mental differences between a man and a woman are significant. Although for most professions it does not impact overall performance, and women should perform just as well as men, war is an extreme end of humanity. I believe women should be allowed in infantry units if they meet the requirements for a soldier, but it's not at all the same as letting blacks and asians join white units.
On November 14 2009 08:59 LostWraithSC wrote: For those who make the argument that having women in the infantry is comparable to having blacks/asians in the army, it is not a reasonable comparison.
There's not significant physical or mental differences between men or different races. There might a slight discrepancy in height/body build (most of which is dietary and not genetics anyways, the genetic difference is very small). If you want to argue differently, then you are probably racist and I don't want to hear it.
On the other hand, the physical and mental differences between a man and a woman are significant. Although for most professions it does not impact overall performance, and women should perform just as well as men, war is an extreme end of humanity. I believe women should be allowed in infantry units if they meet the requirements for a soldier, but it's not at all the same as letting blacks and asians join white units.
agree 100% :D there is certainly valid arguments for not allowing women into the infantry, but none strong enough to completely shut off all women from it. If a man can't handle acting rationally because of his instincts then he's the one who shouldn't be there.
i'm all for equal rights, but this is ridiculous. speaking as an infantryman myself, a woman could not do it. in basic training you might carry 35 40lb rucks, but in real life you're carrying over a thousand rounds with food and water not too mention your vest with plates and the ammo on your vest. that is roughly 130 to 150lbs worth of shit. plus if it's your turn to carry the 28lb 240 then you can just kill yourself, or maybe you'll be lucky enough to carry the radio. also, it's not a ruck march on the side of a road. you get to walk up the side of a mountain. heh i don't think the army would ever be dumb enough to have females in the infantry. another thing is feminine hygiene, a female can not go 2+ weeks without cleaning themselves.. there would be serious issues. i mean if the girl can carry her weight i would have nothing to complain about, but i think that's highly unlikely
That's insane considering many women have passed basic training with flying colors. Almost anyone who's gone through basic training was in a platoon with women in recent times -- Hell my brother (who's been home on medical discharge now for a year and a half) had 3 women in his group, one of which was exceptionally better than most people there. Basic training is far from the obstacle women can't climb.
On November 14 2009 06:46 TwoToneTerran wrote: Speaking that men can perform certain jobs better than ALL men is sexist and incorrect.
You know, aside from things directly related to them, like male insemination and pregnancy and such.
It's been said before, take the top 100 capable people in a certain physical aspect and you'll most certainly get Men, but I assure you there is a vastly higher number than 100 for frontline soldiers, which is where the argument lies in allowing women.
If it's an argument about raw numbers, then sure throw anybody that is willing to sign up.
I suppose more or less I voted no because the current system is shot to shit, and voting yes would seem to somehow support the way it is currently employed (i.e. a double standard). In an ideal world? Women should not be in the line of fire. It's not in their genetics both mentally and physically.
You're doing the expansion to absurdity straw man. Yes, if you want the army to be as big as it can be then standards don't matter, you accept anyone. Yes, if you want the army to be tiny you accept the very best, who are all men. For armies between those sizes you accept the most fit, of whom the majority are men and a minority are women.
You heard it yourself, even with our current "need as many bodies as we can" mentality, women are still getting by on their double standard and lowered expectations.
But I guess we can all live in a beautiful dream world
I don't get it - why are the naysayers continually bringing up genetics in terms of men being better suited? It is IRRELEVANT if they put women up to the same standards. I've just read the last few pages and my god, all the supporters have constantly said that as long as the women can hold up to the same PHYSICAL tests as the men, they should be let in.
If the tests are so rigorous that only 1% of the women that apply make it, then so fucking be it. They aren't advocating something like affirmative action or 50-50 gender ratio. They are saying IF there so happens to be a qualified women, then let her in. If there isn't any qualified women, then don't let any of them in. There is no denying that the MOST qualified women out there for the army is going to perform better than the LEAST qualified man that's in the army.
On November 14 2009 14:03 Castor wrote: i mean if the girl can carry her weight i would have nothing to complain about, but i think that's highly unlikely
That's the key part. We're not advocating cutting standards or setting targets for women being in the army. We're saying if they can carry their weight there should be no obstacle. And to the people saying women are genetically disabled, the most qualified woman to be in the infantry will be better than the least qualified man who is in the infantry. The average woman won't cut it but there will be some who will. Basically I'm arguing for manlike freaks not to be held back by their vagina.