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.
EPT
