|
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?
PS- lol @ canadian army, meeple.
|
On November 12 2009 07:19 NrG.NeverExpo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:03 CharlieMurphy wrote: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.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
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.
Well said
|
Sorry Charlie,
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 07:19 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:10 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:07 Boblion wrote:On November 12 2009 07:05 CharlieMurphy wrote: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 07:22 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:19 Boblion wrote:On November 12 2009 07:10 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:07 Boblion wrote:On November 12 2009 07:05 CharlieMurphy wrote: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 07:24 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:22 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:19 Boblion wrote:On November 12 2009 07:10 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:07 Boblion wrote:On November 12 2009 07:05 CharlieMurphy wrote: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 07:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +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 07:25 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
that is just one minor point for the issue though. The other ones for the women that would qualify would still be there.
|
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.
|
They can fight, if they pass the same standards as men. Which they don't.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
