|
On November 12 2009 07:25 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:24 Boblion wrote: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.
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.
|
On November 12 2009 07:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:
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.
Well said sir!
|
On November 12 2009 07:38 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 12 2009 07:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:
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.
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.
|
The day women are allowed in the infantry, I quit infantry.
|
On November 12 2009 07:38 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
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.
|
United States24679 Posts
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 07:36 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
"Do you think women should be allowed in the infantry?"
only if there is no men left to do the job..
|
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 07:41 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:38 Foucault wrote: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.
|
On November 12 2009 07:53 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The issue is that the standards are not neutral.
|
On November 12 2009 07:39 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:25 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:24 Boblion wrote: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. 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.
|
Interesting argument. The OP pointed out a lot of problems that allowing women to be in the infantry would cause. I agree with all of it.
And I don't think I could take hearing "You want a piece of me boy" in a feminine voice. I'd have to go mech every game, even against zerg.
Anyway I think Mr. Hicks already covered this one: + Show Spoiler +
|
The issue is that women have more lax requirements than men
But they don't have to. The requirements for an infantry soldier can be applied equally. And anyone who meets them, men or women alike, can so serve.
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
