|
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
|
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 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 08:14 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:10 Foucault wrote:On November 12 2009 07:46 koreasilver wrote: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. 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. 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.
That's my entire point though lol
|
On November 12 2009 08:22 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
|
just for ref: 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 08:18 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote: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 08:15 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +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 08:23 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:14 koreasilver wrote:On November 12 2009 08:10 Foucault wrote:On November 12 2009 07:46 koreasilver wrote: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. 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 08:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:22 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2009 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote: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.
|
On November 12 2009 08:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On November 12 2009 08:26 CharlieMurphy wrote:just for ref: Show nested quote +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.
Just for ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discus_throw#Women
76.80 m (251 ft 11 in) Gabriele Reinsch (GDR) Neubrandenburg July 9, 1988
The discus is a heavy lenticular disc with a weight of 2 kilograms.
The M67 is a round thing that explodes with a weight of 400 grams.
|
On November 12 2009 08:22 Jayme wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 12 2009 08:28 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:23 Foucault wrote:On November 12 2009 08:14 koreasilver wrote:On November 12 2009 08:10 Foucault wrote:On November 12 2009 07:46 koreasilver wrote: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. 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.
|
Am I the only one that thinks its hilarious that andrewlt keeps bringing Mongols into this?
+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2009 08:32 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:29 koreasilver wrote:On November 12 2009 08:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On November 12 2009 08:22 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2009 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote: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 08:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:22 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2009 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote: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.
|
On November 12 2009 08:29 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On November 12 2009 08:22 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2009 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote: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. Show nested quote +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 08:29 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On November 12 2009 08:22 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2009 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote: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. Show nested quote +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 08:32 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:29 koreasilver wrote:On November 12 2009 08:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On November 12 2009 08:22 Jayme wrote:On November 12 2009 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote: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
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
