|
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
As far as I am aware, the distinctions to which I am sentimentally attached are Victorian, with a touch of Austenian liberality and Edwardian reflectivity. The distinctions I am complaining against are the non-existent ones of post-modernism, precisely the kind of relativism you espouse which focuses on mutability, without stopping to think what is being mutated from what.
Thus I would argue that my perspective is the more historical one, whereas yours is one more questionably mired in contemporary dogma.
Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
I see declining birth rates and increasing divorce rates, broken homes and the evaporation of bourgeois family life, increasing emotional desperation and disenchantment, the abandonment of parental breeding to the state, the alienation of urban neighbours, the declining quality of domestic meals, etc. Not all of these are attributable to the two-income family alone. Not all of these are unmitigated flaws, but yes, the phenomenon you have described does exist in my view.
|
On November 12 2009 08:31 Jayme 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. Would you god damn read instead of just seeing the word "no" and responding in a misinformed fashion? Read again man. I said if they can MEET THE MINIMAL STANDARDS (which includes throwing a high explosive past its blast range) than they can be in the infantry... I don't care. If they CAN'T than I don't freaking want them anywhere near me. The fact of the matter is that most "women" are either "95 lb 5'2" girls as you put it or "305lb 5'2" girls. Very few in today's culture have the ability to physically do what would be required of them. This is fact and believing otherwise is ignorant. I am fully aware that there are women out there bench press more than I do, run faster than I do, or could kick my ass and I would have absolutely no problem fighting along side those people. If you don't meet the minimal standards though... Men and Women alike would be a no go.
True. Some people here are claiming that the women who meet the standards would still be a no go, though. Mostly because of some logistical issues that were solved by ancient cultures more than 2000 years ago.
|
On November 12 2009 08:32 andrewlt wrote:
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous.
The real question is:
When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on?
Her?
Or one of them?
|
On November 12 2009 08:31 Jayme 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. Would you god damn read instead of just seeing the word "no" and responding in a misinformed fashion? Read again man. I said if they can MEET THE MINIMAL STANDARDS (which includes throwing a high explosive past its blast range) than they can be in the infantry... I don't care. If they CAN'T than I don't freaking want them anywhere near me. The fact of the matter is that most "women" are either "95 lb 5'2" girls as you put it or "305lb 5'2" girls. Very few in today's culture have the ability to physically do what would be required of them. This is fact and believing otherwise is ignorant. I am fully aware that there are women out there bench press more than I do, run faster than I do, or could kick my ass and I would have absolutely no problem fighting along side those people. If you don't meet the minimal standards though... Men and Women alike would be a no go.
My bad for misinterpreting you Jayme. I was confused because the original topic was whether women should be allowed by LAW to see combat duty on the front lines. Of course, nobody who is physically incapable should be allowed on the front lines. That was never even a question. Nobody's going to put a skinny nerd who can't curl a 5 lb dumbbell into combat, boy or girl.
|
That's because many men don't really admit the equality between men and women, it's merely for show so to speak. It's politically correct and a popular opinion but their socialization weighs heavier. I think you're generalizing women too heavily and they are also a result of socialization. What you're saying just caters to constructed male/female characteristics. Men and women think like that because of they have learned to think. Why not change the way we think?
Are you saying that being "weak and mute" is the opposite of manliness, ie. female characteristics?
Why change the way we think? Is the better question. In other words, what are the benefits?
|
On November 12 2009 08:30 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +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. it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before? It's not exactly a cake walk. That's a byproduct of the retarded system we have, however. There's no reason for women to be given lower requirements. Firing a gun is still easier than shooting a Mongol composite bow with enough force to kill an armored western knight in the middle ages.
Mongols were also very lightly armored horse-riding nomads. The fighting was completely different. These women didn't have to wear fucking 75 pounds worth of gear and the horses did a lot of the traveling work within battle. They didn't have to run around on foot with 75 pounds worth of shit. Firing a gun may be easier, but when you are trained to use a single weapon for your entire life the whole skill thing is ignorable, and it does help when your opponents didn't have weaponry that matched your weapon.
This isn't so in modern-day warfare.
|
On November 12 2009 08:36 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:32 andrewlt wrote:
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women. Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on? + Show Spoiler +
This is pretty biased, we need some picture of Mongol women ASAP.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 12 2009 08:36 Manit0u wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2009 08:32 andrewlt wrote:
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women. Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on? Her? Or one of them?
This
|
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)
Did you not even read the OP?
This is about women in the INFANTRY.
|
On November 12 2009 08:37 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:30 andrewlt wrote: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. it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
Wow you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever marched with full combat gear before? It's not exactly a cake walk. That's a byproduct of the retarded system we have, however. There's no reason for women to be given lower requirements. Firing a gun is still easier than shooting a Mongol composite bow with enough force to kill an armored western knight in the middle ages. Mongols were also very lightly armored horse-riding nomads. The fighting was completely different. These women didn't have to wear fucking 75 pounds worth of gear and the horses did a lot of the traveling work within battle. They didn't have to run around on foot with 75 pounds worth of shit. Firing a gun may be easier, but when you are trained to use a single weapon for your entire life the whole skill thing is ignorable, and it does help when your opponents didn't have weaponry that matched your weapon. This isn't so in modern-day warfare.
Training isn't the only thing needed for shooting a bow. The composite bows used by the Mongols pack a punch almost like the English longbow. They require a lot of strength to draw in the first place.
|
On November 12 2009 08:34 StorkHwaiting 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. I read that he's a U.S. Army sergeant. How many female recruits do you think a single US army sergeant has trained in his career? Especially considering the many barriers currently in place for women in the USA, the cultural barriers, and the male-dominated culture the US armed forces cultivates. Now knowing these figures, how scientific do you think his testimonial is in a statistical sense?
Quite a bit, because this isn't the first time articles like these have come up. This has been a question that has been debated for a long time, and every single time it has been shown that women do have more lax requirements to join and they possess generally lesser physical capabilities. It's really not that much of a leap of faith to believe what this sergeant has said because it has been said by many others before him.
|
|
|
On November 12 2009 08:39 EniraM(CA) wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:19 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: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) Did you not even read the OP? This is about women in the INFANTRY.
I think he was just making an analogy/comparison here.
|
On November 12 2009 08:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +That's because many men don't really admit the equality between men and women, it's merely for show so to speak. It's politically correct and a popular opinion but their socialization weighs heavier. I think you're generalizing women too heavily and they are also a result of socialization. What you're saying just caters to constructed male/female characteristics. Men and women think like that because of they have learned to think. Why not change the way we think?
Are you saying that being "weak and mute" is the opposite of manliness, ie. female characteristics? Why change the way we think? Is the better question. In other words, what are the benefits?
I'll take a feminist stance on this one and say that the reason we should change the way we think is to strengthen the role of women in a society where women only were considered eligible to vote some hundred years ago. It's easy to have your opinion coming from a man's viewpoint in a traditionally "male" culture.
I do get what you're saying though and the post-modern, relativist society might result in people being depressed and have no sense of identity. However I think we should embrace and create a new discourse of what "identity" is at it's core. Do you HAVE to "be" something specific in order to be considered normal? Why do we need all these identities. Do they not in fact limit our potential?
|
Girl are weak and would just be a liability in the infantry. Then again, i know many girls way stronger, faster, and generally more tenacious than myself, and I'm pretty sure the army would take me if I enlisted given the current supply/demand for troops. Actually probably not, given my anemic tendencies.
Off topic: If somehow a girl was on infantry, she'd be the hottest bamf like ever, and I would want to be her boyfriend.
|
On November 12 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home? As far as I am aware, the distinctions to which I am sentimentally attached are Victorian, with a touch of Austenian liberality and Edwardian reflectivity. The distinctions I am complaining against are the non-existent ones of post-modernism, precisely the kind of relativism you espouse which focuses on mutability, without stopping to think what is being mutated from what. Thus I would argue that my perspective is the more historical one, whereas yours is one more questionably mired in contemporary dogma. Show nested quote +Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home? I see declining birth rates and increasing divorce rates, broken homes and the evaporation of bourgeois family life, increasing emotional desperation and disenchantment, the abandonment of parental breeding to the state, the alienation of urban neighbours, the declining quality of domestic meals, etc. Not all of these are attributable to the two-income family alone. Not all of these are unmitigated flaws, but yes, the phenomenon you have described does exist in my view.
The Victorian era is bullshit. You're looking at it through extremely rose-colored lenses. Cultures in Asia had no Victorian crap and still function well. The Victorian era is an extremely priggish era. Declining birth rates are actually a good thing for our society. The birth rate to prevent more population should be 2.1 per couple. The current generation of parents are helicopter parents whose flaws are that they are actually too involved and overbearing. Declining quality of domestic meals is laughable since the British are known for bad food, anyway. All the rest exist within all eras or have no bearing to quality of life whatsoever.
|
I don't see any reason why a woman that can pass all the tests requires and peform just as well as the rest of her squad or whatever then I think it's a non issue...
And just like all women can't handle the requirements of becomming infantry, I'm sure there are men in the same boat.
|
Haven't had time to read the entire thread yet, just the OP. My opinion is, yes. They should be allowed, if they pass the test. We got that system in Sweden (for whatever that matters. Not much of an army left nowadays), and it seems to work. Females aren't drafted like males are, but they're allowed to fill an application to go through it if they want to. They get the *exact* same treatment as males, sleep in the same rooms, shower in the same showers, share the same loads etc...
Worked out where I was, at least. Engineer platoon, one female for every 40 males. They know fully well what they're getting into, so there's no more emotional problems with them than with the males. And the whole sexual thing kindof disappears after a month. We just saw her as another male, only with boobs.
|
I think the real question is what role infantry really plays in modern warfare and politics. The truth is that after WWII, infantry's role has become extremely similar to that of a policeman in the middle of a gang war. There no question that men's bodies are stronger and more able to handle physical duress. However, this does not mean that women cannot be in the infantry. The infantry does not need to be able to handle physical duress, they just need to be extremely cool headed, careful, and good shots. There is no doubt that life as a soldier in iraq is more physically demanding than most other things, but it is nothing like the conditions that old style war created, the conditions that the army seems to still be training for, even though they no longer exist. The truth is that just as the gun replaced the sword, the tank replaced the gun, and now the missile has now replaced the tank: A pale nerd's pinky finger has the strength to fight modern war.
If an empire wants to occupy and control another nation, a legion of police is needed, and women can surely oppress just as readily as men. But... Do we really need to be doing this?
So, my question is, should there be people in the infantry at all?
|
I think everyone has the right to die protecting the economical interests of their corrupt politicians, regardless of gender and sex.
Who are we to say to women "no, you cannot throw your life away raping a sovereign country so EXXON can pump oil out of it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2257642591_9d06a78f5a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/lumberjack-commandos.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.atarn.org/mongolian/mn_nat_arch/nadam.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/04/missile.jpeg)
