EPT[P]Women In The Infantry - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
timmeh
Austria177 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:08 StorkHwaiting wrote: Infantry are slower and weaker than planes and tanks. Why do we send them in? Cannon fodder. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:08 StorkHwaiting wrote: Infantry are slower and weaker than planes and tanks. Why do we send them in? On November 12 2009 10:12 koreasilver wrote: If you're asking that question seriously then I have nothing to say. we been trolled | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On November 12 2009 09:00 StorkHwaiting wrote:etc. You ended on a line that kind of denies any rebuttal by saying "not all of these are unmitigated flaws and not all are atrributable to the two-income family" but I feel the need to respond because I do think very differently from your views. Not only is a two-income family not necessarily at fault, but some of these aren't even flaws at all! Also, the historical trends you see, in regards to the rot of society, are limited only to the very short window of time that demographic records were even being kept. The actual historical trend may be something much more up and down than what we're seeing now. I'm sure the percentage of broken homes is much lower now than during the fall of the Roman empire for instance. Or during the colonial ages of W. Europe. Or during the civil war in China during WW2. Also, it's debatable whether decreasing birth rates is a negative. The evidence is very inconclusive on whether children improve a couple's happiness. And I've seen numerous studies that show childless couples have higher rates of satisfaction and happiness. Not saying I believe one way or the other but it's difficult to label that as inherently bad. Same with divorce rates. You could argue that divorce is more a product of secularization of society and behavioral habits caused by consumerist culture rather than women getting jobs. Also, who's to say all divorces are bad? Many many divorces should have occurred in the past, but didn't because women weren't even regarded as legal entities. I'd say it's progress that women can choose to divorce now. Why would it be beneficial to anyone for an unhappy couple to stay married? Maybe for the children, but again that's debatable. A house with two unhappy adults raging and fighting all the time is not a proper environment for a child. A broken home isn't great, but sometimes it's better than a strife-filled home. And in terms of emotional desperation and disenchantment, I'd say that's a product of consumerist culture. Anybody would feel hollow if they thought all the hours in their day was dedicated solely to the accumulation of wealth. While women getting jobs does entail earning a salary, accumulation of wealth is only a very small component in that. Much more importance is the economic freedom it gives women, the societal respect it gains them, and the internal confidence they gain by realizing they can be independent and put food on their own table. The decline in quality of domestic meals probably has more to do with the increasing abundance of processed and prepackaged foods rather than because mom's don't have enough time to cook at home. The alienation of urban neighbors could be blamed just as easily on the television and the increasingly insular lifestyle that people have due to powerful advances in communications technology that allows people to seek out more tightly focused interest groups rather than rely on the sole filter of proximity like in the past. And it's debatable whether this is even a bad thing or rather just a normative change that people are resisting. And altogether, I think a situation in which women were not allowed to get jobs outside the home, were not allowed to vote, and were seen as child-makers was a terrible time for women and it is NOT their natural state of being. How can you say it was better for society when women had all avenues of life shut off from them except for making kids, cooking, cleaning, and entertaining her husband? That sounds like a nice society to you? Where half the population is constantly servicing the other half and is seen as a family appendage rather than a fully-realized human being? Yes, of course when women are given the choice they will have less babies, NOT stay married to assholes, not gossip with the neighbors all day, and not cook all the time! How is this a bad thing? I am less enthusiastic about history as a hard statistical science than you, but I will give you the information: In 1900, the functional illiteracy in America was 11%, today according to some sources, it is double that. In 1960, the ratio of divorce to marriage was 1:4, today it's well above 1:2 By 1980, half of American children were likely to live in single-mother households before they reach the age of eighteen. But history is not a hard science. We do not deduce what happened in the past from census data or opinion polls. Hence I'm tempted here to make a brief and necessarily superficial outline of the historical status of North American women in its recent history. In the historical context, there is something which needs to be added to the previously-stated trends: It was during 19th century in most industrialized countries, when women began to be forced to work. By the early 20th century, most women were again liberated from the need to work. Then sometime during the 60s, women began accumulating in the workforce again. During the single-income period in American history, approximately 1900-1960, American women largely thought of themselves as better off than any other womenfolk in the history of the world. Prior to around 1920, the pleasures of American women were mainly social, after the 20's, the woman's responsibilities became increasingly domestic. Nevertheless, the social and cultural achievements of American women in these three generations were considerable. They were the primary patrons of arts, social volunteers, philanthropy, organizers of domestic and civic entertainment. The decision of women to gradually enter the workforce may have had material causes, but it was more dependent on the revolutionary attitudes of the generation, including the decreasing interdependence of men and women, as well as of parents and children. Let us admit that the revolution in women's rights which exploded in the sixties had legitimate causes. They were revolting not against a tyrannical patriarchy, but a generation of men far weaker than their pretensions to predominance permitted. The revolt addressed authentic problems, even if it had a skewed understanding of their causes. Women revolted against the institutional predominance of masculine power, but the underlying problem was the declining respect and courtesy they received from men. They demanded increasing freedom not for its own sake, but because men had become weaker, less self-confident, and coarser than satisfaction allowed. It was during this decade that modern pornography began becoming mainstream, Simone de Beauvoir announced that she performed an abortion, and that young people came into the possession of automobiles, all of which symptoms of relaxing social cohesion. The historical imagination of some brutal, backward, patriarchal past seems to refer more to ancient mythology than to the bourgeois nineteenth century. The Victorians were sufficiently prudish and hypocritical to not regard women as baby-machines. The population explosion of the 19th century was accompanied by a romanticized conception of family life. It was the century in which the notion of childhood was conceived as a period of liberal play and imagination. The length of childhood was extended. Parents kept their children at home longer and gave prolonged attention to their upbringing. Decreased infant mortality probably had a hand in increasing prolonged attachment to children also. Whatever the case, much of what we conceive today as bourgeois family life began appearing in all classes during the 19th century, an achievement we today are largely disposed to ignore because we are ignorant of what had preceded it. Yes, much of the fault lies with men, but not because of our overbearing aggression. In many ways we are now the precise opposite, and conversely, their inability to play meaningful roles in present-day relationships must be suspected to encourage their increasingly de-romanticized views on relationships and marriage. And because lack of strength and conviction is the current state of most civilized men, many women become drawn to a primal kind of masculine savagery with which I think we are all too familiar. | ||
KwarK
United States43774 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war? If you take the 100 fittest people then you're gonna get 100 men. But armies generally number more than that. Once you get into the thousands then the strongest, fastest and fittest include some women. The sports example fails because sports only looks at the very best. Also Charlie is an idiot. Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of racism. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of racism. It only disturbs you because you have some kind of fascination with the reality of abstract ideas. Sort of a kind of hyper-modern medievalism. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:22 KwarK wrote: If you take the 100 fittest people then you're gonna get 100 men. But armies generally number more than that. Once you get into the thousands then the strongest, fastest and fittest include some women. The sports example fails because sports only looks at the very best. Also Charlie is an idiot. Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of But i like Moltke ;D <3 | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:22 KwarK wrote: If you take the 100 fittest people then you're gonna get 100 men. But armies generally number more than that. Once you get into the thousands then the strongest, fastest and fittest include some women. The sports example fails because sports only looks at the very best. Also Charlie is an idiot. Also if you actually take the time to read through Moltke's bullshit at what he's actually saying it's a disturbing torrent of racism. your mom is an idiot, you wanna do this? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43774 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:28 CharlieMurphy wrote: your mom is an idiot, you wanna do this? Thus proving my point. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Well I don't quite understand how refusing to tow the line of feminism is "sexist." It smacks of the lack of imagination one once heard in Soviet propaganda, in calling everything non-communist "bourgeois-imperialistic-fascism." I'm not particularly backward though. I'm not sufficiently polite to women. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
just find the fastest and strongest people possible, if they're all men that's fine, if there are some women too that's fine. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:08 StorkHwaiting wrote: Infantry are slower and weaker than planes and tanks. Why do we send them in? Because infantry are necessary to control the ground? For the same reason I suppose, that we don't equip our police forces with F-16s. Can people still be this sexist? If a woman wants to die in battle, better her than me! You are on the failing Titanic. Lt. Murdoch is calling for women and children to step forward to the lifeboats. Would you have put on a wig and a dress? | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: Well I don't quite understand how refusing to tow the line of feminism is "sexist." It smacks of the lack of imagination one once heard in Soviet propaganda, in calling everything non-communist "bourgeois-imperialistic-fascism." I'm not particularly backward though. I'm not sufficiently polite to women. Actually Moltke i hate all the -ism and ideologies. And please don't call me a commie lol. My political opinions are really more complex than you think and i can't even really define myself. It is a mess and quite dependent of my mood or interests. I have been called a facist / bourgeois / commie / macho etc before because it seems that people are agressive and try to categorize you when you disagree with them even if you have no ideological preferences. | ||
|
Xenixx
United States499 Posts
I just want to address the women in ancient armies theory, it doesn't hold up to gunpowder. Throw that shit out. How could you even compare people from different centuries, not to mention culture, not to mention the constant desensitized male gene over the years; how could you? From actual experience, women have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times other squad members slack. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Really? No I'm all for it. Please try, form an infantry unit of all women, let's let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before? They can do it. Yes they can! If they don't do it no one can! (Pardon the play on words) And as always, feminists go too far. I don't even disagree with the majority of shit they talk about but why do we have to punish males with a 100% woman-oriented society because we had a 100% males previously? Does no one see that we can't go 50-50 here? Can I stop banging my head on my desk now? And you uninformed girlyguys stop discussing this. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
Can I stop banging my head on my desk now? Please do. It's affecting your ability to make sense. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:53 Xenixx wrote: I can't believe this was asked on a forum made of 90% women, 1% armed forces, 00.001 (me) US A infantry-I couldn't imagine less of an uninformed audience, well o-k, cockroaches are nipping at the heels of 1st place here. I just want to address the women in ancient armies theory, it doesn't hold up to gunpowder. Throw that shit out. How could you even compare people from different centuries, not to mention culture, not to mention the constant desensitized male gene over the years; how could you? From actual experience, women-with plenty of exceptions-have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times squad members. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Please try, form a unit of all women, lets let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before? And as always, feminists go too far. I don't even disagree with the majority of shit they talk about but why do we have to punish males with a 100% woman-oriented society because we had a 100% males? Does no one see that we can't go 50-50 here? Can I stop banging my head on my desk now? The Mongols conquered Russia. These are the people who had women in their military. Thanks for contributing. Also, still on the topic of Russia, and about your absurd point of "gunpowder makes women obsolete," maybe you should have read about the Russian Battalion of Death before ever putting your hands on a keyboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Battalion_of_Death Oh, that's right. A unit exclusively of women, formed by those Russians you declare are invincible, and used effectively in a combat role. GJ man! Also, wth kind of argument would it be to say "form a unit of all-women" and then tell them to conquer Russia. Sure, coz any single all-male infantry unit could do the same?? Respect to your time in the service, but I think it might have addled your wits on this topic. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43774 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:53 Xenixx wrote: From actual experience, women-with plenty of exceptions-have been unbelievably unable to pull their weight and at times squad members. Women BARELY fit in a combat arms role, and straight infantry? Hah, what? Please try, form a unit of all women, lets let them conquer Russia-you know that feat that no one has done before? The general consensus of people who are fine with women in the front lines has been that they must prove themselves capable soldiers to the same bar that men have to meet. Not allowing the exceptions (ie the ones who are as good as the men) to fight is just self sabotage. You're better off taking a competent woman than an incompetent man to make up the numbers. | ||
|
Xenixx
United States499 Posts
On November 12 2009 10:56 Slow Motion wrote: Please do. It's affecting your ability to make sense. Edited it, makes more sense to me out loud this time. You rike? | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:04 StorkHwaiting wrote: The Mongols conquered Russia. These are the people who had women in their military. Thanks for contributing. Also, still on the topic of Russia, and about your absurd point of "gunpowder makes women obsolete," maybe you should have read about the Russian Battalion of Death before ever putting your hands on a keyboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Battalion_of_Death Oh, that's right. A unit exclusively of women, formed by those Russians you declare are invincible, and used effectively in a combat role. GJ man! Also, wth kind of argument would it be to say "form a unit of all-women" and then tell them to conquer Russia. Sure, coz any single all-male infantry unit could do the same?? Respect to your time in the service, but I think it might have addled your wits on this topic. Funny, because only the Bochkareva's 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death actually participated in battle, and the entirety of the Women's Battalion was discontinued shortly after. Also, someone give an actual source to the women in the Mongolian army thing. | ||
| ||
