| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
Does no one see that we can't go 50-50 here? Of course we can't go 50-50, men are stronger than women on average. Choosing the most qualified soldiers will give you 100-0 most of the time and 99-1 sometimes. But we have the ability to find those athletic women. If the women can also handle the emotional pressure, then they should be able to fight on the front lines. Doing things fairly would still result in a mostly, if not all, male front line. | ||
|
TwoToneTerran
United States8841 Posts
Any soldier guilty of sexual harassment of another officer shouldn't have been a soldier to begin with. If they don't have the mental stability to stop from treating other human beings as dirt when the time calls for it, then they're the exact opposite of the person we'd want representing us. This goes for both men and women assaulters. It's disgraceful and plain disgusting to automatically disregard women of being capable of fighting. It's obvious that the average woman in western society isn't fit for it, but neither is the average male in America, either. The sexism in this thread is putrid and it's upsetting that so many people voted so black and white on "No" for allowance. | ||
|
EvilSky
Czech Republic548 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:19 TwoToneTerran wrote: The sexism in this thread is putrid and it's upsetting that so many people voted so black and white on "No" for allowance. I didn't vote either way. "Yes" could be interpreted as forced diversity, which is already hurting America and could destroy our infantry. "No" could rob potential skilled female soldiers of an opportunity to serve their country. Saying the average male is stronger and faster than the average female is not sexist, by the way. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:20 EvilSky wrote: I dont remeber who said it but any person dumb enough to wanna join the military should be allowed. Probably someone in your country when it was communist? Lol. | ||
|
ibutoss
Australia341 Posts
Women are emotional creatures and will only be combat ready once a month (haha jokes). But no seriously, equality is great except when it makes no sense whatsoever. This is one of those cases. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:26 ibutoss wrote: Women are emotional creatures and will only be combat ready once a month (haha jokes). I laughed. Berserker unit? Really though why do you have a problem with a woman serving if she's more qualified than a man? | ||
|
EvilSky
Czech Republic548 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:22 jalstar wrote: Probably someone in your country when it was communist? Lol. Actually I just remembered and it was Bill Hicks, who is from YOUR country. And wtf does that even mean anyway? | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:14 koreasilver wrote: 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. Funny because it only takes one example to disprove a theory. And funny how you cherry pick one line out of the entire article even though that line is embedded in an entire paragraph explaining why the other units didn't see combat and how poorly led and supported the units were due to the all-male leadership being unsure of how to use them or their worth. Also, I'd cite some sources on Mongolian women in the army but the manner in which you ask is rude. It makes me not want to spend my time sharing info. From looking back through the thread, it looks like all you've done is repeat the same generic comment that women are physically inferior to men. If you've got nothing more interesting to contribute to the topic then just don't join in man. You've got your opinion, be happy with it. But don't waste space typing the same thing over again. At least Moltke brings up some interesting points even if they are kind of oddly Fabian-esque and Western-centric. | ||
|
ibutoss
Australia341 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:28 jalstar wrote: Really though why do you have a problem with a woman serving if she's more qualified than a man? I question women whom are qualified can actually emotionally deal with the situations front line soldiers are faced with. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:41 ibutoss wrote: I question women whom are qualified can actually emotionally deal with the situations front line soldiers are faced with. I agree somewhat. They'd be few, but they'd exist. | ||
|
Kadoka
United States82 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:29 EvilSky wrote: Actually I just remembered and it was Bill Hicks, who is from YOUR country. And wtf does that even mean anyway? I posted a link to Hicks saying that earlier at the end of my post. Guess it got skipped over, I thought it would. I spoilered it so not to draw too much attention. I didn't think it would be appropriate to turn this into a youtube thread. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:31 StorkHwaiting wrote: Funny because it only takes one example to disprove a theory. And funny how you cherry pick one line out of the entire article even though that line is embedded in an entire paragraph explaining why the other units didn't see combat and how poorly led and supported the units were due to the all-male leadership being unsure of how to use them or their worth. Also, I'd cite some sources on Mongolian women in the army but the manner in which you ask is rude. It makes me not want to spend my time sharing info. From looking back through the thread, it looks like all you've done is repeat the same generic comment that women are physically inferior to men. If you've got nothing more interesting to contribute to the topic then just don't join in man. You've got your opinion, be happy with it. But don't waste space typing the same thing over again. At least Moltke brings up some interesting points even if they are kind of oddly Fabian-esque and Western-centric. Your entire example was completely retarded because the Women's Battalion didn't do much at all. That one line is enough to completely dismiss your argument because it shows that the Battalion didn't exist long enough to prove itself, nor did they really do a whole lot during their existence anyway. If you're going to give historical examples you're going to have to do fucking better than some ignorable shit like that. And seriously, the fact that women can not carry out the same physical acts that is required out of men is pretty much all you need to argue in this. Women shouldn't be barred from fighting in the front lines, but they shouldn't be given lower standards to pass either. | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
For most of the reasons posted in the OP, which don't need restating by me. Plus I don't want those nutjobs over there getting a hold of women POW's for one, god knows what they would do to them. I don't really see how it's sexist, unless you somehow think that acknowledging the inherent differences between men and women is "sexism". | ||
|
Xenixx
United States538 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. Well hold on here baby, let me first unravel my confusing words and metaphors I used. When I talk about the modern infantry role in modern society and you talk about horse archers or mongolian light infantry from cold harsh life on the steppes would you agree they are very different? So when I use a metaphor comparing the invention of gunpowder to the juncture of time you can see what I mean. It really is the perfect metaphor when comparing the ancient world and the modern world. Thanks for contributing. Do I really have to break this one down any further or can you grasp what diction I'm using? Let me know baby. The Russian Battalion of Death, never heard of them, did like you suggest and used your same source and found out that it wasn't a modern infantry unit. Well I read the rest for a fun history lesson but thanks for sharing! Oh and in addition, from your own sources, no where is it claimed the all female-lol- battalion of death was credited in any war with being a combat effective unit. In fact what I read showed how ineffective they all were. Disbanded units, failed aggressive tactics (tho thru no mmisgivings of their own so a lil bit inconclusive), publicity stunts, 2,000 enlistees with only 300 making the regular male demands (do you disagree?), the unit being captured, lol did you even read this crap? Get this "The only women's combat unit to participate in battle was Bochkareva's 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Battalion_of_Death fate of the women's battalions) Your wiki source goes on to talk about how they didn't run but didn't achieve victory... This article summarizes that an all-woman's battalion of infantry as a practicality was a failure. Did you read it? A unit is any group of persons as an entity ... that was pretty easy ... why ... you still here? And for a bit of a history lesson, the Mongols never conquered Russia. Sec, I got something for you homey; Conquer; to gain or acquire by force of arm. So to say that the Mongols conquered Russia, including the Russian Principalities, Novgorod, and the arctic fucking circle (another metaphor, stay with me baby) isn't accurate. When historians draw boundary line around empires it is for a good reason, as seen in Mongolia by the 13th century Mongols which is directly under Mongols. I noticed you being a dunce the entire thread chief, the coaches of your golf team never said consistency was a bad thing right? p.s. I did enjoy the Battalion of Death though, that was interesting! | ||
|
Xenixx
United States538 Posts
On November 12 2009 11:16 jalstar wrote: Of course we can't go 50-50, men are stronger than women on average. Choosing the most qualified soldiers will give you 100-0 most of the time and 99-1 sometimes. But we have the ability to find those athletic women. If the women can also handle the emotional pressure, then they should be able to fight on the front lines. Doing things fairly would still result in a mostly, if not all, male front line. No, no, no, no going 50-50 would mean recognizing that men are built for such activities and women clearly aren't. By going 50-50 you don't comprimise and do half women and half men! It's not emotional pressure that keep women out of the front lines by the way. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 12 2009 12:17 Xenixx wrote: No, no, no, no going 50-50 would mean recognizing that men are built for such activities and women clearly aren't. By going 50-50 you don't comprimise and do half women and half men! It's not emotional pressure that keep women out of the front lines by the way. Please explain then. | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
On November 12 2009 12:04 sith wrote: No. For most of the reasons posted in the OP, which don't need restating by me. Plus I don't want those nutjobs over there getting a hold of women POW's for one, god knows what they would do to them. I don't really see how it's sexist, unless you somehow think that acknowledging the inherent differences between men and women is "sexism". How is judging the stronger women according to the average ability of the weaker women not sexism? A woman wants to do something but is excluded because most other women are unable to? That's sexist. | ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
but on a more serious note. why not? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games summit1g9753 C9.Mang0274 PiGStarcraft216 Maynarde158 Sick111 ViBE95 Livibee78 UpATreeSC50 Mew2King19 |
|
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
GSL
Yamato Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
