Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread
Old 01-24-2013, 05:03 PM   #31
RouteOne
67 inches of krieg
 
RouteOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 83,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscariot View Post
In my experience it was nothing like a frat house with guns. There was hazing and horsing around, sure, but the women gave it as good as they got it. The only guy out of a company of 85 that ever tried anything got his wrist broken by the girl he was harassing.
last report I read (I think it was 2008) showed that one third of all women in the military were sexually harassed.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/military-sexual-assault-defense-department_n_1834196.html
RouteOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:04 PM   #32
Smokey D
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 32,463
Quote:
lmao yes it should
why should the average fitness of men and women matter as opposed to the actual fitness of real candidates?

Quote:
oh and yes pregnancies, rapes and sexual assault will increase. another reason why they shouldn't be let in in order to avoid the problem completely and navigate away from fights over women.
It'd be naive to say sexual assault doesn't happen the military, but this is the kind of argument that can only be backed up by rigorous empirical investigation. At the very least, you'd need to look to countries where women do have combat roles in the military and see if it's a problem in those countries (and if not why not).

Quote:
it does not matter if they can pass the physical standards, you change the whole dynamic of the unit by placing a sexual object in it.
Again, this sort of claim needs evidence.

Quote:
she WILL be the weakest link in the chain. no exceptions.
speculation that's probably wrong and largely irrelevant in any case.

Quote:
oh and most female units the soviets had got wiped out to the woman in many situations
So did lots of men only units -- it's hard to draw conclusions from soviet wwii experiences because a) they were getting pantsed at the time women were drafted in and b) everybody was terribly trained.

Also, i don't think anyone is advocating women only units.

Last edited by Smokey D; 01-24-2013 at 05:09 PM.
Smokey D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:05 PM   #33
RouteOne
67 inches of krieg
 
RouteOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 83,625
hey if you want to hear it from an actual female soldier:


http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal


Quote:
why should the average fitness of men and women matter as opposed to the actual fitness of real candidates?
because average people join the forces

Quote:
It'd be naive to say sexual assault doesn't happen the military, but this is the kind of argument that can only be backed up by rigorous empirical investigation. At the very least, you'd need to look to countries where women do have combat roles in the military and see if it's a problem in those countries (and if not why not).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/military-sexual-assault-defense-department_n_1834196.html


Quote:
Again, this sort of claim needs evidence.

see above link + do you live irl


Quote:
speculation that's probably wrong and largely irrelevant in any case.
probably right and how the fuck is it not relevant
RouteOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:09 PM   #34
Smokey D
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 32,463
Does that mean men who break down physically in the course of combat mean no men can endure combat operations?
Smokey D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:15 PM   #35
RouteOne
67 inches of krieg
 
RouteOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 83,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey D View Post
Does that mean men who break down physically in the course of combat mean no men can endure combat operations?
No of course not but women WILL break down easier and in more frequency.
RouteOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:18 PM   #36
Smokey D
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 32,463
then exclude the one's who break down or who display a predisposition to breaking down.

just as you would to men who break down or display a predisposition to breaking down.

Quote:
because average people join the forces
So? The test is whether they pass the relevant thresholds, not whether they are averagely fit or averagely strong.

Quote:
see above link + do you live irl
Needs more than a hunch. Like I said, I'm under no illusions about sexual absue in the military but there needs to be research into the reasons etc. Like I also said, I'd be interested in seeing how other countries with women in the military fare in this department.

It's plausible (likely) that the military would need to undertake a root and branch culture shift in its sexual ethics, but that in itself isn't a reason to exclude women. It's a reason to exclude rapists.

Quote:
probably right and how the fuck is it not relevant
I doubt it's true that women will in every case be the weakest link and it's irrelevant because there is always a weakest link but provided they are capable to do what they're required to do it doesn't matter.

Last edited by Smokey D; 01-24-2013 at 05:25 PM.
Smokey D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:20 PM   #37
RouteOne
67 inches of krieg
 
RouteOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 83,625
you're vastly underplaying the social dynamic you create when putting a woman among young men in high stress situations.


as you can see from the data, one third ain't no joke, and you know it is more who haven't reported.
RouteOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:24 PM   #38
Smokey D
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 32,463
No I'm not.
Smokey D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:41 PM   #39
Iscariot
Team Edward
 
Iscariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 41,142
I'm still curious about your belief that women in the military are viewed as sexual objects and that, if this is an accurate assertion, for which you've provided little supporting evidence, how would that damage the ability of a unit to perform in a theater of war?

Plenty of historic fighting forces used sex as a means of strengthening bonds between soldiers. Maybe we should be encouraging intimate relationships.
Iscariot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:52 PM   #40
Smokey D
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 32,463
given that 1/3 of women report having been sexaully assaulted in the us military, i think it'd be interesting to see what proportion of men are involved in assaults. my intuition, for which i have no evidence whatever, is that it is a relatively small proportion and that there are many repeat offenders.
Smokey D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:56 PM   #41
JizzInMyPants
Registered User
 
JizzInMyPants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,973
ron posted an article about a woman who wore out, everybody wears out as she said in the article, it didnt keep her from doing her job. If it gets bad enough that someone can't do their job, be it man or woman, do what they usually do, get them out of there. As for the rape thing, I guess I can agree, the military should be an institution to to destroy enemies, not a social experiment.

But the thing is, if putting women in the military can make the military stronger, while ironing out all the potential conflicts, then it will be worth it.

@iscariot

eh, I'm a fan of military being a cold machine, not a myriad of emotions.

edit: I mean If someone's love interest died in combat, I don't think they will be emotionally fit to fight. I mean people get PTSD just from their friends dying.

Last edited by JizzInMyPants; 01-24-2013 at 06:02 PM.
JizzInMyPants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 05:58 PM   #42
RouteOne
67 inches of krieg
 
RouteOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 83,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscariot View Post
I'm still curious about your belief that women in the military are viewed as sexual objects and that, if this is an accurate assertion, for which you've provided little supporting evidence, how would that damage the ability of a unit to perform in a theater of war?

Plenty of historic fighting forces used sex as a means of strengthening bonds between soldiers. Maybe we should be encouraging intimate relationships.
think of all the problems that happen between men and women over relations outside of the military



now put all of that into a stressful, dangerous environment




and homosexuality among Greek city state forces is largely mythologized. It did happen but not to the extent people talk about it to be.




Also, having a man and a woman in a romantic relationship with each other could lead to unit break-down in like 100 different ways dude
RouteOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 06:01 PM   #43
Smokey D
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 32,463
Quote:
and homosexuality among Greek city state forces is largely mythologized. It did happen but not to the extent people talk about it to be.
without suggesting it's an appropriate model for the modern military, it's pretty certain that the sacred band of thebes promoted homosexuality. so did sparta, to a degree nearly unprecedented in the other greek states.
Smokey D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 06:59 PM   #44
HillaryClitTounge
Hillary Clittongue
 
HillaryClitTounge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
as if why they did it matters at all.
that is so absurd... so there's no difference between children soldiers having to fight in Africa and if the USA allowed children to fight? the reasons don't matter at all? what?
HillaryClitTounge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:03 PM   #45
Ando!
classic ando
 
Ando!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 14,775
what

are you implying that women are children

cuz thats pretty dumb dude
Ando! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:04 PM   #46
HillaryClitTounge
Hillary Clittongue
 
HillaryClitTounge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
Posts: 1,469
anyway theres a few reasons. having women will distract men. women are also psychologically different than men... more panicky, less enduring in stressful situations etc. they also can't biologically survive as well as men can on fewer resources because of lack of testosterone (I would think). This is a perfect example of feminists getting themselves in over their head and getting involved in bullshit that NOBODY wants to do just to make a point about sexual equality.
HillaryClitTounge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:10 PM   #47
Smokey D
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 32,463
Quote:
that is so absurd... so there's no difference between children soldiers having to fight in Africa and if the USA allowed children to fight? the reasons don't matter at all? what?
when we judge whether women should be have combat roles in the military and we look to other countries to see if it works, it doesn't matter what those other countries' original reasons for giving women combat roles; it only matters if it works or not.

the only time the reasons why would be relevant is if they had some direct impact on it working, but no reason has been advanced as to why that is true in this case (ie why fear of the Soviets would make women in the military work uniquely well in Israel).

Quote:
anyway theres a few reasons. having women will distract men. women are also psychologically different than men... more panicky, less enduring in stressful situations etc. they also can't biologically survive as well as men can on fewer resources because of lack of testosterone (I would think). This is a perfect example of feminists getting themselves in over their head and getting involved in bullshit that NOBODY wants to do just to make a point about sexual equality.
These are plausibly true on average but a) citation needed and b) we're not dealing in averages.

Last edited by Smokey D; 01-24-2013 at 07:13 PM.
Smokey D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:11 PM   #48
HillaryClitTounge
Hillary Clittongue
 
HillaryClitTounge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
what

are you implying that women are children

cuz thats pretty dumb dude
nope didn't apply this at all and I have no idea how you assume it from what I said. But yes both women and children are inferior to men in combat. seems pretty obvious to me you are just obtuse or pretending to be so you can take the moral high road and call me randomly call me sexist.
HillaryClitTounge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:16 PM   #49
JizzInMyPants
Registered User
 
JizzInMyPants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,973
You guys keep saying "on average"

the average person is NOT optimally fit for battle on the frontlines.
JizzInMyPants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:17 PM   #50
HillaryClitTounge
Hillary Clittongue
 
HillaryClitTounge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
when we judge whether women should be have combat roles in the military and we look to other countries to see if it works, it doesn't matter what those other countries' original reasons for giving women combat roles; it only matters if it works or not.
Thats not true, you are making a huge assumptions about what people are judging: that the women's own reason for joining the army, either being forced or not etc., is irrelevant to her performance, when it is clearly not.

And yes when a culture trains every child from birth how to use weapons and fight it is different than the culture of most all American girls. How can you say that culture is irrelevant in women's performance in war? Women who fight in third world countries have been instilled with the fear of death every day of their lives, women who live in the US couldn't really experience that if they moved to the worst cities.
HillaryClitTounge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:21 PM   #51
HillaryClitTounge
Hillary Clittongue
 
HillaryClitTounge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
Posts: 1,469
your argument is like saying

We shouldn't judge the motives of an individual Olympic athlete, we should just judge whether he won or not and conclude that country has superior athletic policy.
HillaryClitTounge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:24 PM   #52
Smokey D
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 32,463
Quote:
Thats not true, you are making a huge assumptions about what people are judging: that the women's own reason for joining the army, either being forced or not etc., is irrelevant to her performance, when it is clearly not.
What? If the issue is whether women in the military works (eg they can function as combat soldiers in a way that does not disrupt unit preparedness or whatever), it doesn't matter whether country X chose to admit women because they were scared of getting nuked or if they wanted to impress the women's studies department at berkley. it only matters if they are able to do the job required.

Quote:
And yes when a culture trains every child from birth how to use weapons and fight it is different than the culture of most all American girls. How can you say that culture is irrelevant in women's performance in war? Women who fight in third world countries have been instilled with the fear of death every day of their lives, women who live in the US couldn't really experience that if they moved to the worst cities.
That's plausibly a relevant distinction, but where is the evidence for it in this case? For what it's worth, I'm not sure Israel is a country where women are trained from childhood to use weapons and fight and I doubt most men are so trained in countries where only men are allowed combat roles.

(Israel isn't a third world country).

Quote:
We shouldn't judge the motives of an individual Olympic athlete, we should just judge whether he won or not and conclude that country has superior athletic policy.
Not really but almost. I'm saying you should judge outcomes on outcomes and not on internal (and now long dead) motivations.

or, to continue with a clunky metaphor, when you're deciding whether to let women to the longjump, the first test has to be whether they can actually do the longjump.

Last edited by Smokey D; 01-24-2013 at 07:29 PM.
Smokey D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 10:36 PM   #53
1338 h4x0r
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Le Lenny Face
Posts: 19,514
Jesus Christ

all I'm saying is that I look forward to women becoming cannon fodder

hopefully we get involved in a hot war some time this century ... with marine invasions and gory shit like that
1338 h4x0r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 10:38 PM   #54
1338 h4x0r
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Le Lenny Face
Posts: 19,514
meanwhile when I post about the really important shit, if it gets more than a few responses, they're all about telling me how dumb and wrong I am

http://www.amazon.com/Too-Smart-our-Own-Good/dp/052175769X

this planet is doomed
1338 h4x0r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 10:46 PM   #55
Smokey D
Moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 32,463
shut up chris
Smokey D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 11:08 PM   #56
RosaParks
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 378
people making a big deal out of this lol
RosaParks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:50 AM   #57
Iscariot
Team Edward
 
Iscariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 41,142
Can't read Ron's posts anymore, I just keep seeing this.

http://tinypic.com/r/rj2uk9/6
Iscariot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:18 AM   #58
HillaryClitTounge
Hillary Clittongue
 
HillaryClitTounge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
it doesn't matter whether country X chose to admit women because they were scared of getting nuked or if they wanted to impress the women's studies department at berkley. it only matters if they are able to do the job required.
you are missing something really obvious. There is no test. You go to war and find out you don't like it when your head falls off. This isn't 'the long jump'. The only fact thats relevant is the fact that there has never been a major invasion done primarily by women, you have to go back to ancient times or pretend women holding guns in Israel implies they can keep up with men raiding caves in 140 degree weather in Afghanistan carrying 200 pounds and being screamed at. There is no evidence for such a dangerous policy, its almost all about people trying to be morally superior to others by calling them prejudiced (this time sexist) from my view. If equality is this important why can't someone under 16 legally work a full time job?
HillaryClitTounge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:31 AM   #59
Iscariot
Team Edward
 
Iscariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 41,142
The only reason children under 16 can't work a full-time job is because they're legally obligated to go to school full-time. It's not that they're incapable of working 40 hours a week.

The idea that women are too fragile to perform physically demanding duties is an outdated imperative.
Iscariot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 02:16 AM   #60
HillaryClitTounge
Hillary Clittongue
 
HillaryClitTounge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: DC
Posts: 1,469
women are not physically equal or even close to men in strength... it is much harder for a female body to develop muscle, and they are incapable of developing upper body strength that is comparable to men. look at the history of 99.9% of warfare? ugh i cant stand all this feminist "close your eyes were all equal"
HillaryClitTounge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 PM.