Pentagon opens up combat roles for women.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Gorfias:

Now it sounds like you hate nature. I hope you do not. I think humanity has to work with nature, which can be rewarding but frustrating at times as well.

By "nature's" laws, we should be dead. All of us.

The human has no fur, no claws, no venom, none of the advantages animals have aside from one; the ability to cheat the food chain rules.

We live by thwarting nature.

How about making babies for themselves and society? How about also helping men be socialized and have a sense of purpose? That isn't a bad thing.

Yet what the men do is far more rewarded.

SOrry buster, but it's 2013 now. The "hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" notion got disproved the minute we got a good hard look at how big livin the conquering alpha males got to live.

It may be the best thing a woman can do. I concede it isn't the only thing a woman can do, but it is something another MAN CANNOT do. And we shouldn't look to government to try to fix that (by, say, drafting women to have kids to distribute to men so they might have a family but pretend they don't need a woman for one). A woman can lead a rewarding life without marrying a man, socializing him, giving him purpose, binding him to society and bearing the future of our society. But pretending that isn't important is suicidal.

Fine, leave that to the women who want that life. Some of us don't. And some of us are willing to fight, both in the realm of ideals and PHYSICALLY to keep that choice open.

I worry there are those that want to ignore nature, ignore what is best for men, society, and by extension, women and children.

You haven't got clue 1 about my life yet, jack, so

I'm looking for a more perfect justice that recognizes gender differences and acts accordingly.

IN other words, forces people into roles regardless of individual merit or ambition. That way of thinking can burn, and I'll be the first to light the pyre that destroys it.

And, watch the personal insults. They can get you banned around here which would be a shame. We should be able to reason together without moderation.

Maybe like me, she's not exactly keen to be moderate with people who want to take away her way of life and force her into another's ideal of life just because they think it's more "natural" or it's her "Role". Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue.

GunsmithKitten:

By "nature's" laws, we should be dead. All of us.

Were that true, we'd all be dead. We are not.

We live by thwarting nature.

We live by using the best of our own nature to overcome the most dangerous elements of nature. (Though, there's a lot of good deconstruction of the movie Avatar out there: Cameron loves nature, as long as he lives with vaccines and Chinese food delivery for himself, etc.)

Yet what the men do is far more rewarded.

Were that true, women wouldn't live longer, be less likely to commit suicide than men, etc. It isn't. There are some men that get very rich and powerful. Men take the majority of crappy jobs. Women get rights and choices while men get obligations (hey, you asked for it, writing like that in the manosphere!)

Fine, leave that to the women who want that life. Some of us don't. And some of us are willing to fight, both in the realm of ideals and PHYSICALLY to keep that choice open.

1) If women have that choice, are they really, at this time, only equal to men? Do men have choices? I don't think so. I think we have obligations.
2) I worry that the day will come soon where it isn't a choice. The day when women also have to sign up for Selective Service, like men, I think, will be here soon.

I'm looking for a more perfect justice that recognizes gender differences and acts accordingly.

IN other words, forces people into roles regardless of individual merit or ambition. That way of thinking can burn, and I'll be the first to light the pyre that destroys it.

So, if equality is all important, do you support drafting women to have babies for distribution to men so that a man can have a family without feeling the need to have a woman in his life? Each according to his needs, from each according to their ability? I mean, I CANNOT have a baby on my own. I am against such an imposition. I do not believe in imposing myself on others in the name of radical equality.

Gorfias:
So, if equality is all important, do you support drafting women to have babies for distribution to men so that a man can have a family without feeling the need to have a woman in his life? Each according to his needs, from each according to their ability? I mean, I CANNOT have a baby on my own. I am against such an imposition. I do not believe in imposing myself on others in the name of radical equality.

You're using the word 'equality' in at least two different ways here while reasoning as if you are using it in just one way. That's a fallacy of equivocation and your paragraph can thus be disregarded as a failed attempt to argue your point. Extreme equality of outcome is not at all the same thing as minimal equality of opportunity.

Gorfias:

Why do you think Fraternization was ever illicit in the first place. Was it ever harmful?

Was it?

Gorfias:

Sarah Palin was a sitting governor as she raised a family. Mom's should not be belittled, and I don't think, in this society, they are. I think it is considered one of the finest things, subsidized in many ways, lionized by "Mother's Day" and revered.

EDIT: Wasn't hard to find this:

http://articles-and-essays.blogspot.com/2011/02/motherhood-most-esteemed-role.html

I don't really care about any of the things you just said. Not all women want to be 'mothers' and they shouldn't have to be forced into that role.

1) Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did this. He does what the Commander in Chief, at this time, Obama, tells him to do.
2) This will not satisfy the radical egalitarians. I don't know how they're doing politically, if they're powerful enough or not to force this particular issue. Hopefully not.
3) This won't satisfy the rads either. Not till we have equal numbers in body bags. Hard to tell what happens then, if it ever happens.

2/3: You're being kind of crazy. You are pretty much out on a witch hunt looking for straw feminists to disagree with.

EDIT: From today's NRO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339178/awol-republicans-editors

"This policy barely even pretends to serve the goal of military effectiveness, which means it is not in the best interests of men or women, inside the Armed Forces or out."

There's nothing in that article that really suggests any of what they're saying is true. Like you they are just placing this at the top of a slippery slope and giving all of their reasons as to why they don't like it for the situation at the very bottom.

Gorfias:

bleys2487:

Gorfias:

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation.

I'm a woman.

No.

I am not some incubator.

My sole purpose in life is not to have men's children and raise them while they're out doing whatever.

My genitalia has nothing to do with if I can do the job or not.

If I can do the job better than a man, I should get the job. My vagina has nothing to do with that.

And men are not canon fodder. Many (most?) men choose not to be in the military. People don't always follow their highest calling.

There are many good reasons to state your vagina may make you bad, expensive, unreliable, and disruptive for the military even if you are an Olympian quality athlete. I don't think you are asking what is best for the military, but for what you want and think you are entitled to for reasons of egalitarianism, to hell with the costs.

It is a good and interesting debate. I'm saddened that we didn't have it during the last election cycle.

egalitarian? lets stop it right there. most of the fighting men are from lower classes and come from poor families.

secondly are savage apes being sent to fight the battles or professional soldiers? adapt and overcome is the marine corps motto, well adapt to some boobs being on the front line instead of loosing it. proper training and culture is the key. sure it will be alot more difficult, because the benefits of a uniform are not just camouflage, but to make sure that you are on the same fucking team as the guy next to you, no matter what they look like or think.

and finally the army should be a meritocracy at its core, not a political institution. if you can meet the requirements then you should be allowed to fight, if you are too weak regardless of gender you should be kicked out. so yeah women should be allowed, but they should not change the physical requirements.

when i worked as a firefighter we had to girls on the team, whose entry requirements were lowered because of political pressure, one of them could barely carry our equipment let alone a potential patient whose life was on the line. she was a good driver and a quick thinker but even she could recognize that her lack of physical strength left her incapable of filling out all the functions of a firefighter, so she quit. others just got relegated to communications... but that also happened to incompetent males.

conversely the other girl could manage all of the possible tasks with competence. in regards to cohesion within the team, it was great except that they were spared a lot of the trash talking, bullying and hazing that was involved. but that was off duty, on duty the aforementioned team mate was just as good as the rest of us, in fact she was a heck of a lot better at talking to the patients/victims in traffic accidents and otherwise.

but to return to my original point, if you can meet the same requirements as everybody else you've earned your job the same as anyone else regardless of gender.

but all of this will be irrelevant soon, as automation is advancing to the point were front-line infantry will be obsolete, especially in asymmetrical warfare. at some point the only requirement is going to be whether or not you can handle a joystick... i wonder who will have the advantage there(just kidding btw)

Gorfias:

Were that true, women wouldn't live longer, be less likely to commit suicide than men, etc. It isn't. There are some men that get very rich and powerful. Men take the majority of crappy jobs. Women get rights and choices while men get obligations (hey, you asked for it, writing like that in the manosphere!)

Yes, men get the crappy jobs, but the payoff is that they also got the greatest jobs as well. They got to deal in extremes, which I would much sooner do than be condemned to low mediocrity and guaranteed subservience.

1) If women have that choice, are they really, at this time, only equal to men? Do men have choices? I don't think so. I think we have obligations.

Men do have choices. They can either have a career for the benefit of a family, or they can forgo a family altogether and simply aquire wealth and resources for their own benefit. Under your system, that's already two choices to my one, and again, one of them entails far more power, glory, and wealth than the other.

So what are MY obligations?

And how many bullets and enforcers are you willing to use to make me do them?

2) I worry that the day will come soon where it isn't a choice. The day when women also have to sign up for Selective Service, like men, I think, will be here soon.

Fine. Let it. Hell, maybe there's a silver lining in that it will finally be the last blow towards that archaic crap policy anyway. I despise conscription on multiple levels, and want it to end.

So, if equality is all important, do you support drafting women to have babies for distribution to men so that a man can have a family without feeling the need to have a woman in his life?

No need. Plenty of unwanted children out there, plenty of children in the system. Let's start with distribution there to men who legitimately want to raise children by themselves.

You want to force me to be a brood mare, you best figure out a way to impregnate a corpse, because that's all you get from me.

I do not believe in imposing myself on others in the name of radical equality

But you DO believe in imposing forced roles on people based on their gender?!

Ugh, the forum ate the massive reply I had to Gorfias, so here it goes again.

Gorfias:

GunsmithKitten:

By "nature's" laws, we should be dead. All of us.

Were that true, we'd all be dead. We are not.

Because god forbid you ever be wrong on anything.

We live by thwarting nature.

We live by using the best of our own nature to overcome the most dangerous elements of nature. (Though, there's a lot of good deconstruction of the movie Avatar out there: Cameron loves nature, as long as he lives with vaccines and Chinese food delivery for himself, etc.)

Our Nature? Define it. Quantify it. Prove it. Our nature is overcoming all obstacles in our way. What you're proposing is bowing down to obstacles and appeasing them instead of trying to overcome them.

Yet what the men do is far more rewarded.

Were that true, women wouldn't live longer, be less likely to commit suicide than men, etc. It isn't. There are some men that get very rich and powerful. Men take the majority of crappy jobs. Women get rights and choices while men get obligations (hey, you asked for it, writing like that in the manosphere!)

*Deep Breath*

BULL.

FUCKING.

SHIT.

I'm not suprised that someone who worship's Ann "Women shouldn't have the vote because they use it to vote for Democrats" Coulter is so willfully blind to reality. Explain then the well-documented instances of women being paid less than their male counterparts for doing the exact same job with the exact same workload and responsiblities. Explain why the Glass Ceiling Exists.

And PROVE that men take the majority of crappy jobs.

And what FUCKING obligations? Having to register for a draft that's been abolished for decades? Oh boo-fucking-hoo, men have to do one thing that takes less than a day, for a system that would be political suicide for any politicion to even entertain the notion, where American man is at any risk of be "obligated" to join the military in the year 2013, just like they had no obligation in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995 etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Fine, leave that to the women who want that life. Some of us don't. And some of us are willing to fight, both in the realm of ideals and PHYSICALLY to keep that choice open.

1) If women have that choice, are they really, at this time, only equal to men? Do men have choices? I don't think so. I think we have obligations.

Again. BULLSHIT. What FUCKING obligations? You have all the choices in the FUCKING world bar ONE, with no obligations beyond registering for something that will never come back. Forgive us if we don't cry you a fucking river over you having to register for a non-existant draft and never having to worry about it for the rest of your life.

2) I worry that the day will come soon where it isn't a choice. The day when women also have to sign up for Selective Service, like men, I think, will be here soon.

A-FUCKING-gain, when was the last time a man got drafted? I'll wait.

What was that? Not for decades? Oh, well then I guess the risk of it becoming an obligation is NON-EXISTANT.

Considering that you've predicted absolute ruin for the US because Obama has a second term, your ability at predicting the future is highly suspect at best.

IN other words, forces people into roles regardless of individual merit or ambition. That way of thinking can burn, and I'll be the first to light the pyre that destroys it.

So, if equality is all important, do you support drafting women to have babies for distribution to men so that a man can have a family without feeling the need to have a woman in his life?

Fucking Strawman.

I mean, I CANNOT have a baby on my own. I am against such an imposition. I do not believe in imposing myself on others in the name of radical equality.

Oh give me a fucking break, WHO IS BEING IMPOSED ON?

Shaoken:

Oh give me a fucking break, WHO IS BEING IMPOSED ON?

It takes some kind of balls, doesn't it, to whine about imposing on people when he advocates imposing an even more drastic paradigm on US, isn't it?

GunsmithKitten:

Shaoken:

Oh give me a fucking break, WHO IS BEING IMPOSED ON?

It takes some kind of balls, doesn't it, to whine about imposing on people when he advocates imposing an even more drastic paradigm on US, isn't it?

It does, and the worst thing is I'm guessing someone else is going to get banned/suspended over their response to Gorfias' sexist bile rather than Gorfias himself, whose not directed it at a specific person.

Shaoken:

It does, and the worst thing is I'm guessing someone else is going to get banned/suspended over their response to Gorfias' sexist bile rather than Gorfias himself, whose not directed it at a specific person.

That person would probably be me.

Gorfias:

bleys2487:

Gorfias:

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation.

I'm a woman.

No.

I am not some incubator.

My sole purpose in life is not to have men's children and raise them while they're out doing whatever.

My genitalia has nothing to do with if I can do the job or not.

If I can do the job better than a man, I should get the job. My vagina has nothing to do with that.

People don't always follow their highest calling.

There are many good reasons to state your vagina may make you bad, expensive, unreliable, and disruptive for the military even if you are an Olympian quality athlete. I don't think you are asking what is best for the military, but for what you want and think you are entitled to for reasons of egalitarianism, to hell with the costs.

Apparently it isn't offensive that he implies my greatest calling in life is to be an incubator. And I violate his view if I choose not to be that.

Apparently my response to that implies that I feel I'm entitled to the job, even though as I woman (in his eyes) I don't deserve that and it violates my 'highest calling' in life.

Apparently my genitalia make me 'BAD, EXPENSIVE, UNRELIABLE AND DISRUPTIVE'.

Apparently it's offensive to him that I don't want to have children and be an incubator.

Apparently it's offensive to him that he cannot have children himself, so he needs me to do it, because nature. And I should accept that my role in life is to please men. (LOL)

Apparently I should just accept his reality, because I'm a woman.

Disgusting.

It's difficult.
I can't really see eye-to-eye with Gorfias because it often feels like we live on different planets and in different centuries.
Do we try to talk about issues that we can talk about and ignore the rest? Do we respond to it all and rile ourselves up in trying to adress them? Do we ignore him altogether? I dislike the last option and I've kind of resigned on the second one, seeing it as futile. But the first is far from optimal, sure.
I've often stated that I think discussions are important, even if we know nothing will come from it on the other's side. If only because an audience (which a public forum like this has, lurkers and other posters for instance) might benefit and because faulty views, fallacies and the like should be exposed as such.
But it's so exhausting when the difference in views on some of the most basic things is so vast, when there's little to nothing in common to even just start from. And it's even dangerous for our stay here, especially when we've had so many people get banned because of their - often too angry, often out of line, yet often understandable - responses.
Not even specifically to Gorfias, but to - let's say - "polarising" people on here.

Seanchaidh:

You're using the word 'equality' in at least two different

And you are drawing lines where you want to draw them. The argument for getting women into combat has not been that it is good for the military and society but that doing so offers women equality. I'm writing that, while we'll get away with this, we're kidding ourselves if we think there will not be costs to doing so.

Notsomuch:

Gorfias:

Why do you think Fraternization was ever illicit in the first place. Was it ever harmful?

Was it?

In my personal experience, it was, but not in-capcitatingly so. It was very irksome, for instance, for a female I knew to get advancement and separate rations (allowing her to live off base in a rented apartment and buy food rather than go to the chow hall) because she was sleeping with the first shirt. (This stopped after she got the rations). I admit, I was still able to do my job though. But then again, I wasn't in combat. A friend of mine was and he has much more... colorful things to say about women in combat. He did not want them anywhere near him in the field.

Not all women want to be 'mothers' and they shouldn't have to be forced into that role.

I never said they should, anymore than we should force men into combat. Though, in a catastrophe level event, I could see forcing men, women and children into combat. Ancient Sparta supposedly did so (at least trained everyone) to stave off extinction.

O maestre:

egalitarian? lets stop it right there. most of the fighting men are from lower classes and come from poor families.

Why is this happening at all? From what you are writing, you think women in combat is NOT about egalitarianism and is about improving combats human resources. From what I'm reading, at best, there is a debate there that didn't happen. We just had an election in which this topic wasn't even discussed. At worst, you are wrong. This move will harm (but not destroy) our combat readiness and moral. See my fraternization story above.

GunsmithKitten:

1) If women have that choice, are they really, at this time, only equal to men? Do men have choices? I don't think so. I think we have obligations.

Men do have choices. They can either have a career for the benefit of a family, or they can forgo a family altogether and simply aquire wealth and resources for their own benefit. Under your system, that's already two choices to my one, and again, one of them entails far more power, glory, and wealth than the other.

So what are MY obligations?

It used to be, men could earn a living or go to prison. Increasingly women are becoming the bread winner. It may one day to be truly socially acceptable for the man to be a stay at home dad. It happens now, but there is a lot of derision. Read the works of William Bennet if you don't think there is a lot of flak out there for such men. You ask, what are YOUR obligations. I just wrote, I think women are more about choice than obligations. Were I to list one, I suppose, nature makes human women have the, "last chance to abandon". In the animal kingdom, I only know of sea horses where it is the male with this last chance to abandon.

2) I worry that the day will come soon where it isn't a choice. The day when women also have to sign up for Selective Service, like men, I think, will be here soon.

Fine.

No, it isn't. It may be logical, but the look of horror on my daughter's face when I told her women were now getting into combat said it all for me. This is something to be fought.

I do not believe in imposing myself on others in the name of radical equality

But you DO believe in imposing forced roles on people based on their gender?!

Some. For instance, I like having separate bathrooms for men and women based on gender. You?

I do wonder how easy it is for a single man to adopt a baby, which likely won't be genetically related to the Dad. I recall a review of Star Wars Episode 2 in which the critic thought Jango had evil intentions for Boba. I don't think so. I read Lucas is divorced and has a lot of issues with women. He wrote Willow around that time and in it, while the titular character was a male dwarf, the power resided in the story's women. I think Jango just wanted to be one of these Dads with a family without a woman. I think we're a long way off from cloning humans (not that I think that is a good idea).

Shaoken:

Our Nature? Define it. Quantify it. Prove it.

I've heard anything we do is from us and therefore, natural to us. You really disagree with that?

And what FUCKING obligations?

For now, only males must register with selective service under threat of serious consequences if they fail. I am writing here:
1) I do not want my daughter to have to do so.
2) Because women are now in combat, I can think of no logical reason she shouldn't have to just like my son.

Considering that you've predicted absolute ruin for the US because Obama has a second term, your ability at predicting the future is highly suspect at best.

Er, women are now in combat, they're working on ignoring the Constitution and depriving people of their gun rights for stupid reasons and giving Amnesty and subsidy to people who have broken this nations laws. That's a lot of social destruction or attempted destruction in ... I don't think he is out of his first month of a 2nd term. And I don't recall ANY of these matters being front and center in the Presidential debates.

Oh give me a fucking break, WHO IS BEING IMPOSED ON?

1) Me and my daughter if she has to register with Selective Service;
2) The actual combat men who experience disruption in various ways by the presence of women who arguably do not belong there;
3) Society in general that is going to have to shoulder the costs and burdens of this hasty, relatively unargued decision.

@ Skeleon: I actually have a lot of very libertarian values we probably share. I tend to post in politics when I think I have something different to say. Everyone else here seems happy about this particular thing, so, seems a good place to write.

I do worry about some of what I write being hurtful and have intentionally not posted when I thought I'd be crossing that line, even if I think I'm right.

Given my feelings about my daughter, this seemed a topic where someone has to be the voice of opposition, even if hurtful to some. Though, you're right It is very hard to change an opinion, particularly if people want to write about it.

@Gorfias

@ Skeleon: I actually have a lot of very libertarian values we probably share.

Indeed, particularly on issues such as corporatism and legalized corruption/bribery, I get the sense we tend to agree[1]. Of course, I'd never consider this view of mine Libertarian because I disagree with the majority of Libertarian views. It's a more basic sense of what a government is supposed to be: Representative of its people. I'm opposed to Corporatism, opposed to socializing expenses and risks while privatizing profits, heavily in favour of campaign finance reform etc..

I get the feeling that, to you, these issues are problems of "too big government" when, to me obviously, they are problems of unfettered Capitalism where money is allowed to buy politics, where government doesn't do enough. Isn't it strange how one can share the view of the same thing being a problem, yet arrive at that point with the total polar opposite understanding of why and in what way it is a problem?

I tend to post in politics when I think I have something different to say. Everyone else here seems happy about this particular thing, so, seems a good place to write.

Again, agreed. It's not that I don't want opposing opinions, on the contrary, they are essential for debate. But the enormous cultural divide between me and (Social) Conservative Americans in particular is often quite astounding and even on a very basic level sometimes insurmountable.
Very basic things like the understanding of freedom, the roles of people especially in regards to individualism, basic economic principles and so on. It's a peculiar thing, but the fact that it mostly happens when I talk to (Social) Conservatives from the USA and not when I talk to Conservatives from my own or other countries tells me that the peculiarity is probably not on my end.

[1] Absolutely not on social issues and issues of individual freedom, though, as you seem to hold extremely Socially Conservative views there.

Gorfias:
(Though, there's a lot of good deconstruction of the movie Avatar out there: Cameron loves nature, as long as he lives with vaccines and Chinese food delivery for himself, etc.)

I have no intention of jumping into this current conversation, except to say that "Play nice with nature" wasn't the singular message I personally got from Avatar. The message I got was "Manipulate nature how you see fit, just don't totally steamroll it in the process," as well as a sizable dash of "Just because some people don't look like you doesn't mean they're not people."

Lilani:

Gorfias:
(Though, there's a lot of good deconstruction of the movie Avatar out there: Cameron loves nature, as long as he lives with vaccines and Chinese food delivery for himself, etc.)

I have no intention of jumping into this current conversation, except to say that "Play nice with nature" wasn't the singular message I personally got from Avatar. The message I got was "Manipulate nature how you see fit, just don't totally steamroll it in the process," as well as a sizable dash of "Just because some people don't look like you doesn't mean they're not people."

The message I got from Avatar was "I'm too lazy to write a story that goes beyond the most basic evil miners want to kick natives off their land to get at yar gold mine underneath".

Gorfias:
And men are not canon fodder. Many (most?) men choose not to be in the military. People don't always follow their highest calling.
There are many good reasons to state your vagina may make you bad, expensive, unreliable, and disruptive for the military even if you are an Olympian quality athlete. I don't think you are asking what is best for the military, but for what you want and think you are entitled to for reasons of egalitarianism, to hell with the costs.
It is a good and interesting debate. I'm sddened that we didn't have it during the last election cycle.

Do you know how much it has cost to abolish slavery, and even worse, give those silly black people civil rights? Clearly they weren't thinking about what was best the country, and just think they were entitled to for reasons of egalitarianism, and to hell with the costs.

Gorfias:
How about making babies for themselves and society? How about also helping men be socialized and have a sense of purpose? That isn't a bad thing. It may be the best thing a woman can do. I concede it isn't the only thing a woman can do, but it is something another MAN CANNOT do. And we shouldn't look to government to try to fix that (by, say, drafting women to have kids to distribute to men so they might have a family but pretend they don't need a woman for one). A woman can lead a rewarding life without marrying a man, socializing him, giving him purpose, binding him to society and bearing the future of our society. But pretending that isn't important is suicidal.

Exactly! This is proven because all single men go around all day doing nothing except murdering, raping and looting. And it's also why countries like Saoudi-Arabia where you can have up to five wives is such a bastion of civilisation and enlightenment. Oh wait...

Lilani:

Gorfias:
(Though, there's a lot of good deconstruction of the movie Avatar out there: Cameron loves nature, as long as he lives with vaccines and Chinese food delivery for himself, etc.)

I have no intention of jumping into this current conversation, except to say that "Play nice with nature" wasn't the singular message I personally got from Avatar. The message I got was "Manipulate nature how you see fit, just don't totally steamroll it in the process," as well as a sizable dash of "Just because some people don't look like you doesn't mean they're not people."

There were a lot of good things about the movie: respect for other peoples being one of them. (The movie was also about the most gorgeous cinema I have ever seen.) I enjoyed it greatly. But I worry about romanticizing nature and demonizing technology. I think it would be a sad thing if my kid risked his neck just to get a ride to drive. They romanticize damn near getting killed picking out your first ride in the movie. Or getting something to eat for that matter! Awesome flick though. But still:

EDIT: I apologize in advance for some unfortunate sexism in this. Ignore that and you'll see a lot of stuff I find pretty funny. Planet full of trees has no Oxygen. Nice.

Blablahb:

Do you know how much it has cost to abolish slavery, and even worse, give those silly black people civil rights? Clearly they weren't thinking about what was best the country, and just think they were entitled to for reasons of egalitarianism, and to hell with the costs.

At least you are putting it in terms of what is right and fair, rather than, this is good for society and the military. Now we can debate how good and fair and at what cost. Black people were chattel. Women are arguably a pampered over-class. Arguably. You are in the manosphere after all.

Exactly! This is proven because all single men go around all day doing nothing except murdering, raping and looting. And it's also why countries like Saoudi-Arabia where you can have up to five wives is such a bastion of civilisation and enlightenment. Oh wait...

Evil the Cat would spank me for writing this (s/he has a convoluted hermaphrodite story the point of which is that someone legally a male once got pregnant) but if a man wants a family with a wife and kids biologically related to him, he's pretty much going to need a woman to do that.

EDIT: This looks like promising evidence
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/Western.pdf

We're likely all familiar with marriage rates and socialization. A major confounding factor is that marriage is self selected. Maybe those stay that get married are such that they would have stayed away from crime anyway? Who knows.

Gorfias:
[There were a lot of good things about the movie: respect for other peoples being one of them. (The movie was also about the most gorgeous cinema I have ever seen.) I enjoyed it greatly. But I worry about romanticizing nature and demonizing technology. I think it would be a sad thing if my kid risked his neck just to get a ride to drive. They romanticize damn near getting killed picking out your first ride in the movie.

Well our culture already romanticizes stuff like that. Skydiving, driving cars before you're supposed to, boys doing stupid stuff in general. Doing unnecessary and potentially dangerous things to prove your "worthiness" or "manliness" if you prefer is a long standing motif in our society. I personally don't like it either when you put it that way, but I also felt there was a bit of hazing going on.

EDIT: I apologize in advance for some unfortunate sexism in this. Ignore that and you'll see a lot of stuff I find pretty funny. Planet full of trees has no Oxygen. Nice.

Honestly, I think the thing that bothered me the most was the fact that he thinks he has the balls to swear all throughout his video, but chickens out and censors it all. Come on, it's YouTube, not PBS.

I'm just going to leave this clip from the West Wing here for anyone worried about the troops being disrupted by yet another minority being allowed to be a complete member of the military.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jWOamlD9_8

Good day.

Gorfias:

In my personal experience, it was, but not in-capcitatingly so. It was very irksome, for instance, for a female I knew to get advancement and separate rations (allowing her to live off base in a rented apartment and buy food rather than go to the chow hall) because she was sleeping with the first shirt. (This stopped after she got the rations). I admit, I was still able to do my job though. But then again, I wasn't in combat. A friend of mine was and he has much more... colorful things to say about women in combat. He did not want them anywhere near him in the field.

You should deal with the actions, not the sex. You shouldn't disrespect the majority of service-members, male and female, by virtue of a few anecdotes. If you are going to start kicking everyone out of a military for doing things a small majority can't keep under control then you are going to have a very small military at the end of the day, numbering in the Zero's.

I never said they should, anymore than we should force men into combat. Though, in a catastrophe level event, I could see forcing men, women and children into combat. Ancient Sparta supposedly did so (at least trained everyone) to stave off extinction.

I checked my watch and noticed that we just missed 600 BC by about 2,613 years. I think it's safe to say that the Spartans no longer have influence over Americans which is good news because the only ones they didn't allow into combat was were women. The only time children would ever be sent onto combat, even during an 'event', is if they were 16-17 and lied about their age. The only way kids would be put into combat in America is if there was no government and the Tea-Party ran everything.

With Gorfias continuing to harp on over the "obligation" of men having to resgister for selective service, does anyone here have any honest objections to getting rid of the register entirely? America hasn't had a draft for decades, there are plenty of problems with reinstating it, so if people like Gorf are so worried about women having to register and eventually be drafted, why not just get rid of it entirely?

Sonofadiddly:
I'm just going to leave this clip from the West Wing here for anyone worried about the troops being disrupted by yet another minority being allowed to be a complete member of the military.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jWOamlD9_8

Good day.

Can we not have people using people who are not in the military and dress up as soldiers to put words in soldiers mouths as an authoritative source on what the military should or should not do.

Now, as an Australian, I am in favour of all ethnicities serving in the military because "We are one, but we are many and from all the lands on earth we come" and I don't give a fuck if gay blokes and gay shelias want to sling on a pack and dive in too, because from what I can see, there is no difference between a gay rifleman or a straight rifleman except what drunken local he picks up on leave and if a woman. In fact, while the US military was debating on whether or not to allow their soldiers to call themselves gay, the Australian army has recognised gay partnerships on the same level as straight marriages. I am also in favour of any woman capable of performing their duty diving into arms corps. That being said, I have concerns, not objections really, but concerns.

Funnily enough, these concerns do not stem from them women who can perform their duties, but from the ignorance of the movement that backs them. The army does not seek equality, it seeks equity. Now that may seem like a minor distinction, but it is important, we do not give everybody the same career, we give everybody the same starting opportunities and due to this fact, after women join arms corps it is a fact that their numbers will not approach parity. Women, on average are less physically capable then men and so they will be less represented in physically demanding positions.

Now this step here, which I approve of, will be quickly undone by the do gooders who think that the voice of an actor pretending to be a soldier has any weighting on what is right for the military because we will see complaints of sexism when women are rejected for not being fit enough or in many cases not psychologically robust enough. These are people who would also be rejected if they had external genitalia, but now that the sexism magnifying glass in on the green, your actors and your talk show hosts and your professional opinionated will paint it as the army trying to remain a 'boys club'.

And so the word will spread to the voters, who will pressure the politicians who will pressure the officers into pressuring the instructors, 'we need more women to pass, and we need less complaints to come from women', so requirements will be lowered, 'good enough' syndrome will become rampant, things that are normal and necessary for the military to function (harsh discipline for example) will be toned down to accept the women who cannot compete. Then, when infantry sections have women who physically cannot cock a support weapon, female tank drivers who cannot lift pieces of tread to repair it, artillery women who cannot lift a shell and women who cannot march ten ks in the heat with their packs and body armour, the burden will fall on the blokes and competent women to pick up their burden.

This then fucks over the competent women, as they have to deal with the resentment of soldiers who have spent too much effort picking up after their less competent sisters. The competent women then have to prove themselves to show that they are not there as some affirmative action bull shit and they have to live with the knowledge that the male soldiers can't fully rely on them because they have no way of knowing how many tests were fudged to get them through.

Shaoken:
With Gorfias continuing to harp on over the "obligation" of men having to resgister for selective service, does anyone here have any honest objections to getting rid of the register entirely? America hasn't had a draft for decades, there are plenty of problems with reinstating it, so if people like Gorf are so worried about women having to register and eventually be drafted, why not just get rid of it entirely?

Gorf is just using it as an excuse.

but to answer your question, I am anti-conscription simply any soldier who is there against their will is by their nature unreliable and I don't want to put my life in their hands

the clockmaker:

Sonofadiddly:
snip

snip

I agree wholly with you, the military is and always should be a meritocracy, where your roles are defined by your skills regardless of politics and gender.

Like i stated in my story above, gender is not an issue as long as you can perform your job without someone picking up the slack. that's why there are physical trials for men, to weed out those that cannot be used.

I'm in favour of women in the military as long as they do not change the requirements due to political pressure based on some quota that a civilian committee decided upon

Blablahb:
Do you know how much it has cost to abolish slavery, and even worse, give those silly black people civil rights? Clearly they weren't thinking about what was best the country, and just think they were entitled to for reasons of egalitarianism, and to hell with the costs.

to be honest in a capitalist syrstem slave abolishments was much more profitable on the long term. but point taken

Gorfias:

Blablahb:
How about making babies for themselves and society? How about also helping men be socialized and have a sense of purpose? That isn't a bad thing. It may be the best thing a woman can do. I concede it isn't the only thing a woman can do, but it is something another MAN CANNOT do. And we shouldn't look to government to try to fix that (by, say, drafting women to have kids to distribute to men so they might have a family but pretend they don't need a woman for one). A woman can lead a rewarding life without marrying a man, socializing him, giving him purpose, binding him to society and bearing the future of our society. But pretending that isn't important is suicidal.

Exactly! This is proven because all single men go around all day doing nothing except murdering, raping and looting. And it's also why countries like Saoudi-Arabia where you can have up to five wives is such a bastion of civilisation and enlightenment. Oh wait...

Gorfias has a point here, and you are taking things out of context. even you must admit that our society is very sceptical of single men and their motives in regards to children. he is also correct in stating that a man cannot easily found a family by himself. i am not sure how the eligibility process of adoption or artificial insemination, but i am willing to bet that a single woman would have an easier time than a single man. with good reason, most killers and rapists are men, most criminals are men, the same goes for extremists and other anti social behaviour.

that being said does not mean i am arguing for total equality, i have a more darwinian approach to society and especially reproduction. if you could not attract another mate, then your genes should be forfeited by default. but i digress, i do not think total equality is possible as in the above example. men and women are different, both mentally and physically, and we shouldn't be so caught up in political convictions so we dont recognize simple facts.

the clockmaker:
I am anti-conscription simply any soldier who is there against their will is by their nature unreliable and I don't want to put my life in their hands

Funnily enough while Australia doesn't have anything like conscription on the books now, retired ADF personnel qualified in 'Required/Necessary Skills' can be Reactivated in 'times of need' and that covers female personnel... although I've never heard of it being used outside of 01/02 to recall every ex-ADF pilot who'd left in the past 3 years and every living ex-RAN clearance diver still young enough to be Reactivated (the cut off is 45, if memory serves) and wasn't suffering some debilitating physical or mental condition. Only ex-SASR troopers don't have a maximum age for Reactivation as far as I know.

The moral of this story being don't pick up any rare-ish skills in the ADF if you aren't prepared for them to come knocking in an emergency.

RhombusHatesYou:

the clockmaker:
I am anti-conscription simply any soldier who is there against their will is by their nature unreliable and I don't want to put my life in their hands

Funnily enough while Australia doesn't have anything like conscription on the books now, retired ADF personnel qualified in 'Required/Necessary Skills' can be Reactivated in 'times of need' and that covers female personnel... although I've never heard of it being used outside of 01/02 to recall every ex-ADF pilot who'd left in the past 3 years and every living ex-RAN clearance diver still young enough to be Reactivated (the cut off is 45, if memory serves) and wasn't suffering some debilitating physical or mental condition. Only ex-SASR troopers don't have a maximum age for Reactivation as far as I know.

The moral of this story being don't pick up any rare-ish skills in the ADF if you aren't prepared for them to come knocking in an emergency.

Well they, swore the oath and if their recruiters were any good, they were made aware that their responsibilities don't go away...
I'm still leery on it though, I don't like the idea of working with people who don't want to be there, they are likely to go jack or ling out.

the clockmaker:

RhombusHatesYou:

the clockmaker:
I am anti-conscription simply any soldier who is there against their will is by their nature unreliable and I don't want to put my life in their hands

Funnily enough while Australia doesn't have anything like conscription on the books now, retired ADF personnel qualified in 'Required/Necessary Skills' can be Reactivated in 'times of need' and that covers female personnel... although I've never heard of it being used outside of 01/02 to recall every ex-ADF pilot who'd left in the past 3 years and every living ex-RAN clearance diver still young enough to be Reactivated (the cut off is 45, if memory serves) and wasn't suffering some debilitating physical or mental condition. Only ex-SASR troopers don't have a maximum age for Reactivation as far as I know.

The moral of this story being don't pick up any rare-ish skills in the ADF if you aren't prepared for them to come knocking in an emergency.

Well they, like us, swore the oath and if their recruiters were anything like mine, they were made aware that their responsibilities don't go away...

Well yes, but my main point was that it covers female ex-ADF personnel.

Not to mention that in the cases mentioned the ADF/Govt picked up the tab for any 'negative financial impact' caused by the Reactivation (from meeting the wage difference between ADF and commercial pilots to paying out defaulted contracts), which was nice of them.

Of course, the other main obstacle to the ADF Reactivating someone is if they have suffered some debilitating Physical or Mental Health issue and they'll never Reactivate someone who's gone out on a medical discharge (but that sort of goes without saying, really).

I'm still leery on it though, I don' like working with people who don't want to be there, they are likely to go jack or ling out.

That's why the ADF has only used it in cases of severe shortfalls of needed personnel (and was caused in both those cases by government dickery regarding funding the number of people to be trained in these areas but that's another issue altogether).

...

edit to add:

The other thing is that the ADF has always, more or less, agreed with your stance even when they had conscripts (national service and the 'lottery' for Vietnam) forced on them. As far as the ADF is concerned, conscripts are detrimental to discipline, moral and unit efficiency (especially combat efficiency). The very idea of conscription is antithetical to a military that prides itself on its professionalism and high selective standards such as the ADF does.

RhombusHatesYou:

the clockmaker:
I am anti-conscription simply any soldier who is there against their will is by their nature unreliable and I don't want to put my life in their hands

Funnily enough while Australia doesn't have anything like conscription on the books now, retired ADF personnel qualified in 'Required/Necessary Skills' can be Reactivated in 'times of need' and that covers female personnel... although I've never heard of it being used outside of 01/02 to recall every ex-ADF pilot who'd left in the past 3 years and every living ex-RAN clearance diver still young enough to be Reactivated (the cut off is 45, if memory serves) and wasn't suffering some debilitating physical or mental condition. Only ex-SASR troopers don't have a maximum age for Reactivation as far as I know.

The moral of this story being don't pick up any rare-ish skills in the ADF if you aren't prepared for them to come knocking in an emergency.

Isn't everyone who retires from the ADF placed on a reserve list for the next X years, regardless of what their role was, or have I got that wrong?

O maestre:
men and women are different, both mentally and physically, and we shouldn't be so caught up in political convictions so we dont recognize simple facts.

Does that mean, however, that individual merit and ambition should immediately be forfeit in light of that people made to take their "roles" regardless, as Gorfias advocates happening?

the clockmaker:

Sonofadiddly:
I'm just going to leave this clip from the West Wing here for anyone worried about the troops being disrupted by yet another minority being allowed to be a complete member of the military.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jWOamlD9_8

Good day.

Can we not have people using people who are not in the military and dress up as soldiers to put words in soldiers mouths as an authoritative source on what the military should or should not do.

Snip

No, you can't have that. A good point is a good point, no matter who it comes from.

As for your concerns, there's really no reason to think that any of this will happen. Don't stress yourself out over "concerns" that have no basis in reality.

Feminists want equality, and understand that equality means the same standards for everyone. I don't know a single feminist (and I know a whole lot), who wants the physical fitness standards to be lowered. That's actually insulting to us. We do not want special treatment or special standards. We want to be treated equally, and when we say that we mean EQUALLY.

For another fictional example outlining a generally accepted sentiment among a minority group, I suggest GI Jane.

Sonofadiddly:

the clockmaker:

Sonofadiddly:
I'm just going to leave this clip from the West Wing here for anyone worried about the troops being disrupted by yet another minority being allowed to be a complete member of the military.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jWOamlD9_8

Good day.

Can we not have people using people who are not in the military and dress up as soldiers to put words in soldiers mouths as an authoritative source on what the military should or should not do.

Snip

No, you can't have that. A good point is a good point, no matter who it comes from.

As for your concerns, there's really no reason to think that any of this will happen. Don't stress yourself out over "concerns" that have no basis in reality.

Feminists want equality, and understand that equality means the same standards for everyone. I don't know a single feminist (and I know a whole lot), who wants the physical fitness standards to be lowered. That's actually insulting to us. We do not want special treatment or special standards. We want to be treated equally, and when we say that we mean EQUALLY.

For another fictional example outlining a generally accepted sentiment among a minority group, I suggest GI Jane.

No basis in reality? No lowering of standards? I see these every day, they are actually happening now. Those examples that I gave, twist, were not hypothetical, that is shit that I have seen, or to be more accurate, that is less than 1% of the shit that I have seen, so as somebody who clearly has no experience with the issue, please do not try and tell me what does and does not have a basis in reality. Especially when you bring up GI jane as an example of integrating females into the military.

On top of that, if your point involves speaking as a figure of authority and you are not a figure of authority, it comes across as just putting words in people's mouths. If your point relies heavily on 'i am an admiral' and you are not an admiral, you should re-think that point.

On top of that, physical capability gap between black men and white men -non existent, gay men and straight men- non-existent. There is a physical capability gap between most men and most women, and the refusal to allow this factual gap to defeat the careers of women who cannot do the job fucks over those who can. Again, not dealing in hypotheticals here, I see this stuff happen.

.... no basis in reality? see what basis other people have grumble grumble movies and video games...

I just ran across this today, it seems somewhat relevant. Dutch NOS News snuck a reporter into Syria who's been hanging around in Aleppo lately where the fighting has been fierce. Today he had an item on a female commander of the rebel forces:

http://nos.nl/video/470012-amira-een-vrouwelijke-rebellenleider-in-syrie.html

Roughly the story explains she's the daughter of a Syrian general and former officer in the military of Assad's regime. Her father is still on Assad's side right now, but she won't speak of that. She joined the rebels, and now co-commands a brigade of them. At first some questioned her command, but none question her any longer. The commander (guy with the big black beard) is heard saying she held the highest rank among all the rebels there, she dared to defect (because things do not end well for you if you defect and they catch you) and her military knowledge has been invaluable to them.

If it's possible in a pretty retarded hypermasculine culture where women are second rate citizens, why shouldn't it be possible here?

thaluikhain:
Isn't everyone who retires from the ADF placed on a reserve list for the next X years, regardless of what their role was, or have I got that wrong?

I can't talk about Australia, but it wouldn't be uncommon. Dutch former soldiers, the professionals, used to be listed automatically as reservists and still available for duty. It was abolished before my time, but when you sign off they do present the question if you want to become part of the reserve (NatRes). You can skip most of the requirements that way. The only thing you have to do is the platoon-specific training (one step out of roughly five that Joe Average has to take) and you're in.

Sonofadiddly:

Feminists want equality, and understand that equality means the same standards for everyone. I don't know a single feminist (and I know a whole lot), who wants the physical fitness standards to be lowered. That's actually insulting to us. We do not want special treatment or special standards. We want to be treated equally, and when we say that we mean EQUALLY.

We had another thread on here a while back where the folks who usually argue from feminist perspectives were explicitly defending women having lesser PE standards in the US military than men.

Unfortunately, "hold everyone to the same standards and whoever wins/passes wins/passes, regardless of gender" is not what feminist arguments typically involve. There's a frequent tendency to use gaps in outcome as proof of gaps in opportunity.

Schadrach:

Sonofadiddly:

Feminists want equality, and understand that equality means the same standards for everyone. I don't know a single feminist (and I know a whole lot), who wants the physical fitness standards to be lowered. That's actually insulting to us. We do not want special treatment or special standards. We want to be treated equally, and when we say that we mean EQUALLY.

We had another thread on here a while back where the folks who usually argue from feminist perspectives were explicitly defending women having lesser PE standards in the US military than men.

Unfortunately, "hold everyone to the same standards and whoever wins/passes wins/passes, regardless of gender" is not what feminist arguments typically involve. There's a frequent tendency to use gaps in outcome as proof of gaps in opportunity.

Well, that's not been my experience and that's not what I want. I can't speak for everyone, but I would be curious to see if those people would actual identify as feminist and how much they actually know about feminist theory.

the clockmaker:

No basis in reality? No lowering of standards? I see these every day, they are actually happening now. Those examples that I gave, twist, were not hypothetical, that is shit that I have seen, or to be more accurate, that is less than 1% of the shit that I have seen, so as somebody who clearly has no experience with the issue, please do not try and tell me what does and does not have a basis in reality. Especially when you bring up GI jane as an example of integrating females into the military.

On top of that, if your point involves speaking as a figure of authority and you are not a figure of authority, it comes across as just putting words in people's mouths. If your point relies heavily on 'i am an admiral' and you are not an admiral, you should re-think that point.

On top of that, physical capability gap between black men and white men -non existent, gay men and straight men- non-existent. There is a physical capability gap between most men and most women, and the refusal to allow this factual gap to defeat the careers of women who cannot do the job fucks over those who can. Again, not dealing in hypotheticals here, I see this stuff happen.

.... no basis in reality? see what basis other people have grumble grumble movies and video games...

Man, as far as I'm concerned, you being a stranger on the internet who has no proof of your so called real world experience, your word has as much impact on me as fiction. I never claimed to be an expert, just someone who can see that a thing has never happened and no politicians or actual feminists pushing for this to happen. You know, someone with eyes and ears.

Sonofadiddly:

Man, as far as I'm concerned, you being a stranger on the internet who has no proof of your so called real world experience, your word has as much impact on me as fiction.

that's a great policy, when somebody tells you that you are wrong, call them a liar. Because if I was telling the truth, I would agree with you, is that right?

I never claimed to be an expert,

"Don't stress yourself out over "concerns" that have no basis in reality." That right there sounds like you are trying to authoritative. Telling a stranger over the net that what they see has no basis in reality. Based, apparently on your DVD collection you are slamming your hand down on the table and saying 'thus I declare', so even if you ever called yourself and expert, you are certainly trying on the hat.

just someone who can see that a thing has never happened and no politicians or actual feminists pushing for this to happen.

Sigh, was I saying that they are pushing for that, no, apparently you did not understand what I said. They will complain when 'not enough' women make it through, which will then pressure the politicians into pressuring the military into fudging the numbers. Again, I see this shit happen on a regular basis.

You know, someone with eyes and ears.

So let me get this straight, I post my experiences, you call me a liar, and then in the same goddamn post you expect me to just bow the fuck down because you posted your experiences. Like fucking hell. Maybe if you hadn't just called me a liar, I might be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now, clearly you were thinking about lies when you posted, so who knows how honest you are being.

And see, this is where the problem is, people play call of duty and then think that they understand tactics, people play 'spec ops the line' and think that they understand 'the horrors of war' and then you watch GI fucking Jane and suddenly you know how to integrate women into the military.

Again, I am in favour of removing gender restrictions, I am concerned that the shit that I have seen will continue into arms corps.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked