Jimquisition: Let's End the FPS Sausage-fest

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

RC1138:
You... really don't know how to comprehend do you? As I said there is a big difference between fair compensation, as in adding in features to a game to allow it to be "fun" and usable, and grossly misrepresenting the way the world works.

Example, allowing snap catches in Madden is not indicative of how the real world is but it's a mechanic that allows the game to be be fluid, and thus enjoyable to play. Adding a jetpack to the full back would not. There's no rule saying he *can't* have a jetpack in a videogame, but given that Madden is trying to represent American Football as best it can (While remaining playable), it does not add a jetpack despite how interesting that might make things.

Tell me, do you also have a problem with the cartoonish stereotypes that pass for villains in most "realistic" military shooters? Or is that an unpatriotic question?

As far as As far as Games Workshop is concerned, I stand by my point. There are no female Space Marines. There's the Sisters of Battle, but no female Space Marine. Making up your own reality is truly part of the game, but you do have to work within what pieces are released and baring that ONE figurine, which is no longer in production nor was for very long (and didn't even look like a Space Marine to be honest) there are no female Space Marines. You can pretend the male figures are female, but that's all it is, pretend.

I seem to recall Games Workshop saying that third-party miniatures, as well as using miniatures to substitute for other miniatures, was officially sanctioned within the rules (and given that you are encouraged to make your own armies and races, it's almost mandatory anyway). Are you saying that Games Workshop is wrong about what their own rules are?

Men have an innate, nature urge to protect females. This is a biological fact. It's just something we do. What I'm trying to put forward is, and this is from *personnel* experience as well as being historically true as well, it's hard enough to run past a fallen friend to continue on, and with a male there's no biological urge pushing, with a female soldier every male soldier in her vicinity would, essentially, be compromised should she be injured. It's not their fault at all in this regard. But it is the world and the bodies we posses and to borrow a very old saying, you go to war with the Army you have.

4. Um scientific fact? Women think and problem solve with emotion. Men use a mixture of emotion and logic pending on the individual. Again that's the bodies we as a species inhabit. We can't change that.

Wow, so not only do you have a degree in evolutionary psychology, you also have a degree in neurobiology! That's impressive. May I ask what medical school you went to, Doctor?

Treblaine:

RC1138:
[quote="Sylocat" post="6.382898.15143077"]
Now, this raises another question: Given that this video referred to FPSs in general, and not just modern military FPSs, why are you so defensive over this one subset of the genre? Or do you have some grander reason for not wanting women in FPSs at all?

You're not addressing his question.

He talked about non-realistic shooters and you go on about shooters that try to be realistic. And so many of these games so completely flout realism, soaking up high power rifle shots like paintballs and sprinting everywhere with perfect accuracy, your objection to the mere possibility of females in any combat role, (CoD and other games often covers a so-called "grunt" role) comes of as an exceptional objection.

You rail against women more than the hugely confounding issue of making allies invulnerable to friendly fire, a HUGE issue, comes across as sexist.

I mean friendly fire is I think the most contentious issue between the public and the military, the public completely fail to appreciate how friendly fire tragedies could happen, and all these games that contrive them to not happen is a far bigger issue than the possibility that a female might reach standards and depicted as such.

"it's like a woman holding over a man's head that he can't grow a child inside him."

That's just biologically impossible and hardly something men are jealous of passing a football sized infant out their abdomen via a hole in their genitals, but it is not biologically impossible for some women to reach the performance levels required, as many have.

Lets list IMPOSSIBLE things so common in even the more realistic (less like TF2) shooters:
-doing anything after being shot with a rifle other than wait for a CASEVAC and trying to control bleeding
-Recovering from bullet wounds and blast damage in literally only 5 seconds
-Near instant resurrection after death
-Allies conveniently painted with a colour coded name tag so there is no ambiguity where your allies are
-Allies immune to all friendly fire

HUGELY Implausible but not impossible:
-World War 3 with Russia of all countries invading mainland USA without a massive nuclear exchange
-Treacherous US Military commander working with terrorists to frame America for war crimes for a favourable war
-Rogue Russian officers in the Cold War brainwashing American POWs to assassinate the US President.
-Those same Russian Officers running a secret underwater base in the Gulf Of Mexico to coordinate a massive nerve gas attack on the US.
-all the technology like heads-up top-down radar, motion sensors, bullet counters and ultra-lightweight thermal scopes
-Claymore and bouncing mines that can be set off by enemy movement but not by your own presence or presence of allies.

List of mere reasonable plausibility but low frequency (by how we actually see them in practice):
-Women in armed ground combat roles

The question was: "Why are you so defensive over this one subset of the genre? Or do you have some grander reason for not wanting women in FPSs at all?"

I believe that's all I answered. I stated why I don't think women belong in an a modern setting FPS and further stated that they can, and at times should, be in non-Modern Setting FPS's. If you can't gather that from what I wrote, then perhaps you need to reread it. If you still can't let me summarize my answer; I do not have an ulterior objective that is sexist against women; my objection women in modern setting FPS is based on the pervasive historical and current factual mistakes and blatant disregards places into games further breading a culture that does not understand what it's own militaries are like. *I do* however think women belong in non-modern FPS and, as I said before, some games they in fact would be better protagonists than a male (Bioshock was mentioned as well as the original Halo Trilogy).

Now if that's not answering *his* question, I don't know what else is. Now perhaps I didn't answer a question *you* have, but... what can I tell you, I'm not a mind reader and even if I was, it would be rather hard to do through a fiber optic cable.

And let me be clear, as both a soldier with combat experience, AND a law enforcement officer, that is, someone whose job it is to investigate crimes and criminal behavior in a military and/or war setting (and intentional Fratricide being a capital crime, it's called murder, and can possible classify as treason, which is actually treated as worse than murder in the American Military criminal justice system (a found verdict *has* to result in the death penalty)) friendly fire, speaking as what actually GOES ON down-range, is *not* a problem. That is to say, it doesn't happen that often. In fact I've never seen it take place, nor met someone that claims it did. I have investigated possible circumstance, but never found one that had actually happens. In the context we are discussing; ground troops, specifically Infantry and Special Operations, friendly fire is a very, very rare occurrence right now. Now if this had been about Air Crews and SAM fire, this would be different, but we are not.

I will not say it NEVER happens, but speaking as someone who has been shot at, and in combat in the vicinity of other units, friendly fire DOES NOT enter your brain. You don't even think about it because, you just don't. You know more consider that than you do fear a strafing run from a Fokker Triplane. It's just not in my mind nor other soldiers.

Friendly fire is far from the most contentious issue between the military and the rest of the country either. If you truly think that I suggest you start researching, heavily, about recent Senate hearing and the like. By far, without question, the most contentious issue is Suicides. Ask any soldier in the past 6 years and they'll tell you that every month SOMETHING new gets added, some new SOP in relation to suicide prevention and care. AND it's a very hot button issue in the private sector about the military as both pro and anti war groups use it as arguments for their camp; pro-war see it as a response to a lack of troops and equipment and thus need to buckle down and send MORE troops overseas, anti-war feel it's a sign of troops breaking under constant extreme pressure, and thus should end the war.

Friendly fire is no more an issue than using Pakistan contractors to build our toilets. I don't say that as a joke, but rather as it's a rarely, but currently on *occasion* spoken of issue.

So no, me not considering how friendly fire relates at all to ANYTHING in this argument does not make me a sexist, nor would it reflect on me having sexist, it reflects on me being a realist and dealing with the world AS IT IS, now how I *think* it is, as, if you're honestly believing friendly fire is a constant problem, you're clearly not.

Give me an example of one, just one woman meeting the criteria, and I mean ALL the criteria for entrance into a true first rate Special Operations Troops (in the vain of U.S. Army Special Forces, KSK, SAS, Navy SEAL's and the like, not the U.S. Marine crops or U.S. Army Rangers). It has never been done. Period. This will be the last time I say this as I'm tired of repeating myself; women DO NOT SERVE in SPECIAL OPERATIONS DETACHMENTS. That's it. It doesn't matter how much you want it, how unfair you think it is, what you wish the world is, what you think the world SHOULD be like, here, now, in REALITY. Remember that thing, reality. It's the real world, where people live and die every second of the day? WOMEN DON'T SERVER IN SPECIAL OPERATIONS. That's it, end of discussion. That's why I made the analogy to given birth. That's all there is to it, one is as impossible as the other. No amount of pandering or greasing, or even threatening will ever get a women INTO Special Operations. Only a true technological advance that could even the playing field (and bearing in mind, where both were physically equal, not just women gaining a physical advantage over now, if the gap still existed between the sexes, it would not change) could change that.

Okay you listed a bunch of GAME MECHANICS. I think you need to watch a few episodes of Extra Credits to learn the difference. Game Mechanics are light years away from Story Elements. A female soldier in a Special Operations unit is a STORY element, not a mechanic. Mechanics are parts of the game that make user interface possible, and at times, enjoyable or challenging or a multitude of things, but what they share in common is if the mechanic fits the setting and is executed correctly, you, as the player, should forget it's present. I liken it to how pilots claim flying a plane starts to feel like an extension of their body rather than holding onto controls. As a gamer I've regularly felt that I was *in* game. Mechanics do that, they add immersion. Putting in something as unrealistic as women in a Special Operations troop, or even a regular infantry unit, would jar someone out that immersion much more than say, respawning in MP. Just the simple fact they've never BEEN in a modern setting FPS would cause a second glance to even those casually aware of military dogma. Anyone who new what they were talking about would be genuinely confused. It then ceases to be modern setting FPS, and becomes a FANTASY game, as that is pure fantasy with no grounding in reality. Why isn't MW2 a fantasy game because Russia invades the U.S.? Because for almost 70 years THAT WAS a possibility, a genuine fear for both sides. It *is* grounded in reality. The game's mechanics have nothing to do with that. I said in a previous post, a truly realistic game exists, it's called reality. If we're at the point of playing a video-game, you've clearly made the mental choice to sacrifice and suspend a little bit of realism for entertainment sake. But there is a line in the sand that, genre specific can't be crossed. Like I said with Madden NFL; you as the player allow the unrealistic snap throw and catch because it makes the game flow, but if you gave a player a jetpack to hop over the opposing line, while interesting, would NOT belong in that game as that is not what that game is trying to do; it's trying to realistically simulate the the NFL game and world while remaining accessible and user friendly. The same holds true for any of these FPS's.

"HUGELY Implausible but not impossible:
1-World War 3 with Russia of all countries invading mainland USA without a massive nuclear exchange
2-Treacherous US Military commander working with terrorists to frame America for war crimes for a favourable war
3-Rogue Russian officers in the Cold War brainwashing American POWs to assassinate the US President.
4-Those same Russian Officers running a secret underwater base in the Gulf Of Mexico to coordinate a massive nerve gas attack on the US.
5-all the technology like heads-up top-down radar, motion sensors, bullet counters and ultra-lightweight thermal scopes
6-Claymore and bouncing mines that can be set off by enemy movement but not by your own presence or presence of allies.

List of mere reasonable plausibility but low frequency (by how we actually see them in practice):
7. -Women in armed ground combat roles"

1. Okay you don't know about strategic planing but let me clue you in, if Russia, North Korea, AND China invaded the U.S. Simultaneously, there would be 0 nuclear response. Strategic planning denotes, and is accurate in it's assessment, that nuclear weapons are of no use against countries that possess them themselves. We wouldn't use them, ESPECIALLY if we were already invaded. It's one thing to nuke someone on your terms, when you control the engagement (Air Superiority, fighting in *THEIR* country, not yours) but to use nukes when enemy troops are already within your boarders is bad strategy. If you use them on their troops, your bombing your own people, which is bad for a multitude of reasons, least of which it's a quick way to guarantee civilian uprising. If you bomb your enemy's home while their still in yours, you're guaranteeing swift reprisals against your civilian populous and the result is the same as the previous.

2. Oh that's cute, you think American officers never double deal. I'm sure with your years of criminal investigative experience and time spent around General officers has lead you to that conclusion. Read up on the Military Industrial Complex and any dealing with H&K and Beretta in the past twenty years.

3. Um... they did. Or rather tried. Look up MK-Ultra. It was the American version. Many of the personnel testing it were KGB turncoats. So were they successful, no, at least probably not, but they DID try, and sounds like a decent jumping off point for a shooter based in THAT time period.

4. That one was a little... odd, and while current military knowledge does not show evidence of them ever place submerged bases anywhere the U.S., the Russians did experiment with refueling stations for diesels in the North Sea. So it's still not without basis in reality.
In contrast, name me one time female soldiers were used as SFO's. I make a point of studying this stuff and went to school, and held a job, based on this stuff, and I've never come across even a hinting. The closest thing would be KGB case officers being women, but that's still light years away from say, a female SAS Operator.

5. Everything you named exists. Granted not in the 70's, but right now, we have each and every one of those things. And to be fair, motion sensors have existed since the 50's. Weapon mounted thermal scopes have exist since the 60's, now a-days they weigh no more than a standard night optic, neither of which I would describe as "ultra light weight," but not drastically more than a standard M68.

6. Again, basis in reality, as far back as the 30's magnetic Anti-Tank mines were being designed by the Germans to not detonate in the presence of the type of hulls used on their own tanks while still detonating under any other vehicle. In the modern world, smart mines are starting to come out that use advance FF settings to distinguish an enemy combatant from a friendly. Again, this has a basis in reality.

7. Give me an example of women serving in Infantry or Special Operations in the modern world. Just because Russians had female infantrymen in WWII does not somehow mean it's plausible now. Considering that was a conscript Army armed with bolt action rifles and sub machine guns made in some guys basement, it's not indicative of a Special Operations trooper who trains, minimum, for 5 years to get to that point, and is equipped with a half a million dollars of the finest equipment, firearms, and tech on this planet. You can't, it hasn't been done.

I think you need to stop assuming you know how ANY of this stuff works, and actually do some long research into the history of the world's militaries. It's probably one of the most well documented things in history (other than tax records, which isn't a joke). Before I will engage you further in this, as it's clearly something you know very little about, not much more than can be gained from a 10 minute google internet search, read a book called: "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society." DONT JUST READ THE WIKIPAGE. I don't agree with everything he states but he does go into depth how women on battlefields function and how male soldiers react to them. Again it's not female soldier's fault. IT IS MALE SOLDIERS' faults. The Israel Army actually bars women from Infantry units because of a statistical norm of how male soldiers reacted to female soldiers being wounded. This has been well documented for DECADES.

So returning once again to the task at hand, women DO NOT belong in Modern Setting FPS's as player characters should the player character be a representative of any first rate Infantry (or Combat Arms branch) and especially SFO's as there are 0 examples, and thus 0 basis in reality, for either.

Treblaine:
[[SNIP]]

A bit of my rough draft must have escaped. Sorry about that.

T2: Judgement Day was tailor made for the young adolescent male audience that sat down to watch it all the way back in 1991. A generation of young men who had grown up at a time where the nuclear family was expected norm, but was rapidly disintegrating into history as the foundation stone of western culture. A terribly dated caricature of Bart Simpson is adopted by Arnold Schwarzenegger at the height of his popularity and in him finds the father he has always wanted. As an added bonus he finds out that his mom in fact isn't crazy and was right all along.

True Lies is a remake of an earlier French film and the subtext is remarkably simple. Very simple, and very French. Your wife will be tempted to cheat, and presumably eventually leave you, should you stonewall her out of the most interesting parts of your life. And learning to dance really, really, well will never hurt either.

Getting back to Aliens, although it is demonstrably true that with the exception of Hicks all of the marines are ultimately in the movie to die in it there are quite clearly two varieties of marines.

The first group are comprised of those who die or are captured alive during the initial foray into the alien hive. Private Frost (Male), Private Drake (Male), Private Crowe (Male) , Corporal Dietrich(Female), Private Wierzbowski (Male) and lastly but certainly not least, Sergeant Apone (Male). But lets not forget to include the two dropship pilots, Corporal Colette Ferro (Female) and Private Spunkmeyer (Male).

The racial backgrounds of this first group can be broken down to 3 Anglo-Saxons, 1 Pole, 1 German, 1 African-American, 1 Italian and one guy named after a cookie franchise. There is a possibility that the last one is meant to be Jewish but it is probably meant to just be a joke. The gender ratio is 6 to 2 in favour of testicles.

This brings us to the last four marines, Private Hudson (Male), Lieutenant Gorman (Male), Private Vasquez (Female) and Corporal Hicks(Male). This group is much less diverse, breaking down to three guys that can trace their roots back to the British Isles and a Latin-American chick. The gender ratio holds at 3 to 1.

At this stage in the proceedings both Gorman and Hudson are dead men walking, the former for being incompetent, the later for losing his shit. In both horror and war movies nothing moves you up the list of people next to die than incompetence of command and flipping your shit. This sort of cuts us down to two characters, Hicks and Vasquez.

For a movie informed by the political fallout of the Vietnam War, released a mere ten years after the conflict had ended and had been written by James Cameron alongside initial drafts of Rambo II, Vasquez edges out Hicks on the film's own sliding scale of morality.

One of the central themes running throughout the film is when and when isn't the use of force justifiable, and boy does the film come down on it's cast of characters with all the subtleties of a Jesus-lion allegory whenever they mess up and do things for the wrong reasons. You claim that the marines are there to protect the colonists but you're wrong. The marines certainly believe that they're there to help protect the colonists, but the fact is they're really there due to the machinations of Weyland-Yutani executive Burke. When they enter the alien hive for the first time, get their asses kicked they lack the purity of motivation to succeed. In comparison when Ripley returns alone and unaided, selflessly facing down what you would think to be an almost certain death in order to try and rescue Newt, the film gives her a free pass.

[quote="Sylocat" post="6.382898.15153170"]

1. Tell me, do you also have a problem with the cartoonish stereotypes that pass for villains in most "realistic" military shooters? Or is that an unpatriotic question?

You're projecting quite a bit. Where did patriotism come in from? Nor are any villains from most of these games "cartoonist." Ever talk to an Enemy POW? No? Then shut up. You don't know what you're talking about. REAL "villains" in the modern world are more insane and detached from reality than games show. They tone it down FOR games. Makarov in COD is actually relatively down to Earth. His goals are clear and concrete, and his motivations are reasonable, just antithetical to the U.S. By comparison look at a SUICIDE bomber from Kandahar who believes if he manages to blow himself up and kill someone he's never met, in a conflict he doesn't understand he will be "rewarded" with being sucked up into a fairy tail land to be with his god for all time. And Makarov was "cartoonish"?

2. I seem to recall Games Workshop saying that third-party miniatures, as well as using miniatures to substitute for other miniatures, was officially sanctioned within the rules (and given that you are encouraged to make your own armies and races, it's almost mandatory anyway). Are you saying that Games Workshop is wrong about what their own rules are?

Show me a female Space Marine. Instead of spouting supposition, prove it. Show me an example of one actually being used in a match. Show me a tactical squad that's been custom made to play. Show me something other than "You can." You CAN kill someone, nothing will stop you, but that doesnt mean you will. I CAN sell all my possessions and become a Bedouin, but I would never, so it basically means I couldn't.

4. Wow, so not only do you have a degree in evolutionary psychology, you also have a degree in neurobiology! That's impressive. May I ask what medical school you went to, Doctor?

No I have experience and education in these matters, something you very evidently don't. Just like say, an MD gets regular updates about drug interactions and new forms of pharmacology, a Chemical Engineer read journals on new compounds being invented, or Law Enforcement officers learn about new less-than-leathal technologies, I study and get regular updates about this particular topic. I have even been quoted in a study about just this very thing (Women in front-line units). I was an MP. That means something in this argument. One it means, as part of my job I have to understand how people's minds work. I deal with criminals, that's a key part of my job. Their minds don't work, usually, the way it's supposed to. Before you can understand how something works when it's malfunctioning, you have to know how it works when it's functioning "right." That's why a Pathologist also studies healthy living humans. It's why a mechanic works on a functioning vehicle before he learns how to fix particular problems. And I was an *M*P, as in *MILITARY* Police, which means the psychology I was taught was tailored towards EXACTLY the kind of mentalities being discussed here.

The other reason is, as an MP, my unit is COED. I had a female Platoon leader, and when made Squad Leader, had a female team leader beneath me (as well as female Team Members). So I *distinctly* understand the subject matter as I *have* been in combat WITH women. Women in the U.S. Army use the MP Corps as way to get into combat. Out of all the Combat Support Branches, MP's by far see the most close combat, at times, more than Infantry (Infantry go out, do a patrol, come back, but just *their* patrol, they don't patrol for an Engineering Unit, or Guard Sea Bees, MP's do route security FOR EVERYONE; I was part of a PTT, believe me on this, I know how women react and behave and function in a combat zone. My statements are not from an ignorant sexist, likening to a KKK member wanting to send blacks back to Africa, or detached morons claiming "illegal" immigrants are ruining the country. I actually *know* what I'm talking about. Not only because I've studied it intensely, but because I ALSO lived it. Had I been an Infantryman, I wouldn't have chimed in from the start, I would lack a crucial part of the puzzle as I would never have served with women in a combat capacity, but I didn't serve in the Infantry, I was an MP, and that puts me in a unique position and coupled with my education DOES make me an authority on this stuff.

In contrast, find me an example of a female soldier clamoring for women to be depicted in Special Operations Units.

He/She looks like my Geography teacher :O

Wow, man, you're hilarious, long-winded, but hilarious.

All these "I was a Soldier, I'm the expert here!" diatribes here are laughable, repeatedly misinformed and generally reflect a disturbing lack of knowledge of the Army you claim to have served in. Reading your posts, it looks like you enlisted, took a shot at the Point, and got out. So I'm guessing maybe one deployment, probably at least a few years ago (also not seeing a combat patch on your profile pic, but whatever). This puts your knowledge of today's force as outdated.

I'll keep this brief, but I've got to counter the stuff you're saying here.

First off, to you point about women not serving with SF - wrong. I suggest you research the Cultural Support Team Program, because that's specifically female Soldiers serving alongside SF teams. Also AWG - while not part of SOCOM, but still pretty elite - is open to females.

Hell, I personally know two females in my old unit who left mid-deployment to attend "selection" of some sort, came back, were congratulated by all the seasoned infantrymen, and promptly disappeared stateside somewhere.

Also if you want a named example of this, Google "1st Lt. Ashley White" - she died alongside two Rangers while on a combat mission.

Adm. McRaven - the head of SOCOM - said in a press conference literally today, "We have a lot of females who serve in special operations," he noted. "They do a fantastic job across the board. ... We couldn't do the job without them."

To women and infantry - also wrong. Again, I suggest you look up the Female Engagement Team Program. Now it's true that they're not 11B's or 11C's (the infantry MOS's), but they're right out there on patrol with them. And when lead starts flying, I doubt the infantrymen next to them really start thinking about gender issues.

Females serve successfully in EOD, PSYOPS/MISO and Civil Affairs - all out there on the front lines of today's war, can attend Airborne and Air Assault School, SERE, the Sapper Leaders Course, and will start attending the Marines' Infantry Officers Course beginning in the next training cycle.

You need to get with the times, and stop acting like the sole expert on all things military. You were an MP. Your view of the military was only so big. Heck, you're not even in any more.

Times have changed, brother. You just haven't changed with them.

P.S.

Before you counter with "But the females weren't true 11 or 18-series, so it doesn't count!" I'd mention that enemy bullets don't differentiate between MOS.

Three tours, two Iraq, one Afganaistan. Promoted to Staff Sergeant and served as a Squad Leader on the second tour, and a station training manager when I was a PTT on the third tour. That picture is old (very old, from Quanico, I think 08) but my ACU's would be 18th MP on one should and 10th Mountain (as that was who were were most often attached to) on the other plus a CAB and Airborne School (from my first summer at West Point) and a Ranger Tab, class 2-09. I left for medical reasons, not my choice but that's how the cookie crumbles.

I'm much more aware on how things work in SFO's then you. Considering I was often tasked, personally, as working as a go-between the local detachment and our unit, I got a very close working relationship with 18x's. As an MP I've guarded their facilities. For my Advanced Weapons Training at Quanico (I was a range instructor for my PTT) I trained along side 2nd Detachment and MARSOC. I know SFO's. Had I wanted, I could have branched it out of West Point (as I had the language requirements from family and from deployments). The only way you could know more about SFO's is if you yourself were one, and I can already tell you are not from what you didn't say.

I had women on patrols in my unit. We saw more combat during my second tour than any Infantry platoon in our AO. That's a fact by the hours. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. I know you don't, because I'm right, therefor you're wrong, therefor you're either lying, or more likely, not aware of how it really works.

Just because the option for those positions are open, does not mean they are oft-filled. Nor does that reflect on their duties. Not all 18x's kick down doors. Not all persons with a Ranger Scroll (read- not tab) do combat drops, women do not serve as Operators. Period. This really is amazing that anyone can think contrary. It's the equivalent of a pigs flying joke. Bullet's don't disntigush by sex this is true, but if their not in the unit getting shot at it does not matter.

Also, to be fair, women see easily just as much combat as men, as much of the units that tend to have the most field time, MP's and Combat Engineers, both HEAVILY employ female soldiers and officers.

As far as schools are concerned, so can Chaplains. Ours had a tab, a mustard stain on his Airborne wings, and the Freefall badge, but he was *not* an MP, nor would he be considered an SFO had he been attached to their unit.

By your rational, the Pakistanis digging the toilet trenches are comparable to a SeaBee or combat engineer, simply because they are both employed in base development and work at the same FOB.

Women don't kick down doors, they don't frag and clear, they don't do field interrogations, they don't get issued CIRAS's, they don't use SOFLAM's. This is just how it is. They may do those things in other units. Hell I saw half that done by my Platoon Leader (who was female), but NOT in Special Operations Troops. *I* can technically wear a Ranger Scroll. My unit repeatedly did route security and were attached to 1st Battalion; in my file I am authorized to wear it as a combat patch (along with almost a dozen others, as most MP's can). Does that mean I'm a 1st Battalion Ranger? Because I did route security for them while attached? Absolutely not. A female Specialist in Civil Affairs is at worst pushing papers across the desk, at best an interpreter, but not a spook.

I CHALLENGE you to find an example contrary. I challenge you to find me ONE women who was assigned to, and served with, and conducted combat operations with COMBAT unit of a Special Operations troops. That does not mean, was a clerk in a Civil Affairs Field Office and they got shelled and overran. I mean assigned to a regular combat team. A setup that would have no one, and leave no question that they were an "Operator." I had reasonably high clearance and access to personnel records and *I've* never heard of one.

They don't. They just don't. It doesn't be little them. It doesn't make them less persons because they don't. It means as much that women don't serve in this capacity as men not having breasts. It's just a fact of our differences. We're not equal. That article from the female Marine Captain says precisely that. It has nothing to do with rights or ethics, just physical makeup. We're not the same. That's why women have lower standards for fitness tests, it would be *unfair* to hold them to the male standard. It would near guarantee that no women could serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. That would be a far greater crime and loss of assets than dealing with the human body as it exist and putting people in the jobs they can physically handle and belong doing.

Sigh... I'm guessing you didn't actually read my post. So to answer your assertions, here's a metric fuck-ton of sources explaining what I'm talking about.

- Cultural Support Teams (female Soldiers assigned specifically to Special Operations Units)
- http://www.marines.mil/unit/marsoc/Pages/recruiting/cst.aspx
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/in-new-elite-army-unit-women-serve-alongside-special-forces-but-first-they-must-make-the-cut/2011/10/06/gIQAZWOSMM_story.html
- http://www.soc.mil/swcs/cst/index.htm

- Female Engagement Teams (female Soldier assigned specifically to Infantry units)
- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/world/asia/03marines.html?pagewanted=all
- http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/dod%E2%80%99s-combat-exclusion-policies-limit-commanders-and-strain-our-current-forces

Also you keep saying stuff like female assigned as "a clerk in a Civil Affairs Field Office" You do realize that the 38B and 37F (CA and MISO respectively) are both open to females. As in they go outside the wire on missions?

And to your point on challenging me to find a woman who was assigned to, served with and conducted combat operations with a SOCOM unit?

1st Lt. Ashley White - killed in Afghanistan while serving with 2/75 Ranger Batt. And look, her official "death photo" as we call it in the biz, has her wearing your fancy special ops vest: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700191423/Death-highlights-womens-role-in-Special-Ops-teams.html?pg=1

Pfc. Monica Brown - a female medic assigned to 4-37 CAV who earned the Silver star while out on patrol in Afghanistan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003415.html

I could go on, but it's late and I have better things to do.

In closing I'll say a few quick things.

1) You're very mistaken on the role women serve in combat these days.
B) The way you're constantly name-dropping loose connections to certain special operations units and other credentials smacks of some serious e-peen issues at the least, if not Stolen Valor on a higher level. (Rule #1 in spotting a poser, they love to name drop.)
3) Your story just doesn't add up: Your profile says you just turned 23, however you have managed to serve three tours downrange, went to Ranger School, made E-6 in a notoriously slow promoting MOS (not to mention the 48 mos TIS minimum), went to West Point, and were med boarded? Either you enlisted at 15 or you have to share your secrets to accomplishing so much in less than 5 years (assuming you enlisted at 18). Not to mention that branching SF doesn't have a "language requirement".
IV) You called me a liar and said I don't know what I'm talking about, among other things. That's cool and I appreciate your candor, especially since I didn't mention anything about myself, my military background or the like - you really have no grounds on which to make that statement.

And 5) Quantico has a "t' in it. Sorry that was driving me crazy seeing you repeatedly spell the place you trained at wrong.

They are not special operations troopers. You don't know what you're talking about. They are not members of Special Operations Troops. This is the last time I will state this as it is really getting old. You can cite all the anecdotes you want, that doesn't change Army Policy nor does it change reality. By your rational, if a female member of my squad was Killed or wounded during an engagement while we were in Kandahar while doing route security an exfiltration nets for 1st Battalion Rangers, that would qualify her as a member of said unit. We were attached to them, in the field we answered to their chain of command and could requisition us or our equipment at will. Does that make *me* Special Operations because I served under those conditions? Absolutely not.

As far as my record is concerned; joined slightly before my 18th birthday, and as a duel enrollment student all through my high school (college prep) I had enough credits for an AA degree before I graduated HS (and was granted one upon graduation. As such when I graduated basic and AIT I was a SPC from the get go. By the time for my first tour was as a Specialist whose primary role while on base was SRT (Hence the Training at Quan*t*ico (happy?)), and when in the field, an Automatic Rifleman. By the second tour I was an E5, and, this is where things get hinky; yes the TIS is 48 months and there are a few exceptions where that can be overruled, mine was the rare case. Somebody has to be the case. Every rule, as you seem to like to point out with female soldiers serving "in" Special Operations, has an exception, I guess I got to be the lucky exception in this case. I suppose this disproves my point that some things that are thought to be written in stone can and do get changed for specific circumstance, but it's a far cry from the issue at hand.

The details don't matter, but suffice to say the position for Squad leader opened shortly after getting in country (I was a fireteam leader at the time) and through a bluff to actually get out of the job; I essentially said, "If you want me to do an E6's job I want an E6's pay," I figured an up yours was going to follow but... I ended up before a promotion board at roughly 38 months TIS. Due to my record, the situation at hand, and the fact I had more or less the most easy going Battalion and Brigade Sergeant Majors in history, as well as one hell of a letter of recommendation from my PSG, I was made acting E6 and squad leader with provisions that should I carry on in a manner that at that point, my service thus far reflected, I would gain the full pay grade. I did, and upon my return to Germany at the conclusion of the tour it was made "official." Third tour was cut short by a wounding (complications of which eventually forced me to be medically retired).

During this time (and previously) I was offered a chance to go to OCS school, which, at the behest of my PSG(possibly the best person I've ever known) I refused, as the life of an NCO was, and I believe still is, the best thing for me. However returning to the U.S. and awaiting reasigning I was offered the opprotunity to go to West Point. That's a big difference from OCS school. I agreed but this was roughly October-November-ish. After that I had about 6 months to kill before my class started at West Point. I had been owed a school from my enlistment contract. I was supposed to, originally, been part of an Airborne MP unit and as such it was in my original contract that I was to go to Airborne school should I meet the requirements. I did, but at the last moment my spot had to go to someone else. I could have left the Army scot free but I didn't, but I remembered. When I was faced with 6 long months of nothing to do (and they wouldn't LET me do much because of where I was going), I... not quite demanded but you get the gist, that I be allowed to go to some school in the Army. My first choice was SERE. I wanted to come back to the MP's so I figured knowing some clever things about interrogation, both giving and receiving, would be useful, but they couldn't get me in at short notice and they didn't feel it was appropriate. So what's the next sexy school after SERE? Ranger school. My CO got me a spot and I was off. Had to redo Swamp Phase, but got my tab.

Switch ahead to West Point, did a year. It was... interesting. Not for me in hindsight, I'm not really an officer type, but would have been good career wise. Didn't matter. Complications from previous events caused me to be admitted into Walter Reed (the new one, at Bethesda). I had to be med-boarded because of it and, coupled with a few other dings and dents acquired over the years, I got a disability rating of 70%, service connected, a pension, and tricare for life.

By the years that's joined in later April, early May, first deployment about 10 months later. Back for about a year and a half being stationed around Europe (is common for MP's), Second deployment and then promotion. Went right back for a third (I'm at about 4 years in at this point), wounded, return to the U.S., Ranger School, then 1 year at West Point. For a grand total of, as my DD-214 shows, about 5 1/4 years of service. And it's been about half a year since my retirement. I'm 23 and joined at 17. Add up for you?

That's the story. Not at all unheard. Uncommon granted, but I was nor the first, or the last probably, to have a similar career. None of this has to do with e-peen. That's you projecting perhaps, or not. I don't care. I point out my qualifications and experience the same as a Phd. put "Phd." ahead of his name on a paper, or a doctor signs a prescription MD., or cop prefaces his name with "Officer" in a court report. It's to show your authority on the subject on hand as gained through experience and education. That is how you get to be an expert on a subject. No one's born with knowledge. Genetic memory doesn't extend to facts. You have to do AND see. My pointing out what I've done and where I have gone is doing just that. If you misunderstood my intention, then let me spell it out clear, any, as you say, "Name Dropping" is purely to establish that I have a working, if not close working, knowledge and experience with said subjects and have an understanding gained not from third party sources, or even second hand through an intermediary, but through my own eyes.

Also at West Point, if you want to "Branch Arrows" as they call it (That is, if you WANT to branch into U.S. Special Forces in *any* Capacity), you have to speak 2 languages (other than English) fluently. I can speak Russia (family spoke it at home my whole life) Spanish (schooling and where I grew up) and got very skilled at Arabic while during my time in PTT, and my Farsi isn't that bad (I can get and receive the general point reasonably well). At West Point the language requirements tend to be the biggest hurdler when attempting to gain access to that branch except, perhaps, the insanely low quota allowed for the school (2 per class) but how the determine who fills that quota, invariably, comes down to language. If you're at West Point you're smart enough, you're definitely driven enough, and statistically, in the best shape in the U.S. Army, at least in that age group. The languages requirements tend to be the best way to separate candidates.

Oh and that female LT you posted is not wearing the same vest as me. I'm a bit of a gear nut so this is splitting hairs but as you couldn't deal with my misspelling, I won't let this pass. I'm wearing a plate carrier called CIRAS manufactured by Eagle Industries, she's wearing a vest known as a Commando chest harness, it's a standard cut but if I were to venture a guess it was made by Black Hawk Industries (although it could be a Weesatch, the picture doesn't show enough). There is a woman wearing a CIRAS in that set, but it is not of Lt. White.

Also, just so your aware, the Stolen Valor act was declared unconstitutional and is no longer on the books. As an MP, of all people, that's something I had to know, as, usually, issues where the Stolen Valor act comes into play more often with military personnel (embellishing one's ribbon's or, and this is the most common, enlisted men throwing on a set of chevrons and trying to impress ladies at clubs.

Anyway this will be my last post on the subject. I've made my point abundantly clear, and no one is offering a real counterargument, rather just developing into an Ad hominem argument, something I have no reason, or interest in engaging in.

I played a female Spartan most of the time in Halo 3/Reach...

Don't look at me like that!

Good episode, as always.

chimpzy:

razuk:
How about some props to Halo for having the option of playing female characters since Halo 3?

I don't really see how that is deserving of props, since other games have included female mp characters years before Halo 3 was around. Notable examples include Unreal, Quake 3, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. Unless you're referring to Halo being a sausage-fest before the third game.

Speaking of Perfect Dark though, apart from No One Live Forever and Mirror's Edge, I can't think of any other fps that has a woman as the main (and only) playable characters in singleplayer.

don't forget that Metroid has Samus

PoweD:
I would like to point out another balance issue with models of both sexes.
Classes.
Now, imagine you are playing TF2 and you see a glimpse of a character model, as pointed out by valve in its commentary, character models in the game are modeled so you can instantly know the players class from its silhouette.Having female versions would screw that up completely.
Your mind is constantly trying to tie character models with classes.

Even if you pass that issue, society still thinks women are the weaker/more kind side of gender.Which would trick the player into thinking that the female models are non-hostiles.

Really? See, I was just playing Saints Row the Third and I had no problem gunning down the female gang members who were trying to gun me down. And I don't ever recall having any problems in any other game I have ever played. And I don't remember ever hearing about this from anybody in games, at all, ever. Do you have any proof you aren't just making a HUGE assumption and pulling the rest out of your ass?

Lilani:

PoweD:
I would like to point out another balance issue with models of both sexes.
Classes.
Now, imagine you are playing TF2 and you see a glimpse of a character model, as pointed out by valve in its commentary, character models in the game are modeled so you can instantly know the players class from its silhouette.Having female versions would screw that up completely.
Your mind is constantly trying to tie character models with classes.

Even if you pass that issue, society still thinks women are the weaker/more kind side of gender.Which would trick the player into thinking that the female models are non-hostiles.

Really? See, I was just playing Saints Row the Third and I had no problem gunning down the female gang members who were trying to gun me down. And I don't ever recall having any problems in any other game I have ever played. And I don't remember ever hearing about this from anybody in games, at all, ever. Do you have any proof you aren't just making a HUGE assumption and pulling the rest out of your ass?

Late to the party much?
Bunch of other people already pointed out decent arguments.

RC1138:

Sylocat:
You're projecting quite a bit. Where did patriotism come in from? Nor are any villains from most of these games "cartoonist." Ever talk to an Enemy POW? No? Then shut up. You don't know what you're talking about. REAL "villains" in the modern world are more insane and detached from reality than games show. They tone it down FOR games. Makarov in COD is actually relatively down to Earth. His goals are clear and concrete, and his motivations are reasonable, just antithetical to the U.S. By comparison look at a SUICIDE bomber from Kandahar who believes if he manages to blow himself up and kill someone he's never met, in a conflict he doesn't understand he will be "rewarded" with being sucked up into a fairy tail land to be with his god for all time. And Makarov was "cartoonish"?

After that long and incredibly offensive diatribe about Russia attacking the US being "plausible" (the fear of which during the cold war, incidentally, was almost entirely rooted in 1984-eque jingoism rather than actual possibility of events), and then going on to say that it's still plausible in 2012, you're now citing suicide bombers as evidence.

Sorry, but no. You've tossed realism right out the window when you've had Russia invading the USA two decades after the Cold War ended.

Show me a female Space Marine. Instead of spouting supposition, prove it. Show me an example of one actually being used in a match. Show me a tactical squad that's been custom made to play. Show me something other than "You can." You CAN kill someone, nothing will stop you, but that doesnt mean you will. I CAN sell all my possessions and become a Bedouin, but I would never, so it basically means I couldn't.

Um, first off, do you want me to post detailed transcripts of every Warhammer game I've ever played with my friends? Secondly, are you this confrontational about homebrew armies with races that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Black Book?

Given how rabidly you're latching onto each individual example, I can't help but question your claim that you don't think women should be by default excluded from every FPS setting ever.

No I have experience and education in these matters, something you very evidently don't. Just like say, an MD gets regular updates about drug interactions and new forms of pharmacology, a Chemical Engineer read journals on new compounds being invented, or Law Enforcement officers learn about new less-than-leathal technologies, I study and get regular updates about this particular topic. I have even been quoted in a study about just this very thing (Women in front-line units). I was an MP. That means something in this argument. One it means, as part of my job I have to understand how people's minds work. I deal with criminals, that's a key part of my job. Their minds don't work, usually, the way it's supposed to. Before you can understand how something works when it's malfunctioning, you have to know how it works when it's functioning "right." That's why a Pathologist also studies healthy living humans. It's why a mechanic works on a functioning vehicle before he learns how to fix particular problems. And I was an *M*P, as in *MILITARY* Police, which means the psychology I was taught was tailored towards EXACTLY the kind of mentalities being discussed here.

So, you know more about the human brain than legions of people who have spent several lifetimes studying [url=http://www.amazon.com/Being-No-One-Self-Model-Subjectivity/dp/0262134179the mechanisms[/url] of the human conscious and subconscious? Because, taken with your vehement denigration of female soldiers in sci-fi settings (and your cutesy denial of your own hangups there), this sounds an awful lot like confirmation bias.

[quote]The other reason is, as an MP, my unit is COED. I had a female Platoon leader, and when made Squad Leader, had a female team leader beneath me (as well as female Team Members). So I *distinctly* understand the subject matter as I *have* been in combat WITH women. Women in the U.S. Army use the MP Corps as way to get into combat. Out of all the Combat Support Branches, MP's by far see the most close combat, at times, more than Infantry (Infantry go out, do a patrol, come back, but just *their* patrol, they don't patrol for an Engineering Unit, or Guard Sea Bees, MP's do route security FOR EVERYONE; I was part of a PTT, believe me on this, I know how women react and behave and function in a combat zone. My statements are not from an ignorant sexist, likening to a KKK member wanting to send blacks back to Africa, or detached morons claiming "illegal" immigrants are ruining the country. I actually *know* what I'm talking about. Not only because I've studied it intensely, but because I ALSO lived it. Had I been an Infantryman, I wouldn't have chimed in from the start, I would lack a crucial part of the puzzle as I would never have served with women in a combat capacity, but I didn't serve in the Infantry, I was an MP, and that puts me in a unique position and coupled with my education DOES make me an authority on this stuff.

So, the issue of statistical sampling (and, again, confirmation bias) just didn't occur to you?

As Gary Brecher said: The people on top are just as dumb as you are, just meaner and greedier.

PoweD:
Late to the party much?
Bunch of other people already pointed out decent arguments.

I wasn't about to pick through nine pages to make sure such an ignorant argument hadn't gone unquestioned.

It's funny reading your posts over, it's clear you don't know how to argue. Every post consists of two things:

1. Responding to tone, as in criticizing the tone of the argument rather than attacking the substance of my points. For example I don't know where you got "incredibly offensive" from mentioning that for, oh I don't know, 60 years American and the then Soviet Union were an arm's race and a heightened state of readiness. Also considering that still, to this day, when American and English Strategic planning is done, war games simulated, and technology upgrade research is done, it's done with Russia as the enemy. When the U.S. Navy does combat exercises, they don't pretend to track German submarines, it's Russian Akulas and Typhoons. They are of military concern. A WWIII against them is not likely at this point in time, but entirely possible, certainty more likely than say, North Korea or Iran (Who both lack a key part to wagging a WW against Nato Nations: A sizable and variable Navy). And the military's strategic fear of the Russian military has nothing to do with racism or prejudice, it has to do with the fact they have the largest military, more tanks than most of Nato nations combined, the second largest active fleet submarine force, and the 3rd largest Air Force in the world. To not be concerned would be a military folly.

Also your cracked, which to use as a source is laughable at best, link had nothing to do with anything I said as I never mentioned Kennedy in any capacity or capitalism vs. communism. In fact I never mentioned ideology in any of this as in war, ideology rarely is a motivating factor. It's almost always comes down to theft, strategically speaking, of resources, land, people, money, or technology. Ideology is just the excuse, but not the reason.

But be that as it may, every statement is just a responding to tone. "

2. That brings me to your other method of argument contradiction. You never actually support anything with proof, you just say, and I quote, "Secondly, are you this confrontational about homebrew armies with races that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Black Book?" What does being confrontational have to do with anything? (You also sidestepped my question, (show me a female Space Marine tactical squad, I'll settle for an Assault or Devastator if that's all you can muster) a common sign of an unsteady position in an argument. Stop telling me it's possible or that even you claim, show me. I'm totally open to the concept, but I need to see something. Hell show me a female Chaos Marine (mutations brought on by Slaanesh don't count)

As far as your list of... rather unrelated (to *my* points) and random psychology links and "sources" whatever they have to do with ANYTHING I discussed is beyond me but I'll say it again purely out of courtesy, I know Criminal Psychology. It is a critical component of being an MP. But just like Pathology in medicine, to know how something went wrong/why it's not functioning properly, you have to have a detailed understanding of how it works when all is fine. That's as true for cars and bodies as for minds.

So no, I don't think I know more then those places you mentioned, but then, nothing about them had anything to do with me understanding how people's behavior and mentalities react in combat. The study about flies was particularly confusing as I mentioned nothing about reproduction. About the closest thing was that males have an innate desire to protect females. That's only periphery related to actual reproduction.

So you really just posted, I assume to show off or to make me feel bad, as nothing else would make sense, a bunch of links to unrelated, interesting granted, but unrelated studies of... it sounds like an attempt to hobble together an evolutionary psychology argument but nothing there had anything to do with what I was talking about; but I can play that game too; http://mhei.hubpages.com/hub/inferiotiycomplex I think you'll find that enlightening and interesting.

Also for the record confirmation bias does not mean that something isn't true, it just means you're likely to ignore contrary data and highlight supporting data. Hitting a light switch with your eyes closed is a form of confirmation bias. Your lacking a key detail, the ability to confirm that the light is on, however you are relying on supporting data, the knowledge of where the switch is, what it does, and that it should work, to trust that the light will indeed turn on. Just having the confirmation bias does not guarantee that the light is going to explode or turn into a chicken, it just means your making a logical assumption and ignoring contradictory or non-supportive data that may be unrelated or inconclusive.

"Given how rabidly you're latching onto each individual example, I can't help but question your claim that you don't think women should be by default excluded from every FPS setting ever."

Okay this one actually got me to laugh out loud. Forgetting how preposterous it would be that you could be in *my* head, I said that women are fine in Fantasy or Sci-Fi setting FPS's. I don't know what more I can say. Do I need to draw a pretty picture of a female Master Chief blasting the convenient to pieces? Do I need to mod all of Bioshock so that any male references to the player character are changed to the appropriate female? If I said that women are fine, in fact in some roles, better, in these setting FPS's, then you have to take me at my word. I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose by lying in an *internet* argument. You need to get a grip. I was very clear that women just don't belong in Modern Setting FPS's as they don't serve in the capacities depicted those games. In contrast playing as a female in say, a WWII FPS on the Russian front (which has been done in COD Finest Hour) would make sense and add to the overall game (and did). So if you think I'm lying, because I have a secret ulterior motive to keep women down, you really need to take a long hard look at yourself. If I were to venture a guess I'd say you're projecting on to me because of a deep seated personal prejudice against women, and in knowing that is unfair and a poor view to hold, you react even more viscerally against those giving a view even peripherally similar to those held by you as a way to prove you don't hold those views. It's akin to the to the closet racist who goes to great, and unnecessary lengths to "prove" they are not. I don't know that's the case with you but in re-reading my own posts, and your responses, that would be my working assumption.

I like women. It's one of the reasons I contracted for the MP Corps instead of Infantry or Artillery (my other top 3). I was looking forward to serving with them and enjoying their company.

In any event, I stand by my position. I considered your, hmm, data, compared it to my points, experience, and data, and in viewing the subject as a whole I've seen nothing presented to say contrary to my original point, that women do not belong in Modern setting FPS's as the units invariably depicted, and the roles taken, by both player characters and NPC's are not roles currently fielded by female soldiers. While yes indeed female soldiers can and do serve in "infantry-like" positions, as I started my original point by mentioning, they do not serve in the capacities depicted in said settings and thus would be a gross misrepresentation of the subject material. Should a developer make a Fantasy/Sci-Fi FPS, even taking place in the modern/post modern world (say for example, Half Life, Killing Floor, Serious Sam-like, or Left 4 Dead) then female character can, and should be playable/present (and in Killing Floor/L4D, they are). But say, Medal of Honor Warfighter, which primarly will depict the operations of U.S. Navy SEALS, and Delta Operators, neither group who employs females in the roles depicted (Close Quarters Combat Ops, SAR, Demolitions, Sabotage ect) and having one would be quite jarring and would in of and itself diametrically change the genre from modern setting FPS to fantasy and/or sci-fi.

That's a fresh new look there Jim. Keep the hair going. It looks well ;)

In other news, Former MP rules that all females 89D, 37F and 38B no longer part of SOCOM. Female Soldiers confused, accept reality and return to clerical work.

Adm. William McRaven, commander of SOCOM apologized, admiting that his statement earlier this week praising women serving in special operations was mistaken, "I didn't realize that some long-winded douche on a video game forum had ruled that female servicemembers serving as MISO, Civil Affair and EOD were no longer part of special operations. I will inform the Commander-in-Chief and all other relevant parties that some guy on the Internet who hung out with some Rangers this one time has made this decision, and that because he said so on the Internet it must be true. Therefore, I will cancel the CST and FET programs, remove all female servicemembers from all special forces and infantry units and have them return to filing paperwork as it is apparently all they are good for in the eyes of some guy on the Internet."

I'm sorry I didn't realize defusing a bomb, conducting Civil Affairs Ops, or Physiological Warfare were the same jobs as a Delta Force Operator, or an SBS Crew Member or a KSK Entry Specialist. I'll inform all of those groups (who are often very undermanned, KSK being the worst) they in fact have 1000's of more possible soldiers and sailors (male and female) fully capable to do their jobs for them with no additional training or operational experience. I'm sure the boys in SEAL Team 3 will be especially happy after recent incidences relating to inexperienced, rushed members compromising teams. If you honestly think a 37F does the same job to any degree as what's depicted in the context of a Special Operations Member, as shown in modern setting FPS's you need to take a long day of studying. Being a member of SOCOM does not make you an Operator. Operator, that term, means something, it originally distinguished between "Operational" and "Non-Operational" in the regard to 2nd Detachment (Not 1st Detachment as is commonly believed, Delta can claim alot, but they are not the original "Operators") having member who were "Operational" in combat, the "true" Special Operations Soldier (kicking down doors as the classic catch all term), and Non-Operational members, being those who support said actions indirectly, be it COM specialists back at base, training personnel, or even just command staff. Video games depict Operators, and Operators are not female.

In no way am I minimizing their service, believe me as an MP I am *ALL* too familiar with people minimizing service based on job description (and it's all the more hurtful when it's the soldier's you're trying to protect doing the minimizing), but I would no sooner compare a 37F to an SAS trooper kicking down doors than I would compare myself to one. I was not Special Operations and yet I did in house training of foreign soldiers as well as training in country (as part of the PTT program), went to advance weapons training (so to allow me to function as an SRT member and later a firearms instructor), all things done by specifically SF, and yet I am in no way comparable to them as for all that similarity, they are miles ahead of me with all the additional training and duties. A Bomb Disposal team while doing something unbelievably complex and more dangerous than perhaps any other job in the Army is still not a Special Forces Entry Team Member and would not do that job. I can not take a random, male or female for that matter, out of the 38B MOS and teleport them in to Kosovo and expect them to properly function in a KSK unit up in the mountains. I could do that with an SBS member, or a SEAL, but a Civil Affairs Specialist would be a little out of his domain.

If you honestly cannot see that, then you're deluded, and then there's no point in even discussing this anymore.

lol random idea but y don't they just make the characters genderless. just have a screen at the beginning of FPS's explaining that humanity has started cloning genderless Neanderthals to fight their wars hahaha

RC1138:

And let me be clear, as both a soldier with combat experience, AND a law enforcement officer, that is, someone whose job it is to investigate crimes and criminal behavior in a military and/or war setting (and intentional Fratricide being a capital crime, it's called murder, and can possible classify as treason, which is actually treated as worse than murder in the American Military criminal justice system (a found verdict *has* to result in the death penalty)) friendly fire, speaking as what actually GOES ON down-range, is *not* a problem. That is to say, it doesn't happen that often. In fact I've never seen it take place, nor met someone that claims it did. I have investigated possible circumstance, but never found one that had actually happens. In the context we are discussing; ground troops, specifically Infantry and Special Operations, friendly fire is a very, very rare occurrence right now. Now if this had been about Air Crews and SAM fire, this would be different, but we are not.

I will not say it NEVER happens, but speaking as someone who has been shot at, and in combat in the vicinity of other units, friendly fire DOES NOT enter your brain. You don't even think about it because, you just don't. You know more consider that than you do fear a strafing run from a Fokker Triplane. It's just not in my mind nor other soldiers.

Friendly fire is far from the most contentious issue between the military and the rest of the country either. If you truly think that I suggest you start researching, heavily, about recent Senate hearing and the like. By far, without question, the most contentious issue is Suicides. Ask any soldier in the past 6 years and they'll tell you that every month SOMETHING new gets added, some new SOP in relation to suicide prevention and care. AND it's a very hot button issue in the private sector about the military as both pro and anti war groups use it as arguments for their camp; pro-war see it as a response to a lack of troops and equipment and thus need to buckle down and send MORE troops overseas, anti-war feel it's a sign of troops breaking under constant extreme pressure, and thus should end the war.

Friendly fire is no more an issue than using Pakistan contractors to build our toilets. I don't say that as a joke, but rather as it's a rarely, but currently on *occasion* spoken of issue.

So no, me not considering how friendly fire relates at all to ANYTHING in this argument does not make me a sexist, nor would it reflect on me having sexist, it reflects on me being a realist and dealing with the world AS IT IS, now how I *think* it is, as, if you're honestly believing friendly fire is a constant problem, you're clearly not.

Give me an example of one, just one woman meeting the criteria, and I mean ALL the criteria for entrance into a true first rate Special Operations Troops (in the vain of U.S. Army Special Forces, KSK, SAS, Navy SEAL's and the like, not the U.S. Marine crops or U.S. Army Rangers). It has never been done. Period. This will be the last time I say this as I'm tired of repeating myself; women DO NOT SERVE in SPECIAL OPERATIONS DETACHMENTS. That's it. It doesn't matter how much you want it, how unfair you think it is, what you wish the world is, what you think the world SHOULD be like, here, now, in REALITY. Remember that thing, reality. It's the real world, where people live and die every second of the day? WOMEN DON'T SERVER IN SPECIAL OPERATIONS. That's it, end of discussion. That's why I made the analogy to given birth. That's all there is to it, one is as impossible as the other. No amount of pandering or greasing, or even threatening will ever get a women INTO Special Operations. Only a true technological advance that could even the playing field (and bearing in mind, where both were physically equal, not just women gaining a physical advantage over now, if the gap still existed between the sexes, it would not change) could change that.

Okay you listed a bunch of GAME MECHANICS. I think you need to watch a few episodes of Extra Credits to learn the difference. Game Mechanics are light years away from Story Elements. A female soldier in a Special Operations unit is a STORY element, not a mechanic. Mechanics are parts of the game that make user interface possible, and at times, enjoyable or challenging or a multitude of things, but what they share in common is if the mechanic fits the setting and is executed correctly, you, as the player, should forget it's present. I liken it to how pilots claim flying a plane starts to feel like an extension of their body rather than holding onto controls. As a gamer I've regularly felt that I was *in* game. Mechanics do that, they add immersion. Putting in something as unrealistic as women in a Special Operations troop, or even a regular infantry unit, would jar someone out that immersion much more than say, respawning in MP. Just the simple fact they've never BEEN in a modern setting FPS would cause a second glance to even those casually aware of military dogma. Anyone who new what they were talking about would be genuinely confused. It then ceases to be modern setting FPS, and becomes a FANTASY game, as that is pure fantasy with no grounding in reality. Why isn't MW2 a fantasy game because Russia invades the U.S.? Because for almost 70 years THAT WAS a possibility, a genuine fear for both sides. It *is* grounded in reality. The game's mechanics have nothing to do with that. I said in a previous post, a truly realistic game exists, it's called reality. If we're at the point of playing a video-game, you've clearly made the mental choice to sacrifice and suspend a little bit of realism for entertainment sake. But there is a line in the sand that, genre specific can't be crossed. Like I said with Madden NFL; you as the player allow the unrealistic snap throw and catch because it makes the game flow, but if you gave a player a jetpack to hop over the opposing line, while interesting, would NOT belong in that game as that is not what that game is trying to do; it's trying to realistically simulate the the NFL game and world while remaining accessible and user friendly. The same holds true for any of these FPS's.

"HUGELY Implausible but not impossible:
1-World War 3 with Russia of all countries invading mainland USA without a massive nuclear exchange
2-Treacherous US Military commander working with terrorists to frame America for war crimes for a favourable war
3-Rogue Russian officers in the Cold War brainwashing American POWs to assassinate the US President.
4-Those same Russian Officers running a secret underwater base in the Gulf Of Mexico to coordinate a massive nerve gas attack on the US.
5-all the technology like heads-up top-down radar, motion sensors, bullet counters and ultra-lightweight thermal scopes
6-Claymore and bouncing mines that can be set off by enemy movement but not by your own presence or presence of allies.

List of mere reasonable plausibility but low frequency (by how we actually see them in practice):
7. -Women in armed ground combat roles"

1. Okay you don't know about strategic planing but let me clue you in, if Russia, North Korea, AND China invaded the U.S. Simultaneously, there would be 0 nuclear response. Strategic planning denotes, and is accurate in it's assessment, that nuclear weapons are of no use against countries that possess them themselves. We wouldn't use them, ESPECIALLY if we were already invaded. It's one thing to nuke someone on your terms, when you control the engagement (Air Superiority, fighting in *THEIR* country, not yours) but to use nukes when enemy troops are already within your boarders is bad strategy. If you use them on their troops, your bombing your own people, which is bad for a multitude of reasons, least of which it's a quick way to guarantee civilian uprising. If you bomb your enemy's home while their still in yours, you're guaranteeing swift reprisals against your civilian populous and the result is the same as the previous.

2. Oh that's cute, you think American officers never double deal. I'm sure with your years of criminal investigative experience and time spent around General officers has lead you to that conclusion. Read up on the Military Industrial Complex and any dealing with H&K and Beretta in the past twenty years.

3. Um... they did. Or rather tried. Look up MK-Ultra. It was the American version. Many of the personnel testing it were KGB turncoats. So were they successful, no, at least probably not, but they DID try, and sounds like a decent jumping off point for a shooter based in THAT time period.

4. That one was a little... odd, and while current military knowledge does not show evidence of them ever place submerged bases anywhere the U.S., the Russians did experiment with refueling stations for diesels in the North Sea. So it's still not without basis in reality.
In contrast, name me one time female soldiers were used as SFO's. I make a point of studying this stuff and went to school, and held a job, based on this stuff, and I've never come across even a hinting. The closest thing would be KGB case officers being women, but that's still light years away from say, a female SAS Operator.

5. Everything you named exists. Granted not in the 70's, but right now, we have each and every one of those things. And to be fair, motion sensors have existed since the 50's. Weapon mounted thermal scopes have exist since the 60's, now a-days they weigh no more than a standard night optic, neither of which I would describe as "ultra light weight," but not drastically more than a standard M68.

6. Again, basis in reality, as far back as the 30's magnetic Anti-Tank mines were being designed by the Germans to not detonate in the presence of the type of hulls used on their own tanks while still detonating under any other vehicle. In the modern world, smart mines are starting to come out that use advance FF settings to distinguish an enemy combatant from a friendly. Again, this has a basis in reality.

7. Give me an example of women serving in Infantry or Special Operations in the modern world. Just because Russians had female infantrymen in WWII does not somehow mean it's plausible now. Considering that was a conscript Army armed with bolt action rifles and sub machine guns made in some guys basement, it's not indicative of a Special Operations trooper who trains, minimum, for 5 years to get to that point, and is equipped with a half a million dollars of the finest equipment, firearms, and tech on this planet. You can't, it hasn't been done.

I think you need to stop assuming you know how ANY of this stuff works, and actually do some long research into the history of the world's militaries. It's probably one of the most well documented things in history (other than tax records, which isn't a joke). Before I will engage you further in this, as it's clearly something you know very little about, not much more than can be gained from a 10 minute google internet search, read a book called: "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society." DONT JUST READ THE WIKIPAGE. I don't agree with everything he states but he does go into depth how women on battlefields function and how male soldiers react to them. Again it's not female soldier's fault. IT IS MALE SOLDIERS' faults. The Israel Army actually bars women from Infantry units because of a statistical norm of how male soldiers reacted to female soldiers being wounded. This has been well documented for DECADES.

So returning once again to the task at hand, women DO NOT belong in Modern Setting FPS's as player characters should the player character be a representative of any first rate Infantry (or Combat Arms branch) and especially SFO's as there are 0 examples, and thus 0 basis in reality, for either.

I think friendly fire is a problem not as a matter of sustainability but as a matter of morale and public confidence in the war.

The Public feels greatly for the loss of every single soldier, they can somewhat more easily come to terms when it is by enemy action, but it is much harder to accept when it is by a careless accident.

How can you say that friendly fire just "doesn't enter your brain"?!? I have heard from British soldiers on American soldiers their great concern about the lack of consideration they give to friendly fire.

I'm not saying suicides is not a concern or trivial in comparison, in fact I never even mentioned it. I think you are tvilialising the senesless death of american servicemen by saying, I quote:

"Friendly fire is no more an issue than using Pakistan contractors to build our toilets. I don't say that as a joke, but rather as it's a rarely, but currently on *occasion* spoken of issue."

But on to this straw man argument of women in video games:

Give me an example of one, just one woman meeting the criteria, and I mean ALL the criteria for entrance into a true first rate Special Operations Troops

That's not the issue. These war FPS games do NOT exclusively look at Special Forces. Modern Warfare 1 and 2 followed in their side plot some "grunt" infantry. In all of them you at the very least SEE basic infantry either on your own side or in the enemy force. Battlefield 3, Bad Company series and so on.

I'm, fed up of your hypocritical reasoning, allowing unrealistic things that make the game fun but totally unrealistic, but against any girls in your boys only club. Mechanics and story you can't separate, especially with your lame excuses for the insane plot elements. When did any high ranking officer in the past 30 years who committed such a treasonous acto of mass murder to start a war. Are you a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?!?! They tried is not the same as they did.

"And to be fair, motion sensors have existed since the 50's."

No they haven't. They were total fantasy even in the mid 1980's where they first appeared in Aliens set in the far future of interstellar travel.

Soldiers don't have metal hulls. And there is the issue of how many landmine treaties and conventions mean enemy detonated mines would not be so widely used even by special forces. The problem is they can tell who are friendly but they can't tell the enemy from a civilian, even a child, which is why the US military doesn't use any land lines except anti-tank land mines on the North-South Korean border.

Paradoxrifts:

Treblaine:
[[SNIP]]

A bit of my rough draft must have escaped. Sorry about that.

T2: Judgement Day was tailor made for the young adolescent male audience that sat down to watch it all the way back in 1991. A generation of young men who had grown up at a time where the nuclear family was expected norm, but was rapidly disintegrating into history as the foundation stone of western culture. A terribly dated caricature of Bart Simpson is adopted by Arnold Schwarzenegger at the height of his popularity and in him finds the father he has always wanted. As an added bonus he finds out that his mom in fact isn't crazy and was right all along.

True Lies is a remake of an earlier French film and the subtext is remarkably simple. Very simple, and very French. Your wife will be tempted to cheat, and presumably eventually leave you, should you stonewall her out of the most interesting parts of your life. And learning to dance really, really, well will never hurt either.

Getting back to Aliens, although it is demonstrably true that with the exception of Hicks all of the marines are ultimately in the movie to die in it there are quite clearly two varieties of marines.

The first group are comprised of those who die or are captured alive during the initial foray into the alien hive. Private Frost (Male), Private Drake (Male), Private Crowe (Male) , Corporal Dietrich(Female), Private Wierzbowski (Male) and lastly but certainly not least, Sergeant Apone (Male). But lets not forget to include the two dropship pilots, Corporal Colette Ferro (Female) and Private Spunkmeyer (Male).

The racial backgrounds of this first group can be broken down to 3 Anglo-Saxons, 1 Pole, 1 German, 1 African-American, 1 Italian and one guy named after a cookie franchise. There is a possibility that the last one is meant to be Jewish but it is probably meant to just be a joke. The gender ratio is 6 to 2 in favour of testicles.

This brings us to the last four marines, Private Hudson (Male), Lieutenant Gorman (Male), Private Vasquez (Female) and Corporal Hicks(Male). This group is much less diverse, breaking down to three guys that can trace their roots back to the British Isles and a Latin-American chick. The gender ratio holds at 3 to 1.

At this stage in the proceedings both Gorman and Hudson are dead men walking, the former for being incompetent, the later for losing his shit. In both horror and war movies nothing moves you up the list of people next to die than incompetence of command and flipping your shit. This sort of cuts us down to two characters, Hicks and Vasquez.

For a movie informed by the political fallout of the Vietnam War, released a mere ten years after the conflict had ended and had been written by James Cameron alongside initial drafts of Rambo II, Vasquez edges out Hicks on the film's own sliding scale of morality.

One of the central themes running throughout the film is when and when isn't the use of force justifiable, and boy does the film come down on it's cast of characters with all the subtleties of a Jesus-lion allegory whenever they mess up and do things for the wrong reasons. You claim that the marines are there to protect the colonists but you're wrong. The marines certainly believe that they're there to help protect the colonists, but the fact is they're really there due to the machinations of Weyland-Yutani executive Burke. When they enter the alien hive for the first time, get their asses kicked they lack the purity of motivation to succeed. In comparison when Ripley returns alone and unaided, selflessly facing down what you would think to be an almost certain death in order to try and rescue Newt, the film gives her a free pass.

"A terribly dated caricature of Bart Simpson is adopted by Arnold Schwarzenegger (in Terminator 2)"

imageimage

Oh goodness! 1/10 for getting me to respond but you aren't fooling anyone. I know what you are trying

That's not deep, that is you making crazy links. Please, do tell me the deep socioeconomic subtext of Beevis And Butthead?

Your description of True Lies doesn't show depth of subtext, it's a back-of-the-box blurb of an action comedy.

OK, you make something of a case that both Vasquez and Hicks had a chance to "deserve to live" people HAVE to die (to raise the stakes and so on) and you can't have the competent characters killed off and leave the movie in the unsure hands of Hudson.

"One of the central themes running throughout the film is when and when isn't the use of force justifiable,"

Lol WUUUUT!!!!

Oh when is it right to shoot those poor misunderstood killing machines? Bullshot!

Buke may have an ulterior motive, but the Marines do NOT! The Colonial marines only went there on the pretext of saving colonists and Burk had to conduct his sample-taking mission in secret with not a single confederate.

"get their asses kicked they lack the purity of motivation to succeed."

Nope. They got their asses kicked because they were unprepared for such an ambush and the thematic reason in the film is the first encounter can't be a cakewalk with no danger and no characters being lost as it doesn't set what kind of huge threat that these Aliens are. I mean the Marines bragged about how deadly they are ("we got nerve gas, we got nukes, etc") and this knocks them down a peg for dramatic tension of making a good sci-fi war movie.

Ripley survives going back as she goes in prepared and much more stealthily, getting in and out ASAP. It seems that most of the aliens had left and are tearing apart the communications centre still and left the Queen relatively unprotected.

RC1138:
I'm sorry I didn't realize defusing a bomb, conducting Civil Affairs Ops, or Physiological Warfare were the same jobs as a Delta Force Operator, or an SBS Crew Member or a KSK Entry Specialist. I'll inform all of those groups (who are often very undermanned, KSK being the worst) they in fact have 1000's of more possible soldiers and sailors (male and female) fully capable to do their jobs for them with no additional training or operational experience. I'm sure the boys in SEAL Team 3 will be especially happy after recent incidences relating to inexperienced, rushed members compromising teams. If you honestly think a 37F does the same job to any degree as what's depicted in the context of a Special Operations Member, as shown in modern setting FPS's you need to take a long day of studying. Being a member of SOCOM does not make you an Operator. Operator, that term, means something, it originally distinguished between "Operational" and "Non-Operational" in the regard to 2nd Detachment (Not 1st Detachment as is commonly believed, Delta can claim alot, but they are not the original "Operators") having member who were "Operational" in combat, the "true" Special Operations Soldier (kicking down doors as the classic catch all term), and Non-Operational members, being those who support said actions indirectly, be it COM specialists back at base, training personnel, or even just command staff. Video games depict Operators, and Operators are not female.

In no way am I minimizing their service, believe me as an MP I am *ALL* too familiar with people minimizing service based on job description (and it's all the more hurtful when it's the soldier's you're trying to protect doing the minimizing), but I would no sooner compare a 37F to an SAS trooper kicking down doors than I would compare myself to one. I was not Special Operations and yet I did in house training of foreign soldiers as well as training in country (as part of the PTT program), went to advance weapons training (so to allow me to function as an SRT member and later a firearms instructor), all things done by specifically SF, and yet I am in no way comparable to them as for all that similarity, they are miles ahead of me with all the additional training and duties. A Bomb Disposal team while doing something unbelievably complex and more dangerous than perhaps any other job in the Army is still not a Special Forces Entry Team Member and would not do that job. I can not take a random, male or female for that matter, out of the 38B MOS and teleport them in to Kosovo and expect them to properly function in a KSK unit up in the mountains. I could do that with an SBS member, or a SEAL, but a Civil Affairs Specialist would be a little out of his domain.

If you honestly cannot see that, then you're deluded, and then there's no point in even discussing this anymore.

All irrelevant as you do not ONLY see Special Operations forces in Modern video games but CoD has set the standard of alternating between a Special Forces unit and a then a more basic Infantry unit, even looking at gunship fire controller, plenty of opportunities for women to be depicted but it's being seen less and less.

Treblaine:

I think friendly fire is a problem not as a matter of sustainability but as a matter of morale and public confidence in the war.

The Public feels greatly for the loss of every single soldier, they can somewhat more easily come to terms when it is by enemy action, but it is much harder to accept when it is by a careless accident.

How can you say that friendly fire just "doesn't enter your brain"?!? I have heard from British soldiers on American soldiers their great concern about the lack of consideration they give to friendly fire.

I'm not saying suicides is not a concern or trivial in comparison, in fact I never even mentioned it. I think you are tvilialising the senesless death of american servicemen by saying, I quote:

But on to this straw man argument of women in video games:

Give me an example of one, just one woman meeting the criteria, and I mean ALL the criteria for entrance into a true first rate Special Operations Troops

That's not the issue. These war FPS games do NOT exclusively look at Special Forces. Modern Warfare 1 and 2 followed in their side plot some "grunt" infantry. In all of them you at the very least SEE basic infantry either on your own side or in the enemy force. Battlefield 3, Bad Company series and so on.

I'm, fed up of your hypocritical reasoning, allowing unrealistic things that make the game fun but totally unrealistic, but against any girls in your boys only club. Mechanics and story you can't separate, especially with your lame excuses for the insane plot elements. When did any high ranking officer in the past 30 years who committed such a treasonous acto of mass murder to start a war. Are you a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?!?! They tried is not the same as they did.

"And to be fair, motion sensors have existed since the 50's."

No they haven't. They were total fantasy even in the mid 1980's where they first appeared in Aliens set in the far future of interstellar travel.

Soldiers don't have metal hulls. And there is the issue of how many landmine treaties and conventions mean enemy detonated mines would not be so widely used even by special forces. The problem is they can tell who are friendly but they can't tell the enemy from a civilian, even a child, which is why the US military doesn't use any land lines except anti-tank land mines on the North-South Korean border.

Lets get this one out of the way first:

Nonmilitary Uses

As the war wound down, Samuel Bagno used his knowledge of radar to develop the first motion sensors in the mid-1940s. He called his invention an ultrasonic alarm. The device sent ultrasonic waves throughout a room. When something disrupted the waves, a return echo triggered the alarm. This first success of a nonmilitary application of radar created a commercial demand for more ways to harness radar technology.

Read more: The History of Motion Sensors | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6463821_history-motion-sensors.html#ixzz21wFpZ6qj

Once again you prove you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Now to going through games and the roles, fine, I'll play that game, let's go through the roles of each and every *player* character (not NPC) in the MW series (I'll be using this http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Playable_Characters I suppose spoiler warnings if you haven't played these but I will try to be as vague as possible as far as spoilers would be concerned):

COD4 Playable Characters and Role:
"Soap" MacTavish: SAS Trooper and Designated Marksman- Occupation *Not* Open To Females (Role takes on the majority of the game's story and play time)
President Al-Fulani: President of the Middle Eastern Country where most of the First Act takes place- Occupation Interestingly *Not* open to females, as this nation is supposed to be an Islamic state bordering on the stereotypical "fanatical" a woman would not be allowed, simply by society, to rise to such a rank (He's barely a player character but I won't be a hypocrite and skip even the most minor of roles)
Paul Jackson: SGT 1st Marine Force Reconnaissance, likely fire team leader- Occupation *Not* Open to Females (Females do serve in Force Recon but not as fire team leaders and entry specialists, the role that Jackson assumes)
John Price: SAS Field Commander and Team Leader, although at time of playability is an LT acting as a sniper and assassin team- Occupation *Not* Open to females in this capacity, that is, a field Team Leader or sniper, lest we forget women hold no Operational roles within the SAS
Thermal Imaging TV Operator: A USAF, likely 1st LT as this would commonly be a gunnery control officer- Occupation *Open* to females, this is possibly the only player character open to females in COD4, for one level, circling around at at about 1200 AGL
One-One Team Member: Playable for last "Spec Ops-like" Mission (is in all likelihood Soap himself although it is not explicitly said) SAS Team Member- Role *Not* Open to women

MW2 Playable Characters and Role:
J. Allen: U.S. Army Ranger serving as a Member of Squad, likely Grenadier position- Occupational Role *Not* Open to women, although women can be assigned to the 75 Ranger Regiment, they *would not* ever be assigned as a Squad Grenadier
J. Ramirez: Private, U.S. Army Rangers, member of Squad, likely Rifleman position- Occupational Role *Not* Open to women, same as Allen's, women do not get assigned as MoS as a Rifleman
"Roach" Sanderson: SAS Member functioning as an entry specialist of the fictional TF141- Role *Not* Open to women, while a fictional SF organization could theoretically allow women into it's Operational ranks, his specific role, as a member of British SAS, precludes a female character as SAS does *not* allow women into it's Operational Ranks
Soap MacTavish: Returning member of COD4, now a Captain- Role *Not* Open to females, he is an SAS Captain Operational Status, not a role filled by women
SAT1: American Astronaut- Role *Open* To women, playable for a roughly 2 minute section of game and is as limited playability as President Al-Fulani in the fist game

MW3 Playable Characters and Role:
Marcus Burns: Sgt SAS Close Support Specialist- Role *Not* Open to women (for same reasons all other SAS members)
Derek "Frost" Westbrook: SGT Delta Force, likely Close Support Specialist given weapons and role- role *not* open to women, women do not serve as Operational Members of 1st Detachment Special Forces
John Price- Former SAS Captain- Role *not* open to women for previously stated reasons, in theory at this point a woman could fill his role, as he is not affiliated with any group, but his *backstory* would not allow it
Yuri: Former Spetsnaz and member of Makarov's gang- Role *Not* Open to women, Spetsnaz has never allowed female soldiers in it's ranks of Operational members, they do maintain female members, but they are used in counter-espionage and organizational infiltration teams (that is to say, Spys)
Andrei Harkov: FSB Special Agent- Role *not* Open to women, Russian FSB does not allow female applicants in Special Agent Positions
AC-130 Gunner: Likely again, an USAF 1st LT- Role *Open* to women, for same reasons as in COD4
Mr. Davis: A civilian briefly played- role obviously open to women
Soap MacTavish: Briefly playable, former Captain SAS: Role *not* open to women, for same reasons as Price

So that's all three games, and the only roles that could switch out the male for female without DRASTIC changes to their backstories were roles that were not only extremely brief, but not keeping in the concept of "FPS" play, as NONE of those characters actually carry weapons and run around on the ground. None of them qualify as "basic infantry units."

Just so were clear, a "basic infantry unit" would be, for example, a rifle Platoon out of say, 10th Mountain. That is a basic light infantry Brigade, and has never been depicted in a modern setting FPS except once, in Delta Force Black Hawk Down, which would not have had women serving in any capacity as they did not during the Somalian Campaign.

And even today, in the roles shown in games (even as NPC's) if the 10th Mountain was in game, they would not have any roles open to women. They never show Civil Affairs specialists in COD or MOH. They don't even *show* EOD (they speak of them, but are never seens). What they do show are riflemen, grenadiers, automatic riflemen, squad leaders, team leaders. All positions which are *not* open to women.

I could go on to any and all other Modern Setting FPS but I won't. It's not needed, they are all roughly the same since MOST modern setting FPS's follow the all too well known common threads, especially in regard to units depicted: SAS, Rangers, Delta, SEALS, and Marine Force Recon; none of which allow women in Operational roles.

Now returning to fratricide, I hate just posting wiki pages but this should suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Iraq_War_from_2003
There were 10, ground troop on ground troop friendly fire incidences since 2001. All the others involved technological shortcomings (poor FF detection for missile systems, tank rounds ending up where they did not belong, ect)
Overall there's a little more than 14 incidences in 10 years of active combat, and, knowing from experience for every two reported one doesnt get reported, I'll bump that number up to 21. 21 times in 10 years. And these are including ALL Nato Nations, not just the U.S. Military.

By comparison there have been well over 500 suicides in the the U.S. Military alone over those 10 years, with 2009 being the worst (Over 25 in the period of January to March 2009, worst month since Vietnam). Statistically it even shows, FF incidences are just not that big of a concern. Now that isn't to say to any degree we don't pay attention to who or what we're shooting at, but friendly fire doesn't come to the forefront of our brains when we take AK fire from a building down the street. Now suicide prevention, in the past few years, HAS become a forefront. We pay attention for even the minutest of signs, among MP's all the more as we watch our own AND others.

*Civilians* might make friendly fire out to be a big deal, bully for them, they are, by their nature *not* in the military and views they hold are not indicative of what we think about or do. That is supreme arrogance to think that way, that someone that is making the conscious and clear decision to *not* be a member of the military is somehow still in tune with what we think about. You've clearly never been a soldier, by what rights do you know what we think about down range?

And as far as you hearing it from British soldiers, you don't get more straw man than anecdotal evidence. By comparison I've served with a great number of Iraq PD members, trained with both KSK and SF at Quan*t*ico, I spent a great deal of time, on my 1st Tour, doing route security with a wonderful British MP unit. Never heard one complain about FF. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong simply because I heard something contrary from what you said? No. Because neither of us have spoken to the majority of soldiers in existence right now. What does make me right and you wrong (on this subject) is simple data and the existence of a conflicting issue. I'll bet you any number of dollars you walk up to a soldier serving in the U.S. Army right now, and ask him "Which is the greater concern to the U.S. Military: Suicides, or Friendly Fire?" He'll say suicide guaranteed. Hell I sat through a briefing once a month about suicide prevention.

In tying to the issue at hand, a bigger issue than both suicide and FF in the U.S. Military is rape. It's interesting, I didn't want to mention this as you don't get more straw man than this BUT, it's interesting none the less. Many seem sure I'm a sexist, when in reality, I was one of the bigger, more outspoken proponents of female soldiers rights in my Brigade while in the Army. One thing and one thing above all else I was a stickler for and that was rape and sexual harassment. I would not stand for it one bit. Even something construable as "flirtation" was 100% unacceptable to me as an invasion of one's personnel space and professional atmosphere. I also, as an MP, tended to catch flack as I am one of those oddballs that thinks 100%, no question or doubt, that when a woman is raped it is *NOT* *EVER* IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, her fault. As a warning I will not get into that argument here, but suffice to say I will never be dissuaded from that thinking. To every place blame on the victim, is sickening and far too common in the Army. Additionally I always thought it very unfair that full fledged and trained female MP's could not serve in the SRT. I always thought it unfair and had voiced it more than once, one time boarder insubordination over a particular incident.

All that aside, if you combined the number of suicide, friendly fire, and I'll through in hygiene briefings and seminars we get in the U.S. Military, it still would not equal the number of Rape prevention, response, and identification briefings and seminars we get. By comparison if you asked a soldier what the biggest issue we have is, Rape will be the answer 9/10 times. Of this I am certain. Regardless of the soldier's personal view on it, the sheer number of briefings spent on the subject demands that answer. I've had more (simply because I was an MP) more briefings about dealing with rape than I've had PCC's.

So to say that friendly fire is a major concern is a bit of a long shot. It *is* a concern, but hardly high on the list. I'd rate rape as the highest with suicide a close second, intoxication, hygiene and drug use close thirds, and the next most commonly held concern would probably be weapon maintenance and quality of equipment. Oh and hydration. You cannot go 10 minutes without some NCO yelling "Drink water!" (guilty as charged on that one).

Great article.
How are you going to deal with the "Violence against women" bozos?

I always say, "equal rights equal fights" but that's coming from me. I dont produce big name games. anyone remember Hillary Clinton? The lady who single-handedly brought the war against gamers into its modern roots over purple blood in a NHL game? Shes not the only one and I'm not claiming that its only the democrats/republicans. With enough digging you find that both sides are equally responsible for the bullshit bestowed upon us (at least in the US).

gamejunkiey69:
Hey, i have an idea. How about in stead of FPS's we make some FPS's? First Person Stabbers?

*COUGH* Call of Duty MW2 Multiplayer *COUGH*

Trishbot:
Battlefield, Call of Duty

In Aliens there is literally no excuse to not include women (because the movies did imply that there was hardly any segregation based on gender), but if BF and COD are inspired in modern military forces, women are not allowed in dedicated combat roles.

Don't get me wrong (a lot of people did in the past) but I have to agree with those restrictions. Call of Duty 4 had a female pilot. That's realistic. But let's not compare the life of a pilot and the life of a grunt. I am not criticizing either, but my father served in the Air Force and I know perfectly how the life of a pilot is. Being a woman would hardly get in the way of her job, and apparently they take G forces better than most men (if properly trained).

I think that women should serve and have the same physical requirements as men. Though, I don't think we will be able to make it possible for women to serve in dedicated combat roles in the next few years.

ex275w:
Yet I can think of a FPS that needs no female characters and that is Team Fortress 2, a game which still plenty of women play and has tons of yaoi for some reason. It would interesting to release a Team Fortress 2 esque FPS with only women in it and see how it goes.

I have seen female models for at least Scout and Pyro. I think it wouldn't be hard to make a user mod competition and officially release the best entries.

Bobic:
point out that the fact that the one female's sole purpose is to be rescued isn't all that much of a step forward.

Yes, let's not mention that in real life the death of females during combat takes enough a toll on the male psyche to make them carry out suicide rescue missions. (one of the reasons they are not allowed in dedicated infantry)

I could argue that the helicopter pilot did a lot more than being shot down and did kick ass during the whole level, but would it really change anything if it was a man surviving the crash? The whole point of the rescue

That part of the story would happen, the gender of the surviving pilot would not change the outcome. Maybe they made the pilot a woman so that the player would feel that the human sacrifice was justified. The guys about to catch her were frigging conscripts from a nameless Middle Eastern country ruled by a mass murderer.

If the armed forces were receiving orders from a psycho there would be a big chance of them not recognize women as a fighting force and disregarded any conventions.

Anyway, I can't pretend I can read what Infinity Ward wanted. I just know that given the circumstances, there would also be a rescue if the pilot was male.

RC1138:

Nonmilitary Uses

As the war wound down, Samuel Bagno used his knowledge of radar to develop the first motion sensors in the mid-1940s. He called his invention an ultrasonic alarm. The device sent ultrasonic waves throughout a room. When something disrupted the waves, a return echo triggered the alarm. This first success of a nonmilitary application of radar created a commercial demand for more ways to harness radar technology.

Read more: The History of Motion Sensors | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6463821_history-motion-sensors.html#ixzz21wFpZ6qj

Once again you prove you simply don't know what you're talking about.

That has NOTHING to do with the motion sensors seen in the latest COD games.

That motion detector cannot detect anything on the other side of solid objects, the one in CoD can.

That design inherently cannot work while it is moving, the one in CoD is mounted on the side of a gun.

The one in CoD does far more than detect ANY motion in front but detect distance and discrete dots that the motion sensor you provides CANNOT do.

You are being so dishonest, the only link between the two technologies is their name "motion detector" not their actual function and you know it. You know what you are talking about but being wilfully disingenuous.

Treblaine:

That has NOTHING to do with the motion sensors seen in the latest COD games.

That motion detector cannot detect anything on the other side of solid objects, the one in CoD can.

That design inherently cannot work while it is moving, the one in CoD is mounted on the side of a gun.

The one in CoD does far more than detect ANY motion in front but detect distance and discrete dots that the motion sensor you provides CANNOT do.

You are being so dishonest, the only link between the two technologies is their name "motion detector" not their actual function and you know it. You know what you are talking about but being wilfully disingenuous.

It has everything to do with it and you know it. It is the earliest form of motion sensors. So we should only say something is "real" when it's in it's fully evolved form? By that rational the M16 wasn't "invented" until 2006 when the HK416 came out, being the first factory designed piston reliable Armalite type rifle.

And you're wrong in the grander sense ANYWAY. You said motion detector. You didn't give a game nor a source material (other than the ones present in Alien). The one's in COD are not motion detectors. They are called heartbeat sensors:

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Heartbeat_Sensors

There are no motion sensors in any COD games. Just heartbeat. That technology doesn't exist *now.* (And likely never will as conceptually, it's stupid, both the human body in general, and the human brain produce higher electrical discharge than the heart, and breathing, moving, and speaking, obviously, are all louder and better for pinpointing location than the human heart. In reality a "brain" detector would make more sense as the electrical discharges given off are far more likely to be detectable than a heart, as would be a "breathing sensor" to pick up and set a location of a breathing body (as more useful as a brain giving off discharges could be a totally disarmed, harmless, incapacitated foe, seeing them on a sensor would make a group of 3 live capable soldiers look like 10 because 7 have been knocked out but alive; but no breathing is dead and thus not a threat worth considering). The one from Aliens is a motion sensor, that DOES exist now, and has exist, in a form similar to as depicted in that movie, since the late 50's. You're exact word was "fantasy," they were neither fantasy, nor fiction. They exist PRIOR to Alien being made. Did they improve on the existing technology for the sake of the film? To a degree yes, but that was not the point of what you said, you said fantasy, meaning fake, fantastical, not of our reality, and that is simply not true.

Are the computer's we're both using "fantasy" because in 100 years computers will likely be light years ahead in advancement. Does that mean computers are a fantasy because they will be improved? No. Same holds true for motion sensors. Yes the technology improved by the 80's, and has continued to improve into the next 30 years, but that doesn't mean they are a "fantasy" *your word* in the 1940's, much less 50's.

Get a grip. You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About. And what's more is you have the accumulated knowledge of mankind at your fingertips, so you have no excuse not to fact find before you open your month.

And dishonesty has nothing to do with that, once again you resort to responding in tone; I present a counterargument that explicitly refuted your central point that motion sensors did not exist until the 1980's. Dishonesty would be presenting something false as true while being fully aware of it's lack of fact. That's not what happened here. You said they were fantasy even into the 80's, I provided a source showing that Alarm systems working on the same technology and concept were developed as early as the 40's, and I can provide examples of military motion sensors akin to the types used in movies being developed and used in the 50's.

So once again, not only have you proved you don't know what you're talking about, but you've now proven you don't know what the word "dishonesty" means.

Hrmmm, sometimes I wonder if Jim lives on the same planet as the rest of us. I notice that in covering this he doesn't even bother to touch on previous issues like the reaction to violence being perpetuated against women in video games, something that has come up in connection to both Tomb Raider, and Hitman recently.

I personally believe that a lot of the desicians being made here, especially in games set in a more "real" enviroment than others (ie a game like Battlefield is trying to be more realistic comparitively than either Hitman or Tomb Raider to begin with) are based around disturbing people when they see women subjected to violence, or wind up being made to subject women to violence. Sneaking up behind some girl with a knife and taking her down in a Deathmach raises a lot of the same questions being covered in other video game discussions (not just the two "big" ones of the moment). I remember back in the day when "City Of Villains" (created by Cryptic, run by NC Soft) first launched, there were questions as to why the "Mastermind" could have male henchmen (thugs, soldiers) but no women, and the answer was that it opened itself up to too much potential abuse... and if you've ever seen what's gone on in MMOs that's saying a lot, and to be fair with the political correctness brigade out there, it probably wasn't the wrong desician.

When it comes to the issue of character models, I will point out that argueing that it can be done comparitively "on the cheap" without worrying about realistic size and all of that such isn't really a good reason to say it should be done everywhere either. The bottom line is that once you open that door in the mainstream, there are going to be increasing demands for more realistic, detailed, and differant female models that are more uniquely female, which opens up the issues mentioned about doubling the number of character models, hit box sizes, etc... since the demands leading to those problems would come, and as such those with a bit of foresight have probably not wanted to really address the issue there either.

Basically you do this, and you will open up more doors for people to cry about things, and create all manner of problems.

What's more there is also the issue of international sales. A lot of the arguements being made here only make sense from a first world perspective. Yes, the first world has made a lot of progress about bringing women into the military, and putting them into positions where they see combat. Overall though, the first world doesn't represent the majority of humanity, according to some things I've been reading (especially recently with all the discussions of feminism) women are oppressed, second class citizens throughout as much as 70% of the world, more or less based on certain estimates. While there ARE second and third world nations that are fairly "progressive" on this issue, far more are gleefully oppressive, or simply pay it lip service. China alone has tons of issues and represents like a third of the global population, and the rest of Asia varies but a big part of it is in a similar boat, then we have The Middle East, Africa, and even a lot of India, before even touching on Central and South America. The thing is that today video game companies want to sell video games in those places, and showing women running around as equals, toting guns, etc... can cause problems, and definatly impact the bottom line. The same basic mentality that leads to questions about first world "strong men" blowing the crap out of people in the second and third world (which is more accurate than the ethnic lines some people try and draw) raises other cultural questions as well. If your dealing with a society that proudly boasts it's not primitive and has "all of that technology you first worlders have" (at least in places), buys computer games and such to some extent, but where the women are expected to silently follow the men two steps behind and to the left, and effort is being taken to prevent a first world type feminist revolution (this is one of those "ideas" we spread that causes people to hate the US, oddly enough), well that can be a problem. Sometime look at the list of countries in a game registration (which for some titles can go on, and on, and on) and wonder how many of those nations share this ideal in practice.

This latter point is actually to me an arguement as to why we should do it actually, since I'm all for global reform through the spread of ideas, and forcing them through as much as we can (and even through piracy the ideas get through... which means the pirates themselves help break goverment blockades), BUT it's something that I'd imagine the fat cats doing the funding and publishing definatly do consider. The bit with "City Of Villains" sort of showed that the guys doing the planning discuss issues like this.

In short on the domestic front, we'll have a better chance of seeing it when the liberals grow up. Stop QQing about women and violence, especially women receiving violence at the hands of men, and maaaybe people might be a little more receptive to... you know... putting women into combat games. Globally speaking, this is where international business has kind of hurt things, and really I think a lot of it comes down to the guys running these businesses have to put doing the right thing ahead of their bottom line... but people have been saying that for years, in relation to a lot of things, and it never happens.

Consider that companies like Activision/Blizzard are so caught up in making money off of wierd nations that they will do anything to appease them. I remember hearing about how they removed the "Undead" from the chinese version of WoW due to Chinese law. Even within the first world we had Bethesda edit the content of "Fallout 3" to avoid annoying Australia and it's censorship standards (mostly over drug use). If they aren't going to push these issues there, I very much doubt they are going to want to say do a realistic militay shooter featuring female protaganists shooting their way through say Asia or The Middle East, or other hotbed locations, because a lot of people will either ban, or refuse to play that game globally, the guys already complaining about first world heroes will just be pushed too far.

I say "first world heroes" (to explain) because to be honest while the US is the most common, we do tend to see the UK involved via the SAS/Royal Marine Commandos and various intelligence agents (James Bond Inspired) with some frequency, which people tend to overlook. While Russia is still arguably not first world, it's on the high end of the "other" catagories and from many perspectives it probably seems like a first world country, and honestly Russian protaganists/Russian made FPS-type games, are becoming increasingly common on the international market as well.

Very well said and down to earth. I don't quite agree with everything (namely distinctions between whose "first world" and not) but the general concept of being realistic to the world, game development, and how people behave, not how they think they behave, are paramount. Dealing with the world how it is, not how it ought to be seems to be the root of the issue present.

RC1138:

Now to going through games and the roles, fine, I'll play that game, let's go through the roles of each and every *player* character (not NPC) in the MW series (I'll be using this http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Playable_Characters I suppose spoiler warnings if you haven't played these but I will try to be as vague as possible as far as spoilers would be concerned):

COD4 Playable Characters and Role:
"Soap" MacTavish: SAS Trooper and Designated Marksman- Occupation *Not* Open To Females (Role takes on the majority of the game's story and play time)
President Al-Fulani: President of the Middle Eastern Country where most of the First Act takes place- Occupation Interestingly *Not* open to females, as this nation is supposed to be an Islamic state bordering on the stereotypical "fanatical" a woman would not be allowed, simply by society, to rise to such a rank (He's barely a player character but I won't be a hypocrite and skip even the most minor of roles)
Paul Jackson: SGT 1st Marine Force Reconnaissance, likely fire team leader- Occupation *Not* Open to Females (Females do serve in Force Recon but not as fire team leaders and entry specialists, the role that Jackson assumes)
John Price: SAS Field Commander and Team Leader, although at time of playability is an LT acting as a sniper and assassin team- Occupation *Not* Open to females in this capacity, that is, a field Team Leader or sniper, lest we forget women hold no Operational roles within the SAS
Thermal Imaging TV Operator: A USAF, likely 1st LT as this would commonly be a gunnery control officer- Occupation *Open* to females, this is possibly the only player character open to females in COD4, for one level, circling around at at about 1200 AGL
One-One Team Member: Playable for last "Spec Ops-like" Mission (is in all likelihood Soap himself although it is not explicitly said) SAS Team Member- Role *Not* Open to women

MW2 Playable Characters and Role:
J. Allen: U.S. Army Ranger serving as a Member of Squad, likely Grenadier position- Occupational Role *Not* Open to women, although women can be assigned to the 75 Ranger Regiment, they *would not* ever be assigned as a Squad Grenadier
J. Ramirez: Private, U.S. Army Rangers, member of Squad, likely Rifleman position- Occupational Role *Not* Open to women, same as Allen's, women do not get assigned as MoS as a Rifleman
"Roach" Sanderson: SAS Member functioning as an entry specialist of the fictional TF141- Role *Not* Open to women, while a fictional SF organization could theoretically allow women into it's Operational ranks, his specific role, as a member of British SAS, precludes a female character as SAS does *not* allow women into it's Operational Ranks
Soap MacTavish: Returning member of COD4, now a Captain- Role *Not* Open to females, he is an SAS Captain Operational Status, not a role filled by women
SAT1: American Astronaut- Role *Open* To women, playable for a roughly 2 minute section of game and is as limited playability as President Al-Fulani in the fist game

MW3 Playable Characters and Role:
Marcus Burns: Sgt SAS Close Support Specialist- Role *Not* Open to women (for same reasons all other SAS members)
Derek "Frost" Westbrook: SGT Delta Force, likely Close Support Specialist given weapons and role- role *not* open to women, women do not serve as Operational Members of 1st Detachment Special Forces
John Price- Former SAS Captain- Role *not* open to women for previously stated reasons, in theory at this point a woman could fill his role, as he is not affiliated with any group, but his *backstory* would not allow it
Yuri: Former Spetsnaz and member of Makarov's gang- Role *Not* Open to women, Spetsnaz has never allowed female soldiers in it's ranks of Operational members, they do maintain female members, but they are used in counter-espionage and organizational infiltration teams (that is to say, Spys)
Andrei Harkov: FSB Special Agent- Role *not* Open to women, Russian FSB does not allow female applicants in Special Agent Positions
AC-130 Gunner: Likely again, an USAF 1st LT- Role *Open* to women, for same reasons as in COD4
Mr. Davis: A civilian briefly played- role obviously open to women
Soap MacTavish: Briefly playable, former Captain SAS: Role *not* open to women, for same reasons as Price

So that's all three games, and the only roles that could switch out the male for female without DRASTIC changes to their backstories were roles that were not only extremely brief, but not keeping in the concept of "FPS" play, as NONE of those characters actually carry weapons and run around on the ground. None of them qualify as "basic infantry units."

Just so were clear, a "basic infantry unit" would be, for example, a rifle Platoon out of say, 10th Mountain. That is a basic light infantry Brigade, and has never been depicted in a modern setting FPS except once, in Delta Force Black Hawk Down, which would not have had women serving in any capacity as they did not during the Somalian Campaign.

And even today, in the roles shown in games (even as NPC's) if the 10th Mountain was in game, they would not have any roles open to women. They never show Civil Affairs specialists in COD or MOH. They don't even *show* EOD (they speak of them, but are never seens). What they do show are riflemen, grenadiers, automatic riflemen, squad leaders, team leaders. All positions which are *not* open to women.

I could go on to any and all other Modern Setting FPS but I won't. It's not needed, they are all roughly the same since MOST modern setting FPS's follow the all too well known common threads, especially in regard to units depicted: SAS, Rangers, Delta, SEALS, and Marine Force Recon; none of which allow women in Operational roles.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-women-rangers-idUSBRE84G00820120517

It's not so inconceivable, especially as MW2 is set almost 10 years in the future in part of a much larger conflict seeking maximum recruitment and volunteers.

Treblaine:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-women-rangers-idUSBRE84G00820120517

It's not so inconceivable, especially as MW2 is set almost 10 years in the future in part of a much larger conflict seeking maximum recruitment and volunteers.

Okay now you crossed the line from "you don't know what' you're talking about," to you are a moron who REALLY doesn't know what they're talking about. You clearly just type in a phrase into google, get the first result you like, and post it without considering implications. What'd you do? Just type in "women in the Rangers" or "Women allowed in the Rangers?"

Ranger School does not equal the 75th Ranger Regiment. *I* went to Ranger school. Ranger school is a 61 day long leadership and light infantry course. The 75th Rangers is a light infantry Regiment part of SOCOM, a unit that *does not* employ, nor is looking to employ, women in Operation Roles.

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/scroll-vs-tab-the-difference-between-the-us-army-rangers.2868/

You can be a tabbed "Ranger" (like me as well as something on the order of 90% of Infantry officers and nearly 100% of Combat Arms (male) West Point Grads) and never set foot in a Ranger Regiment. LIKEWISE, you can be a Scrolled Ranger, as in a soldier serving in the 75th, and never gone to Ranger School (which is, in fact, the norm among enlisted men Serving in the 75th who are not Operational as in clerks operations staff ect)

Also speaking as a Ranger School grad, I have no objection to women going to Ranger school, it is a good leadership course and teaches things useful to general survival in the field, something female officers, even in non-combat related roles, still have to do (say an Engineer Officer, or Civil Affairs Specialist).

Oh and a tip to aspiring candidates, if peer review is a concern (which was for me as my personality is just soooo wonderful), volunteer to carry the 240Bravo, as NO ONE will vote you in the bottom two as no one wants to lug that thing through the swamps.

RC1138:

Now returning to fratricide, I hate just posting wiki pages but this should suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Iraq_War_from_2003
There were 10, ground troop on ground troop friendly fire incidences since 2001. All the others involved technological shortcomings (poor FF detection for missile systems, tank rounds ending up where they did not belong, ect)
Overall there's a little more than 14 incidences in 10 years of active combat, and, knowing from experience for every two reported one doesnt get reported, I'll bump that number up to 21. 21 times in 10 years. And these are including ALL Nato Nations, not just the U.S. Military.

By comparison there have been well over 500 suicides in the the U.S. Military alone over those 10 years, with 2009 being the worst (Over 25 in the period of January to March 2009, worst month since Vietnam). Statistically it even shows, FF incidences are just not that big of a concern. Now that isn't to say to any degree we don't pay attention to who or what we're shooting at, but friendly fire doesn't come to the forefront of our brains when we take AK fire from a building down the street. Now suicide prevention, in the past few years, HAS become a forefront. We pay attention for even the minutest of signs, among MP's all the more as we watch our own AND others.

*Civilians* might make friendly fire out to be a big deal, bully for them, they are, by their nature *not* in the military and views they hold are not indicative of what we think about or do. That is supreme arrogance to think that way, that someone that is making the conscious and clear decision to *not* be a member of the military is somehow still in tune with what we think about. You've clearly never been a soldier, by what rights do you know what we think about down range?

And as far as you hearing it from British soldiers, you don't get more straw man than anecdotal evidence. By comparison I've served with a great number of Iraq PD members, trained with both KSK and SF at Quan*t*ico, I spent a great deal of time, on my 1st Tour, doing route security with a wonderful British MP unit. Never heard one complain about FF. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong simply because I heard something contrary from what you said? No. Because neither of us have spoken to the majority of soldiers in existence right now. What does make me right and you wrong (on this subject) is simple data and the existence of a conflicting issue. I'll bet you any number of dollars you walk up to a soldier serving in the U.S. Army right now, and ask him "Which is the greater concern to the U.S. Military: Suicides, or Friendly Fire?" He'll say suicide guaranteed. Hell I sat through a briefing once a month about suicide prevention.

In tying to the issue at hand, a bigger issue than both suicide and FF in the U.S. Military is rape. It's interesting, I didn't want to mention this as you don't get more straw man than this BUT, it's interesting none the less. Many seem sure I'm a sexist, when in reality, I was one of the bigger, more outspoken proponents of female soldiers rights in my Brigade while in the Army. One thing and one thing above all else I was a stickler for and that was rape and sexual harassment. I would not stand for it one bit. Even something construable as "flirtation" was 100% unacceptable to me as an invasion of one's personnel space and professional atmosphere. I also, as an MP, tended to catch flack as I am one of those oddballs that thinks 100%, no question or doubt, that when a woman is raped it is *NOT* *EVER* IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, her fault. As a warning I will not get into that argument here, but suffice to say I will never be dissuaded from that thinking. To every place blame on the victim, is sickening and far too common in the Army. Additionally I always thought it very unfair that full fledged and trained female MP's could not serve in the SRT. I always thought it unfair and had voiced it more than once, one time boarder insubordination over a particular incident.

All that aside, if you combined the number of suicide, friendly fire, and I'll through in hygiene briefings and seminars we get in the U.S. Military, it still would not equal the number of Rape prevention, response, and identification briefings and seminars we get. By comparison if you asked a soldier what the biggest issue we have is, Rape will be the answer 9/10 times. Of this I am certain. Regardless of the soldier's personal view on it, the sheer number of briefings spent on the subject demands that answer. I've had more (simply because I was an MP) more briefings about dealing with rape than I've had PCC's.

So to say that friendly fire is a major concern is a bit of a long shot. It *is* a concern, but hardly high on the list. I'd rate rape as the highest with suicide a close second, intoxication, hygiene and drug use close thirds, and the next most commonly held concern would probably be weapon maintenance and quality of equipment. Oh and hydration. You cannot go 10 minutes without some NCO yelling "Drink water!" (guilty as charged on that one).

Really? You criticise me for skimming wikipedia when you have taken a few example cases listed on wikipedia as if it is THE comprehensive list when it never claimed to be. For the Vietnam war column it cites that 8000 incidence were estimated but only lists only 12 examples.

I don't see how you can seriously say it is "supreme arrogance" to be concerned about Friendly Fire cases.

"you don't get more straw man than anecdotal evidence"

That's not how the straw man fallacy works. Anyway, maybe the British soldier was not trying to rock the boat raising a contentious issue that they might be more comfortable to raise out of such a situation.

I just don't see how suicide prevention relevant to the subject of women in the military 9or more importantly dealing with whatever causes people to want to commit suicide) even if it is tragic. What you seem to be doing is making a false dichotomy fallacy "which is more important, suicides or friendly fire" is a false dichotomy, why is Friendly Fire not relevant because of suicides?

It's interesting that you raise rape, another false dichotomy as that is an actual relevant issue when the army has such important security roles and the importance of "hearts and minds" the fear of the local population of being raped by the male invaders who have so much power, or otherwise sexually assaulted. Women HAVE been used in vital security roles for how they can search female (or those who at least dress as females) and enter female areas to fulfil security roles without the locals freaking out so much.

I think if women can work in non-combat workplaces without being systematically raped then they can work in combat roles together. Why would fighting together make rape more likely? I'll have you know that the kind of men who rape other men in prison do not consider themselves homosexuals. Really? Is it really such a problem with US Servicemen raping other women in uniform? More so than ANYWHERE ELSE in other professions where men and women work side by side.

RC1138:

Treblaine:

That has NOTHING to do with the motion sensors seen in the latest COD games.

That motion detector cannot detect anything on the other side of solid objects, the one in CoD can.

That design inherently cannot work while it is moving, the one in CoD is mounted on the side of a gun.

The one in CoD does far more than detect ANY motion in front but detect distance and discrete dots that the motion sensor you provides CANNOT do.

You are being so dishonest, the only link between the two technologies is their name "motion detector" not their actual function and you know it. You know what you are talking about but being wilfully disingenuous.

It has everything to do with it and you know it. It is the earliest form of motion sensors. So we should only say something is "real" when it's in it's fully evolved form? By that rational the M16 wasn't "invented" until 2006 when the HK416 came out, being the first factory designed piston reliable Armalite type rifle.

And you're wrong in the grander sense ANYWAY. You said motion detector. You didn't give a game nor a source material (other than the ones present in Alien). The one's in COD are not motion detectors. They are called heartbeat sensors:

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Heartbeat_Sensors

There are no motion sensors in any COD games. Just heartbeat. That technology doesn't exist *now.* (And likely never will as conceptually, it's stupid, both the human body in general, and the human brain produce higher electrical discharge than the heart, and breathing, moving, and speaking, obviously, are all louder and better for pinpointing location than the human heart. In reality a "brain" detector would make more sense as the electrical discharges given off are far more likely to be detectable than a heart, as would be a "breathing sensor" to pick up and set a location of a breathing body (as more useful as a brain giving off discharges could be a totally disarmed, harmless, incapacitated foe, seeing them on a sensor would make a group of 3 live capable soldiers look like 10 because 7 have been knocked out but alive; but no breathing is dead and thus not a threat worth considering). The one from Aliens is a motion sensor, that DOES exist now, and has exist, in a form similar to as depicted in that movie, since the late 50's. You're exact word was "fantasy," they were neither fantasy, nor fiction. They exist PRIOR to Alien being made. Did they improve on the existing technology for the sake of the film? To a degree yes, but that was not the point of what you said, you said fantasy, meaning fake, fantastical, not of our reality, and that is simply not true.

Are the computer's we're both using "fantasy" because in 100 years computers will likely be light years ahead in advancement. Does that mean computers are a fantasy because they will be improved? No. Same holds true for motion sensors. Yes the technology improved by the 80's, and has continued to improve into the next 30 years, but that doesn't mean they are a "fantasy" *your word* in the 1940's, much less 50's.

Get a grip. You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About. And what's more is you have the accumulated knowledge of mankind at your fingertips, so you have no excuse not to fact find before you open your month.

And dishonesty has nothing to do with that, once again you resort to responding in tone; I present a counterargument that explicitly refuted your central point that motion sensors did not exist until the 1980's. Dishonesty would be presenting something false as true while being fully aware of it's lack of fact. That's not what happened here. You said they were fantasy even into the 80's, I provided a source showing that Alarm systems working on the same technology and concept were developed as early as the 40's, and I can provide examples of military motion sensors akin to the types used in movies being developed and used in the 50's.

So once again, not only have you proved you don't know what you're talking about, but you've now proven you don't know what the word "dishonesty" means.

"By that rational the M16 wasn't "invented" until 2006 when the HK416 came out"

Well a rifle called the M16 was adopted in the 1960's.

"The one from Aliens is a motion sensor, that DOES exist now, and has exist, in a form similar to as depicted in that movie, since the late 50's"

No. It. Does. Not. The technology you cited CANNOT do what you see demonstrated in Aliens or CoD. Please. Show a video or some other sort of evidence showing a device which does as demonstrated in that film and those games for REAL, not a mock up. Even remotely similar. Jsut the aspect of being able to detect either motion of some specific part of a living being detected through a solid object like a steel bulkhead or brick wall. You have the accumulated knowledge of mankind at your fingertips, so you have no excuse not to fact find before you open your month.

You are the one making the claim, you prove it.

You KNOW what I meant by "motion detector" as not any device that could detect motion, but a motion detector like depicted in Aliens or CoD. It is NOT the same technology as it is NOT capable of

A computer in 1912 like I am using today WOULD be fantasy. Just because there was an electronic counting machine in 1912 (the bare basic principal of a computer) that doesn't mean you can have an AMD quad-core PC which can run Crysis exists in 1912.

Straw man means, in essence, to avoid the argument and make an unrelated counterpoint. Citing anecdotal evidence is literally just that; "I heard this happened one time so I'm right."

And now you're proving you cannot read. I said in the hierarchy of needs, in what is most of concern amongst soldiers, what is stressed as a problem. Those same exist in the regular world.

For example, are you concerned about an asteroid coming down and striking you in the head. No, of course not. Can it happen? Absolutely. It is 100% possible to happen at any given moment. Do you concern yourself with that? No. Which would you rate as a higher concern, being struck by a drunk driver, or an errant meteor? Also, when walking down the street at 12:30 at night, which is likely to enter your brain as a genuine concern? So it is not a false dichotomy, it is 100% relevant. We don't actively concern ourselves with that, not because it's unimportant, or even unlikely, but because there are in fact *FAR* greater concerns at hand. It would be wasted mental potential to focus on that then say, whether or not they have mortars targeting your position, or if support fire will be necessary.

Also if you are going to gloss over or not bear in mind that soldiers rape each other with *absolutely FRIGHTENING consistency* you are REALLY out of touch with the real world. You need to come out of your shell and see the real world, not the world that's been painted for you.

There are more rapes in the U.S. Army alone per year than some states per year. Bear in mind, I'll repeat it again, I was an MP, it is my prerogative to be VERY aware of crime statistics and common criminal behaviors within the military, rape and sexual assault (and harassment) are, in my opinion, the most common crimes in the U.S. Army. Drug use isn't that common as the number of mandated drug screenings are numerous, violence against each other is part of the job (combat sparring and training) so it's tough decide when it's a "crime" or not but it's not that common nonetheless. Article 92's might be the only more common crime and that's only because of the catch-all application of Article 92 (can be used for damn near anything).

To even suggest that *friendly fire* is brought up as a concern more than *rape* in the U.S. Army just goes to show you know nothing about this subject.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here