|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 15, 2011 23:17:19 GMT -5
How very interesting. How many operating subs does Canada have? I believe Australian subs are the only non unisex ships in the RAN. Thats a bit of an aside though, because the navy is a bit different to Army ground forces. ETA: I just read that article, and it doesn't mention armour, infantry, artillery or engineers. Can anyone confirm if the Canadian Army deploys women in these corps? The aforementioned Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents the government from passing any laws based on gender. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 23:17:57 GMT -5
Who's blaming women? If you took 5 seconds to analyse my position, rather than leaping in to flame me, you might understand that I actually think it is mostly the men who are the problem here. Actually, mostly its young people in general. But the way men act when there is a large group of men with a small number of women, in an isolated high stress environment is the problem. Considering that you provided ass-all for explanation, statistics or otherwise in earlier postings (Save for dragging someone else's posting out of flame and burn, then lightly painting it with personal rhetoric), there wasn't exactly anything to analyze. Further? You're still making broad, sweeping assumptions about one gender or another. Either (by your logic) men are weak morons who can't be relied on to be disciplined personnel, or women are frail, emotional, sexual targets or whatever other classical conservative excuse you want to paste over it. It's absolutely silly either way. The "best fighting force" defeated by their own lack of discipline? I sense another piss-take coming. All your words, not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 23:18:57 GMT -5
How very interesting. How many operating subs does Canada have? I believe Australian subs are the only non unisex ships in the RAN. Thats a bit of an aside though, because the navy is a bit different to Army ground forces. ETA: I just read that article, and it doesn't mention armour, infantry, artillery or engineers. Can anyone confirm if the Canadian Army deploys women in these corps? There you go. I learnt something today. Until just now, I had understood the IDF was the only regular military that employed women in combat positions. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 15, 2011 23:27:00 GMT -5
There you go. I learnt something today. Until just now, I had understood the IDF was the only regular military that employed women in combat positions. So you were aware that the IDF has women deployed in combat and acknowledged earlier that the IDF is right up there in terms of regular militiaries. How is that this hasn't effected the IDF but will effect Australia. Also which sound is green? |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 15, 2011 23:27:45 GMT -5
Somewhat off topic, but we've also allowed gays to serve openly since circa 1990. Canada is fairly liberal when it comes to gender roles and sexual orientation.
|
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Jun 15, 2011 23:27:59 GMT -5
So, wait, LHM. If it isn't something that can be pinned on either gender, what exactly are you bitching about? Where's your reasoning, and what's your bloody point? You pointed to a male/female debate in flame and burn, you've waffled away from laying it on one side or the other, so your only argument left really is that the "World's best force" (Cue sarcastic air quotes), has no bloody discipline?
Figure it out. Get back to us when you have an answer that isn't completely and utterly daft.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 23:54:57 GMT -5
There you go. I learnt something today. Until just now, I had understood the IDF was the only regular military that employed women in combat positions. So you were aware that the IDF has women deployed in combat and acknowledged earlier that the IDF is right up there in terms of regular militiaries. How is that this hasn't effected the IDF but will effect Australia. Also which sound is green? Again, different dynamic... IDF is a conscript army, and its unisex battalions have >50% females in them. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 23:55:50 GMT -5
Somewhat off topic, but we've also allowed gays to serve openly since circa 1990. Canada is fairly liberal when it comes to gender roles and sexual orientation. Of the top of the head, I think we've had openly homosexual soldiers since '93, though I stand to be corrected. ETA '92. I was close. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Australia |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 15, 2011 23:56:47 GMT -5
So, wait, LHM. If it isn't something that can be pinned on either gender, what exactly are you bitching about? Where's your reasoning, and what's your bloody point? You pointed to a male/female debate in flame and burn, you've waffled away from laying it on one side or the other, so your only argument left really is that the "World's best force" (Cue sarcastic air quotes), has no bloody discipline? Figure it out. Get back to us when you have an answer that isn't completely and utterly daft. I thought my point was pretty clear. I believe that integrated male female units will be less combat effective than single sex ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jun 16, 2011 0:22:14 GMT -5
So, wait, LHM. If it isn't something that can be pinned on either gender, what exactly are you bitching about? Where's your reasoning, and what's your bloody point? You pointed to a male/female debate in flame and burn, you've waffled away from laying it on one side or the other, so your only argument left really is that the "World's best force" (Cue sarcastic air quotes), has no bloody discipline? Figure it out. Get back to us when you have an answer that isn't completely and utterly daft. I thought my point was pretty clear. I believe that integrated male female units will be less combat effective than single sex ones. Why? Because men can't keep their penises in their pants? Wanna know what the proper course of action if that is the case? You discharge the soldiers that lack the discipline to control themselves, and allow the ones that can to serve. In this case (or at least by your argument) it would mean dishonourably discharging the men that make unwanted advances and allow women to serve. Any course of action besides that is sexist, made even worse by the fact you refuse to admit the possibility of it being so. |
|
Keiro
Full Member
An Puis?n Faolch?
Posts: 214
|
Post by Keiro on Jun 16, 2011 0:23:10 GMT -5
LHM:
You are being stupid. Others have posted evidence of integrated forces elsewhere.
I think that makes your point entirely moot. And worthless.
Please drop it. You're just making my brain hurt. And I really hate when that happens. -_-
Seriously, you're making points that're ridiculously easy to be shown as erroneous.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jun 16, 2011 0:25:49 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong, but poor Keiro seems to be like the canary in the mine: if he's starting to keel over, it's time to rethink what you're doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 16, 2011 0:32:18 GMT -5
What's truly pathetic is that you can't see just how sexist it is. What's sexist about it? This is little more than another one of your "prove to me 1+1=2" statements. If you can't see how it's sexist, then I am forced to accept that you are little more than a drooling retard who's somehow learned enough to come to this website. |
|
Keiro
Full Member
An Puis?n Faolch?
Posts: 214
|
Post by Keiro on Jun 16, 2011 0:38:48 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong, but poor Keiro seems to be like the canary in the mine: if he's starting to keel over, it's time to rethink what you're doing. Wrong. More like the urge to find my rifle and come after him is rising.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jun 16, 2011 0:42:34 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong, but poor Keiro seems to be like the canary in the mine: if he's starting to keel over, it's time to rethink what you're doing. Wrong. More like the urge to find my rifle and come after him is rising. LHM is pants on head retarded, but that is no reason to make death threats, even if they are made in jest. |
|
