|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Sept 30, 2011 16:45:41 GMT -5
Is there a link to this anywhere? My Google-fu has failed me. I very much doubt it. Can you provide some sort of context then? Because "12/16 HRL 1998, Grant Prendegast/ vs. Andrew Mangan re: Ky Riley. AFX at Singleton" doesn't really mean much. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 30, 2011 16:46:41 GMT -5
Actually it doesn't matter if it's just one study. You can find anything in the world, at least 3 pieces of 'sources', that will back up your claim no matter what it is.
It matters even less if it's a study from so long ago that hasn't been repeated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Sept 30, 2011 16:50:00 GMT -5
Actually it doesn't matter if it's just one study. You can find anything in the world, at least 3 pieces of 'sources', that will back up your claim no matter what it is. It matters even less if it's a study from so long ago that hasn't been repeated. I agree, but I was wondering if examining his "evidence" might give clues as to what circumstances shaped his beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Sept 30, 2011 16:59:46 GMT -5
Love how LHM can't cite anything regarding women in combat disrupting unit moral or any of the objections he's raised. ironbite-very telling I'm wondering why we're even trying to argue with him. It's like trying to talk sense to a brick wall... only a brick wall might listen better and doesn't keep rewording the same fucking argument. I think this thread is turning out to be WORSE than the one I was linked to. I need to get a tylenol... excuse me... *wanders off* No need for that. Here, meet my good friend, Jack.  *offers you a half-full bottle of Old #7* |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 30, 2011 17:28:01 GMT -5
The dog is the rest of the board.  The object in it's mouth is saying "I'm not a sexist but..." Platitudes and macros aside, cite anything I have said that is remotely sexist, and explain how, please? No you're not a sexist you are a "sexual realist"[/i] which is totally different. Totally. And you came to that conclusion as a result of your unique anecdotal observations, evidence to the contrary be damned. Serious arguing over. I'm not here to debate the issue. We've been over this before and it descended into a black hole of silliness before as well. I'm just here to watch the show and blow raspberries from the sidelines. *loud farty noise*  Do carry on! |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 30, 2011 17:30:14 GMT -5
The problem with that analogy my friend is that anybody who makes the cut gets in. If one person of whatever group makes the cut we let them in. This isn't 1930's Germany where you had to look the part in order to be allowed to compete... and then get shown up when another country allowed the best person for the job to represent them. My point is that in sport, it is acepted that you go with the best team for the job, regardless of whether it is "PC" or not. I am simply saying the military should be the same. So in summation, women aren't as good and should leave the soldiering to the men types. You seem to miss the point that a deployment in a lot of these regions involves a lot more than combat. The bulk of Canada's deployment history has been UN sponsored peacekeeping and humanitarian work. You don't get to kill everybody and just go home anymore. The objective is to keep the killing to a minimum and get everybody to play nice (as we in the west define nice). Is the Australian deployment history different because that could colour your perspective although I still think you are still mistaken about the presence of women in combat. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 30, 2011 17:30:42 GMT -5
Presumably it is the anecdotal nature of the evidence that is the problem. Which is why there was SUPPOSED to be an in depth objective scientific assessment of what impact women in combat roles was supposed to have, which la Gillard and her merry band of incompetents and bedwetters happily steamrolled past in an attempt to get cheap votes by saying "look how enlightened and feminist we are". If there WERE an indepth, longitudinal objective study, I'd be very happy to take it onboard. However, since there isn't, anecdotal evidence and the gut feeling of crotchety old combat vets is the best you will do. No it's not. You can look to see what other nations have done. Canada has an integrated military, see how they fare. To disprove the null hypothesis, you have to find examples of it going badly (and at a rate worse than same sex units). The burden of proof is on you, be intellectually honest and do some fucking legwork instead of letting irrational biases tell you what the case is. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 30, 2011 17:35:38 GMT -5
Is there a link to this anywhere? My Google-fu has failed me. I very much doubt it. Then it doesn't exist ironbite-thanks for playing |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 30, 2011 17:43:41 GMT -5
My google-fu turned up Rory Prendergast who plays for Swansea and got red carded for dissent. Does this help? |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 30, 2011 17:45:00 GMT -5
My google-fu turned up Rory Prendergast who plays for Swansea and got red carded for dissent. Does this help? Yes, it helps a bunch. That'll do pig, that'll do. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 30, 2011 17:48:58 GMT -5
Well I tried to be helpful! *sniffs*.
*wanders off*
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 30, 2011 17:54:00 GMT -5
Anyone want burgers? I'm grillin!
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 30, 2011 18:52:46 GMT -5
Most jobs these days aren't actually 9-5. They can be 9-8, 7AM-10PM, etc., Yesteday my interning shift started at dawn and finished at midday. It's actually a good shift to do. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 19:39:33 GMT -5
You want a citation for anecdotal evidence? No, I wanted a citation for a study or analysis or even a factual documented event that would back up your anecdotal evidence. ....but I'll just post this analysis instead. www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_2/CAJ_vol13.2_10_e.pdf"The adjustment period before acceptance was in sync with the theories of G. Resch, a psychologist specializing in issues of integration that were used to develop the CREW research plan. He described integration as not a gendered issue, but as one of leadership. It was up to leaders at all levels of the unit to facilitate positive change.32 He reported that attitudes need not start out receptive, but that they would change, given time, guidance, instruction and training. There may be an increase in negative attitudes and opinions towards the integration as the issue is raised, or as the process begins. Once integration takes place, there is a period of rapid adjustment, where unit members are surprised about the “ease of adaptation.”33 Shortly thereafter, cohesion is restored.
Years later, this analysis proved to be highly accurate. Gender integration in Canada eventually yielded an improved, more diverse and highly combat effective Canadian military force. Issues surrounding the perception of the high costs of infrastructure modification, such as refitting vessels to accommodate women, were minimized by good planning and common sense solutions. Lingering frictions between unit members became eminently solvable problems and programs were introduced to deal with some of the more persistent problems of harassment. Romantic-type relationships developed between soldiers, but were left to the purview of leadership to ensure that they did not have a disruptive effect on unit dynamics. Common sense, sound policies and good leadership were heralded as the ultimate solution to
the problems that did arise."This portion is on page 79. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 30, 2011 19:53:32 GMT -5
The problem with that analogy my friend is that anybody who makes the cut gets in. If one person of whatever group makes the cut we let them in. This isn't 1930's Germany where you had to look the part in order to be allowed to compete... and then get shown up when another country allowed the best person for the job to represent them. My point is that in sport, it is acepted that you go with the best team for the job, regardless of whether it is "PC" or not. I am simply saying the military should be the same. The other difference is that there aren't any limits on army strength. To extend the metaphor, you can play soccer between a team of 10 and a team of 4000. Why should be turn away qualified, quality soldiers for no better reason than conservative political correctness? Well, okay. Maybe we can't afford more than X soldiers. But if we have a larger base of volunteers to fill up that quota, we can A) get better quality troops and B) pay them less (supply and demand, after all). As usual, conservative political correctness (men can't help themselves around women!) would undermine the very institution they faux-defend, in this case the millitary. Good on the government for ensuring that the army has the largest possible base of volunteers from which to enlist. |
|
*offers you a half-full bottle of Old #7*
