|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 27, 2011 11:24:13 GMT -5
Again? We're going to go thru this again? Yeah, I'd call this necromancy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Sept 27, 2011 11:49:31 GMT -5
Good for Australia!
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 27, 2011 11:56:43 GMT -5
Once again, let me state for the record I am very supportive of women in the military, even in combat roles, just not in integrated male and female units. "separate but equal", amirite? Pretty much... since in combat roles, practicalities are more important than PC niceties. No problem with female combat troops, I just don 't think male and female combat units should be mixed. Nothing whatsoever to do with "alpha male mind" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) The simple fact is I strongly suspect that both men AND women are going to be much better at engaging with and killing the enemy if they don't have all the personal baggage bullshit that you get whenever men and women work closely together for extended periods. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 27, 2011 11:58:49 GMT -5
Maybe the title of this should be "Australia joins the civilized world." Remind me which country you are from? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 27, 2011 12:13:02 GMT -5
Maybe the title of this should be "Australia joins the civilized world." Remind me which country you are from? Remind me again where I said that my country was the paragon of civility? ETA: Nice ad hominem though |
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Sept 27, 2011 12:21:12 GMT -5
Really? You guys had this discussion before? Can I get a link, because I am now strangely curious...
LHM: Are you saying that all women should be in one combat troupe, engaging the enemy, while the MEN should be in a completely separate troupe engaging the enemy someplace else? Is that what you're getting at??? Because I am admittedly confused...
|
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Sept 27, 2011 12:23:02 GMT -5
Pretty much... since in combat roles, practicalities are more important than PC niceties. No problem with female combat troops, I just don 't think male and female combat units should be mixed. Nothing whatsoever to do with "alpha male mind" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) The simple fact is I strongly suspect that both men AND women are going to be much better at engaging with and killing the enemy if they don't have all the personal baggage bullshit that you get whenever men and women work closely together for extended periods. I agree. In fact, I don't think you are going far enough, LHM. I think purely homogenous units are the way to go. And I mean purely. Every unit should be made up of the same sex, race, geographic origin (ie people from the same states or from cities vs. more rural areas), sexual orientation, and quite possibly sports team followings. because, as the other members here who wore their country's uniform can tell you, if you are a city boy, you don't want to have to think the one who is saving you is some inbred hick fresh off the farm. And if you are that inbred hick fresh off the farm, you don't want to have to rely on some pansy city boy. Amirite? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 27, 2011 12:49:50 GMT -5
Remind me which country you are from? Remind me again where I said that my country was the paragon of civility? ETA: Nice ad hominem though What the fuck? No, I am curious to know if your country allows women to serve in arms corps postings? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 27, 2011 12:52:48 GMT -5
Pretty much... since in combat roles, practicalities are more important than PC niceties. No problem with female combat troops, I just don 't think male and female combat units should be mixed. Nothing whatsoever to do with "alpha male mind" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) The simple fact is I strongly suspect that both men AND women are going to be much better at engaging with and killing the enemy if they don't have all the personal baggage bullshit that you get whenever men and women work closely together for extended periods. I agree. In fact, I don't think you are going far enough, LHM. I think purely homogenous units are the way to go. And I mean purely. Every unit should be made up of the same sex, race, geographic origin (ie people from the same states or from cities vs. more rural areas), sexual orientation, and quite possibly sports team followings. because, as the other members here who wore their country's uniform can tell you, if you are a city boy, you don't want to have to think the one who is saving you is some inbred hick fresh off the farm. And if you are that inbred hick fresh off the farm, you don't want to have to rely on some pansy city boy. Amirite? Does deliberate obtuseness make you happy? Glib responses are fun and all, but certain practicalities exist, that mean interpersonal relationships in bi-gendered groups are different to those occuring in mono gender groups. A guy from the city and a guy from the country may have different back grounds, but after training and indoctrination, that won't matter, they'll both be soldiers. Training and indoctrination don't remove people's genders though, so chalk and cheese. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 27, 2011 13:41:32 GMT -5
The simple fact is I strongly suspect that both men AND women are going to be much better at engaging with and killing the enemy if they don't have all the personal baggage bullshit that you get whenever men and women work closely together for extended periods. I tend to think the soldiers in your country are such consummate professionals that they would never let that kind of stuff interfere with their mission. |
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Sept 27, 2011 13:54:16 GMT -5
A guy from the city and a guy from the country may have different back grounds, but after training and indoctrination, that won't matter, they'll both be soldiers. Training and indoctrination don't remove people's genders though, so chalk and cheese. Then I guess you would see no problems with units being segregated by ethnicity. Or religion. That won't matter not because their background will somehow magically removed from their very being, but because the identity/duty as a soldier is supposed to take precedence over all this crap. Or at least, that's how indoctrination is supposed to work. As immutable as it may be, gender is still a part of this "crap". But of course, I guess there's pretty much no point arguing about it. The very fact that you called gender integration a "PC nicetie" pretty much proves that your objections to it goes a wee bit beyond your expressed "legitimate" worries over troop cohesion. Ordinarily, people don't use such a dismissive term on an issue that they find theoretically legitimate with some reservations about the real effects of putting it into practice. Your use of the good old PC accusation is... ahem, very strongly implying that the very concept of gender integration is unthinkable for you in much the same way that e.g. same-sex marriage is for most people on the main page. |
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Sept 27, 2011 14:11:12 GMT -5
I guess no one wants to give me the link to the old one. I guess I'll try locating it myself. I'm assuming it's somewhere in F&B?
*wanders off*
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Sept 27, 2011 15:44:31 GMT -5
Putting women into combat has always been an incredibly bad idea. Those who advocate it know little or nothing about combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 27, 2011 15:44:34 GMT -5
to be fair I don't remember where the original thread is, just that we had this bullshit before.
ironbite-LHM has issues with women in combat roles for whatever reason
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 27, 2011 16:47:05 GMT -5
Remind me again where I said that my country was the paragon of civility? ETA: Nice ad hominem though What the fuck? No, I am curious to know if your country allows women to serve in arms corps postings? Oh, I thought you were trying to say my view is invalid because my country does stupid shit. As for the answer to your question, Google it, it's faster. |
|
