|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 27, 2011 17:13:53 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* It's in F and B, yes. But I can't find it right now. Let's just say the thread here is going about as well as the one in flame and burn. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 27, 2011 17:56:08 GMT -5
Putting women into combat has always been an incredibly bad idea. Those who advocate it know little or nothing about combat. [sing song]You are full of craaaaaaa-aaaaaaap![/sing-song]  Why? Here is why:Now you're saying "Well that could be an idiot off the street on that commission!" Well, it isn't: and their thoughts about cohesion All emphasis mine. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Sept 27, 2011 18:31:34 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 served for 3 years on a ship that was integrated. (For context, this was years before I started transition, so was serving as female.) The worst problem I had was with another female. The only male I had any problem with was not because he was male; it was because he was a stuck-up ass. I would have had a problem with a female who acted like he did. |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Sept 27, 2011 18:38:20 GMT -5
Not really, but I have to say there's little that amuses me more than watching your typical professing alpha male get his panties in a twist over women or gays in the military. Once again, let me state for the record I am very supportive of women blacks in the military, even in combat roles, just not in integrated male and female white and black units.  |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 28, 2011 0:37:17 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* Give us a few pages and you'll get a stunning recreation of the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 28, 2011 0:46:53 GMT -5
^^ Oh where is your optimism? This may turn out to a productive and enlightened discussion.
Really...
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 28, 2011 1:31:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 28, 2011 3:00:40 GMT -5
As in the last thread, I'm going to point to my own country's military as an example of an integrated military which manages to function.
|
|
|
|
Post by sugarfreejazz on Sept 28, 2011 10:14:14 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 nightangel1282 on Sept 28, 2011 11:23:59 GMT -5
Fucking hell, I think I just lost about 50 IQ points reading through that... LHM, do you even stop to consider just how sexist you DO sound sometimes? |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 28, 2011 11:35:31 GMT -5
Putting women into combat has always been an incredibly bad idea. Those who advocate it know little or nothing about combat. Frankly, I think that putting people into combat has always been an incredibly bad idea. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Sept 28, 2011 12:09:05 GMT -5
Series of simple ideas follow. 1 - Similar arguments concerning "unit cohesion" have been put forward in favour of both racial segregation and exclusion of homosexuals from the military. In civilised countries (and now America) these have exclusively been found to be total wank. 2 - Gender norming is bullshit. For safety's sake, there should be a basic minimum standard of physical, technical and tactical ability for military service. Lowering the standard for the sake of inclusiveness is pointless and ultimately detrimental to the service as a whole. In short, if women can meet the required standard of performance for frontline service then there should be no barriers to stop them from serving. Those already serving who feel threatened by it should get over themselves. By the same token, there should be ONE standard for both genders. That is all |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 28, 2011 16:46:57 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... Pretty much, yep. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 28, 2011 16:49:25 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. While Australia's soldiers are among the top 3 in the world in terms of professionalism and training, there is only so much that training and professionalism will do as far as moderating and changing the way people act. Short answer, biology will trump professionalism, not necessarily every time, but enough of the time for it to be a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 28, 2011 16:51:39 GMT -5
That's not sexist at all.
And of course women shouldn't drive or operate tanks right? Cause that's only for men right? Well then you shouldn't be a nurse. Cause that's only for women.
Ironbite-seems fair.
|
|
