|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 28, 2011 16:56:11 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? I'm sorry you think so. With respect, I think that is a knee jerk reaction to someone discussing men and women in different terms. I don't believe anything I said or am saying is sexist. I'm more than happy to address any specific example you might like to raise though.Cute. But blacks and whites are not inherently, biologically and instinctively geared to react and interact in the same way to each other as males and female are, so chalk and cheese. I don't honestly know enough about naval onboard life to comment. I sorta suspect it's different to things on the ground in an infantry platoon or an armoured troop. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 28, 2011 17:14:34 GMT -5
Amazing...you just used the "I'm not sexist but..." defense.
Ironbite-good jorb.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 28, 2011 17:20:37 GMT -5
Amazing...you just used the "I'm not sexist but..." defense. Ironbite-good jorb. Not at all. I'm not sexist. There is no "but". |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 28, 2011 17:52:06 GMT -5
Not at all. I'm not sexist. There is no "but". Yes there is. "but women don't belong in the same units as men." And if you have to say you're not something...you are it. |
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Sept 28, 2011 18:36:54 GMT -5
Amazing...you just used the "I'm not sexist but..." defense. Ironbite-good jorb. Not at all. I'm not sexist. There is no "but". Oh, surely not - you are... err... maybe we should call it "sexual realism"? Yeah, that's right, you are a sexual realist, bravely fighting against the PC masses. This sounds juuust fine. |
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Sept 28, 2011 18:52:06 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. YAY! Let's segregate the men from the women!! Because obviously men can't control their trouser sausages when they see a set of tits!! You're sexist, no matter HOW you try to justify it! Try having a bit more faith in your own damn gender! The Arabs make women wear burka's for the same damn reason you're suggesting men and women should be separated in combat situations! Did you ever stop to consider that?! |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Sept 28, 2011 19:45:22 GMT -5
Countries that have integrated women into their combat forces haven't had any major problems. However, you think it will be a problem for Australian infantry. It seems like you're saying the Australian military is much less disciplined than other armed forces. Why are Canadian soldiers so much better than Australian ones? Why do you think the Australian military will fail here where other militaries have succeeded?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Sept 28, 2011 19:59:08 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 Tiberius on Sept 28, 2011 22:28:14 GMT -5
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. /thread |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 28, 2011 22:39:12 GMT -5
LHM, is the crux of the problem that men and women are (in general) attracted to each other, i.e. see each other as potential sexual parters, and that that would cause too much disruption or what-have-you for a combat unit?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 29, 2011 2:22:18 GMT -5
LHM, is the crux of the problem that men and women are (in general) attracted to each other, i.e. see each other as potential sexual parters, and that that would cause too much disruption or what-have-you for a combat unit? Yep. That's pretty much the crux of his issue with it. And he stands by it even when it's been proven bogus ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tygerarmy on Sept 29, 2011 3:49:00 GMT -5
There should be an equal standard for men and women everywhere, not just in the military.
Where ever people go there is sexual tension.
Persons in the military are supposed to have discipline and be able to follow the rules and regulations.
The military has the ability to punish those who can't.
Two people should be able to go into a combat environment and follow these rules.
This includes not fucking each other.
I understand this raises the tension between some personnel in the military. And I know of married couples who were deployed overseas together and the male went on leave for a week and female fucked someone else. And I understand the added tension this creates on a unit. But it is these individuals that need to be dealt with. And maybe they don't need to be in the military.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 29, 2011 7:07:40 GMT -5
Hell, keeping men and women separate isn't going to keep fucking from happening.
Even straight men/women will experiment if it means finally getting some relief.
|
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Sept 29, 2011 10:05:58 GMT -5
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. I see you asked me a question here. Sorry it took a couple pages for me to get back to you. But here we go. No, I do not enjoy being deliberately obtuse. But that response I gave you about separating units by background was tongue in cheek, not obtuse. I was taking your argument to it's illogical conclusion. But I think you know that. ETA: You say that a guy from the city and from the country, through coming from differing backgrounds, will develop some sort of cohesion due to training and a newer fresher set of shared circumstances. True, to a point. But the city boy will always be a city boy and the hay seed will always be a hay seed. Yes, they will both be soldiers. The chick who went through basic, job related training, and some time in her unit, let's look at her for a second. After that training, know what she will be? A soldier, with every right to wear her country's uniform. Just the same as her male counterpart. Hell, you said the relationships of bi gender groups will be different than those of mono gender groups. You are right. Different. Not better, not worse. Different. There's your answer. Please don't respond to it. I have no real desire to trudge down this road with you again. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 29, 2011 14:32:04 GMT -5
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. So professionalism and training will allow people to stay in control and not shit their pants when people are getting blown to pieces around them. But they can't over come the differences in gender? |
|
