|
|
Post by Old Viking on Sept 29, 2011 17:35:58 GMT -5
Women are neither temperamentally nor physically suited for combat. However, to be really, really fair, I guess we should encourage them to be blown to shreds if that's what they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 29, 2011 17:39:24 GMT -5
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? .....Huh. You have a point. Military training teaches you to ignore your survival instinct. I think it not unreasonable to presume it could train you to ignore the mating instinct. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 29, 2011 17:50:22 GMT -5
Women are neither temperamentally nor physically suited for combat. However, to be really, really fair, I guess we should encourage them to be blown to shreds if that's what they want. What you're talking about is averages. There's more variation in physicallity and certainly in temperment from one individual to the next than there is between the sexes. There plenty of women more suited to combat than I am, for instace (yes, physically too). |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Sept 29, 2011 17:54:06 GMT -5
Reminds me of Air Force EOD. Women are allowed in the program. However, most wash out because they can't meet the physical standards (along with a large number of the men). I'm okay with that, because that's something that's actually required for the job, and the ones who make it through are just as well suited to the job as the men. I'll agree that some women probably aren't suited to combat. But quite a few of them are, and they should be allowed to serve if they can make the standards, same as men. And segregating the units makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Sept 29, 2011 18:35:05 GMT -5
Women are neither temperamentally nor physically suited for combat. However, to be really, really fair, I guess we should encourage them to be blown to shreds if that's what they want. The same could be said of humans in general. Do you know just how pathetically fragile we are, physically as well as emotionally? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 29, 2011 18:38:50 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." Men don't belong in the same combat units as women, if you preferThats an exceptionally silly thing to say, you trans-sexual nazi eskimo midget. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 29, 2011 18:40:39 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? I'm sorry, but I have yet to see longitudinal empirical evidence that unisex integration of combat arms corps in the Canadian military HAS worked without major problems. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 29, 2011 18:44:41 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? Partly... however... the real crux issue, for me, isn't so much when men and women are being attracted to each other and every one is getting on (because I have been in units where people in relationships have been able to maintain their professionalism and refrain from fraternisation in uniform. It can be done.) Where I suspect the REALLY big problem lies is actually when a couple breaks up. Think back to the worst ever break up you've ever had, or the worst jealousy you've ever felt, and imagine that overlaid onto the stresses of a combat situation. To put it in concrete terms, if the guy in my support callsign's turret is in the middle of a messy breakup with my driver, I worry about his ability to do his job properly. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 29, 2011 18:45:24 GMT -5
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? .....Huh. You have a point. Military training teaches you to ignore your survival instinct. I think it not unreasonable to presume it could train you to ignore the mating instinct. Chronic vs. acute circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 29, 2011 19:07:32 GMT -5
Thats an exceptionally silly thing to say, you trans-sexual nazi eskimo midget. Revised statement: If you need to specify that you are not unfairly prejudiced to justify making a statement, that generally means that you are either 1) overly cautious or 2) actually are unfairly prejudiced. Women are neither temperamentally nor physically suited for combat. However, to be really, really fair, I guess we should encourage them to be blown to shreds if that's what they want. Then there should be no problem with allowing them to try to qualify for combat positions. If they can't meet the requirements, then they don't get put into the combat units. Removing "having a dick" from the list of combat qualifications doesn't loosen the physical or temperamental requirements. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 29, 2011 20:04:37 GMT -5
Follow-up question: Should more than one gay or bisexual man (or woman) be allowed to serve in the same combat unit? If so, what is the difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 29, 2011 20:07:36 GMT -5
If you can't keep your dick in your pants and/or keep your interpersonal relationships to outside of work you don't need to be in the military.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Sept 29, 2011 20:15:58 GMT -5
Women are neither temperamentally nor physically suited for combat. Bullshit. While I'll admit that women (on average) have to work harder to attain the same level of fitness and muscle as a man, it's most certainly possible. Frankly, I'm disgusted that they don't hold both genders to the same standards and assign jobs based on merit/skill, NOT what you've got between your legs. As for temperament...are you seriously suggesting that women are somehow unsuited for performing tasks such as "kill the enemy" and "protect the lives of my fellow soldiers"? |
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Sept 29, 2011 20:20:11 GMT -5
Of course that is what he means. All women are fragile and delicate little flowers and their mentality matches that discription to a tee. If not given the rights to vote and work outside the home then all women would be more than thrilled to spend all of their days cooking and cleaning and making babies because those are the only things that all those fragile and delicate little women ever think about! All women are programmed to be caring and gentle 100% of the time and that's why they should be locked safe inside the home popping out babies for their master/husband. It's evolution so it must be true!
Do I really need a sarcasm tag here?
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 29, 2011 21:52:17 GMT -5
Its Old Viking...sarcasm tags are assumed.
Unless you're either new or a moron.
|
|
