|
|
Post by Damen on Sept 29, 2011 23:01:42 GMT -5
Men don't belong in the same combat units as women, if you prefer And it's still sexist. Why don't you just say what we all know you're really thinking?  |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 30, 2011 2:39:02 GMT -5
I think Captain Samantha Carter of the SGC would like a few words with you...
Mostly involving shooting you in the kneecaps while describing all the physics going behind the reason that you're now on the floor in agonizing pain. Before Teal'c knocks your head off and O'Neill makes a wisecrack.
|
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Sept 30, 2011 4:05:15 GMT -5
so would you say that men and woman shouldn't be allowed to be on the medical staff at the same hospital because if a surgeon or a nurse got into a messy breakup with an anesthetist they wouldn't be able to work together properly in the OR? Because if not, why? It's also a life-or-death situation, granted not on a large scale. Or how about this, two techs working at a nuclear reactor, should men and woman not be allowed to work at the same nuclear reactor?
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 30, 2011 6:26:39 GMT -5
The dog is the rest of the board.  The object in it's mouth is saying "I'm not a sexist but..." |
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Sept 30, 2011 6:45:00 GMT -5
Its Old Viking...sarcasm tags are assumed. Unless you're either new or a moron. Little of both in my case, lol. Sorry to Old Viking if I was mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 6:49:59 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? As answered repeatedly in the earlier iteration of this thread, it doesn't seem to be a problem, due to the ratios involved. Beyond that, I'm not gay, so I don't presume to pontificate on the intricacies of interpersonal homosexual dynamics. I am heterosexual though, so i think I have a fair understanding of what happens when things go bad between men and women. FYI: It is actually the way this new legislation was railroaded through without adequate oversight that made iot worthy of a second mention, rather than hashing out this bit where I try to make an observation, and everyone misreads it as sexist and condemns me for stuff they decide I mean, rather than anything remotely close to anything I say. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 6:56:22 GMT -5
I think Captain Samantha Carter of the SGC would like a few words with you... Mostly involving shooting you in the kneecaps while describing all the physics going behind the reason that you're now on the floor in agonizing pain. Before Teal'c knocks your head off and O'Neill makes a wisecrack.I rather think that people who think star gate or other crummy TV shows are a remotely accurate representation of combat are a a big part of the problem here. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 6:57:25 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? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 7:03:32 GMT -5
so would you say that men and woman shouldn't be allowed to be on the medical staff at the same hospital because if a surgeon or a nurse got into a messy breakup with an anesthetist they wouldn't be able to work together properly in the OR? Because if not, why? It's also a life-or-death situation, granted not on a large scale. Or how about this, two techs working at a nuclear reactor, should men and woman not be allowed to work at the same nuclear reactor? I don't know about the nuclear reactor, but I have seen the exact situation you describe in hospitals... and because hospitals are civilian settings, staff; A. have the freedom and ability to adjust shifts and rosters or even find employment in a different department to avoid people they have a personality clash. B. are able to go home at the end of their shift, talk to friends, go to their mum's for the weekend, have a few days off, wrap themselves around a bottle of wine, or whatever it takes to make it through. Soldiers in the field don't have these freedoms. As I tried to explain ad nauseum in the last thread, civilian workplaces, where you spend 8 hours a day 5 days a week at work, and then have the freedom to bunk off and do your own thing the other 16 hours a day, and all day on the weekends, with whoever you like, and you emotional support network close by are COMPLETELY different to a deployment setting, where you have to be in the company fo the same small group of people, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for maybe months at a time, with littler to no outside support, access to friends or "alone" time, with people trying to kill you into the mix. The sooner people get it through their heads that we're not talking about workplace equality here, and actually talking about the realities of life in the field, we might actually get somewhere. As long as people are insisting in discussing combat roles as though they are in any way comparable to a 9-5 office job, we're never going to get anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 7:16:40 GMT -5
.....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. Hell history has shown us that sexual love between members of a fighting groups can make that group even stronger. Go ask the Spartans. |
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Sept 30, 2011 7:16:57 GMT -5
The sooner people get it through their heads that we're not talking about workplace equality here, and actually talking about the realities of life in the field, we might actually get somewhere. As long as people are insisting in discussing combat roles as though they are in any way comparable to a 9-5 office job, we're never going to get anywhere. I can agree that a breakup of a relationship between two people in a high-stress environment can lead to disastrous results. I just can't help but wonder if ANY relationship of comparable intimacy would generate the same risk, regardless of gender. If you trust a fellow soldier with your life - an act possibly more intimate then the trust required to be in a romantic relationship with someone - and that trust is misplaced, you will end up in exactly the same position...if not worse. I would think it would simply make more sense to trust that our soldiers have the ability to make effective decisions in a combat zone, irrespective of gender or relationships between the members of the unit, and leave it at that. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 7:18:04 GMT -5
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. How about you cite any problems it has caused. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 30, 2011 10:00:35 GMT -5
Men don't belong in the same combat units as women, if you prefer And it's still sexist. Why don't you just say what we all know you're really thinking? Awww Damen. You were paying attention to the IRC when I posted that pic.  |
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Sept 30, 2011 13:10:16 GMT -5
You think people in hospitals work 9-5....  Pfffffttttt....... *Starts laughing hysterically* Newsflash LHM: Hospital staff shifts can last from 12 to 16 hours at a time. I'm friends with a woman who's a nurse and my family knows SEVERAL doctors, so I can easily call bullshit on your statement there. Your the one making the claim that integrated units are a bad thing, and I'm waiting for you to show us REAL evidence for this. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 30, 2011 13:22:27 GMT -5
Most jobs these days aren't actually 9-5. They can be 9-8, 7AM-10PM, etc.,
|
|
