|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Sept 30, 2011 13:47:56 GMT -5
Isn't LHM a nurse or something? Shouldn't he already know this?
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Sept 30, 2011 14:11:52 GMT -5
As I already said lighthorseman, you're not eactly sexist, since you never said or even implied that one sex was superior to the other. You're just... ahem... a "sexual realist", to parallel the semi-frequent "racial realist" appellation. In other words, you have strong beliefs on the intrinsic characteristics of both sexes and their interactions, to the point that you will oppose some questions of gender equity not because there are any rational/empirical reasons to believe it could be harmful in any way, but rather on principle.
Which isn't a very popular attitude on those forums, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 30, 2011 14:15:46 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. Yes, the null hypothesis here would be that integration does not cause problems, i.e. that there is no effect. The data would have to refute that, not reinforce that, for us to accept it as the initial position. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 30, 2011 14:18:54 GMT -5
As I already said lighthorseman, you're not eactly sexist, since you never said or even implied that one sex was superior to the other. You're just... ahem... a "sexual realist", to parallel the semi-frequent "racial realist" appellation. In other words, you have strong beliefs on the intrinsic characteristics of both sexes and their interactions, to the point that you will oppose some questions of gender equity not because there are any rational/empirical reasons to believe it could be harmful in any way, but rather on principle. Which isn't a very popular attitude on those forums, to say the least. Sexism doesn't have to have superiority in the equation to make it sexist. Saying that women can't do something because they are women is sexist. Just because sexism can also include gender superiority doesn't mean it has to in order to be under the sexism flag. Saying women should stay in the kitchen is sexist. There's no superiority of men implied in the statement 'women should be in the kitchen' but it is still sexist. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 30, 2011 14:24:48 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. Meaning that there are fewer gay per capita so it's less likely that they'll end up in the same unit? If so, that doesn't answer the question of whether it should be allowed if it happened. I can't imagine it would be all that different. You say that gays in the military doesn't SEEM to be causing any problems, but you chastise others for making the same assertions/observations about mixed gender units, demanding more study and evidence before a decision is made. Shouldn't we be doing more research to make sure allowing gays in the combat rolls won't have significant negative effects, the same as you're saying about mixed gender units? |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 30, 2011 14:28:32 GMT -5
LHM, if a man and a woman having a nasty break-up is enough to destroy combat abilities and all that the same logic needs to be applied to a homosexual couple. Does this mean gays shouldn't be able to serve together? After all, their relationships pose the exact same risk as a man and a woman do.
In fact, just to be safe we shouldn't let gays serve at all. They might harm the morale of anybody they serve with, since they even share the showers and we all know that men can't control their sexual urges. We also know that, since many men a homophobic asshats having a gay soldier will cause all manner of problems since there's guys out there who would rather that the dirty faggot die instead of having him be around. You can't overcome that! It's been instilled for too long to overcome it during basic.
How does that sound to you? It's the same logic as you're using for women serving along side men.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 14:38:37 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. I've seen exacly the sort of problem I am talking about occur in non arms corps units. Given the type of situation we are discussing, doesn't it make sense to accept that there may be problems, and attempt to work out how to avoid them, rather than railroading through and pretending that saying "equality!" loudly and repeatedly will make the problems a non issue? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 14:41:32 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. For fucks sake... rather than getting into a semantic pissing contest over the precise hours of hospital shifts, how about you attempt to understand my statement in good faith, i.e. that hospital workers work 8 hours, then go home to their family, friends and hobbies, rather than get in a huff because I said 9-5, when in fact some hospital workers work a different 8.5 hours. The 9-5 part wasn't the really important part of what I('m saying. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 14:43:16 GMT -5
As I already said lighthorseman, you're not eactly sexist, since you never said or even implied that one sex was superior to the other. You're just... ahem... a "sexual realist", to parallel the semi-frequent "racial realist" appellation. In other words, you have strong beliefs on the intrinsic characteristics of both sexes and their interactions, to the point that you will oppose some questions of gender equity not because there are any rational/empirical reasons to believe it could be harmful in any way, but rather on principle. And what part of my, ahem, "sexual realism" do you think is unreasonable or offensive? I'm glad you're hear to tell me about what is popular on these fora. |
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Sept 30, 2011 14:45:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 14:49:16 GMT -5
As answered repeatedly in the earlier iteration of this thread, it doesn't seem to be a problem, due to the ratios involved. Meaning that there are fewer gay per capita so it's less likely that they'll end up in the same unit? Yes Again, I'm not going to presume to make statements about how homosexuals should or will deport themselves. I can't imagine it would be all that different.[/quote]Again... I would very much appreciate more research on potential impacts going on before our PC masters use the military as a social engineering testbed. As I tried to explain earlier, that's my big problem and reason for making the OP. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 14:51:26 GMT -5
LHM, if a man and a woman having a nasty break-up is enough to destroy combat abilities and all that the same logic needs to be applied to a homosexual couple. Does this mean gays shouldn't be able to serve together? After all, their relationships pose the exact same risk as a man and a woman do. In fact, just to be safe we shouldn't let gays serve at all. They might harm the morale of anybody they serve with, since they even share the showers and we all know that men can't control their sexual urges. We also know that, since many men a homophobic asshats having a gay soldier will cause all manner of problems since there's guys out there who would rather that the dirty faggot die instead of having him be around. You can't overcome that! It's been instilled for too long to overcome it during basic. How does that sound to you? It's the same logic as you're using for women serving along side men. It isn' the same logic, and I rather resent the repeated attempt to get me to say something homophobic, rather than addressing my actual concerns on their merrits. Once again, I am not homosexual, and I do not presume to tell homosexuals about how their interpersonal relationships work. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 14:55:21 GMT -5
Thnks for the link, but I can't actually see the text. Is there anything you'd like to quote? |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 30, 2011 15:03:47 GMT -5
Maybe the real issue is that LHM isn't cut out for a life in the military if it is not going to be an all boys club. I'm sure there are quite a few soldiers out there that feel that way. That doesn't change the fact that the job is changing. You father's army is not the army your children will fight in.
If you can't handle these changes, the door is that way. Don't worry, the person coming along to replace you is going to know that the units are mixed and not have a problem with it. Yeah, you're probably going to loose some combat effectiveness as the old guard fights the change, but eventually it's going to happen, and frankly I think the military will be better for it in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 30, 2011 15:07:37 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. For fucks sake... rather than getting into a semantic pissing contest over the precise hours of hospital shifts, how about you attempt to understand my statement in good faith, i.e. that hospital workers work 8 hours, then go home to their family, friends and hobbies, rather than get in a huff because I said 9-5, when in fact some hospital workers work a different 8.5 hours. The 9-5 part wasn't the really important part of what I('m saying. Way to fucking miss the part where she said that the shifts are not eight fucking hours long. The shifts are more than eight hours. More than eight and a half. More than ten. The shifts can be in excess of twelve hours. Though I guess Australia lets the medical staff have shorter hours since they need to fight off all the things native to Australia that are trying to kill you. And yes, it is the same damn logic. You are saying that a break-up between a man and a woman will harm the unit. The same fucking emotions occur between to gays. And you're saying that because a lot of men are pricks and would be unable to overcome their bias. The same goddamn thing can be said about gays. There are many people that have negative opinions about gays, to the point that they may even actively discriminate. And I'm pretty sure that you've made a fuss about sexual attraction between men and women serving together. Guess what? There's the same chance of a gay man finding another man attractive as a straight guy finding a woman attractive. Gays end up developing the ability, rather maturity, to control themselves and have the ability to apply the context of a situation involving, say, nudity (such as in the shower). It's called self-control. Any man, regardless of his sexual orientation, that is unable to fucking control himself with these types of things is the problem, not the person he is attracted to. If he has such a pathetic amount of self-control how can you trust him to control himself while under heavy enemy fire? |
|
