User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 56

  1. #21
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    The sub-conscious assumption is that you'd simply give that weapon to a guy and let the woman have an carbine instead... and that is my point. You can't conceivably integrate someone into a combat element who is, on average, weaker, and maintain the same performance without raising the workload of everyone else... or simply performing worse on average (which, in combat, means people die or are left behind). Maybe a woman can carry a full combat load and keep up... maybe. But if SHTF and she's gotta drag someone out of danger... I could see a highly conditioned soldier muster up that kind of strength but not a woman who is already carrying 50-150 pounds.

    What I see happening here is 1 of 2 things... either a lower standard of entry is allowed for women, or the same standard is maintained. If they have a different standard of entry, you'll see many able to get into basic training and a high rate of attrition once they enter phases with any amount of rucking (which is where the majority of males wash out).
    Military units are always integrating people with different levels of strength, endurance, agility, etc. because not even all men are the same. Some women will be more physically capable than many men, while some men will be less capable than many women. Just ensure the position requirements are really relevant, then admit anyone who meets them. In any case, the brute force strength argument seems to apply mainly to infantry. I suspect requirements in artillery and armor are somewhat different. The generally smaller stature and greater dexterity/agility of women might make them even more suited for certain jobs - tanks, subs, and combat aircraft come to mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    The concept of "combat role" is slowly phasing out anyway since we don't fight with fronts and lines anymore. If somebody attacks you, you're in combat, whether you're a pilot, radar operator or an EOD tech. .
    Yes. And excluding women from combat roles also excludes them from related training, so when combat comes to them, they are not as prepared (and therefore don't perform as well, causing people to question their fitness . . .?)

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    Meaning... if women were also given the chance to go through that training, then all the women who could handle the strain would make it to combat, and all the women who couldn't, wouldn't. Right?
    Yes. All quite logical. The problems is that decisions like these are rarely based on logic.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    53

    Default

    I'm just a trainee, and in the Air NG, so my opinion doesn't count for much as far as front line combat is concerned, but I don't see a problem with it if the woman in question can do the job. I know a fair number of women who I would trust to watch my back, mostly ones I've met through martial arts. Supposedly women have about 2/3 the strength of men on average, but obviously not everyone is average. And like someone said before, in an emergency most people get a pretty substantial boost to their physical abilities.

  3. #23
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Yes. And excluding women from combat roles also excludes them from related training, so when combat comes to them, they are not as prepared.
    The same could be said of the men under the same jobs to some extent. They have guns, know how to use them, and shoot back.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    If they are exaggerated then why are they also the de-facto basis of membership for combat groups which are exposed to the heaviest combat... the same combat groups which women will supposedly be allowed to be a part of?

    Are they going to create a separate PFT chart for these groups? Maybe they can have the women pin them to their flak jackets... and if the violence gets to be too much they can hold up their cards and say "I qualified by a lower standard, so take it easy!"

    I have no problem with women being allowed to apply for combat roles... it just makes no sense to give them lower standards of entry when physical standards have are the most basic form of differentiating who will perform well in combat and who will not. It is not always the case (see: BUD/S hell week, some high performing people wash out due to combat-style stress) yet it is still a more basic requirement. When a lot of soldiers are packing 100+ pounds on their daily walkabouts, physical ability is a very reasonable concern as to whether someone can perform up to par once combat breaks out.
    But many combat positions like driving a tank or flying an airplane do not require that much physical ability.

  5. #25
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,931

    Default

    I'll list some possible explanations for that, and the ''omg you misogynist prick'' variety of replies will be summarily dismissed, as I'm trying to list the reasons that the people in charge might have.

    Whether or not I agree with their theoretical point of view should not be relevant for the purposes of the post.

    1. The rape risk always exists, and that is a politically damaging situation. No, genius, I'm not blaming women for those. What I'm saying is: it's easier to move women out of the situations than convincing rapists that they shouldn't rape.

    2. Many men get less rational around an attractive female, specially when they are scarce.

    3. Small conflicts involving sexual privileges could easily affect the team dynamics in a bad way (see: big brother).

    4. Military rape against civilians is not an uncommon practice. I believe women would be more likely to feel compassion for the victims and denounce the soldiers involved. Result: more political damage.

    5. They have less physical potential, though that's a minor reason.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  6. #26
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    It's going to become irrelevant soon, so get used to it.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...netta/1861995/

  7. #27
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont understand why there is opposition to women in combat roles, if they are serving at all they are likely to be killed or to have to defend themselves and kill others doing so.
    Not a current moral argument, but historically I believe it is because women are a "resource" to the tribe/clan/nation. We have developed either social or possibly genetic dispositions towards protecting this for the good of the whole/species.

  8. #28
    Senior Member You's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,137

    Default

    let the women die.
    Oh, its
    You
    ....

  9. #29
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Not a current moral argument, but historically I believe it is because women are a "resource" to the tribe/clan/nation. We have developed either social or possibly genetic dispositions towards protecting this for the good of the whole/species.
    Hmm, its the males who're the really disposable member of the species when you think about it, chauvinism and mysogyny is all propaganda to reassure those who're the real losers of history's working itself out.

  10. #30
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    I was surprised by some of the sentiments in the huffpo comments on this subject, which were along the lines of, "screw the feminists and their hate campaign on men! Men are no less valuable than women, so let them serve in combat and die like the men!" It makes me laugh that misogyny can take you full circle!
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. Why is there hatred in the world?
    By danseen in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-21-2013, 06:07 AM
  2. Is there an "MBTIc Cleavage in Avatars" compe*tit*ion?
    By MacGuffin in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 354
    Last Post: 01-07-2010, 01:13 PM
  3. What type is most likely to fall in love?
    By Mole in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 12:14 PM
  4. Why is it wrong to oppress people?
    By Journey in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 04-14-2008, 01:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO