User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 56

  1. #41
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,526
    They tell me that the female is the deadlier of the species. So imagine an army with female generals. Can you imagine a more deadly military?

    And of course the reason women should take combat roles is that combat experience is a qualification for moving through the ranks to general.

  2. #42
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Well, it turns out they're not opening up every single position to female applicants like previously mentioned. Commanders will report on their progress in new positions every 90 days and they will slowly open up more positions until they have implemented women into as many combat roles as possible.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    For the same reason there is opposition to children in combat roles, some people are just better suited biologically for warfare.

    I mean, if a woman wanted to fight, I personally would allow it, though it might be kind of like letting a dog run into the pasture to chase the bulls just because he wants too.

    Actually, I am opposed to all warfare whatsoever, as I think other means should be employed to hasten the end of destructive conflicts, these problems resulting from not apreciating one another's point of view.
    Really?


  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lucky13 View Post
    What does this have to do with women in combat roles?
    Its like the bit in LOTR's when the woman wants to fight, and later goes on to kill the witch lord, she states that women learned that it didnt take knowledge of sword fighting to die by the sword or something like that.

    The enemy isnt going to make any distinctions about gender, in fact I bet they would target females for greater violence if they could because they have already tried to use terrorism against women in their communities, shooting female children who want to learn to read and write, that kind of thing, so I fully support the complete liberation of women and no phony or misguided paternalism on the part of males with respect to all facets of life, including defence.

  5. #45
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Its like the bit in LOTR's when the woman wants to fight, and later goes on to kill the witch lord, she states that women learned that it didnt take knowledge of sword fighting to die by the sword or something like that.

    The enemy isnt going to make any distinctions about gender, in fact I bet they would target females for greater violence if they could because they have already tried to use terrorism against women in their communities, shooting female children who want to learn to read and write, that kind of thing, so I fully support the complete liberation of women and no phony or misguided paternalism on the part of males with respect to all facets of life, including defence.
    This is partly why there are no medics anymore (except in hospitals) because enemies will target what they perceive to be weak links.

    There's still the Navy Hospital Corpsman (which females are allowed to be as far as I know) but they now carry weapons just like everybody else when they are attached to field units.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    This is partly why there are no medics anymore (except in hospitals) because enemies will target what they perceive to be weak links.

    There's still the Navy Hospital Corpsman (which females are allowed to be as far as I know) but they now carry weapons just like everybody else when they are attached to field units.
    The rules of war and types of war being fought now are different to what they once were, I dont believe any of the myths about there ever having been a kind of gentlemanly conduct in war but when perpetual imperial struggles between societies with shared cultures were the norm its possible that the red cross and role of medics could have been respected.

    What exists at the moment reflects more irregular warfare, guerilla warfare and at least in the case of the terrorist forces its a total war being fought not a limited war with any rules what so ever about dividing lines between combatants and non-combatants or rules about legitimate targets.

  7. #47
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The rules of war and types of war being fought now are different to what they once were, I dont believe any of the myths about there ever having been a kind of gentlemanly conduct in war but when perpetual imperial struggles between societies with shared cultures were the norm its possible that the red cross and role of medics could have been respected.

    What exists at the moment reflects more irregular warfare, guerilla warfare and at least in the case of the terrorist forces its a total war being fought not a limited war with any rules what so ever about dividing lines between combatants and non-combatants or rules about legitimate targets.
    Yes. Combat is becoming more fearfully pragmatic by the day. Regular militaries have uniforms and at least some semblance of rules because they are to some extent representative of nations that are supposed to be sovereign. Irregular forces simply hit where it hurts and use such rules to their advantage.

    It's been caught on tape where after an ambush there are people still loitering around who probably do not belong there and the gunships that are covering the evacuation of all the people who got shot and blown up are not allowed to do anything, because the suspects are in civilian clothes and the rules forbid engaging them until they actually start shooting.

    And then they do start shooting. They're standing right there walking around in the open, just waiting to shoot that helicopter because they know that the helicopter cannot engage them, so it's all on their time and their turf.

  8. #48
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    my thoughts
    I think there are people for whom combat is an idea career and people for whom it isn't. of those, I think most of the ones cut out for a life of combat are men, but that doesn't mean there aren't women out there who are as well.
    one exception. if you have small children, your duties as a mother come before your desire to serve your country.
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  9. #49
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #50
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lucky13 View Post
    As someone currently serving in the military I complete agree that women that can meet the standards/requirements should be allowed to serve in equivalent positions. The problem is when military leaders provide separate standards for females, and they do it a lot. Personally I don't want to serve with women that can barely pass the female standards when maxing them is barely passing male standards. That being said as long as there are no double standards for physical and mental requirements I'm all for it.
    There should be two sets of standards, but not in the way you mean. The first set is designed to ensure the overall health and physical fitness of each military member. These will necessarily be different for men and women because the sexes differ on body composition, hormones, etc, even internal organs (e.g. men don't need pap tests). The second set of standards pertains to the specific job function to be done. These should be the same for men and women, and whoever meets them is eligible for the job.

    I wonder, though, especially after reading some of the recent commentary on this issue in the press, to what degree job requirements have been influenced by the fact that the job (so far) has always been done by men? In other words, it is not simply what is necessary to perform a particular task, but what is necessary for a man to perform that task.

    To clarify: imagine for the sake of discussion a situation in which the military consisted entirely of women. We would still need artillery, armor, infantry, special forces, plus all the usual support functions. How would women get the same jobs done? The weight of necessary equipment is often raised as an issue, and here improved technology is helping, e.g. fuel cells that last longer and weigh less than current batteries and can be abandoned in the field after producing useable water as a by-product.

    More broadly, though, there is usually more than one way to do a job, even something as straightforward as lugging equipment across the desert. If we assume everyone who does the job will be a 200 lb football player, we won't even try to look for smarter, more creative ways to do it. If we do, the results will benefit whomever is in that position, male or female. If we are going to insist not only that a woman can do the job, but that she will do it the same way a man would, we may be overconstraining the solution.
    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...

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