posted
Officer Kim Munley's partner, Mark Todd, also helped to bring down the maniac shooter. Although he was not hit, as Munley was, he apparently got in the final shot with his beretta that laid out the gunman.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice how you completely failed to acknowledge your inaccuracy regarding women in combat through the ages, Clive.
In Vietnam men were brutally tortured and left for their fellow soldiers to find mutilated, often with their genitals slashed off and shoved into their mouths. While rape is a serious thing, how much more galvanized do you think soldiers could get?
And yes, Clive, male prisoners of war often get raped. It's not a matter of what sex the captors prefer. It's a way of humiliating, dominating the victims and breaking their spirits.
Perhaps if you studied history instead of insisting things are the way you think they are there wouldn't be as much baking going on in this thread.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The point about female soldiers being potential victims of rape when captured isn't that rape itself is bad but rather the effect their being captured and vulnerable to rape would have on the military forces and country that's using the female soldiers.
Imagine if in Vietnam America had used female soldiers, and they got captured. They would most certainly have gotten raped. But if that was the end of it, so be it. Instead, the female soldiers getting raped would have driven everyone else insane.
...
Ahah. uh. What on god's green earth are you even talking about?
Make less sense. I dare you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't going to post in this thread, but Lisa is absolutely right about Mint Milanos. They are amazing (as are the Thin Mints, which are especially amazing frozen).
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Nice how you completely failed to acknowledge your inaccuracy regarding women in combat through the ages, Clive.
In Vietnam men were brutally tortured and left for their fellow soldiers to find mutilated, often with their genitals slashed off and shoved into their mouths. While rape is a serious thing, how much more galvanized do you think soldiers could get?
Society is more accepting of male soldiers getting tortured than it is of its female soldiers getting raped. It isn't just what happens to the soldiers here, but rather how what happens to them affects society. Captured female soldiers getting raped would drive our military and society insane. It's why the military doesn't put them on the front lines.
Also, female soldiers are simply less capable than male soldiers. I'm sorry but it's true. The military knows it. Printing out studies or facts that prove it would be political suicide for anyone who does it. And if female soldiers are placed on the front lines, similar pressure would be placed on the male commanders who will be encouraged by their superiors to ignore the inferior performance of female soldiers. And just as I pointed out with the NAVY story, ones things get tough, our female soldiers will start letting themselves get pregnant en masse to avoid the front lines. They're already doing that to avoid going on Navy missions, for christ's sake.
quote: And yes, Clive, male prisoners of war often get raped. It's not a matter of what sex the captors prefer. It's a way of humiliating, dominating the victims and breaking their spirits.
Female soldiers wouldn't get raped as a way of humiliating them. They'd get raped because the men raping them would primarily want sex. Moreover, the opposing army would undeniably use rape against captured female soldiers (unless the opposing side is moral) as a weapon. Our male soldiers aren't likely to get raped because most of the world considers same-gender sex to be a perversion.
Also, Russians used female soldiers because of desperation. If America was getting invaded in that fashion then it is reasonable to place as many guns as possible in as many hands as possible. Note though that Russians didn't use female soldiers in similar proportions in their Afghanistan campaign. Maybe because Russians understood that it isn't good for military morale if female soldiers got captured.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I should've offered boxes of cookies.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The Vietnamese (north) used female soldiers, some of them definately got raped, didn't stop them from using them and forcing the US to leave.
Society is perfectly accepting of female soldiers getting raped, y'know how they cope? By supporting the war to its finish so it never happens again.
Society is strong, right now society is weakened by not letting women on combat roles only when both sexes are allowed to fight as a single unit on the front lines will society progress and be stronger.
Also, sources on the whole getting pregnant mission dodgers thing.
They'll use it as a weapon sure, or as a simple fact of war that abuses happen to prisoners but its not gonna cause the collapse of society, if anything itll galvonize them to fight harder. Countries doing public abuses in warfare rarely get away with it, its called war crimes.
Also, rest of the world doesn't nessasarily consider same gender sex a perversion, Japan for example is pretty open about it ever heard of "Shotacon"?
Russians had been using women in combat roles since WWI and after the Second World war eagerly encouraged the enlistment of female soldiers and during the 1990's made up 3% of the Soviet Armed Forces, over a million served during the Great Patriotic War (and many were probably raped, didn't cause the collapse of the Soviet Union then).
In 1942 the Soviet Union formed three regiments of women combat pilots to fly night bombing missions over Germany, the 588th Night Bomber Regiment, later called the 46th Taman Guards Night Bomber Aviation Regiment. These women took part in regular harassment bombing against the Germans in Polikarpov Po-2 biplanes, and participated in the final onslaught against Berlin. The regiments, collectively known to the Germans as the "Nachthexen" ("Night Witches"), flew more than 24,000 sorties and won in total 23 Hero of the Soviet Union medals. Some of the most talented women pilots were assigned day fighter duties. "Lily" Litvak and Katya Budanova became fighter aces flying the Soviet Union's best fighter designs alongside men in day attacks. Both were killed in their aircraft. Meanwhile, in the ground combat role Lyudmila Pavlichenko, made 309 confirmed kills including 36 enemy snipers. Pavlichenko was one of the many female snipers of the Soviet Army.
In 1967, the Soviet Universal Military Duty Laws concluded that women offered the greater source of available combat soldiers during periods of large scale mobilisation. Thus, several programs during the height of the cold war were set up to encourage women to enlist. Participation in military orientated youth programs and forced participation in the reserves for ex-servicewomen up to the age of 40 are some examples. Universities contained reservist officer training which accompanied a place in the reserves themselves.
In the Soviet Union civil universities, in addition to professional education, gave basic military training to the youth of both sexes. Many secondary schools in post-Soviet countries still have defense lessons, both for boys and girls.
The current tally of woman in the Russian Army is standing at around 115,000 to 160,000, representing 10% of Russia’s military strength.
Colonel Gennady Dzyuba, of the Defense Ministry, said that "Those who have served, especially in hot spots, know the importance of women in the armed forces.”
IP: Logged |
quote:Society is strong, right now society is weakened by not letting women on combat roles only when both sexes are allowed to fight as a single unit on the front lines will society progress and be stronger.
Um...ok? Would you like to make a specific quantitative prediction, saying precisely what number is currently too low in our society, how it will increase when we put women on the front lines, and why? Because otherwise, this is just saying "Women in combat have MOAR AWSUM!"
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm actually in favour of putting women on the front lines, on the grounds that they have the vote and other privileges of full citizens, and should have the duties that go with that. But a mere claim of "MOAR AWSUM" is not an argument.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I wasn't going to post in this thread, but Lisa is absolutely right about Mint Milanos. They are amazing (as are the Thin Mints, which are especially amazing frozen).
Huh. I've never tried them frozen. I'll have to try that. My problem with Thin Mints is that once I start a column of them, it's next to impossible to stop before I've finished it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thin Mints are very good frozen. Just never try to eat a frozen Samoa (or Caramel Delight, depending on the cookie company) unless you don't enjoy having teeth.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Depending on your local troop's (or troops') calendar, probably late January or early February.
Around here, Girl Scout cookie season has just ended, and they'll be starting deliveries in just a couple days.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. I didn't realize they had that much leeway.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
Cookie season is determined by council (large area encompassing perhaps 2 smaller states or half of a larger one). It has to do with the fact that there are only 2 bakeries authorized to make official girl scout cookies for ALL the councils. Rotation, rotation, rotation...
IP: Logged |
quote:Also, female soldiers are simply less capable than male soldiers. I'm sorry but it's true.
Let me guess. In your mind, is there a line of burly male soldiers facing off against a bunch of giggly schoolgirls in dress-up soldier uniforms?
Take a platoon of soldiers, male and female. Arrange them in order from strongest to weakest. Now in order of fastest reflexes. Now in order of leadership potential, or savagery, or tactical skill, or marksmanship. In not a single case, I guarantee, will you see all the men in the platoon ranked in front of all of the women. Areas requiring brute strength, yes, men will tend to rank higher, but not always. And with the improvements in personal armor it becomes easier for women to step up and compete.
More than 2,000 women who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan have been awarded Bronze Stars, several for bravery and valor in combat. More than 1,300 have earned the Combat Action Badge. Two women have been awarded Silver Stars, the military's top honor for bravery in combat. Please be sure to call each one of those gals up and tell them that they're not as good as men, would you?
quote:Female soldiers wouldn't get raped as a way of humiliating them. They'd get raped because the men raping them would primarily want sex.
Would it do any good to point to Amnesty International's reports on war rapes? Sure, the rapists want sex. But humiliation is a vital part of it, just as it is in prison. Tell me, do you think the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were forced to strip naked so they would be humiliated, or because Lynddie England just wanted to get a cheap thrill?
quote:Moreover, the opposing army would undeniably use rape against captured female soldiers (unless the opposing side is moral) as a weapon. Our male soldiers aren't likely to get raped because most of the world considers same-gender sex to be a perversion.
Stop talking about what's likely to happen and look up what has already happened.
quote:Also, Russians used female soldiers because of desperation.
That's been answered already, but I note that you didn't mention the hundreds of other examples in the link I posted.
Oddly enough, I do agree with you that the front lines may not be a good place for women, but not because they are less capable than men. I would hesitate to put them there because an alarming number of our male soldiers seem incapable of allowing women to serve without harassment, abuse, and rape. The rate of sexual assault and rape in the military is at least twice as high as it is among civilians, and the military has become infamous for accusing the victims of lying and harassing them to recant, trivializing the events, and giving the rapists slaps on the wrist when any punishment is given at all.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boon: Cookie season is determined by council (large area encompassing perhaps 2 smaller states or half of a larger one). It has to do with the fact that there are only 2 bakeries authorized to make official girl scout cookies for ALL the councils. Rotation, rotation, rotation...
Ah! Within that, the local troops do have some leeway.
And I'm fairly certain California has more than 2 councils. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boon: Cookie season is determined by council (large area encompassing perhaps 2 smaller states or half of a larger one). It has to do with the fact that there are only 2 bakeries authorized to make official girl scout cookies for ALL the councils. Rotation, rotation, rotation...
Ah! Within that, the local troops do have some leeway.
And I'm fairly certain California has more than 2 councils.
I would just like to point out the girl scout troops have been out there on the front lines of cookie warfare for decades and society has no yet collapsed as a result.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: We can't let girls sell cookies, civilization would go INSANE
Consider the danger. Young girls going door to door selling and delivering cookies. Imagine how society would react if a girl scout were raped while delivering cookies. The desire for vengeance against cookie eating perverts would devastate our entire civilization.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(It would totally ruin the funny if I pointed out that scouts are not allowed to go door-to-door without parental supervision, right?)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MidnightBlue: Thin Mints are very good frozen. Just never try to eat a frozen Samoa (or Caramel Delight, depending on the cookie company) unless you don't enjoy having teeth.
My Dad used to keep a back of mini Milky Ways in the freezer. I never understood how he could eat them frozen. He must have incredibly strong jaws. Then again, the canteen at summer camp when I was a kid used to keep some of the candy bars in the freezer. A frozen Hershey bar in the middle of the summer is a Very Good Thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (It would totally ruin the funny if I pointed out that scouts are not allowed to go door-to-door without parental supervision, right?)
posted
I don't know. It's been true for considerably longer than my girls have been scouts, so at a guess, 10-15 years?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Take a platoon of soldiers, male and female. Arrange them in order from strongest to weakest. Now in order of fastest reflexes. Now in order of leadership potential, or savagery, or tactical skill, or marksmanship. In not a single case, I guarantee, will you see all the men in the platoon ranked in front of all of the women. Areas requiring brute strength, yes, men will tend to rank higher, but not always.
You might be surprised, actually, when it comes to plain strength. The male distribution is really a lot different from the female one; we're talking three, three-and-a-half sigma. Of course female soldiers are not selected from the middle of their distribution, but then neither are male ones. For a platoon-sized group, I would lay reasonable odds, say 2:7, that the weakest male is in fact stronger than the strongest female.
But this argument is in any case a bit of a straw man. The correct metric to arrange them by is "overall efficiency as a soldier", which is some sort of weighted sum of all the characteristics you list and many others; and then you have to consider network effects, because a modern soldier is not a barbarian warrior whose efficiency depends solely on his ability in personal combat, he has to be good at teamwork. And I don't think any hard data exists on this metric - if nothing else, because it's just plain difficult to measure. But it seems unlikely that the difference will be anywhere near so large as it is for strength. And besides that, quantity has a quality all its own. It would take quite a large difference in averages to make up for the huge increase in recruiting base that females represent. A rifle is quite the equaliser, soldier-quality be damned.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (It would totally ruin the funny if I pointed out that scouts are not allowed to go door-to-door without parental supervision, right?)
I recognized the irony when I posted it. But I decided to anyway because I think its valid to point. Women and girls are raped in situations far less dangerous than war. And while it I'm all in favor of taking reasonable precautions, I think its important to allow the women involved to decide what constitutes a reasonable precaution. If you allow society to make that decision for adult women and start restricting women's rights to do things on the basis that they might get raped, it opens the door for virtually unlimit restrictions on women's freedoms and rights.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree. Of all the reasons one might be against women in the military, "they might be raped" strikes me as one of the weakest.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Indeed. Clive is an artifact of the past to be delegated to the ash heap of history.
IP: Logged |
quote: If you allow society to make that decision for adult women and start restricting women's rights to do things on the basis that they might get raped, it opens the door for virtually unlimit restrictions on women's freedoms and rights.
Tada! It's why there's burquas and restrictions on freedom of movement and association in places like saudi arabia.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, people are misrepresenting what I'm claiming. The point isn't "oh noes, female soldiers might get raped!" The point is, what female soldiers getting raped by the enemy would do to us. It would have a psychological toll on the side the female soldiers come from and certainly make it harder for this side to fight with a clear mind. Our male soldiers might see fit to exact revenge by raping the females of the enemy, or by doing all sorts of other horrible things (indeed, imagine a male soldier who developed feelings for a captured female soldier who he knows is likely being victimized by rape. Isn't such a soldier far more likely to capable of war crimes?)
Someone earlier brought up the abuses at Abu Ghraib by claiming that female soldiers needn't have been captured for our side to commit horrible things. But this person missed the obvious point: the abuses at Abu Ghraib might very well have been brought upon by the presence of females. Consider: there are these women and these guys guarding these prisoners, and there is a bit of sexual tension in the air. It occurs to the male soldiers to out-macho each other in order to compete for the attention of the female soldiers. Things keep escalating until we ended up with the infamous piling. Those men involved were trying to show dominance in order to impress the female soldiers. The female soldiers went along with it because they liked the attention they were receiving.
If only men were present at Abu Ghraib the abuses wouldn't have happened.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once again, people are misrepresenting what I'm claiming. The point isn't "oh noes, female soldiers might get raped!" The point is, what female soldiers getting raped by the enemy would do to us.
That is, in effect, "oh noes, female soldiers might get raped!" since it forms the core of this particular justification for needing to protect them from their desire to serve their country as soldiers.
But I digress.
The issue of "what it would do to us" involves errant pseudoscientific postulation that you have no realistic foundation for.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Once again, people are misrepresenting what I'm claiming. The point isn't "oh noes, female soldiers might get raped!" The point is, what female soldiers getting raped by the enemy would do to us. It would have a psychological toll on the side the female soldiers come from and certainly make it harder for this side to fight with a clear mind. Our male soldiers might see fit to exact revenge by raping the females of the enemy, or by doing all sorts of other horrible things (indeed, imagine a male soldier who developed feelings for a captured female soldier who he knows is likely being victimized by rape. Isn't such a soldier far more likely to capable of war crimes?)
Someone earlier brought up the abuses at Abu Ghraib by claiming that female soldiers needn't have been captured for our side to commit horrible things. But this person missed the obvious point: the abuses at Abu Ghraib might very well have been brought upon by the presence of females. Consider: there are these women and these guys guarding these prisoners, and there is a bit of sexual tension in the air. It occurs to the male soldiers to out-macho each other in order to compete for the attention of the female soldiers. Things keep escalating until we ended up with the infamous piling. Those men involved were trying to show dominance in order to impress the female soldiers. The female soldiers went along with it because they liked the attention they were receiving.
If only men were present at Abu Ghraib the abuses wouldn't have happened.
Bullsh*t.
Penn And Teller would have a field day with you.
Society and community is strong strong enough to withstand some abuses in the minority of cases to see the greater good of gender equality and responsibility carried out.
IP: Logged |
posted
Also, we've had similar (and even worse) abuses take place from the same psychological root that led to the Abu Ghraib abuses in plenty of places where only men were present, so your bizarre and unfounded psychosexual conceptualization of abuse is ..
well, I can't just say that it's wrong. Yes, it's wrong, but that doesn't capture the startling degree to which it is wrong.
It's .. what was that word? Oh yeah. Blinkered. It's totally blinkered. It's bat-belfry bonkers. It has no grounding. It's utterly awry. It's baseless postulation by a man who has horridly nonscientific and errant grounding in ludicrous psychosexual theory.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, female soldiers are simply less capable than male soldiers. I'm sorry but it's true.
Let me guess. In your mind, is there a line of burly male soldiers facing off against a bunch of giggly schoolgirls in dress-up soldier uniforms?
quote: More than 2,000 women who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan have been awarded Bronze Stars, several for bravery and valor in combat. More than 1,300 have earned the Combat Action Badge. Two women have been awarded Silver Stars, the military's top honor for bravery in combat. Please be sure to call each one of those gals up and tell them that they're not as good as men, would you?
And yet, the military still doesn't see it fit to put women on the front lines. Hmm, what is it that the military doesn't know which everyone in this thread does?
quote: Would it do any good to point to Amnesty International's reports on war rapes? Sure, the rapists want sex. But humiliation is a vital part of it, just as it is in prison. Tell me, do you think the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were forced to strip naked so they would be humiliated, or because Lynddie England just wanted to get a cheap thrill?
Rape is generally primarily about sex. See this book. If we start putting female soldiers on the front lines, we'd be using women in the ages of 18 - 24 primarily...women at the height of their fecundity and beauty. The enemy will undeniably want to rape all of them (where as they may not care to rape male soldiers lest they bring shame upon themselves.)
I answered the Abu Ghraib point above. The presence of Lynddie England (a woman) was most likely the cause of that scandal.
quote: Oddly enough, I do agree with you that the front lines may not be a good place for women, but not because they are less capable than men. I would hesitate to put them there because an alarming number of our male soldiers seem incapable of allowing women to serve without harassment, abuse, and rape. The rate of sexual assault and rape in the military is at least twice as high as it is among civilians, and the military has become infamous for accusing the victims of lying and harassing them to recant, trivializing the events, and giving the rapists slaps on the wrist when any punishment is given at all.
This is the problem. A male soldier might be treated badly by other soldiers, and it's just okey dokey. If the male soldiers treat a female soldier in that fashion, it's "abuse" and "harassment" and so on. The military -- and war -- have to be made "nicer" for female soldiers. The world laughs at us.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, we've had similar (and even worse) abuses take place from the same psychological root that led to the Abu Ghraib abuses in plenty of places where only men were present, so your bizarre and unfounded psychosexual conceptualization of abuse is ..
well, I can't just say that it's wrong. Yes, it's wrong, but that doesn't capture the startling degree to which it is wrong.
It's .. what was that word? Oh yeah. Blinkered. It's totally blinkered. It's bat-belfry bonkers. It has no grounding. It's utterly awry. It's baseless postulation by a man who has horridly nonscientific and errant grounding in ludicrous psychosexual theory.
What are comparable scandals in the Iraq/Afghanistan war committed by male soldiers alone?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet, the military still doesn't see it fit to put women on the front lines. Hmm, what is it that the military doesn't know which everyone in this thread does?
Let's go back in time to when the United States Military didn't 'see it fit' to let blacks have positions of command. If I were then trying to make the case that blacks should be integrated and given positions of command, would past-Clive have been able to use the "Hmm, well, they still don't see it fit, so gosh, what do they know that you aren't considering" line of reasoning? Did the military know that blacks were undeserving of command?
Well, sure they did. Or at least they were convinced of it then. But times changed. And they can change again, and they probably will. Your weak prelude to an is-ought argument is ti no avail.
quote:The presence of Lynddie England (a woman) was most likely the cause of that scandal.
It was not. There is no scientific evidence that the abuses there were fundamentally caused by women presence, so there is no grounding to say that woman presence was 'most likely the cause.' I might as well say that teacups are the cause of global warming because that's the idea i started with and gosh darnit i'm going to make it work.
quote:This is the problem. A male soldier might be treated badly by other soldiers, and it's just okey dokey. If the male soldiers treat a female soldier in that fashion, it's "abuse" and "harassment" and so on. The military -- and war -- have to be made "nicer" for female soldiers. The world laughs at us.
hahahahahahahahahaha
Holy crap.
According to the great Clive Candy, soldiers raping soldiers is "okey dokey" as long as all persons involved are male; introduce women and the military has to be 'nicer' (no more rape-friendly military?? boo hoo!) and this CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't include rape. I said "abuse" and "harassment." If male soldiers treat female soldiers in a belittling fashion, female soldiers can complain about "harassment" and "abuse" at normal things men do to assert a group hierarchy.
Also, a lot of rape claims are false. It's possible that the military knows that its female members are prone to lying about rape and regards these claims very suspiciously.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ever hear of the Milgram experiment?
quote: And yet, the military still doesn't see it fit to put women on the front lines. Hmm, what is it that the military doesn't know which everyone in this thread does?
Its called a "trend" notice how history is the constant escalation of progressive forces we started with a society thats roughly horribly unequal, and as society progresses and equality "spreads" there is a timelag between when the theory of equality is accepted and when its accepted in practice. Women couldn't really serve in the military as anything other then say nurses a long time ago, now they permiate nearly every non combat role and MANY combat ones in the other branches such as the Air and Naval forces and that is not counting the many nations that DO utilize women infront line combat roles essentially the reason why women are not nessasarily in full front line combat roles now in the US Army is because it is a TREND and militaries tend to be more Social Conservative and will "delay" or only gradually phase it in.
Secretary of the Navy already announced he intends to allow females to serve aboard Submarines and with asymetrical warfare the lines between frontline and non frontline get blurred often, meaning that it is an enevitable trend that not only are women being allowed to serve but will soon see greater responsibilities open to them to serve their nation in any and ALL capacities.
quote:And yet, the military still doesn't see it fit to put women on the front lines. Hmm, what is it that the military doesn't know which everyone in this thread does?
Let's go back in time to when the United States Military didn't 'see it fit' to let blacks have positions of command. If I were then trying to make the case that blacks should be integrated and given positions of command, would past-Clive have been able to use the "Hmm, well, they still don't see it fit, so gosh, what do they know that you aren't considering" line of reasoning? Did the military know that blacks were undeserving of command?
Just because the military was prejudiced once doesn't mean it continues to be prejudiced today. There was no meaningful reason to keep qualified blacks from having positions of command. None whatsoever. On the other hand, there might be genuine reasons stemming from biology as to why women shouldn't be allowed in various military positions.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I didn't include rape. I said "abuse" and "harassment." If male soldiers treat female soldiers in a belittling fashion, female soldiers can complain about "harassment" and "abuse" at normal things men do to assert a group hierarchy
You didn't intend to include rape, I'm sure. But your response was hilariously inclusive of it when you blindly countered it.
Here's what you don't get: practically anything that is punishable abuse and harassment when done to a female soldier is punishable abuse and harassment when done to a male soldier.
quote:On the other hand, there might be genuine reasons stemming from biology as to why women shouldn't be allowed in various military positions.
That is true. I am aware of them. I have studied them. And you have chanced upon exactly none of them. In the place of reasonable considerations, you've come up with the most asinine and unscientific postulations I have ever heard opined on the issue, and they speak not of any realistic appraisal of women's fairly judged capacity, but rather of absurd and unfounded psychosexual hallucinations that have no grounding. Absolutely none. Your "If we let them fight, they might get raped, and that makes us all go cuh-cuh-cuh-cuhraaayyzeeee allulalaulauluau" crap is just sublimely absurd. I love it. I love every second of it. You're completely lost. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your perception of the sexes is like something out of a lovecraft novel.
I am so entertained right now. Who even cares if you're a troll. Keep going.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:And yet, the military still doesn't see it fit to put women on the front lines. Hmm, what is it that the military doesn't know which everyone in this thread does?
Let's go back in time to when the United States Military didn't 'see it fit' to let blacks have positions of command. If I were then trying to make the case that blacks should be integrated and given positions of command, would past-Clive have been able to use the "Hmm, well, they still don't see it fit, so gosh, what do they know that you aren't considering" line of reasoning? Did the military know that blacks were undeserving of command?
Just because the military was prejudiced once doesn't mean it continues to be prejudiced today. There was no meaningful reason to keep qualified blacks from having positions of command. None whatsoever. On the other hand, there might be genuine reasons stemming from biology as to why women shouldn't be allowed in various military positions.
I'm gonna partake in an excersize here bear with me.
"Just because the military was sexist once doesn't mean it continues to be prejudiced today. There was no meaningful reason to keep qualified women from having positions of command. None whatsoever."
I imagine Clive will say this once we start tackling the next victimized minority. The Irish.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the cookie scthick worked for awhile. I'm not sure how anyone could harbor any doubts that Clive is a troll now, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka has satisfied my needy request by providing the most compelling argument for the US to include women in combat. If New Zealand has women on the front lines, then surely we can.
I now have an opinion.
Carry on, Sam/Blayne/Clive/Cookie-fest!
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of New Zealand and women in combat (not really, but if we can't talk about cookies), was anyone else bothered by the scene in the second Lord of the Rings movies when, outnumbered something like 100:1 by the enemies, the men were the only ones fighting while the women cowered with their children in a cave? I wanted to shout at the movie, "No! The women are fighting. The older children are fighting. The 8-year-olds are minding the babies and everyone else is *fighting*!"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
