Discrimination of the sexes - conscription

[CptStern]

I will concede this point.

It would be perfectly acceptable to me, if the military allowed all genders in all roles, if and only with identical minimum strength and fitness requirements.

Would anyone argue against that?

everyone agrees men and women are not equal in the upper physical strength threshold. so why would you add extra requirements for the women and not the men; it's discrimination based on gender.


further proof women are just as capable as men in the military:

On June 11, 2006, whilst a private serving as a Medical Orderly attached to the 1st Battalion Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment,[1] she jumped out of her Warrior Patrol vehicle and climbed up the side of it to rescue the vehicle commander, Colour Sergeant Ian Page, who had been shot in the mouth, all while being heavily fired upon by snipers at night. One bullet hit her rucksack as she climbed the vehicle. She then helped drag the sergeant back into the vehicle while still being fired upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Norris

 

[Krynn72]

Come of it. The amount of shit the average soldier in Afghanistan must have to carry on operations looks huge. Men have a massive physical advantage.

You say that as if the average man could carry that shit without physical training because we're men. Don't be an idiot. Anyone to trains enough will be able to carry their equipment, be it man or woman.

And don't give me that shit about women can't fight. If I were to go and punch some girl, if she decided to fight back she'd probably **** me up just as much as I'd do to her. Hand to hand combat isn't just about physical prowess, and even if it was, a solid hit from her 'puny woman arm' can knock anybody out. Just look it up on youtube.

 

[Tyguy]

everyone agrees men and women are not equal in the upper physical strength threshold. so why would you add extra requirements for the women and not the men; it's discrimination based on gender.

Because adding extra requirements for men would necessitate adding even more requirements for women. It may be discrimination but it's logically valid.

further proof women are just as capable as men in the military

What does this prove? That a woman (singular) was able to perform her duties admirably? Absolutely. Does it change the fact that:

men and women are not equal in the upper physical strength threshold

? Not in the slightest. I think it's fair to make the assumption that this girl is simply able to perform at a higher caliber compared to women as a whole. What if she had been in the percentage of women who just barely got by basic training and happened to be on the small side?

 

[Emporius]

the rest can push papers or do any of the millions of other jobs the military provides, just like the pussy men who cry when they're yelled at.

Except that these are equally important military assignments.

 

[CptStern]

Because adding extra requirements for men would necessitate adding even more requirements for women. It may be discrimination but it's logically valid.

not really as there now would be men who are no longer qualified due to the new requirements. in any event there doesnt seem to be a strength requirement only an endurance one

The Army also has a basic physical fitness entrance exam, which requires male and female recruits to do 17 sit-ups in 1 minute, 13 push-ups within 1 minute. Male recruits must make a 1 mile run in 8.5 minutes, and female recruits must make a 1 mile run in 10.5 minutes

What does this prove? That a woman (singular) was able to perform her duties admirably? Absolutely.

solaris posted this earlier:

Your jeep is rocketed and is onfire, you are unconscious and need to be pulled out. However, the only surviving/available team member is a women who is not strong enough becuase women have lower strength requirements.

Not in the slightest. I think it's fair to make the assumption that this girl is simply able to perform at a higher caliber compared to women as a whole.

you mean how male soldiers are typcially able to perform at a higher caliber compared to men in the general population?

you're assuming that a typical female soldier wouldnt be able to do this based on this one incident of a female soldier who isnt even in a combat role; she was a medical orderly

 

[Tyguy]

I think my point has been a tad misconstrued. I don't feel as though women should be held to a lower standard for the same role in the military. If they are able to perform at a level which satisfies the conditions for military service, namely ground combat, I don't have any issues with it. However, there are some subtleties that might cause problems.

Conventional wisdom has long held that women were not suited to the battlefield--too frail, emotionally and physically, to survive combat pressure. Men, it was said, would crumble at the sight of a bloodied female soldier, or put themselves at risk to protect her. The public would not stomach women coming back in body bags. And mixing men and women could lead to deadly mistakes.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_11_139/ai_n27171285/

I'm not sure how accurate such assumptions are but at the very least they are feasible.

 

[Kaptain H]

Conventional wisdom has long held that women were not suited to the battlefield--too frail, emotionally and physically, to survive combat pressure. Men, it was said, would crumble at the sight of a bloodied female soldier, or put themselves at risk to protect her. The public would not stomach women coming back in body bags. And mixing men and women could lead to deadly mistakes.

I'm not sure how accurate such assumptions are but at the very least they are feasible.

All this talk about the value of physical strength is p. cool, but emotionally weak people (those with such mental hangups mentioned above) have no place on the battlefield. All soldiers should possess enough discipline to perform professionally in combat.

I'm no doctor, but certainly there's some part of the brain we can remove to fix this?

 

[Raziaar]

You say that as if the average man could carry that shit without physical training because we're men. Don't be an idiot. Anyone to trains enough will be able to carry their equipment, be it man or woman.

And don't give me that shit about women can't fight. If I were to go and punch some girl, if she decided to fight back she'd probably **** me up just as much as I'd do to her. Hand to hand combat isn't just about physical prowess, and even if it was, a solid hit from her 'puny woman arm' can knock anybody out. Just look it up on youtube.

He's been watching too many movies, where people can take insane amounts of punishment to the head without even breaking a sweat.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm no doctor, but certainly there's some part of the brain we can remove to fix this?

Don't you even joke about that.

 

[CptStern]

I think my point has been a tad misconstrued. I don't feel as though women should be held to a lower standard for the same role in the military. If they are able to perform at a level which satisfies the conditions for military service, namely ground combat, I don't have any issues with it. However, there are some subtleties that might cause problems.

come back after they've had 20 years of studies into the effectiveness of women in combat roles. from an american pov it's mostly speculation as women's combat roles are regulated to artillery or as pilots. canada on the other hand has had women in combat roles since 1989 without too many complaints from their comrades. also canadians haev proven that they can indeed stomach female soldiers coming back in body bags

 

[Krynn72]

lol those artillery guns in the back are touching dicks. Canada has gay artillery.

 

[Vegeta897]

Let's bet how many more times Stern is going to post that pic of that girl.

 

[Tyguy]

Am I alone in my previous post or what?

Also, can we at least have the background information of that girl?

 

[Krynn72]

Am I alone in my previous post or what?

Probably. Your post about "conventional wisdom" is backed by nothing but baseless assumptions. Conventional wisdom maybe, but still wrong.

 

[Solaris]

Okay, lets go back 500 years. Where battles were fought with swords. Do you think then, women should have been allowed on the front line too? Say, in the Roman army? Would they have performed just as well as men?

Of course not.

 

[CptStern]

1st canadian female soldier KIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard

 

[Krynn72]

Okay, lets go back 500 years. Where battles were fought with swords. Do you think then, women should have been allowed on the front line too? Say, in the Roman army? Would they have performed just as well as men?

Of course not.

Now lets go back to dinosaur times. Do you think then it would have mattered whether men or women were on the front lines?

Of course not. Dinosaurs ALWAYS win.


And you're an idiot. The field of combat is not reliant on physical prowess anymore.

 

[Tyguy]

And you're an idiot.

Name calling is ****ing awesome...and you like totally got him. He should feel owned.

The field of combat is not reliant on physical prowess anymore.

YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

 

[Acepilotf14]

YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

Maybe if this was the middle ages..

As long as you can run a mile and carry a gun you'll do fine.

 

[Sheepo]

But their ovaries!

 

[Krynn72]

Name calling is ****ing awesome...and you like totally got him. He should feel owned.



YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

I only name call because on hl2.net it tends to make silly people say even sillier things. Which in turn gives me more things to make fun of. Unfortunately, it doesn't work so well on me, because it just makes me laugh.

Also, I think I watch too much Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia where they call each other names all the time. I think its seeped into my own way of dealing with people who say dumb things.

But nice try, idiot.

 

[Tyguy]

I only name call because on hl2.net it tends to make silly people say even sillier things.

The field of combat is not reliant on physical prowess anymore.

people who say dumb things.

idiot.

i mean, you see where i'm going with this...

 

[Yuri]

everyone agrees men and women are not equal in the upper physical strength threshold. so why would you add extra requirements for the women and not the men; it's discrimination based on gender.

I don't understand this reasoning. I assume that an overall physical requirement represents some real-life situation on the battlefield or elsewhere. I remember hearing about how firefighter recruits were required to hoist a sandbag of a certain weight, meant to represent a person, down a ladder: a pretty generic and realistic scenario. A law was then passed which lowered the weight requirement for women only. Now, if this test was given to ALL firefighter recruits, even if they were not applying for the position of hoisting people down ladders, it is clearly masked discrimination. But having said that, wouldn't the actual fix be to require these tests based on POSITION, and not on GENDER? If the physical requirement represents a real-world scenario, it obviously won't change based on a person's gender, and it is not discrimination to forbid those unable to perform the task from being in that position.

This applies to the military as well. As long as the physical test is reasonable for a given POSITION, then everyone should pass it. But I can't think of an appropriate example where minimum requirements should be different for men or women.

Basically I am saying of course women should be allowed in the military, and if there is constriction for all citizens, of course they would be included. But relevant testing for positions within the military should be required, regardless of gender. This may mean women statistically end up in different military positions than men. Derp?

 

[Vegeta897]

But I can't think of an appropriate example where minimum requirements should be different for men or women.

Using one's penis to unjam a 40mm grenade launcher.

 

[Yuri]

my whole post, ruined. blasted!

 

[delusional]

Okay, lets go back 500 years. Where battles were fought with swords. Do you think then, women should have been allowed on the front line too? Say, in the Roman army? Would they have performed just as well as men?

Of course not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons

http://www.archaeology.org/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html

 

[Viperidae]

Maybe if this was the middle ages..

YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

By all your logics, the Chinese should have never won anything ever, as they're all short and weak.

Confucius say:

REFUTED.

 

[Danimal]

Danimar say:

Riper is racist

 

[Jintor]

The Chinese won because they were all made of terracotta.

 

[15357]

I don't understand this reasoning. I assume that an overall physical requirement represents some real-life situation on the battlefield or elsewhere. I remember hearing about how firefighter recruits were required to hoist a sandbag of a certain weight, meant to represent a person, down a ladder: a pretty generic and realistic scenario. A law was then passed which lowered the weight requirement for women only. Now, if this test was given to ALL firefighter recruits, even if they were not applying for the position of hoisting people down ladders, it is clearly masked discrimination. But having said that, wouldn't the actual fix be to require these tests based on POSITION, and not on GENDER? If the physical requirement represents a real-world scenario, it obviously won't change based on a person's gender, and it is not discrimination to forbid those unable to perform the task from being in that position.

This applies to the military as well. As long as the physical test is reasonable for a given POSITION, then everyone should pass it. But I can't think of an appropriate example where minimum requirements should be different for men or women.

Basically I am saying of course women should be allowed in the military, and if there is constriction for all citizens, of course they would be included. But relevant testing for positions within the military should be required, regardless of gender. This may mean women statistically end up in different military positions than men. Derp?

Yeah, I'm going to have to fully agree with Erection here.


Positions matter, not your gender.

 

[Yuri]

Erection, that's new. <3

Haven't gotten one of those in ages.

 

[Kaptain H]

Erection, that's new. <3

Haven't gotten one of those in ages.

That's what she said?

 

[Sheepo]

YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

By all your logics, the Chinese should have never won anything ever, as they're all short and weak.

Confucius say:

REFUTED.

So confused. Not sure what percent of this is humor or what but I have no idea why it's being directed towards Ace.

 

[Solaris]

Yeah, I'm going to have to fully agree with Erection here.


Positions matter, not your gender.

Which is what I have been saying all along.

Just I think one of those positions is probably front line infantry.

 

[Kaptain H]

Which is what I have been saying all along.

Just I think one of those positions is probably front line infantry.

For wildly retarded reasons. Have you ever met a female soldier?

 

[Krynn72]

i mean, you see where i'm going with this...

Prove to me that the modern day battlefield is still reliant on physical prowess rather than on-field tactics, accuracy and technology.

 

[Tyguy]

Prove to me that the modern day battlefield is still reliant on physical prowess rather than on-field tactics, accuracy and technology.

You're making the assumption that the two are not intertwined. As far as military presence in an environment like Iraq, where the battlefield is essentially obfuscated by the tactics employed by the insurgency, personnel not meant to be in combat (women, truck drivers, etc) are finding themselves surrounded by it.

I think you're making a silly argument to suggest the US military is so advanced that physical capability is seemingly negligible.

We don't put women into combat purposely...this is something the military tries to avoid for very logical reasons but it's unavoidable.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm not saying its negligible, I'm saying that its diminished to the point where the evolutionary advantage developed in men isn't a major factor in determining combat effectiveness.

 

[pvtbones]

I think women could handle being on the front lines. I think it's the public and men in general who can't.

if it was my armed forces I'd use every available asset I have whether it has tits or a dick (or both). because I want to win and you don't win by handicapping yourself.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Confucius say:

REFUTED.

The.. Chinese only fought themselves, really.. and when they did fight someone else they lost..

Hell, they even had to build a wall to stop getting their ass kicked.