I think he's mistaken in thinking that all those male soldiers at Fort Hood somehow failed, because on military bases only military police are allowed to have weapons. That that woman who happened to be an MP brought down Hassan isn't an indictment of everyone else who was unarmed.
Second, a ban on women in combat isn't in place merely because of physical differences between gendes: it's also in place because of psychological differences between men and women as well.
Also: the men of a society are more disposable than its women. Women only have a limited number of eggs where as men have billions of sperm. Which one should be put at risk? That's why no society in history ever used women in combat.
Additionally, suppose a woman gets captured in combat. Suddenly the war becomes all the more emotionally and psychologically unbearable for everyone.
In Israel they actually tried to put women in combat and discovered that male soldiers were prone to atrocity reprisals when the female soldiers got hurt/killed.
William Saletan is wrong, period.
Also, here is a reason why having women in the military is a bad idea, period:
[ November 07, 2009, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Second, a ban on women in combat isn't in place merely because of physical differences between gendes: it's also in place because of psychological differences between men and women as well.
Given your current dismal track record with sexual psychology, you'd better define and source what these psychological differences are.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Second, a ban on women in combat isn't in place merely because of physical differences between gendes: it's also in place because of psychological differences between men and women as well.
Given your current dismal track record with sexual psychology, you'd better define and source what these psychological differences are.
Imagine placing just one woman among a male squadron, and imagine that she happens to be about 20 years old and fairly attractive. Imagine that she favors a fellow grunt. Suddenly, in the eyes of everyone, that grunt has gained status at the expense of the commander. And if these two actually develop a relationship, their emotions put everyone at risk. Why create such a situation in the first place?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. The question "why create such a situation in the first place?" is, embarrassingly, the same logic that middle eastern countries use to keep women disallowed from driving or appearing in public without full veils. They must be protected from being allowed the opportunity to put themselves in adverse situations because of their sexual appeal, etc etc.
Same thing with what you're crudely positing here: we have to protect the poor women from being allowed to put everyone's emotions at risk, the poor dears.
But I asked for a definition and a source about what the psychological differences you were referencing actually were, not an informal hypothetical example
Do you want to actually answer my question?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A delicious chocolate chip cookie to anyone who doesn't respond to the troll! For those who don't like delicious chocolate chip cookies, you will receive a voucher for a different type of delicious cookie, redeemable in this thread.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. The question "why create such a situation in the first place?" is, embarrassingly, the same logic that middle eastern countries use to keep women disallowed from driving or appearing in public without full veils. They must be protected from being allowed the opportunity to put themselves in adverse situations because of their sexual appeal, etc etc.
So? Just because a form of reasoning can be misused doesn't mean it's always incorrect. There's nothing wrong with women that can prevent them from driving or being cops. However, in a combat, mixing men and women might be an inherently bad idea. Also, a woman can get captured and, if she is in her fertile years, might get raped. How can an army and a country in war put itself in such a situation?
quote: But I asked for a definition and a source about what the psychological differences you were referencing actually were, not an informal hypothetical example
Do you want to actually answer my question?
No human society has ever used women successfully in combat. Placing women in combat would be an experiment. Perhaps it should be those who want to do it who should be presenting evidence for why it would succeed.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Also, it isn't women who are rushing into burning buildings. How many female firefighters died in 9/11?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
That's why no society in history ever used women in combat.
Wrong.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A delicious chocolate chip cookie to anyone who doesn't respond to the troll! For those who don't like delicious chocolate chip cookies, you will receive a voucher for a different type of delicious cookie, redeemable in this thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea, you just cost yourself a delicious chocolate chip cookie!
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Dear Rakeesh,
What you are doing is incredibly rude. Please stop.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A delicious chocolate chip cookie to anyone who doesn't respond to the troll! For those who don't like delicious chocolate chip cookies, you will receive a voucher for a different type of delicious cookie, redeemable in this thread.
What do you suppose is the most popular type of cookie, after chocolate chip?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What do you suppose is the most popular type of cookie, after chocolate chip?
Hmm, that's an excellent question. And it's something I need to know, considering there are bound to be a few and I'll need to have them on hand.
I suspect it's probably a chocolate chip and some sort of nut cookie, and in the area of completely non-chocolate chip cookies I'd guess sugar.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I would like one delicious chocolate chip cookie, please.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ooh. I could go for a good sugar cookie right now.
Unfortunately, I responded to you, so I don't get one. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm going to have to go with oatmeal, if that's on the menu. They're so good. My mom's homemade oatmeal are like the best cookies in existence.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I prefer peanut butter cookies myself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ha! Good zing, Porter:) I should amend the post to 'the other troll'.
I love chocolate chip, but I'm incapable of resisting white chocolate macadamia nut. I'll be expecting mine soon.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Ooh! I make a great chocolate chip cookie with coconut and pecans...yummy! But I'm a chocolate snob so they have to be with high quality chips.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
I would like a chocolate chip cookie, please.
But as far as my favorite goes, I'm going to have to go with gingerbread.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
One of my classmates once brought ginger chocolate chip cookies to class. They were incredible.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I've got the snickerdoodles ready! Yum yum yum.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: So? Just because a form of reasoning can be misused doesn't mean it's always incorrect.
Thankfully, where it is pertinent is that your reasoning is incorrect.
It also seems based on factually incorrect statements like "no human society has ever successfully used women in combat."
Anyway I am glad to know you are now officially running away from answering the challenge about sourcing the issue about psychological differences between men and women which reinforce the necessity of a ban on women in combat. Thank you for being entirely expected!
quote:Also, a woman can get captured and, if she is in her fertile years, might get raped. How can an army and a country in war put itself in such a situation?
oh no! we had better keep them home in the kitchen where they are safe! keep them safe, clive. they might get raped. they need your protection from their own ambition to serve their country.
Boom, I live in cookie valhalla. I can respond to as many trolls as I want.
I STILL GET COOKIES
HA HA
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I HAVE TRIED ALL THESE COOKIES
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
THIS IS A LEVEL BEYOND DIABETES. YOU MAY CALL IT DIABETES-2
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I like oatmeal butterscotch without the chocolate chips -- the chocolate is overkill on that one.
I really need to get out of this thread. I'm trying to diet again. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: But as far as my favorite goes, I'm going to have to go with gingerbread.
Hell to the yes.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I recall a certain large, soft, yet crispy-edged gingerbread cookie with a crackled surface, lightly dusted with powdered sugar. Oh, Mama.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Anyone ever get those cookies they give out at the front desk of Doubletree hotels?
Bam.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
An oatmeal chocolate chip cookie might just be the best possible cookie. The chewiness of the oatmeal, plus a bit of chocolate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I like oatmeal butterscotch without the chocolate chips -- the chocolate is overkill on that one.
My personal favorite> If I were a cookie, it would be oatmeal with butterscotch chips. Wholesome but a little kinky.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. The question "why create such a situation in the first place?" is, embarrassingly, the same logic that middle eastern countries use to keep women disallowed from driving or appearing in public without full veils. They must be protected from being allowed the opportunity to put themselves in adverse situations because of their sexual appeal, etc etc.
So? Just because a form of reasoning can be misused doesn't mean it's always incorrect. There's nothing wrong with women that can prevent them from driving or being cops. However, in a combat, mixing men and women might be an inherently bad idea. Also, a woman can get captured and, if she is in her fertile years, might get raped. How can an army and a country in war put itself in such a situation?
quote: But I asked for a definition and a source about what the psychological differences you were referencing actually were, not an informal hypothetical example
Do you want to actually answer my question?
No human society has ever used women successfully in combat. Placing women in combat would be an experiment. Perhaps it should be those who want to do it who should be presenting evidence for why it would succeed.
The Soviet Union widely and successfully employed women in combat roles during the Great Patriotic War as both soldiers on the front as foot soldiers and as skilled snipers (Ludmilla Pavlichenko with 309 confirmed kills), also widely used them as tank crews and commanders as well as front line combat pilots contributing several aces. http://english.pobediteli.ru/ shows several interviews with female officers and soldiers who fought for the Soviet Union.
Chinese history as well is LOADED with Chinese female warrior-poets who fought in battles and led large formations of troops also of note is the Chinese Japanese war of WWII and the Chinese Civil War that had a wide use of female soldiers, also the Chinese People's Liberation Army today has Universal Conscription for both sexes and has a number of high ranking female officers.
Societies throughout history have widely used females in war to success, this is a criminally blind disregard for academic integrity and trollish behavior at worst and naive, misunderstood ignorance at best.
As Oscar Wilde would say, Pwned Bitch.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also Heinlein would argue that no state has the inherent right to survive unless its citizens are willing to step up to the plate and be willing to sacrifice themselves and convenience for the greater good of the survival of the nation. As such the reason why a state would put females in a position that might get them raped by enemy troops is because the alternative is national destruction and that all resources, all manpower, must be bent to the effort of ensuring the survival of the nation.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Heinlein makes a good argument for the dissolution of states, then.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How has no one mentioned pumpkin cookies?
For shame. They're the best!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:That's why no society in history ever used women in combat.
Women in the Military. Click on the historical era links; they go back to 1600 b.c. There's a lot of listings. Before you decide that these are all somehow mythical, note that the Bible also lists some: "Deborah, Judge of Israel, traveled with Barak, who led her army, on a military campaign in Qedesh, according to Judges 4:6‑10."
Captured male soldiers can also be raped, by the way.
Men and women are not easily judged as "all men are" and "all women are." Some men are not temperamentally suited for warfare. Some women excel at it. It's said that they often make better fighter pilots due to faster reflexes, but I haven't heard this verified.
And yes, when our population gets so low that we have to think of our breeding stock, then the "women have the eggs" argument makes sense. Come back when that happens and we'll try this again.
<== Sorry, not a cookie fan.
By the way, little advice? You'll always be considered a troll when you barge into a forum, declaring bold statements and basing your arguments on "facts" that are easily disproven. Had you started a thread to express your opinion as to why you feel it isn't a good idea to put women in combat positions, this might have been an actual conversation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Heinlein makes a good argument for the dissolution of states, then.
Not really whats the inconvenience of a few to protect the many? If one female soldier somehow gets raped in the course of the conflict but by her and countless other female soldiers fighting in the trenches so to speak manage to win the war wasn't the sacrifice necessary?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Heinlein makes a good argument for the dissolution of states, then.
Not really whats the inconvenience of a few to protect the many? If one female soldier somehow gets raped in the course of the conflict but by her and countless other female soldiers fighting in the trenches so to speak manage to win the war wasn't the sacrifice necessary?
That's a harsh thing to accept, mate. You seriously expect to console a person who has been raped by saying, "It was for the good of the country."?
Women in combat is a difficult issue for me to wrap my head around. On the one hand, I don't think we should institutionalize a prejudice that seems to say that women are less fit to risk their lives than a man. It's this kind of protectionist mentality that seems somewhat dehumanizing. If a woman is equal to a man, why can't she risk her own life as a man does? On the other hand, I also see the statistical realities that a woman is prone to abuses that men in the same position don't face. What's more, there is well documented cases of discrimination and harassment against women from their own side. (At least here in the US.) That's not to say that all women are discriminated against or that the military is an organization of only pigs.
But ultimately I err on the side of letting women serve in combat positions in the military with a caveat. Because we have an all-volunteer military force, a woman would choose a position where she could be placed in combat. A woman would know the risks associated with a more dangerous position in the military and while any attacks against her based upon her sexuality are horrendous and should be dealt with severely, she 'knew the risk.' As does anyone who enlists.
The caveat is that we currently have an all-volunteer military force. The reason women can't be drafted comes from the supreme court case Rostker v. Goldberg. The supreme court ruled that because women don't serve in combat positions, they don't serve the same purpose as men in the military and therefore aren't subject to the draft. What this means is that if we were to place women in combat positions, it would undermine the justification of the supreme court case and mean that women could theoretically be subject to the draft. Given the heightened risks a woman is subject to in combat positions and also given my opposition to the draft anyway, I'd be all the more opposed to women being conscripted in combat positions. Then again, I'm just falling under that protectionist 'man save woman' mentality. I don't know what to think.
ETA: I like cake, by the way. Sorry.
ETA2: I'm not secure in my opinion on the matter. I'd ask for some compelling arguments to help me come to a better informed opinion. (Which ever way it goes.)
ETA3: For women in combat, that is. The cookie lovers can just deal with it. I'm a cake man.
[ November 08, 2009, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ya you cant have your cake and eat it to, and I'm generally a rude thoughtless person so to me, the hypothetical of "one 19 year old girl got raped during a conflict, but thanks to the efforts 90,000 other girls fighting in the landing grounds, the fields, in the streets and the hills against the enemy and through these efforts win the war or at least delay the enevitable then by god YES they should fight and be subject to the draft. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I'm a harsh person, if women want equality then they will have to accept that the world isn't nice and if they want the same rights then they need to step up and fight for the same things men do, the right to be conscripted and thrown into battle on the front lines regardless of how overwhelmingly the statistics might say there might be abuse. There. Is. Always. Abuse.
You can't fix it by avoiding it but have to face the problems head on.
Regardless of a volunteer army or a draft women should be allowed but if nessasary forced into combat roles the moment they are old enough to vote.
This is where me and Heinlein differ in opinion he is against conscription seeing it as no different from slavery and that all nations who rely on it are doomed to failure, this has been proven wrong by history, a draft/conscription is nessasary for a state with a large all purpose military to have access to high quality personel in both peace and wartime.
A large country with a small army can get away with a volunteer force, not a large country with a large army without degradation eventually.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
See, I just don't get the point of a draft post-Vietnam. If all the soldiers who didn't want to be there had just had themselves a sit-in, the draft would be off the books because we'd have bankrupted the military putting all the draftees in jail. We sent something like 2.6 million troops (Veterans Hour), 25% of whom were drafted. If 648,500 people just sat down and said "no", I maintain there's no way to stop them. We'd have had to stop the war just to process all the people we'd arrested.
Plus, as high tech as the military's become, a draft makes no logical sense. Random, average 18 year old is not your best bet to learn to use all the doohickies we need to fly planes, monitor unmanned aircraft, program smart bombs, slip in and paint targets, etc. And in the nation building age, we need more translators and engineers to strengthen community ties and improve the neighborhoods we wrecked. We've created a highly skilled machine. Dumping random cogs in it would just junk it all up.
I wouldn't be surprised if the draft gets officially removed when we do allow women into combat. On purpose. Not like they don't occasionally end up there as is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Also, a woman can get captured and, if she is in her fertile years, might get raped.
Why in the world do you think this is something that only happens to women? Men get raped when they are taken prisoners too. That isn't speculation, rape is one of the most common abuses of male POWs.
And to get back to the topic, why hasn't anyone mentioned "Monster Cookies" (peanut butter, oatmeal, M&M, chocolate chip cookies. They are uberyummy and naturally gluten free.
Mmmmmm!!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:That's a harsh thing to accept, mate. You seriously expect to console a person who has been raped by saying, "It was for the good of the country."?
Sorry, I had to laugh at this.
Yes, it would be a harsh thing to say to a woman--"Sorry for the rape thing, but it was for the good of the country."
But then, it is a harsh thing to say, "Sorry for the lost legs dude, but it was for the good of the country."
or
"Sorry for the lost parents kid, but it was for the good of the country."
or
"Sorry for the lost genitalia guy, but it was for the good of the country." (Just read "The Sun Also Rises.")
Wars are like that. You are forced to say harsh things to people who gave too much in the line of duty.
You do realize that women who are deployed know what they are risking. Women who are not trained to go to war, but who find themselves involved in it by invading male soldiers find themselves often sexually assaulted. Of course then its never rationalized as being "good for the country."
Sorry. I'm trying to cut down, so I went with troll meat instead of cookies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Plus, as high tech as the military's become, a draft makes no logical sense.
A draft makes perfect sense for the condition it is intended for (dire peril to country theoretically necessitating the military service of able-bodied individuals). it's a contingency.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
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.
quote: Captured male soldiers can also be raped, by the way.
Female soldiers would probably be more attractive targets for rape than male soldiers, human nature being what it is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I can't believe no one has mentioned Milanos or Thin Mints. Or Mint Milanos, which are the ultimate cookie.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Oooh...When does girl scout cookie season start?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
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.
Wow, you *completely* stopped making ANY sense.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Oh good heavens. Lisa, I'm with you on this one. Mint Milanos and Thin Mints are the absolute greatest of the cookies Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Wow, you *completely* stopped making ANY sense.
This implies that he ever made sense to begin with. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Wow, you *completely* stopped making ANY sense.
This implies that he ever made sense to begin with.
A few orea cookies with a really cold glass of milk always seems to bring my world back into order.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
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.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oooh, teamwork! My favourite.
... That's what we're supposed to get from that, right?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Fractal Fraggle (Member # 9803) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: One of my classmates once brought ginger chocolate chip cookies to class. They were incredible.
This sounds fantastic. I know what I'm going to be baking this afternoon....
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
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).
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe I should've offered boxes of cookies.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.”
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Oooh...When does girl scout cookie season start?
Depending on your local troop's (or troops') calendar, probably late January or early February.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Huh. I didn't realize they had that much leeway.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
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... Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We can't let girls sell cookies, civilization would go INSANE
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(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 by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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?)
When did that start?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know. It's been true for considerably longer than my girls have been scouts, so at a guess, 10-15 years?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Indeed. Clive is an artifact of the past to be delegated to the ash heap of history.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
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.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
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?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
aahahahahahhahhhaa
oh god.
I just saved this thread. I can't risk losing it. ever.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
its called a mofo trend.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The world laughs at us.
Would that be countries like the following, all of whom have women in combat positions?
New Zealand
Sweden
Israel
Canada
Denmark
Finland
Nepal
Norway
Poland
Russia
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, the cookie scthick worked for awhile. I'm not sure how anyone could harbor any doubts that Clive is a troll now, though.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
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!
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
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*!"
Don't mind me. Carry on...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The evils of political correctness. Maybe its in the extended edition?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I seem to remember some rather young-looking boys getting armed before the battle.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Gonna answer that last one out of order, because I'm still amazed it was typed.
First off, Clive, you keep saying how women should not be permitted on the front lines because of how male soldiers will react if they're captured. Women have been in combat for thousands of years, and has been repeatedly pointed out, many countries allow them to so serve now. Has what you feared happened? We don't have to guess, we don't have to wonder. Has it happened, can you point to it? Has a female soldier yet been captured, causing the men in her unit to totally lose their minds? Telling us over and over simply isn't going to convince anyone.
Secondly, it's true that the US military does not presently assign women to the front lines, true. largely because of antiquated opinions such as yours. But they are there, right alongside the front line soldiers, as support, in communications, as medical personnel. They're on the front lines already and have been for some time.
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.
Way to totally condescend to every women that's ever come forward with an accusation of rape! If the enemy does it then it's horrible, unspeakable, and we'll go insane with rage over it. If our own soldiers do it, it's the women's fault for not sucking it up and taking it like men.
Male soldiers should be able to serve with women soldiers without raping them, sir. Not abuse, and not harassment, but rape.
The Pentagon's own numbers confirm the high amount of rape in the military. They seem extremely reticent to admit the number of convictions, though. And time after time either the victim is forced to continue serving in the same unit as her rapist, but the rapists - the convicted rapists - often get close to no punishment, occasional promotions, and honorable discharges.
I grant you, the front line of combat is the place where testosterone and stress and full-blown alpha male arrogance will run high, so yeah, I'm totally in agreement now. Women should not be in combat with men there, that's insane. Not because the enemy might attack and rape them, but because the odds are very high that their fellow soldiers will.
Maybe we can create female units, on the front line or wherever they're needed, where they can prove their worth as soldiers without having to sleep with one eye open.
[ November 10, 2009, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The behavior Clive alludes to, if I recall is known as "hazing" where older soldiers abuse and harrass newer ones. Just because this happens among soldiers doesn't mean it SHOULD happen hazing is terrible in any military and greater measures should be taken to reign it in, if admitting female soldiers to front line duties brings this into the open where it can be studied and address then even more power to putting females into front line combat roles "officially".
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Unless "hazing" regularly includes forced penetration, I'm pretty sure that's not the harassment I'm talking about, though.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Forced penetration with a broomstick has been known to happen. And then there's all the jokes about the Navy... those have to have a measure of truth behind them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I grant you, the front line of combat is the place where testosterone and stress and full-blown alpha male arrogance will run high, so yeah, I'm totally in agreement now. Women should not be in combat with men there, that's insane. Not because the enemy might attack and rape them, but because the odds are very high that their fellow soldiers will.
What?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a note on Norwegian women in combat, the physical requirementsare the same for men and women in running, swimming, and sit-ups, but much reduced for women in the two tests of upper-body strength, namely pull-ups and push-ups. A quick Google (so, you know, grain of salt) informs me that the proportion of women in our main foreign-service unit, the Telemark Battalion, is about 2%; I can't find out if they are rifle-carrying infantry or in support positions, though. It's also worth pointing out that Norwegian men are drafted, while women are allowed to volunteer; the Telemark Battalion is completely volunteer, but obviously a lot more men than women get exposure to the military life and come to the point of considering volunteering for it.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I grant you, the front line of combat is the place where testosterone and stress and full-blown alpha male arrogance will run high, so yeah, I'm totally in agreement now. Women should not be in combat with men there, that's insane. Not because the enemy might attack and rape them, but because the odds are very high that their fellow soldiers will.
What?
That's exactly what happens, though... women soldiers sometimes have more to fear from their fellow soldiers than from the enemy.. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military)
I work for the government so I know when they make rules/regs they often cater to the lowest common denominator.
I wonder if the real reason we don't have women on the front lines is because the military knows what will happen - that the immature, testosterone heavy men in the army will do things they shouldn't to them - and instead of holding them accountable for their actions or trying to fix the problem it's easier to just avoid it by not giving them the opportunity...
Edited to clarify: I support the full and complete integration of women into the armed forces. I think we need to figure out how to fix the problems that currently exist with this idea, but these problems aren't a reason to keep anyone, regardless of sex, from serving as they desire.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Check my OP...especially the part where I link to an article that is premised on facts we now know to be incorrect about Fort Hood.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Whether or not a specific woman is or is not a hero has no relevance to your assertion that women shouldn't serve on the front lines.
It had no real relevance in the linked article (it was a useful springboard for making a point), no relevance in your OP and still, here on page 3, has no real relevance.
ETA: And because you childishly renamed the topic your OP now reads that William Saletan argues that mean people derailed this thread... which only makes it even more irrelevant...
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I wasn't the one who renamed it.
I remember rivka thanking a mod for that.
Anyway, Saletan said "if women can defend Fort Hood, they can serve on the front lines." Well...
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I wasn't the one who renamed it.
I remember rivka thanking a mod for that.
Anyway, Saletan said "if women can defend Fort Hood, they can serve on the front lines." Well...
My mistake on the renaming then. I apologize.
The point is that if you say "no woman can do this" and I find one that did then I have disproved your negative.
If I can't find one, or I find one that I think did but actually didn't we have proved... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. This doesn't mean she can't or that there aren't others that can't.
You can use a single instance to disprove a negative but you can't use any number of instances less that the total of all possible to prove it.
So, the fact that she didn't actually do what everyone thought is in no way relevant to the question of whether or not women can and should serve.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I agree, this update doesn't buttress any of the arguments I made, but it's an update that's interesting in and of itself. And since Saletan used the incident as an springboard, sure, why shouldn't I smirk?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I wasn't the one who renamed it.
I remember rivka thanking a mod for that.
No, rivka thanked PJ for changing the title of a different thread from "are women to blame for the financial crisis?" to "Blame for the financial crisis?"
I find it highly unlikely that PJ changed the title of this thread to "mean people derailed this thread" considering a) threads get derailed here on an hourly basis, and b) there was an interim thread title, something about "bickering about cookies", and c) he didn't acknowledge it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:No, rivka thanked PJ for changing the title of a different thread from "are women to blame for the financial crisis?" to "Blame for the financial crisis?"
Not quite. Clive briefly switched it to a more offensive title, which is what PJ changed it from.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I wasn't the one who renamed it.
I remember rivka thanking a mod for that.
No, rivka thanked PJ for changing the title of a different thread from "are women to blame for the financial crisis?" to "Blame for the financial crisis?"
I find it highly unlikely that PJ changed the title of this thread to "mean people derailed this thread" considering a) threads get derailed here on an hourly basis, and b) there was an interim thread title, something about "bickering about cookies", and c) he didn't acknowledge it.
Thanks for the correction. I'm pretty sure the previous title of this thread was innocuous though. The change reflected the "let's derail this thread!" cookie episode.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)