I think Borat said women have smaller brainsOriginally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's not that you need to accept every woman, it's that you should have a minimum standard of strength and fitness and if someone meets that, man or woman, they should be let in.
Is the strength and fitness bar enough to indicate equal competency? War isn't only about the physical.
Do you have any evidence that points to a mental deficiency on the part of women that would preclude effective service?
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: udneekgnim
fat and ugly women, yes
hot and attractive women, no
Are you 12 years old? Or 13?
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's not that you need to accept every woman, it's that you should have a minimum standard of strength and fitness and if someone meets that, man or woman, they should be let in.
Is the strength and fitness bar enough to indicate equal competency? War isn't only about the physical.
Do you have any evidence that points to a mental deficiency on the part of women that would preclude effective service?
We currently have no such mental screening process for our current recruits both male and female. If you have some already diagnosed mental condition they won't let you in, but other than that you're golden.
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's not that you need to accept every woman, it's that you should have a minimum standard of strength and fitness and if someone meets that, man or woman, they should be let in.
Is the strength and fitness bar enough to indicate equal competency? War isn't only about the physical.
Do you have any evidence that points to a mental deficiency on the part of women that would preclude effective service?
We currently have no such mental screening process for our current recruits both male and female. If you have some already diagnosed mental condition they won't let you in, but other than that you're golden.
Mental deficiency isn't the concern but the different empathic responses inherent in the genders might be. This isn't currently considered because the policies and expectations of a mixed-gender military are still being explored. I would say this is worth consideration. If a woman (for example, no documented evidence of this that I know of) would consistently hesitate a fraction of a second longer before shooting an enemy, does that translate to higher risk for the military? Is a female more likely to give the benefit of a doubt when questioning a suspect?
If I'm on the receiving end of the enemy's fire, or I'm the next convoy through a road that released suspect wound up rigging with mines, and the gender-difference affected my situation, I would have a distinct preference.
Once again, I don't think that precludes all women from serving on the front lines. However, I do think that some of the traits that lead women to dominate fields like HR are traits that might not serve them well in the front lines of the military. This isn't a positive or negative commentary on women; it's a question of suitability. I'm female myself, and would be the last person to argue that a woman is inherently less competent. Women simply get jobs done differently oftimes, and that difference in a combat zone might not be beneficial.
In short: I have seen no evidence that women are categorically unsuited to combat roles, so I see no reason to exempt them from the draft. Equality means equality
Originally posted by: bbdub333
In short: I have seen no evidence that women are categorically unsuited to combat roles, so I see no reason to exempt them from the draft. Equality means equality
Right... got it... you're an idiot.
If I walked up to a random woman on the street and punched her in the face, what would her most probable reaction be? What if I punched a random guy?
Don't answer that question, cause I know you're going to lie to yourself in doing so.
Like I said in my first post, the *majority* of women are far less suited for combat than the *majority* of men. When it comes to life and death situations, why should political correctness trump common sense? You can try to fight nature and evolution as much as you want, but you're just lying to yourself.
Originally posted by: daniel49
leave it up to the women to decide what they want.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: bbdub333
In short: I have seen no evidence that women are categorically unsuited to combat roles, so I see no reason to exempt them from the draft. Equality means equality
Right... got it... you're an idiot.
If I walked up to a random woman on the street and punched her in the face, what would her most probable reaction be? What if I punched a random guy?
Don't answer that question, cause I know you're going to lie to yourself in doing so.
Like I said in my first post, the *majority* of women are far less suited for combat than the *majority* of men. When it comes to life and death situations, why should political correctness trump common sense? You can try to fight nature and evolution as much as you want, but you're just lying to yourself.
You call me an idiot and then write a post like this?
If you take a few minutes to actually read before shitting your pants in a thread, you will see that I placed the requirements for combat duty on meeting a certain set of requirements. It doesn't matter if only one woman in the whole world meets those requirements or if they all do. My point was that qualifying or disqualifying someone for a job should be based on their ability to do that job, not if they have a dick or not. You apparently were too stupid or too lazy to have noticed that.
Being judged on your personal merit instead of your gender is what equality really is, having respect for the different ways people can do a job that are all equally effective is what political correctness really is, and it's something to respect instead of condemn.
Originally posted by: dphantom
Equal pay, equal rights, equal whatever means just that. Men and women are equal so can and should have the same opportunities provided the person can physically/mentally do the job.
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: bbdub333
In short: I have seen no evidence that women are categorically unsuited to combat roles, so I see no reason to exempt them from the draft. Equality means equality
Right... got it... you're an idiot.
If I walked up to a random woman on the street and punched her in the face, what would her most probable reaction be? What if I punched a random guy?
Don't answer that question, cause I know you're going to lie to yourself in doing so.
Like I said in my first post, the *majority* of women are far less suited for combat than the *majority* of men. When it comes to life and death situations, why should political correctness trump common sense? You can try to fight nature and evolution as much as you want, but you're just lying to yourself.
You call me an idiot and then write a post like this?
If you take a few minutes to actually read before shitting your pants in a thread, you will see that I placed the requirements for combat duty on meeting a certain set of requirements. It doesn't matter if only one woman in the whole world meets those requirements or if they all do. My point was that qualifying or disqualifying someone for a job should be based on their ability to do that job, not if they have a dick or not. You apparently were too stupid or too lazy to have noticed that.
Being judged on your personal merit instead of your gender is what equality really is, having respect for the different ways people can do a job that are all equally effective is what political correctness really is, and it's something to respect instead of condemn.
I read your posts, trust me. You obviously couldn't absorb the point of mine. In intense combat, our actions revert to instinctive responses. Combat training is designed to refine instinctive responses and condition men to do what is needed to win. The more stress that people are placed under, the more instinctive their responses become. Men have a much higher natural inclination to fight and be aggressive than women do. Look at the entire history of humanity and that's apparent. Call it natural or call it conditioning, but the fact is that men are more likely to respond to combat stress with offensive action, while women are more likely to respond with a defensive action.
YES... there are exceptions, as I've said over and over again. We're talking about the MAJORITY of people of each sex.
Tell me, what would be the benefit of having mixed-sex front line combat units?
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's not that you need to accept every woman, it's that you should have a minimum standard of strength and fitness and if someone meets that, man or woman, they should be let in.
Is the strength and fitness bar enough to indicate equal competency? War isn't only about the physical.
Do you have any evidence that points to a mental deficiency on the part of women that would preclude effective service?
We currently have no such mental screening process for our current recruits both male and female. If you have some already diagnosed mental condition they won't let you in, but other than that you're golden.
Mental deficiency isn't the concern but the different empathic responses inherent in the genders might be. This isn't currently considered because the policies and expectations of a mixed-gender military are still being explored. I would say this is worth consideration. If a woman (for example, no documented evidence of this that I know of) would consistently hesitate a fraction of a second longer before shooting an enemy, does that translate to higher risk for the military? Is a female more likely to give the benefit of a doubt when questioning a suspect?
If I'm on the receiving end of the enemy's fire, or I'm the next convoy through a road that released suspect wound up rigging with mines, and the gender-difference affected my situation, I would have a distinct preference.
Once again, I don't think that precludes all women from serving on the front lines. However, I do think that some of the traits that lead women to dominate fields like HR are traits that might not serve them well in the front lines of the military. This isn't a positive or negative commentary on women; it's a question of suitability. I'm female myself, and would be the last person to argue that a woman is inherently less competent. Women simply get jobs done differently oftimes, and that difference in a combat zone might not be beneficial.
I'm sorry, but it seems like in your post that you admit there's no evidence to back up what you say. I believe HR is dominated by women due more to societal gender stereotypes than any particular talents or traits. The reason why the vast majority of secretaries are women isn't because you guys are so good at making coffee.
Most of the traits that would be deemed detrimental are environmental factors. I have seen no evidence that women are less psychologically capable to handle combat, and the other problems you mentioned might not be problems at all. Say women were more empathetic to captured enemy soldiers? A feeling of empathy is one of the things that military interrogators try hardest to create in their subjects. That could be a decided advantage.
In short: I have seen no evidence that women are categorically unsuited to combat roles, so I see no reason to exempt them from the draft. Equality means equality.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: bbdub333
In short: I have seen no evidence that women are categorically unsuited to combat roles, so I see no reason to exempt them from the draft. Equality means equality
Right... got it... you're an idiot.
If I walked up to a random woman on the street and punched her in the face, what would her most probable reaction be? What if I punched a random guy?
Don't answer that question, cause I know you're going to lie to yourself in doing so.
Like I said in my first post, the *majority* of women are far less suited for combat than the *majority* of men. When it comes to life and death situations, why should political correctness trump common sense? You can try to fight nature and evolution as much as you want, but you're just lying to yourself.
You call me an idiot and then write a post like this?
If you take a few minutes to actually read before shitting your pants in a thread, you will see that I placed the requirements for combat duty on meeting a certain set of requirements. It doesn't matter if only one woman in the whole world meets those requirements or if they all do. My point was that qualifying or disqualifying someone for a job should be based on their ability to do that job, not if they have a dick or not. You apparently were too stupid or too lazy to have noticed that.
Being judged on your personal merit instead of your gender is what equality really is, having respect for the different ways people can do a job that are all equally effective is what political correctness really is, and it's something to respect instead of condemn.
I read your posts, trust me. You obviously couldn't absorb the point of mine. In intense combat, our actions revert to instinctive responses. Combat training is designed to refine instinctive responses and condition men to do what is needed to win. The more stress that people are placed under, the more instinctive their responses become. Men have a much higher natural inclination to fight and be aggressive than women do. Look at the entire history of humanity and that's apparent. Call it natural or call it conditioning, but the fact is that men are more likely to respond to combat stress with offensive action, while women are more likely to respond with a defensive action.
YES... there are exceptions, as I've said over and over again. We're talking about the MAJORITY of people of each sex.
Tell me, what would be the benefit of having mixed-sex front line combat units?
The point I keep making is that so what if it's the majority? So what if it's the 99.9999% majority? I believe that combat units are best served by a physical screening process... period.
What you are referring to as 'instinctive' isn't nearly as natural as you seem to think it is. It is a large collection of natural and socialized behaviors. If you are interested I have a bunch of good articles and excerpts from a violence and society class I took a while back that explores the relationship between evolved and socialized aggression. (a very readable and interesting one is called 'The Trouble With Testosterone" by Sapolsky. It basically shows how testosterone does not cause aggression)
From the most recent research I have read, aggressive behavior in males is heavily... heavily based in socialization. Since military training is simply a form of social engineering anyway, I see no reason why women cannot be socialized into combat troops the same way men are, particularly considering the radical reconditioning that takes place in the military.
The benefit of having mixed sex front line combat troops is that you get more combat troops from the same amount of population. Considering a draft is an acute need for manpower, seems like that's a good thing to me. If you look at the IDF's moves in respect to having women in combat units, they are promoting much the same course as I am. You don't just throw women into combat units, but if a woman can meet the standards, she should be able to join one. Simple as that.