i can't believe that this culture has gotten to the point where a woman in call of duty makes the news as if it's so shocking and ground breaking. then again i suppose it adds a certain amount of realism call of duty so sorely needs.
Actually, according to Wikipedia the ban on women in combat has been lifted:VanBasten said:Women in this super advanced age of 2013 still aren't allowed to serve in front line combat in the US military.Noswad said:and in the super advance age of 2013 this happening is considered news.
Here they are, hence it's considered news.
I'm actually surprised this hasn't been a bigger deal.In 1994 the Department of Defense officially banned women from serving in combat but on January 24, 2013, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed the military's ban on women serving in combat, which was instituted in 1994. Implementation of these rules is ongoing. There is some speculation that this could lead to women having to register with the Selective Service System.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat#United_States
You seem to be confusing actual soldiers to the dudebro unkillable superhuman versions in modern shooter games.Magenera said:That's because the failure rate is high as hell as in no one has yet to pass the lowest threshold to get in, not to mention female soldiers are more expensive than male soldiers, with added benefits of having inferior stats. The only way to counteract the stats is steroids, but we can do the same to males and get a better result, not to mention the ethics in question of doing so.
Basically US sticking with status quo, save lives, and is cheaper, but hurt women feelings. Changing it, would mean jack shit as only statistical outliers would make it, thus running the issue of people trying to change it, to make it fair and equal, and creating a disaster, where you're feeling good, but the end result is increase death. Hell were talking about this thing right now. Having to change the standards so we can get frontline female soldiers, instead of none, because none can make the cut.
I like how when somebody presents you with sound reasoning, rather than replying with logic to counteract his argument you just shout SEXISM and ignore what he said.VanBasten said:You seem to be confusing actual soldiers to the dudebro unkillable superhuman versions in modern shooter games.Magenera said:That's because the failure rate is high as hell as in no one has yet to pass the lowest threshold to get in, not to mention female soldiers are more expensive than male soldiers, with added benefits of having inferior stats. The only way to counteract the stats is steroids, but we can do the same to males and get a better result, not to mention the ethics in question of doing so.
Basically US sticking with status quo, save lives, and is cheaper, but hurt women feelings. Changing it, would mean jack shit as only statistical outliers would make it, thus running the issue of people trying to change it, to make it fair and equal, and creating a disaster, where you're feeling good, but the end result is increase death. Hell were talking about this thing right now. Having to change the standards so we can get frontline female soldiers, instead of none, because none can make the cut.
I ain't touching the rest of your sexist rant with a 20 foot pole.
Interesting that a female military person has long hair. But yeah, she looked creepy and I had to pause the screen to evaluate whether or not it was a guy with long hair or a girl.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:Same here. I mean, its nice, but to me its not that big of a deal. Not enough to start screaming "WOW SO PROGRESSIVE" anyway.
Also, the woman in the trailer looks shit. It looks like an alien thats undercover on the earth, desperately trying to blend in but just looking weird and creepy in the process. Uncanny valley anyone? /nitpicking