US military to allow women in direct combat

Fuzzed

New member
Dec 27, 2012
185
0
0
Lilani said:
Fuzzed said:
You didn't answer my question.
Because quite frankly your question has very little to do with the point you were trying to make. You first said, "Why does the military hire people that want to rape chicks?" Well the obvious answer is they don't want to. Even if there were some conspiracy to herd women into the military just so they can have big overseas rape factories, the goal of the military is a strategic one and rape factories don't win battles.

So they don't want these people, yet they still get in. And you have the same problem in law enforcement--we don't want rapists or serial killers running around on the streets, but they are there anyway. Huge parts of the government apart from the military are dedicated to finding these kinds of people, but they can't. Even with all the technology at their disposal, there is simply no way to profile people like that with any significant amount of success or certainty.

I don't know if my friends would rape anyone, and nor would the top psychologists and criminologists in the world if they interviewed my friends. So to answer your question on why the military hires people who rape chicks, it's because there's no way to separate them from the ones who don't want to rape chicks until they actually rape someone.
I respect everything you've said, but I can't help but feel that your still avoiding giving me a straight answer.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Fuzzed said:
I respect everything you've said, but I can't help but feel that your still avoiding giving me a straight answer.
What exactly do you want me to say? I could make up a bunch of names right now and you wouldn't know the difference. Oh yes I think George might, but what about Bartholomew? You seem to be avoiding the fact that there is no way to know, and that renders your question moot. So no, I'm not going to answer, because there would be no point. There would be no certain amount of truth even if I did take it seriously. What do you think you'll gain by me answering your question?
 

TornadoADV

Cobra King
Apr 10, 2009
207
0
0
RufusMcLaser said:
That's a pretty good point, which has tended to be overlooked so far, but I don't know how far you can run with it. There have been female fighter pilots in both the US Navy and the Air Force since at least the 1990s, and the USN has had women in command of surface combatants. I dare you to tell me that the USAF isn't run by fighter pilots, or that the CNO doesn't tend to be a naval aviator. (For that matter the US Army lets women fly attack helicopters.) None of these have quite the same cachet as being able to say "Yeah, I started out in a rifle platoon" but they're all careers which put a person right on that service's front line.
Actually, the USAF was run by Bomber Jocks until the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of SAC.
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
TaboriHK said:
RufusMcLaser said:
TaboriHK said:
They've also been getting 70 cents on the dollar. Women don't get any kind of "free ride" in this country.
I'm talking about equality before the law and societal obligations vs. privileges. Historical wage disparities aren't relevant in that context, unless they have a basis in current Federal law.
But they are related. Obviously.
they could be.

It could be top management who holds sexist views and doesnt value women employees as much as men, or it coud be because companies have gotten away with it for so long and it is a way to pad their bonus checks. I mean, the video game industry is not prejudice because they charge Australians a hell of a lot more money for games than they should because they hate them.

Or it could have nothing to do with sexism at all. Maybe women are less likely to complain about their paycheck than men.

In all likelyhood, all three of these items are a factor.

Also, its 82% now. So it is getting better with time, and will continue to get better.

and yes, women do get a "free ride" in many ways in his country. Men do too in different ways.
 

TaboriHK

New member
Sep 15, 2008
811
0
0
Ryotknife said:
they could be.

It could be top management who holds sexist views and doesnt value women employees as much as men, or it coud be because companies have gotten away with it for so long and it is a way to pad their bonus checks. I mean, the video game industry is not prejudice because they charge Australians a hell of a lot more money for games than they should because they hate them.

Or it could have nothing to do with sexism at all. Maybe women are less likely to complain about their paycheck than men.

In all likelyhood, all three of these items are a factor.

Also, its 82% now. So it is getting better with time, and will continue to get better.

and yes, women do get a "free ride" in many ways in his country. Men do too in different ways.
No, is. Not 'could be.' Any generalizations about the nature of women and why they might be getting paid less, is proof of that. Do we as a society give women some concessions? Yes. Do those concessions come close to being equality? No. And sexists will hold those concessions against women, or point at them and say, "isn't this enough for them?" No. It isn't. They'll also point to the worst examples of people to reinforce their beliefs of why it's better off this way. "Some women are lazy, so none of them should have this!" If people really wanted these concessions, that are viewed as unfair, to be taken away from women, they'd support equality, because then those concessions would be obsolete.
 

Heinrich843

New member
Apr 1, 2009
96
0
0
One of the main problems raised with this is "true equality". The U.S. military tends "modify" standards for these sorts of things. (It has a proven history of doing this.)

Apart from other possible issues, the most concerning is that the standards may be modified to let persons unfit for the job- into the job.

Less a gender issue, and more an implementation issue.
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
TaboriHK said:
Ryotknife said:
they could be.

It could be top management who holds sexist views and doesnt value women employees as much as men, or it coud be because companies have gotten away with it for so long and it is a way to pad their bonus checks. I mean, the video game industry is not prejudice because they charge Australians a hell of a lot more money for games than they should because they hate them.

Or it could have nothing to do with sexism at all. Maybe women are less likely to complain about their paycheck than men.

In all likelyhood, all three of these items are a factor.

Also, its 82% now. So it is getting better with time, and will continue to get better.

and yes, women do get a "free ride" in many ways in his country. Men do too in different ways.
No, is. Not 'could be.' Any generalizations about the nature of women and why they might be getting paid less, is proof of that. Do we as a society give women some concessions? Yes. Do those concessions come close to being equality? No. And sexists will hold those concessions against women, or point at them and say, "isn't this enough for them?" No. It isn't. They'll also point to the worst examples of people to reinforce their beliefs of why it's better off this way. "Some women are lazy, so none of them should have this!" If people really wanted these concessions, that are viewed as unfair, to be taken away from women, they'd support equality, because then those concessions would be obsolete.
and i suppose you have proof that it is only sexism holding women back in jobs and not just....you know...greed? There are much older and much more powerful negative influences on people than sexism and prejudice. I have provided an example of an industry (an industry related to this forum even) charging more for a product to a specific group of people that has nothing to do with sexism, prejudice, or racism. Now, im sure there are industries out there that are very "boys club" which is why I said that sexism may be a factor (just as there are industries that are "girls club"). But to imply that women have it worse than men, or vice versa, is extremely dishonest.
 

TaboriHK

New member
Sep 15, 2008
811
0
0
Ryotknife said:
and i suppose you have proof that it is only sexism holding women back in jobs and not just....you know...greed? There are much older and much more powerful negative influences on people than sexism and prejudice. I have provided an example of an industry (an industry related to this forum even) charging more for a product to a specific group of people that has nothing to do with sexism, prejudice, or racism. Now, im sure there are industries out there that are very "boys club" which is why I said that sexism may be a factor (just as there are industries that are "girls club"). But to imply that women have it worse than men, or vice versa, is extremely dishonest.
Greed doesn't have a gender preference. Greed is not 100% aligned against women in all situations. It's not the hand-wave away of a real world issue that you want it to be.


And I'm not implying women have it worse. I'm saying it. Women have it worse. Across the board. Money is only one of many metrics, and the easiest one to point to. But it's only one of many fronts in which we continually discriminate against women, because they aren't men.
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
TaboriHK said:
Ryotknife said:
and i suppose you have proof that it is only sexism holding women back in jobs and not just....you know...greed? There are much older and much more powerful negative influences on people than sexism and prejudice. I have provided an example of an industry (an industry related to this forum even) charging more for a product to a specific group of people that has nothing to do with sexism, prejudice, or racism. Now, im sure there are industries out there that are very "boys club" which is why I said that sexism may be a factor (just as there are industries that are "girls club"). But to imply that women have it worse than men, or vice versa, is extremely dishonest.
Greed doesn't have a gender preference. Greed is not 100% aligned against women in all situations. It's not the hand-wave away of a real world issue that you want it to be.


And I'm not implying women have it worse. I'm saying it. Women have it worse. Across the board. Money is only one of many metrics, and the easiest one to point to. But it's only one of many fronts in which we continually discriminate against women, because they aren't men.
so the fact that women:

get preferential treatment by the justice system
get preferential treatment from the government in general.
have an easier time getting an entry level job than men.
are put up on a pedestal of all that is good and glorious in the media and men are demonized as dumb animals

are just....you know...not a factor? im sorry, but your attitude is just as sexist as the people you complain about. If your major complaint is the wage gap, that is getting significantly better over time. Meanwhile those 4 issues that ive raised? getting WORSE over time. Men have advantages, women have advantages. Neither side has it better or worse than the other. holy crap, treating both sides as equal?

MADNESS!

As for the topic on hand, good for women. It is their life to risk so long as they are held to the same standards as men.
 

TaboriHK

New member
Sep 15, 2008
811
0
0
Ryotknife said:
so the fact that women:

get preferential treatment by the justice system
get preferential treatment from the government in general.
have an easier time getting an entry level job than men.
are put up on a pedestal of all that is good and glorious in the media and men are demonized as dumb animals

are just....you know...not a factor? im sorry, but your attitude is just as sexist as the people you complain about. If your major complaint is the wage gap, that is getting significantly better over time. Meanwhile those 4 issues that ive raised? getting WORSE over time. Men have advantages, women have advantages. Neither side has it better or worse than the other. holy crap, treating both sides as equal?

MADNESS!

As for the topic on hand, good for women. It is their life to risk so long as they are held to the same standards as men.
Women are put up on a pedestal of all that is good and glorious in the media? Since when, precisely?

As for having an easier time getting a job, that's conjecture, and if you're referring to alimony in regards to legal advantages, that's pretty flimsy. Men get alimony too. These are all band-aids on a broken arm. If we actually dealt with this the way we should have in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for band-aids, and they wouldn't exist.

It's very easy to imagine, as a man, that a woman's life is exactly like his, except that they occasionally get handed things and people make jokes at their expense. It's very easy to assume things are the same, because you have no experience on the other side of the coin. Discrimination of all kinds, not just monetary, is an every day reality for the vast, vast majority of women. Small insults, big ones. I promise you, you've never met a woman that is completely unfamiliar with prejudice against her gender. I've said that money is not the only way we do it, and I've also said that the concessions we give are not the real solution. Women have it better in America than they do in say, Iran. But as a nation that is ostensibly built on the notion that freedoms are what make us strong, we should hardly feel satisfied with the field we've created for ourselves. In New Mexico, they're attempting to pass a law that would keep women who have been raped from having an abortion on grounds "it would be destroying criminal evidence." Look it up, and then try to justify the moral backflip that produced that logic. You really think this is an even playing field where everyone is judged according to individual merits? Explain that, or the dozens of other laws that have popped up in the last year alone to similar, restricting effect. Imagine what we would say if someone tried to pass a law saying men who are raped can't get medical treatment because any STD's they picked up are considered evidence in the court of law and must be preserved in their bodies for the trial.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Not to be a sexist pig or anything, but I remember there being combat efficiency-related reasons why women were not allowed in combat. Like men being prone to trying in vain to save a fatally wounded female soldier than an only moderately wounded male one. I just hope studies were done before this decision was made.
 

Marik2

Phone Poster
Nov 10, 2009
5,462
0
0
Selvec said:
It wasn't this way already? Jesus, talk about lagging behind in terms of equal rights.
Yeah I thought women were already in combat for years....what the hell

Don't they go to the same basic training as men do and all that boot camp stuff?
 

00slash00

New member
Dec 29, 2009
2,321
0
0
i think the bigger question is why is this JUST happening? this should have happened a long time ago
 

00slash00

New member
Dec 29, 2009
2,321
0
0
MeChaNiZ3D said:
Not to be a sexist pig or anything, but I remember there being combat efficiency-related reasons why women were not allowed in combat. Like men being prone to trying in vain to save a fatally wounded female soldier than an only moderately wounded male one. I just hope studies were done before this decision was made.
and hopefully not the people who did the study you mentioned. that is the most absurd reason to keep women out of combat positions that ive ever heard
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
Ryotknife said:
are put up on a pedestal of all that is good and glorious in the media and men are demonized as dumb animals
.
let me explain somthing to you ..even if it is incredibly difficult for you to understand

women.......also......get.....treated.....negativly......in....media..did you get that?...was it too fast? ok I'll slow it down

WOMEN

ALSO

GET

TREATED

NEGATIVLY

IN MEDIA