[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
TBH normally its pretty rare empathize with feminists or the majority of their viewpoints, but a lot of the commentary in this thread suggests you think women are inferior people, thats kind of fucking weird tbh.The commentary isn’t that different from when white dudes were lamenting the dismissal of segregation in the army I bet. “darkies? In MY army? The negro man is inherently less intelligent, they will be a liability in any combat situation”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So… Men and Women are different, and it is blatantly obvious that the two sexes are better suited for differing roles that are equal in importance and actually make us stronger as a whole because we aren’t trying to fit a square peg in a round hole to appease some bullshit social construct that does nothing but make us less efficient and weaker?
[/quote][/quote]
If you’re trying to read in some kind of “women are inferior people” subtext that’s your problem. None of us think that. Leave your racist and sexist issues elsewhere rather than projecting them on us.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
If the woman can do the exact same job to the exact same standard - then who gives a flying fuck?
[quote]T11 wrote:
We had a female medic dismount with us in Germany during our deployment field rotation prep. We went on 2 week dismounted missions and she only lasted 2 days. My platoon sgt was pissed and for good reason. She eventually got switched out but as a medic you need to be able to carry your aid bag and we had to carry that for her and she still even fell out. Not saying a woman can’t do it or keep up but a 120 pound woman in great shape will not be able to carry the same load as a 180 pound male in alright shape.[/quote][/quote]
Well them doing the exact same job is a concern isn’t it? Are you trying to biologically equate men and women?
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
It might be a problem if they were lowering the standards just to accommodate women, but its pretty clear they aren’t.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m sure they’ll have to pass the same training that the men do.
So… good luck I guess.[/quote]
HAHAHAH, no they wont. [/quote]
“Further, the strenuous physical standards required for entry into special-forces jobs and combat-infantry assignments will not be lowered for anyone, they say.”[/quote]
You need to better discern when someone is feeding you a line of bullshit. If they lower the standards for men then women will be able to meet the same requirements as men. Which is essentially what this article implies.
The plan, expected to be announced today, calls for women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.
This could involve a review and change of existing standards.
[/quote][/quote]
It’s clear yet, and it’s not unheard of. This is simply another concern. Hopefully you’re right and the standards are not lowered for anyone.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Most of the justifications for women not being in combat situations are some of the most straw-grabbing and dumb shit I’ve ever read. All the dudes in the infantry that I’ve talked, that actually were in combat, that were there with woman in afghanistan (and to that point, this whinging is fucking moot, women have and are in combat situations regardless whether some old fashioned dudes dont want to let them serve in infantry units or not), didn’t have a single bad thing to say about them. And no they didn’t give them preferential treatment just because they had a vagina, people arent fucking stupid, a wounded person is a wounded person.
[/quote]
Well maybe you should get them to post their experiences here, because the combat veterans in the thread so far disagree.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
And seriously? You’re worried about soldiers fucking eachother? For a bunch of dudes who waxed poetic about how much they loved 300 and how much it tickled your “real men” fancy, did you all forget spartans were notorious bum buddies? They gave each other the pound town every night, it hardly affected their capabilities as a fighting force now did it?
I just got stationed in Ft. Hood last year and it was my first time seeing a female PL in a combat engineer company. I was used to being in a sapper company where that isn’t allowed. She is bi-sexual and is a West-Point graduate so I thought she would be pretty professional. Boy was I wrong. She constantly would be flirty and joking around with soldiers. Hang out with them on her off time and just various things an officer isn’t supposed to do with lower enlisted. One being having sex with my friend which is a big no no. It didn’t turn into anything more then sex as he called it quits. If it would of been her way I don’t know what would have happened.
[quote]T11 wrote:
There are just too many issues that is why it should never happen. Women don’t belong in the jobs(not saying that they can’t) but it will do more harm then good. I have seen 3 cases of sexual assault not one of them being real. All being the woman trying to get back at the man for cheating, they broke up or her trying to cover her own ass. One got pregnant by another man down range, husband thought it was his, after she figured out it wasn’t she cried rape and we have him trying to kill the other soldier on our little JCOP which it nearly happened. [/quote][/quote]
Yes that is a concern too. 300 was a weird fictional movie, and the Spartans have been gone for hundreds of years. It is a real life concern in the modern world (which is what is relevant).
[quote]T11 wrote:
People who make it to SF are exceptional. So are olympic athletes, but I don’t see any of you dudes outworking female olympians just because they have a vagina now are you? Honestly why would you fucking care that the opportunity is being given to women to try for SF selection?[/quote]
Lol.