By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Women are not fit for front line combat!

Tagged games:

 

Why can't women be on the front line?

They're physically not fit. 62 32.29%
 
They can do it if trained properly. 102 53.13%
 
That's not women's duty. 12 6.25%
 
I'm weak so I can't fat... 16 8.33%
 
Total:192
Goatseye on 07 April 2016
d21lewis said:
It's not even about gender. Some things are just fact. Women are weaker.

I'm black. If somebody said "White people are better at blending in with a white background", I wouldn't say " Hey, I can do anything they can! " I'd say , "no shit. They're naturally lighter than I am."

Everybody thinks they can do everything but they're wrong. That's why women aren't in the NFL.

You don't need to be a beefcake to be a paratrooper. You need resistance and enough strength to carry up to 35lb for 20 some miles.

Weakness is something that can be worked with training; mental readiness is a virtue acquired with months and months of tactical training and boots on the ground experience. 



Around the Network
Goatseye on 07 April 2016
Lawlight said:
Goatseye said:

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/11/11/army-responds-congressmans-ranger-school-records-request/75584150/

It was a national news at the time.

Interesting :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249690/First-women-pass-Ranger-School-given-extra-training-lowered-benchmarks-general-vowed-one-pass-sources-claim.html

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/27/army-denies-that-ranger-school-was-fixed-so-women-could-pass.html

Who do you believe?



Lawlight on 07 April 2016
Goatseye said:
Lawlight said:

Interesting :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249690/First-women-pass-Ranger-School-given-extra-training-lowered-benchmarks-general-vowed-one-pass-sources-claim.html

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/27/army-denies-that-ranger-school-was-fixed-so-women-could-pass.html

Who do you believe?

No idea. I wasn't there. And you, who do you believe?



binary solo on 07 April 2016
celador said:
All male squads outperform all other combinations, so obviously something happens when you put women in with men (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/).

The article mentions the obvious, like men are quicker across the ground and are generally more accurate with weapons. What I have also read elsewhere though is that men take more risks when women are in their squads and in danger, which of course puts everyone in the team in greater danger also.

So while I think women should absolutely be on the frontlines (as long as they have passed the same bar as the men, and it hasn't been lowered as it apparently has in some cases), I am not so sure about mixed units.

Yes, but that's because of a deeply rooted, cultural sexism that the men don't even realise influences their thinking. They want to save and protect the women in their squads because their subconscious says the women are weak, helpless and incapable of looking after themselves. If the men can overcome that misconception then they won't take those extra risks. But the only way for the men to overcome that misconception is for competent women to be part of their squads and show that they don't need extra care or protection over and above what a squad should ordinarily do to look out for each other.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Goatseye on 07 April 2016
Lawlight said:
Goatseye said:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/27/army-denies-that-ranger-school-was-fixed-so-women-could-pass.html

Who do you believe?

No idea. I wasn't there. And you, who do you believe?

My own judgement.



Around the Network
Lawlight on 07 April 2016
Goatseye said:
Lawlight said:

No idea. I wasn't there. And you, who do you believe?

My own judgement.

In other words, you believe what you want to believe, which is fair enough.



Goatseye on 07 April 2016
Lawlight said:
Goatseye said:

My own judgement.

In other words, you believe what you want to believe, which is fair enough.

I believe what is logical. It's not fair enough as you'd like to imply. 

You can believe what you want but don't pass misinformation as fact.



pokoko on 07 April 2016
binary solo said:
celador said:
All male squads outperform all other combinations, so obviously something happens when you put women in with men (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/).

The article mentions the obvious, like men are quicker across the ground and are generally more accurate with weapons. What I have also read elsewhere though is that men take more risks when women are in their squads and in danger, which of course puts everyone in the team in greater danger also.

So while I think women should absolutely be on the frontlines (as long as they have passed the same bar as the men, and it hasn't been lowered as it apparently has in some cases), I am not so sure about mixed units.

Yes, but that's because of a deeply rooted, cultural sexism that the men don't even realise influences their thinking. They want to save and protect the women in their squads because their subconscious says the women are weak, helpless and incapable of looking after themselves. If the men can overcome that misconception then they won't take those extra risks. But the only way for the men to overcome that misconception is for competent women to be part of their squads and show that they don't need extra care or protection over and above what a squad should ordinarily do to look out for each other.

Source, please.  I didn't see it in that article.



binary solo on 07 April 2016
d21lewis said:
It's not even about gender. Some things are just fact. Women are weaker.

I'm black. If somebody said "White people are better at blending in with a white background", I wouldn't say " Hey, I can do anything they can! " I'd say , "no shit. They're naturally lighter than I am."

Everybody thinks they can do everything but they're wrong. That's why women aren't in the NFL.

That's a really dumb analogy, because the physical capacity of mean and women is a continuum from piss weak to very strong. Blackness and whiteness, in your analogy at least, is a binary condition.

The statement "all women are weaker than all mean" is so obvioously untrue that any suggestion that all women are too weak to serve in the frontline combat roles is patently ridiculous. Even if a majority of women couldn't cut it physically, a non-trivial minority can cut it.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

binary solo on 07 April 2016
pokoko said:
binary solo said:

Yes, but that's because of a deeply rooted, cultural sexism that the men don't even realise influences their thinking. They want to save and protect the women in their squads because their subconscious says the women are weak, helpless and incapable of looking after themselves. If the men can overcome that misconception then they won't take those extra risks. But the only way for the men to overcome that misconception is for competent women to be part of their squads and show that they don't need extra care or protection over and above what a squad should ordinarily do to look out for each other.

Source, please.  I didn't see it in that article.

Source for what?



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix