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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Your ethical views of woman & LGBT in US and allied military.

I don't agree with changing military standards so that women can be in combat roles, but if they can pass the tests and training then they should be allowed any role they want. Same applies to the LGBT community, as long as they can do the job, let them.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Around the Network

how is this even an issue? as long as they pass the minimum bar set for whatever roll then that should be it.



 

 

invetedlotus123 said:
I think in military it really doesn`t matter. Women have exactly the same physical potential as men, if a woman and a man train the same routine and the same schedule they can get the same physical abilities. Women may even have some natural advantages when it comes with dealing with pain.

And anyway, I think if people that want to enter the army pass the exams it`s no SJW craziness to want them there doing what they have to do. It would be SJW if we would force the army to accept LGBTQ and Women based on legislation forcing the criterias to be softer for them.

Um. No. No they don't. Women just don't get to the same level of upper body strengh as men do, no matter what they do (short of maybe hideous amounts of doping...). Upper body strengh is vital for carrying attilery in the front lines. If one of the soldiers can't keep up they are a risk to the whole team.

Not to mention that the constant weight of gear and ammutition just grinds down on womens more delicate bone struckture and leads to major problems later on. You're not doing anyone any favors by letting them into positions they aren't physically equipped for out of misconceived politically correctness. You will end up with more invalid veterans and frankly, dead soldiers.

Women have been proven to be excellent combat pilots and snipers though and I have no problem with women in active combat. But you need to devide people according to their abilities.

As for LGBT, any restrictions on gay people is utter nonsense. We've always had gay people in the millitary. They are no better or worse than anyone else at being soldiers.

Trans people have a whole string of associated heath conditions and are on constant hormonal treatment. Not sure how and if that would efffect their performance, especially if they were to face a situation were they have no access to their meds. They are also more prone to mental health troubles and suicidal thoughts, but that just might be down to societal aceptance and pressure (similar to how it was for gay people for a long time, gay suicide rates have been going down in the west with increasing acceptance.)

Overall it should be on an individual basis. Anyone who passes can go on to active combat. Just don't lower the requrements. The Israelis have women in the Infantry and the Israelis DO NOT fuck around in their military.



SuperNova said:

Um. No. No they don't. Women just don't get to the same level of upper body strengh as men do, no matter what they do (short of maybe hideous amounts of doping...). Upper body strengh is vital for carrying attilery in the front lines. If one of the soldiers can't keep up they are a risk to the whole team.

Obviously never been to Russia.

I don't disagree with you, but if you have a woman that does exceed the average bloke in most areas, then she shouldn't be denied any role just because she is a Grill.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
SuperNova said:

Um. No. No they don't. Women just don't get to the same level of upper body strengh as men do, no matter what they do (short of maybe hideous amounts of doping...). Upper body strengh is vital for carrying attilery in the front lines. If one of the soldiers can't keep up they are a risk to the whole team.

Obviously never been to Russia.

I don't disagree with you, but if you have a woman that does exceed the average bloke in most areas, then she shouldn't be denied any role just because she is a Grill.

Heh.

Fair enough.



Around the Network

Since you don´t infringe on anyone´s rights by having the military open to everyone regardless of gender, sexual orientation or skin color, it´s hardly a difficult issue. I also expect the military to have the standards they expect of people, both phsycially and psychologically. If that means fewer of a certain gender can join, then that is a consequence of demands set, not rights limited.



John2290 said:
Cobretti2 said:
how is this even an issue? as long as they pass the minimum bar set for whatever roll then that should be it.

With that attiude you aren't going to be winning any wars and I'd love to see you be drafted and end up along side someone who got in on the minimum ammount of effort. If a global war breaks out...I mean, I want our militaries (The western allies as is now) to be the best it can be, If I'm going to get drafted as a 26 year old ...who will be sent to "dig in" and seen as expendable I'd want no weak links around me, nor do I want to have to go against and combat a stressed mentally fatigued soldier who gets a rapey vibe for the women. There is also the possiblity of lovin going on within units and this poses the problem of greater priorities because when in love a court marshel or on site execution doesn't seem so bad when your lover is in danger. This would be a shambles of an army the ratio from Men to women were anywhere close. 

But you aren´t talkning about people meeting the minimum bar, you are talkning about people that are unqualified to be in the military. Meeeting the minimum bar means that you are qualified, so what´s the issue? And why do you have an issue if love occurs between soldiers? They l have to take the consequences´, and I assume most in the military will be professional. If they can´t be professional, then it´s not about the issue of women in the military, it´s rather the issue of soldiers not being competent anough for the job.



John2290 said:
Cobretti2 said:
how is this even an issue? as long as they pass the minimum bar set for whatever roll then that should be it.

With that attiude you aren't going to be winning any wars and I'd love to see you be drafted and end up along side someone who got in on the minimum ammount of effort. If a global war breaks out...I mean, I want our militaries (The western allies as is now) to be the best it can be, If I'm going to get drafted as a 26 year old ...who will be sent to "dig in" and seen as expendable I'd want no weak links around me, nor do I want to have to go against and combat a stressed mentally fatigued soldier who gets a rapey vibe for the women. There is also the possiblity of lovin going on within units and this poses the problem of greater priorities because when in love a court marshel or on site execution doesn't seem so bad when your lover is in danger. This would be a shambles of an army the ratio from Men to women were anywhere close. 

Well, then its not his attitute the problem so much as military standards. 



John2290 said:
Puppyroach said:

But you aren´t talkning about people meeting the minimum bar, you are talkning about people that are unqualified to be in the military. Meeeting the minimum bar means that you are qualified, so what´s the issue? And why do you have an issue if love occurs between soldiers? They l have to take the consequences´, and I assume most in the military will be professional. If they can´t be professional, then it´s not about the issue of women in the military, it´s rather the issue of soldiers not being competent anough for the job.

No, it is an issue of putting penis and vagina, all the pheramones and hormones and all that entails, beside each other in battle. Have you ever been in love? If you have you know you make rash decisions, your world view changes, you litterally can not stop fucking, five minutes pass alone and you can't get her out of your head. I can't imagine what effect this would have on the battlefield but I'm sure of one thing, it creates a situation where you are given an order but that love of yours takes priority...in the military everything hinges on the ability and training to take orders. And then there is the salty fuckers who can't get legit pussy and feel the need to take it for themselves.

How is that any different then a guy leaving his pregnant new wife behind when a war breaks down? there mind will already be wondering.  legit pussy? what if they in enemy territory and decide to take some enemy pussy. Pussy will be at the battle front no matter if its next to you or on the opposite side as a civilian.

If that kind of person manages to get into the army then the standards need to be revised by the military. 



 

 

LGBT I honestly don't give a damn about any of it. Hell if you are attracted to objects I wouldn't even care, it would be good for birth control anyway. People should do with their lives whatever they want and as long as they don't break any law or affect me postively or negatively why should I care. If you want to be gay or trans go ahead want to get maried as gay or trans go ahead. Want to choose your own bathroom go ahead it's none of my business anyway.

 

As for military and woman rights in general article one of the Dutch constitution says that you can't discriminate based on gender, race, nationality et cetera. So a woman is can do whatever she wants to do and is qualified for.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar