BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 554 of 1001 FirstFirst ... 54454504544552553554555556564604654 ... LastLast
Results 5,531 to 5,540 of 10008
  1. #5531

    Default

    On the strength issue, women have stronger legs and a lower centre of gravity* so I find the idea we can't carry heavy loads to be rather far fetched. The problem is we aren't expected to carry heavy loads and are told not to in fact (I was carrying a large box of books around at work quite recently and some random woman came up to be and told me off for carrying something heavy because I might damage my uterus...) so we aren't conditioned to carry heavy loads and build up muscle like men are. I saw a survey quite recently actually which found that once we hit puberty something like two thirds of girls tend to stop sports and other physical activities due to body image issues.

    *So patriarchy values upper body strength more, funny that...
    Ask not the EldarGal a question, for she will give you three answers, all of which are puns and terrifying to know. Back off man, I'm a feminist. Ia! Ia! Gloppal Snode!

  2. #5532
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cloudsdale, Equestria.
    Posts
    26,074

    Default

    Yeah repeated heavy lifting can cause a prolapse

    However the process of robo-insemination is far too complex for the human mind!
    A knee high fence, my one weakness

  3. #5533

    Default

    That's why I hate going to pee.
    Red like roses, fills my dreams and brings me to the place where you rest...

  4. #5534
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Norfolk (God's County)
    Posts
    4,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eldargal View Post
    It amounts to 'we are going to stop women doing something they can do because that is easier than raising young men to ****ing behave themselves and act professionally in a professional military'.

    Yes! This is it. We're nearly there now. Firstly, it is the job only of parents to raise young men. It is at the raising stage that some of these innate ideas about women - that COULD, POSSIBLY affect unit cohesion, come in. As something being the easier option, this is always a legitimate reason in the military - Economy of effort is a principle of war! Never make something harder for yourself just BECAUSE. And again you come back round to the root of it - why take the harder route? What it the military missing without female combat troops that makes it worth not taking the easy option?

    In other news:

    Afghanistan in the 1950s. Prior to the Soviet and Taliban eras Afghanistan was well on its way to being a relatively prosperous, democratic constitutional monarchy with equality for women at a similar level to the West. It all got shot to pieces. This is (one reason) why feminism is important because the idea that what we have achieved now cannot be lost is as false as the idea we are post-sexism and feminism is obsolete. Also next time someone tells you Afghanistan has always been a hellhole and nothing will ever change thump the ignorant ****.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morgrim View Post
    On the previous 'women in military' comment: if a man is incapable of behaving around a woman I do not want that man to be given a gun, he's clearly proven he lacks the discipline and maturity to be in front line combat in the first place.

    What a lot of piffle. Possibly applies to a serial rapist. Misogyny/sexism/prejudice is not mutually exclusive to the skillset of a trained infantry soldier. The Waffen SS were some of the best line troops ever based on their warped values instilling a huge esprit de corps. (I have already stated my position on the laws of armed conflict so don't bother picking up on this.


    You're the military, you can TEACH these things, that is what boot camp is for.

    No its not you've watched too much Hollywood.

    Toss everyone into a same unit, slam down like a tonne of bricks on any sexual abuse or fraternisation between anyone of any gender (which they're supposed to do anyway) and train them as a unit until they stop seeing someone as a label and see themselves as a team.

    Sexual abuse is already stamped down on. Not always with success. I have already covered how non-fraternisation works (or doesn't) for the US military. Just because you were impressed with the shower scene in Starship Troopers don't make it real.

    Incidentally a less brutal approach of the above is taken by aussie bush firefighting teams, and it seems to work well. Given that firefighters are loved by the military as people who have already learnt have the things boot camp is supposed to teach I don't see why it wouldn't transfer.

    I can't talk about these chaps and chappesses, in the Brit military we tend to loathe our firemen for being overpaid striking prima-donnas whose work we pick up when they flounce off in a Union-induced snit.

    Also if you're going to say "women shouldn't be in front line combat because they are generally not as strong as men", why are you focusing on strength? Women on average have better endurance and pain tolerance than men. Since we're not using physical strength to inflict wounds on the enemy these are more valuable skills to possess.
    If you don't know why you aren't qualified to debate this.

    Quote Originally Posted by YorkNecromancer View Post
    A man who cannot control his urges is not fit for society, let alone a professional organisation like the military, especially one where we're literally going to give him absolute power of life and death over other living beings.

    I like to think slightly more highly of the men who serve than that they are little more than beasts who cannot control themselves. Because only a beast follows its instincts; a human should be able to use intellect (and in the case of the military, training) to control and focus them.

    If a male soldier isn't assaulting his male peers, he shouldn't be assaulting his female peers and that is literally the end of it. A soldier who assaults his colleagues in any way is not fit for purpose.
    Yorky thank you for distinguishing between this bestial and otherwise point. I don't think anyone reckons soldiers will be reduced to rapey beasts if they get a sniff of skirt. Far from and I'm glad you made the distinction. I completely agree that any soldiers assaulting their colleagues needs rectifying (a little bit of common assault over-lookable, sexual assault a do-not collect pension offence). The argument is about whether it is worth the extra effort in training/disciplining/managing the low level tensions and discontents that introducing females to combat-dedicated units, might bring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horncastle View Post
    A little late chiming in here but I wanted to comment on the Women in the military issue. Specifically the ability to carry the required gear. When my wife wants to go somewhere while I'm at work she carries two kids and all their gear (food, clothes, just as much water as was pointed out earlier) which easily weighs in at 40 kilos. I think arguing that Women can't meet the required fitness levels for front line duty is absurd. Also as a Canadian please don't brush off our military so lightly. The term Stormtrooper was coined by the Germans to describe the Canadian soldiers in WWI; and lets not forget that we made up half of the famed Devils Brigade.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also the point made about the rest of a unit rushing to a wounded female soldiers aid is moot. I would like to think that if a unit has such a high level of cohesion as has been pointed out an all male unit would have that they would also rush to the aid of a wounded male soldier in much the same way.
    Horncastle. In order:

    a. Your Hausfrau sauntering around the mall with the ankle snappers is entirely different, I've done that and I've carried fighting loads - it is an entire magnitude of difference.

    b. I do not want to brush off the Canadian military and apologies if it seems so - having worked with them in Afghanistan I have huge respect for them. What I (clearly poorly) was trying to get over is that from a military perspective, just because a different nation else did something and it may have worked for them, does not instantly make that thing right or confirm they are leaders in military doctrine.

    c. Lastly, your point about cohesion is interesting. One of the reasons behind a swap to 5.56mm ammo was because of a perception that it is more damaging than 7.62mm - worse wounds - less kills. Part of the doctrine is that a dead solider = -1 from the enemy - a wounded soldier = -5 - the wounded and the stretcher bearers. You actually want the enemy to stop fighting and care for their own and you want your guys not to do so. The current theory goes that the instinct to stop and care for a female may be stronger than it would for your male colleagues - particularly if romantically attached.


    Quote Originally Posted by eldargal View Post

    *So patriarchy values upper body strength more, funny that...
    Most of the weight carried by an infantry soldier is on the shoulders and down through the spine - not on the hips. It is not because of a Freudian obsession with boobies so we want massive pectorals to subliminally replace them...
    I'M RATHER DEFINATELY SURE FEMALE SPACE MARINES DEFINERTLEY DON'T EXIST.

  5. #5535

    Default

    The argument is about whether it is worth the extra effort in training/disciplining/managing the low level tensions and discontents that introducing females to combat-dedicated units, might bring.
    Yes, it is. Otherwise you are stopping one group of people from serving their country because another group of people are badly behaved and the authorities too lazy to discipline them. It is completely unacceptable. You cannot argue that we live in a merit based society and have a merit based military and then ban people from serving because a minority of others are ****ing dicks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Denzark View Post
    Most of the weight carried by an infantry soldier is on the shoulders and down through the spine - not on the hips. It is not because of a Freudian obsession with boobies so we want massive pectorals to subliminally replace them...
    So provide women with their own gear that shifts where the weight is carried. It's no different than providing different sized uniforms for different sized bodies.
    Ask not the EldarGal a question, for she will give you three answers, all of which are puns and terrifying to know. Back off man, I'm a feminist. Ia! Ia! Gloppal Snode!

  6. #5536
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cloudsdale, Equestria.
    Posts
    26,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eldargal View Post
    So provide women with their own gear that shifts where the weight is carried. It's no different than providing different sized uniforms for different sized bodies.
    Cost wise it probably is due to R&D and economies of scale, add on the 500% increase from selling it to the military coupled with cuts...

    However the process of robo-insemination is far too complex for the human mind!
    A knee high fence, my one weakness

  7. #5537
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Isle of Man
    Posts
    12,045

    Default

    clearly the solution is to phase men out of the military all together. they cannot be trusted to do the job properly, so get rid of them and we will simply have an all female army.
    Twelve monkeys, eleven hats. One monkey is sad.

  8. #5538

    Default

    Yeah I'm not saying it wouldn't cost money at first but it would get cheaper as more women join the armed forces in these new capacities. The point is none of these obstacles are insurmountable, they are just thrown up to try and deflect from the main issue which is people (men) want the armed forces to remain the exclusive preserve of men. The really interesting thing is that men in the US and Canadian armed forces who have served alongside women are often some of the loudest supporters of these restrictions being dropped, it is civilians or people who haven't served alongside them that keep bringing this stuff up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirsten View Post
    clearly the solution is to phase men out of the military all together. they cannot be trusted to do the job properly, so get rid of them and we will simply have an all female army.
    +1, they are clearly unfit for it emotionally and psychologically.
    Ask not the EldarGal a question, for she will give you three answers, all of which are puns and terrifying to know. Back off man, I'm a feminist. Ia! Ia! Gloppal Snode!

  9. #5539

    Default

    I'd rather there just weren't wars to be honest.
    Red like roses, fills my dreams and brings me to the place where you rest...

  10. #5540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzeentch's Dark Agent View Post
    I'd rather there just weren't wars to be honest.
    That would be preferable.
    Ask not the EldarGal a question, for she will give you three answers, all of which are puns and terrifying to know. Back off man, I'm a feminist. Ia! Ia! Gloppal Snode!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •