Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 04, 2016, 12:01:45 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:54:59 PMYou have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.lolIs this just a tacit admission that women in infantry degrade effectiveness? If you can't figure out why that's not worth saving a few hurt feelings, then this discussion isn't worth having. The ban shouldn't exist, but the schools shouldn't change, which they have every time this comes up.I've already said about five times ITT that I don't give a shit about unit cohesion. If that's an "admission", then so be it.And if you think the ban should be lifted but standards shouldn't be lowered for one gender, then you're literally arguing my stance.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:54:59 PMYou have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.lolIs this just a tacit admission that women in infantry degrade effectiveness? If you can't figure out why that's not worth saving a few hurt feelings, then this discussion isn't worth having. The ban shouldn't exist, but the schools shouldn't change, which they have every time this comes up.
You have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 12:05:04 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 04, 2016, 12:01:45 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:54:59 PMYou have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.lolIs this just a tacit admission that women in infantry degrade effectiveness? If you can't figure out why that's not worth saving a few hurt feelings, then this discussion isn't worth having. The ban shouldn't exist, but the schools shouldn't change, which they have every time this comes up.I've already said about five times ITT that I don't give a shit about unit cohesion. If that's an "admission", then so be it.And if you think the ban should be lifted but standards shouldn't be lowered for one gender, then you're literally arguing my stance.Give us a good reason why the standards should be lowered for female combatants.
Quote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 12:07:42 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 12:05:04 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 04, 2016, 12:01:45 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:54:59 PMYou have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.lolIs this just a tacit admission that women in infantry degrade effectiveness? If you can't figure out why that's not worth saving a few hurt feelings, then this discussion isn't worth having. The ban shouldn't exist, but the schools shouldn't change, which they have every time this comes up.I've already said about five times ITT that I don't give a shit about unit cohesion. If that's an "admission", then so be it.And if you think the ban should be lifted but standards shouldn't be lowered for one gender, then you're literally arguing my stance.Give us a good reason why the standards should be lowered for female combatants.I can't, because they shouldn't? People ITT completely missing what I'm arguing.
Not so much that "you can choose to be gay", no. More that looking at sexuality as "You are attracted or X or you are attracted to Y, or possibly X and Y, and this does not change" is silly. I didn't know before that modern research backed it up, but I started to think this way looking at material for my Classical civilization courses. Ancient perceptions of sexuality were quite different from modern ones. There was no such thing as a "gay" person in Rome. If you wanted some man tail it wasn't really different from lady tail, the concern was about whether one was giving or receiving. Really, the idea of homosexuality or bisexuality as an identity, something you WERE rather than DID, came about as a result of the homosexual subculture that developed in major cities in the 19th century evolving into a homosexual lobby.
Give us a good reason why the standards should be lowered for female combatants.
Provided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.
Quote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 12:07:42 AMGive us a good reason why the standards should be lowered for female combatants.why would he, when he's stated that he's against that very thingwhy do you even bother entering these threads when you don't read them
Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 04, 2016, 12:07:32 AMProvided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.That could raise concerns that enemies would target them heavily for morale reasons.
Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 04, 2016, 12:07:32 AMProvided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.Isn't that just segregation though?
Quote from: Luciana on April 04, 2016, 12:16:36 AMQuote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 04, 2016, 12:07:32 AMProvided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.Isn't that just segregation though?Segregation that may be necessary. The fact of the matter is that men behave differently around women. Our heads are wired differently. Segregation based on ethnicity might have been required at first due to cultural and ethnic tensions, but could eventually be phased out based on changes in the relationships between different groups. Men and women are first socioculturally, then biologically compelled to behave differently around one another, and there's no getting around the latter.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 12:22:03 AMQuote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 04, 2016, 12:20:17 AMQuote from: Luciana on April 04, 2016, 12:16:36 AMQuote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 04, 2016, 12:07:32 AMProvided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.Isn't that just segregation though?Segregation that may be necessary. The fact of the matter is that men behave differently around women. Our heads are wired differently. Segregation based on ethnicity might have been required at first due to cultural and ethnic tensions, but could eventually be phased out based on changes in the relationships between different groups. Men and women are first socioculturally, then biologically compelled to behave differently around one another, and there's no getting around the latter.Lmao that's such bullshitIf you have an explanation as to why the psychological consensus that men and women are driven by certain learned behaviors and instincts is wrong, please enlighten me.
Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 04, 2016, 12:20:17 AMQuote from: Luciana on April 04, 2016, 12:16:36 AMQuote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 04, 2016, 12:07:32 AMProvided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.Isn't that just segregation though?Segregation that may be necessary. The fact of the matter is that men behave differently around women. Our heads are wired differently. Segregation based on ethnicity might have been required at first due to cultural and ethnic tensions, but could eventually be phased out based on changes in the relationships between different groups. Men and women are first socioculturally, then biologically compelled to behave differently around one another, and there's no getting around the latter.Lmao that's such bullshit
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 12:26:04 AMThere is no fucking consensus. Climate change deniers will tell you the same thing.
There is no fucking consensus.
Would it help if I clarified that I am referring to segregation in a purely military context? Obviously if segregation is universal, it will never go away.But morale and unit cohesion is important. It would be ridiculous to mix freedmen with white southerners in the US army in the year 1880, there would be too much to go wrong. By 1915 you can blur the lines. By 1940 actively work toward integration. Full integration as the civil rights movement gets into full swing.
I suppose it's just a difference of priorities then. I am very concerned about risk-avoidance in a fighting setting, which bleeds into that thought process.
"I support discrimination because it makes our military stronger"Literally fuck off.
Quote from: Anti-Climacus on April 03, 2016, 10:11:17 PMQuote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 10:08:29 PMmuh "unit cohesion"That makes some sense to me. I haven't seen the data, so I can't say for sure, but I can definitely see that being a factor.At some point in time race could compromise unit cohesion.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 10:08:29 PMmuh "unit cohesion"That makes some sense to me. I haven't seen the data, so I can't say for sure, but I can definitely see that being a factor.
muh "unit cohesion"
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 09:57:06 PM"I support discrimination because it makes our military stronger"Literally fuck off.. . . Wha- What? Security is the area in which discrimination is most justifiable.
Evidence from the IDF suggests male soldiers get frenzied when women soldiers are injured, and can act in ways which risk the mission objective.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 04, 2016, 12:52:34 AMEvidence from the IDF suggests male soldiers get frenzied when women soldiers are injured, and can act in ways which risk the mission objective.Then that's the fault of the soldier for losing his wits, not the fault of the woman for existing.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 12:54:55 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on April 04, 2016, 12:52:34 AMEvidence from the IDF suggests male soldiers get frenzied when women soldiers are injured, and can act in ways which risk the mission objective.Then that's the fault of the soldier for losing his wits, not the fault of the woman for existing.You're being incredibly disingenuous. Serving a combat role willingly with this information (and, by extension, a government allowing women to do so) is extremely different from merely "existing", and I know you know that perfectly well. Stop using rhetoric to try and bolster your points. Secondly, yes, that's a fantastic idea. Let's blame the soldier in a middle of a combat scenario for acting on the basest instincts he probably has, all while we could've foreseen it happening and prevented it if only hippies like you didn't insist on allowing that situation to occur in the fucking first place. Soldiers in combat situations, even with training, are already highly unreliable--anybody in a combat situation would be, compared to being in a non-combat situation. There's absolutely no reason to add to this burden in the name of equality. And fuck, it's not even about some neocon fetish for having a strong military. At the end of the day, it could mean more dead soldiers, more trauma and more difficult situations for serving personnel for absolutely no good reason. And it would especially mean more dead women soldiers; terrorists aren't dumb, and they no doubt know how consistently targeting women would harm morale.
Morale reasons?How would that unit being wiped out be any different than any other unit being wiped out?
Where were you when equality won?
