Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 10:56:18 PM

Then that's obviously not equality, and your title is wrong.

That was the joke.

Quote

The focus of the outrage is that, even without this, even with regular admissions tests, women who do just as well or better than men aren't allowed to do the same things they're doing.

We've been over the reasons for this, but that's not really the point of this thread.

I don't give a fuck what the point of this shitty thread is, and your "reasons" are nothing more than justifcations of sexism. If you're going to bitch that women are getting some kind of preferential treatment here, you're even more of a misogynist than I thought.

I couldn't care less about the prosperity of our society

define "prosperity"

Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 10:19:41 PM

I couldn't care less about the prosperity of our society

define "prosperity"

The tangible progression and advancement of our country. How big our cities are, how big our military is, how bug our GDP is, etc.

I guess "couldn't care less" is an exaggeration, but it's still not nearly as important as the morality of our society.

Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:06:04 PM

The tangible progression and advancement of our country. How big our cities are, how big our military is, how bug our GDP is, etc.

That is quite a conservative interpretation of progress.

Progress in the sense of women's rights, equality, etc, isn't really "progress", it's just being morally correct.

A boost in combat effectiveness doesn't matter if you have to discriminate against certain demographics to get it.

Yes, it does. The average male isn't even fit for combat roles. It's not about men or women, it's about the physical and mental fortitude to accomplish a mission. Very few men are cut out for it, and significantly fewer women are too.

Unit cohesion is a military concept, defined by one former United States Chief of staff in the early 1980s as "the bonding together of soldiers in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, the unit, and mission accomplishment, despite combat or mission stress". However the concept lacks a consensus definition among military analysts, sociologists and psychologists.

i would really like it if we would stop using this term, as though it has any discursive value
if no one can tell you exactly what the fuck it means, why are we even playing around with the term

anyway, clearly any woman should be able to serve on the front-lines if she meets the qualifications--and the standards should not be lowered in order to meet some arbitrary quota

if no woman ever meets the qualifications, then no woman gets to serve on the front-lines

very simple issue, not sure what the big deal is

The men are going to fuck with these women so much

The "big deal" is, that they are lowering the standards to meet some quota.

then we shouldn't be doing that

boom

/thread

Quote from: Verbatim on April 03, 2016, 11:10:48 PM

very simple issue, not sure what the big deal is

The "big deal" is, that they are lowering the standards to meet some quota.

literally no one ITT advocates that

literally no one ITT advocates that

Okay? I never said any of us did.

my stance is exactly the same as verbatim's but he's more eloquent than me

Gotcha. Carry on.

Quote from: eggsalad on April 03, 2016, 10:57:55 PM

Military culture's pretty fucking good at self-perpetuation until you just tell them to deal with it.

Excellent point. Though I think the difference between white men and black men is a bit smaller than the difference between women and men.

Jarheads have a lot in common by virtue of the field I'd imagine.

Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:16:17 PM

Banning women from combat roles is one of the many civil rights violations the government is freely allowed to commit because of enablers like you.

On WHAT basis is service in the military, let alone combat roles a civil right?

If you're going to let one demographic do something under the law, you HAVE to let every other demographic do the same, or else you're being discriminatory. It's a civil right to not be discriminated against on account of your gender, race, sexuality, ethnicity, creed or religion. I think the last two should be removed, but I don't care that much about that.

Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:12:48 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 03, 2016, 11:09:32 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 10:06:04 PM

A boost in combat effectiveness doesn't matter if you have to discriminate against certain demographics to get it.

Yes, it does. The average male isn't even fit for combat roles. It's not about men or women, it's about the physical and mental fortitude to accomplish a mission. Very few men are cut out for it, and significantly fewer women are too.

Exactly. And yet, a woman who passes every test the normal frontline soldier does isn't allowed to serve.

Because they basically don't exist. They had to give those female Ranger candidates multiple chances and exceptions to the regulations. An example where you do see women in combat is Navy EOD, and even then a lot of them feel uncomfortable about it because meeting fitness scores on paper isn't the same as performing in an operational environment. An average fit male could drag a wounded 200lb guy carrying a 50lb bag; only exceptionally fit women could do the same, and even then they'd have less endurance to do so.

They obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place. If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. But obviously some can, and those women have every right to serve on the frontlines.