and the fact that men have a higher "peak" for physical effectiveness has no bearing on whether or not women can be just as effective from a military standpoint.

It kinda does. Physicality is absolutely paramount for militaristic operations, from lugging heavy equipment that could potentially save you or your friend's life, to hiking astronomical distances over long periods of time. If an individual woman can prove herself worthy of attaining such feats then I see no problem of acceptance with the infantry, but chances are on aggregate, a disproportionate amount of women just aren't gonna make the cut due to their biological makeup. Unfortunate fact, but still ultimately true.

Spare us the tumblrina rhetoric. This is the serious forum.

Quote from: Saerveyn on May 31, 2015, 12:31:18 PM

You know I was gonna type out, like, a whole response, but then I realized I'd be typing "lmao" to half your points so I didn't bother.

You have no rebuttals for any of the points I've made.

Sit down.

Alright, alright. Give me a moment, then.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 31, 2015, 12:31:36 PM

Quote from: Saerveyn on May 31, 2015, 12:01:08 PM

and the fact that men have a higher "peak" for physical effectiveness has no bearing on whether or not women can be just as effective from a military standpoint.

It kinda does. Physicality is absolutely paramount for militaristic operations, from lugging heavy equipment that could potentially save you or your friend's life, to hiking astronomical distances over long periods of time. If an individual woman can prove herself worthy of attaining such feats then I see no problem of acceptance with the infantry, but chances are on aggregate, a disproportionate amount of women just aren't gonna make the cut due to their biological makeup. Unfortunate fact, but still ultimately true.

Spare us the tumblrina rhetoric. This is the serious forum.

>Arguing against blatant sexism
>Tumblrina rhetoric

Ah, there it is. I was waiting for something akin to "SJW" to pop up.

But no, luckily the fact that men are stronger than women on-average and that men have higher 'peaks' than women in terms of strength doesn't really affect anything from a militaristic standpoint. I highly doubt that most infantrymen are Arnold Schwarzenegger or Usain Bolt.

Infantry units work as a team. If someone isn't literally pulling their weight, that puts everyone in danger. I place higher value on saving lives than some tenuous diversity argument.

And like I said, if an individual woman can make the grade, brilliant. No qualms there. But if you average 100 men and 100 women up against each other, chances are, the men are going to come out on top physically, rendering them a much more suitable choice as a soldier.

Which is why the women with their smaller and weaker frame have boobs to feed babies with.

Yes, that's not being disputed.

Which women aren't good at. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Lol sure thing buckaroo.

I'm not talking about deranged parents killing their child, though, you dip. I'm talking about the maternal instinct that kicks in when a woman sees a child in trouble. Something men don't have. We have sympathy, but it'd be easier for a man to hesitate than for a woman to hesitate.

Newborns usually look like their fathers to trigger instincts for the father to stay and take care of their children. Where are you getting the idea that males don't have the instincts to look after their children or children in general?

I don't know about men being driven more by logic, but women are driven by emotion far, far more than men are. Fact.

Oh shit I wasn't aware of this startling development. Please link your source that isn't from Return of Kings or a similar website.

Not at all. I didn't even imply that. This has nothing to do with parenting. I'm talking about women being mentally and physically weaker, which they've proven to be.

The first point is literally just sexism, pure and simple. The second point is on-average, which luckily doesn't apply to people who train for the military. I'd hardly expect a sorority girl to be the common applicant for an infantrywoman.

No. I don't even exercise and I'm easily 3 times stronger than the average woman. Same goes for every other man in decent shape. Why do you think women get raped so much? Because they enjoy it? Are you implying that if we're not at Olympic levels that were nearly physocally equal? Then why can't women wrestle off a man raping them?

And do you think you'd be able to wrestle to the ground and rape Ronda Rousey, or someone similar? Once again, you're assuming that every woman in the military is gonna be Sally from accounting. If they're joining the military, they should certainly be in the same physical shape as a man joining the military. The fact that standards are lower for women is bullshit and shouldn't be instated in any degree. Women should have to pass the same physical tests as men.

Ubfortuantely for women, they wouldn't be able to carry an unconscious male teammate out of an area with all his gear on. It's not physically possible.

See above

Women can kill. I've never disputed that.

They're just far worse at it and not as aggressive and ruthless as men are on the average.

See above

lol mad

Eh

And they're a rarity. Men that can kill are not a rarity.

Lmao

It isn't. Physical strength and mental strength factor in, too. Women tend to fail at both in a much higher percentage when compared to men. Spare me the SJW crap.

Lmao

It's not peak performance. It's that average men are far more capable than average women.

See that one part that I said "see above" to a bunch.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 31, 2015, 12:47:40 PM

Quote from: Saerveyn on May 31, 2015, 12:45:54 PM

Men and women should be held to the same standards

Would you waive that point of view if the presence of women, even competent women, was still detrimental to military operations overall, for whatever reason?

How would it be detrimental? There'd be no reason to have women just for the sake of them being women.

Could, for instance, threaten unit cohesion.

If someone isn't getting along with them because they're a woman, that's the fault of the opposing person.

You're willing to sacrifice military efficiency because some soldiers could be bigoted? Come on, that really is tumblr-tier; the military shouldn't be forced to accommodate certain things because those certain things are "fair".

Nevertheless, evidence from the IDF suggests that it can threaten unit cohesion because male soldiers often become excessively protective of female soldiers.

Or Asians, or Hispanics.

And, I mean, hey, lots of people really don't like the gays, so I guess those are out. We're also not huge fans of the Irish, Polish, Scottish, or Romanis.

So yeah, none of those either. Gotta make sure we have good unit cohesion.

Gender =/= Race

And? The argument was that the military shouldn't be forced to accommodate those different than the "norm" (men in the original argument) because it could put "unit cohesion" in detriment.

How is this any different when applied to race, sexuality, or religion?