|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should get a printed and signed copy of this report before the feminist thought police make it go away. It says what many have believed for a long time: men are larger and stronger, and therefore more suitable for this kind of work. There are a fair number of women working in this country in the utilities industry. It would be interesting to see if the same trends are reflected there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have a fax machine I "could" fax it to my PC, which would make it a "authentic" copy and then e-mail you the fax file which you could print - WinFax Pro Vr.8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to suggest faxing it directly to you but then realised that I could fax it to myself at no cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a wonderful, related take on the US military see this article.
I loved the statement our political, cultural and military leaders would do well to remember one thing, all the more so given the current crisis - sometimes America really does have to fight a war.
BTW, Stephanie Gutman's book is very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't see how anyone, including feminists, would be surprised by this report. This is one case in which common sense really is common sense.
However, I will point out that volunteer militaries should allow both male and female recruits to push themselves to meet the requirements, with no lowering of standards. There are some women who can meet the same standards as men. There aren't as many women who can meet them as there are men, but they should still have the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, Nightmist. It's not, and shouldn't be, a question of gender. It's simply a question of ability.
"Here's the qualifications for the job. If you make it, we're interested."
That's equal opportunity. Should be this way for *every* job. Maybe we'd see more men in nursing or teaching -- two of the most staunchly sexist professions there are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 03, @09:29PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Ragtime:
In this current misandry-poisoned atmosphere you will never see equal numbers (or anywhere near equal numbers) of men in nursing or school teaching.
The reason in so far as the teaching professions is that men are monsters who cannot be trusted near children or teens. I don't believe this, but that is society's attitude. It is more risky from a legal standpoint to hire a man then to hire a woman. And heres something really sickly humorous in a way: It is nearly impossible in most jurisdictions to fire a teacher due to incompetence. Union protections, and all. BUT there is no quicker way for a man to be booted out of the Profession then to be accused of touching Lusty Lolita's breasts, or of playing with Buster Brown's pee-pee.
As for nursing , its only slightly better. There seems to be a stereotype about male nurses being homosexuals. The other stereotype is that men, of course, just aren't caring and patient enough to hack it in the nursing field.
What a tangled web we've managed to weave around ourselves the last 50 years. Barriers upon barriers.
Remo
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this current misandry-poisoned atmosphere you will never see equal numbers (or anywhere near equal numbers) of men in nursing or school teaching.
Although I agree with the rest of your post, I wanted to qualify your above statement. When I say "equality," I mean "equal opportunity" and not "equal numbers." Equal numbers would be "equity," and that entails affirmative action, which I am most definitely against. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 03, @10:06PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Although I agree with the rest of your post, I wanted to qualify your above statement. When I say "equality," I mean "equal opportunity" and not "equal numbers." Equal numbers would be "equity," and that entails affirmative action, which I am most definitely against. :)
Agree one hundred percent Nightmist. I was just exploring some of the popular attitudes towards men that steer them away from those Professions.
Well, that, and the lower pay. Some men still feel they must be the primary breadwinner, and except for Head Nurses or a Principle/Superintendent of Schools, these professions don't pay much.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 03, @09:31PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Remo
Remo
is going to turn off his auto-sig.
Remo
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist, not all serious issues can be seen in training. Successfully completing training is just the minimum.
There are complicated unique issues all the way along.
Scenario - sniper mission - go up that hill and kill individual "X". Take six troops to escort sniper. Sniper is male, 4 of the six troops are fresh troops and women. Fresh troops take point. Point will most likely draw heavy fire. Estimated loss of troops 5. Intelligence has just informed us that the target is leathal military tactical expert brought in for temporary mission and unable to secure safe transport from field. Hunt down and capture or kill. Known weaknesses of target : she is 5 months pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the flip side, these sort of articles do a world of damage to the movement to draft women into front-line combat. The biggest objection the military has always had to drafting women has been that, in the military's opinion, most of them cannot handle the physical rigors of front-line combat. I don't know whether that's true or not, but articles like this claim it is true. If we adhere to findings like this, then front-line regiments, the ones where something like 99% of the members are killed (in horrific ways), will always be 90%+ male.
So is this article really good news? If you adhere to what it is saying, then you are adhering to the concept of men being the ones who do most of the dying in war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So is this article really good news? If you adhere to what it is saying, then you are adhering to the concept of men being the ones who do most of the dying in war.
It's good to get the truth. If women aren't up to the rigors of front line combat but we still send them there, we may well lose just as many men in combat, because of numerous problems that would arise as a result of having incompetents in battle. In addition, sending incompetents into battle could undermine our war efforts.
If it turns out that women shouldn't be drafted for front line combat because they can't keep up with men, then men should be given great rewards in society to compensate them for carrying the burden of the draft and facing the prospect of the draft throughout their youths.
GenFems won't like the idea, but it is wrong to single out one group to carry this tremendous burden (even just the knowledge that, someday, they may be drafted) and not reward them in any way.
Again, we can examine this situation by substituting "black" for "men." Imagine a situation in which black men were on the whole bigger and stronger than white men and in which we could get all the draftees needed for a war effort by just drafting the biggest and strongest men. I doubt this country would draft only blacks and not give blacks in general social rewards as compensation. (We might have once, but not today.) In addition, blacks wouldn't put up with it.
In any case, if women can't handle the front lines, we shouldn't put them there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we say that men make better hunters and warriors than women, we allow men an identity, a contribution that is, for the most part, uniquely masculine. Men cannot bear children, though once a child is born, there is some support for the notion that men can make quality parents. Whether or not you support the draft (and I do not) is secondary to this central issue. What is there that men uniquely bring to the table? In this feminized society, whatever it is has been diminishing quickly, and the only thing that the feminists have chosen to bequeath to men is evil. This research, and an earlier one published by the Israelis, offers some support for what many had decided was natural already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it depends on what the rewards are. The problem I have with this is that you create a society where those who are not fit for battle are seen as complete scum, the dregs of society, worthless as human beings. This includes not only women, but disabled men. Anyone who is "weak" is worthless and deserves only contempt, punishment and hatred for not "contributing" to society.
This is the atmosphere a draft creates, and it's one of the reasons why I'm rabidly against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An all-volunteer military, and an all-volunteer draft. In order to sign up for a future draft, you must pass a physical exam clearing you for combat duty.
In return for serving, or pledging to serve at a later date, you get benefits such as federally funded student loans, federally funded home loans and other benefits currently awarded veterans. If you've never actually served, you get fewer benefits than someone who has. If a veteran is eligible for a $100,000 home loan, for example, a pledged draftee who has never served is eligible for $75,000.
In order to keep being eligible for benefits, you must agree to submit to a physical examination every year to prove you are still fit for battle. If you suffer an illness or accident that compromises you in any way, your benefits end because you are no longer eligible for battle duty.
Basic rights such as voting and owning property should NEVER be tied to the draft. Only freebies should be tied to the draft, extras, stuff that's not guaranteed in the Constitution.
It also goes without saying that women and gays would be eligible to apply for the draft. If they can pass the physical exam, they can sign up.
This sort of system would provide an incentive for people to sign up for service without punishing those who are unable to qualify. People who cannot or don't want to serve would still have basic Constitutional rights, just not freebie extras. The "right" to a federally funded college education is a crock, for example. No one should be able to go to college on the gov't dole unless they are a vet or they volunteered for a future draft. You should have to earn it by serving or agreeing to serve at a future date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do believe that there is a difference between self-worth and identity. True, there will be those who are inadequate as warriors. There are also those who are inadequate as mothers. But we shouldn't avoid providing a means of identity, or purpose, so that we can avoid misplacing the weak. Men who are inadequate as warriors may be far more capable than a typical warrior in other areas, and for eons those men have found their place. But on some level, most men have thought, perhaps foolsihly, that if they were called upon to do so, they would make at least adequate warriors or hunters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I have with this is that you create a society where those who are not fit for battle are seen as complete scum, the dregs of society, worthless as human beings.
You're 180 degrees out of phase on this one. It's those, who are drafted and forced against their will to fight and kill and to be horribly maimed and killed, who are treated as disposable. In other words, it is the draftees who are treated as complete scum, the dregs of society, worthless as human beings.
Rewarding those who face the draft in no way necessitates treating those who don't face the draft as "worthless and" deserving "only contempt, punishment and hatred."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So is this article really good news? If you adhere to what it is saying, then you are adhering to the concept of men being the ones who do most of the dying in war."
Every silver lining has a dark cloud.
It means also that wife battering is 8 times more dangerous than husband battering.
It means that women who provoke men to anger are commiting an act 8 times more serious than a man provoking a woman to anger
It means that men have an innate physical authority over women (indeed it appears to be a magnitude of 8 in fact).
on the less tounge-in-cheeck side of my head;
" If we adhere to findings like this, then front-line regiments, the ones where something like 99% of the members are killed (in horrific ways), will always be 90%+ male."
Think of this way; if a country sends its women into battle along with its men, then we can be sure to suffer ("If we adhere to findings like this") 8 female casualties for each male casualty. As well, because the rate of female mortaility is 8 times that of men, we will just simply run out of female soldiers long before we run out of males.
But we are only talking about death here. Sweet sweet merciful death.
The strategy behind much of combat practice is not just killing, but maiming as many of the enemy as possible to hamper the enemies ability to fight back by not only removing soldiers from combat, but also by forcing the enemy to spend resources on coping with the wounded.
How many women disfigured or crippled? How many infertile from abdominal injury?
Think of the victory parade.
Now think of cheering for "thousands" of females on crutches and in wheel chairs.
What of captured femal soldiers?
They would certainly be used as decoys, bait and wepons to put their male comrads into great additional distress and so at great additional risk.
That is unless we want the army to train tens of 1,000s of young males to be completely immune or fully accustomed to the screams of young women being tortured. (oh yeah now that's a great idea). NOT!
And then if that toture strategy works really well, then when you have run out of female soldiers to use as bait, you use the screaming of tortured young local civilian girls.
Oh now won't those soldiers come back and make great contributions to rebuilding society.
You think war is hell now, imagine adding that horrifying sound to the mix 24 hrs 7 days 52 weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To quote from Platoon the 1986 Oliver Stone film about the Vietnam War:
[Private] Chris Taylor: [played by Charlie Sheen and narrating here] "Well, here I am, anonymous all right. With guys nobody really cares about. They come from the end of the line, most of 'em. Small towns you never heard of: Pulaski, Tennessee; Brandon, Mississippi; Pork Van, Utah; Wampum, Pennsylvania. Two years' high school's about it, maybe if they're lucky a job waiting for them back at a factory, but most of 'em got nothing. They're poor, they're the unwanted, yet they're fighting for our society and our freedom. It's weird, isn't it? They're the bottom of the barrel and they know it. Maybe that's why they call themselves grunts, cause a grunt can take it, can take anything . They're the best I've ever seen, Grandma. The heart & soul."
We are talking about training here and not the actual theater of operations. Training is done to prepare for what is to come! What goes on out there is potentially far far worse than anything they can imagine let alone experience or prepare for in training.
Women in combat? Utter intellectual foolishness. You would have me believe that all throughout history women have been largely absent from the field of battle because of discrimination by men??? Oh good lord!! Are men to blame for this also?
Oh please!!! If men are such Rats, as the gender feminists would have us believe, then where are the reams of historical documents showing how these sniveling rats stayed home and sent the women out to fight on their behalf -
"AAAALLLL RIIIGHT YOU MEN! MOUNT UP AND PREPARE FOR BATTLE!!!
My good and gracious lord, why should we men go out fight those Frenchies when our women can do the job just as well?"
HMMMMMmmm, scrathes beard and nods head, "You know? I never thought of it quite that way before. HHHmmmm. My heavens commander you're right!!! NOW ALL HEAR THIS let the men go home and round up all of those sniveling cowardly brutish women!!! Get them out from behind those useless bloody aprons and make them fight!!
Fight fight FFFFIIIIIIGGGHHHHTTT!"
Oh Where is John Cleese when you need him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I am against women in the draft or military.
The reason is not the physical differences but the way in which the military treats men and women. Women are allowed to avoid certain types of duty due to pregnancy. a few examples of this: In the Navy the nuclear power field have no women because of the limitation on pregnant women around radiation. (literally zero tolerance from conception til birth)Certain special forces also have this limitation because the personnell have to be available at a moments notice. The old way of dealing with this was to have women in these fields take alternate duty while pregnant but this usually takes the job away from a male who is due for a less demanding tour.
Also women are allowed 12 weeks of time off after a pregnancy to be with thier new baby's fathers are allowed none unless they want to take part of their leave.
Until these issues are dealt with I could careless if women are included in the draft, because there is an easy way out for them, get pregnant! My solution is mandatory birth control until assigned to a less demanding duty tour.
(As an ex-military man I have seen the bias. The fact I could miss the birth of my child was the main reason I waited until my serves was over to start a family.)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peace time behavior and peace time organisation. It matters only that one is expected to do their job professionally.
Modern technology and so modern warfare offers a wide variety of important military jobs that don't invlove the use of physical force or overt violence.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
