|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Am I reading this right?
So in order to be PC they put women on the front line. Then they pull them from the front line when things get hot?
Uhhh... I have a suggestion:
Leave them there with a rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Greystoke on 03:39 AM March 16th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. And if the high-ups are worried that the enemy may rape these female soldiers (which, for some reason, is much worse than torturing men), I have a comforting statistic: studies show that the percentage of rape victims holding an assault rifle is zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 10:31 AM March 16th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
We have to let women join front-line combat units so that they feel included. Otherwise, their self-esteem might be damaged, the poor things.
The reason we have separated men and women in the Olympic 100m sprint is that if they competed together, the women wouldn't stand a chance. The only way mixed races can be made to work is by rigging them - by giving the women runners an absurd handicap as we saw recently.
If you are not willing to have mixed running because women can't win, then how on earth can you have mixed combat? The usual PC excuse is that modern combat is technological and anyone can push buttons. This is dishonest. The infantry still sometimes fights hand-to-hand as it always has, and the rest of the time it runs around with heavy packs. Women just don't have as much strength as men. Maybe we could persuade the enemy to give them a handicap.
The best female runners can beat me in a race, but they are not up against me - they are up against the best male runners, and they will always lose. This is not a result of discrimination, it is just a fact. Similarly, the best female soldiers could beat me in a fight, but they are not fighting me - they are fighting the best male soldiers, and they will always lose.
Stephanie Gutmann, in her book, 'The Kinder, Gentler Military', talks about female soldiers graduating from boot camp without enough strength in their arms to pull back the bolt on an M16. Female soldiers becoming sick on a route march because they are too embarassed to squat down and piss in front of men. During Gulf War I, "the men having to tear down tents because the women couldn't or wouldn't do it fast enough".
The inadequacy of women as combat infantry soldiers has already been amply demonstrated.
If we send an all-female unit into action, we are selling ourselves short - the nation needs to be saved from the enemy, and the female unit is unlikely to succeed, so we are placing the public interest at risk. This is especially unnecessary when a male unit could do the job perfectly well, and there is no reason to send women apart from political correctness.
Similarly, a mixed infantry unit is effectively under-strength. A male infantry soldier is, in my opinion, perfectly justified in not wishing to serve in a unit that is under-strength. It places him at more risk. Therefore he should be able to object if asked to serve alongside women.
Even in those contexts in which combat is largely about pressing buttons - such as submarines - it is naive to think that sex makes no difference. There are many complex issues of discipline and morale - accommodation, pregnancy, sexual harrassment, consensual relations and many more. It is actually just easier, cheaper and more effective to have single-sex submarines. It's just not PC.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 02:12 PM March 16th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"there is no reason to send women apart from political correctness."
this is not true....
the main reason the push was on for ladies in the military is that the kill ratios are nothing what it was in the past (you will not have battles where 50,000 on a side get slammed in one location like in the civil war). By the time we reached the gulf type wars we were looking at 200k deployed and 100 killed to a couple of thousand.
the kicker is that if you figure out accidental deaths and such.. the military in many ways is safer than wandering around some cities!
the kicker here was the pluses that the GIs get. for risking your life and surviving you get a pension, and loans for housing and much more including school. the women thought it was unfair that the men got all this stuff, especially since they werent getting killed as much. and so the women IN the military lobbied.
the push for combat was because certain promotions and benifits are not available for people who have not had hazardous duty. the women were not allowed this and so they claimed that it was the army descriminating against allowing them to move up
all this also ignored things like not being able to handle the hazing of the drill sargents and such... not being able to carry a standard issue pack... to the farcicaly dangerous point that NO WOMAN has ever finished the boot camp obstacle course!!! not one.. ever and yet they still get promoted while a male who cant finish it gets out on 4F
the benifits are extremly juicy for the women when you condsider that unlike klinger in mash, they actually can get pregnant! the rate is about 40% when the enter the field or are known to enter the field.. its one of the militaries quiets. warren farrel pointed out that almost half the female complement on one ship in the gulf war got pregnant (and the iraqies didnt even have a navy to attack navy ships!!!! so there really wasnt too much danger!), they all get HONORABLE discharges (despite that many are married to people in other areas and its obvious they havent been together!), and its not uncommon for them to abort the child when they get out.. this allows them an out the men dont have, as well as an out that preserved Full benifits, often for killing a feotal child for expediency.
when moral was down among the men due to these things the army did let themn have their own berets like the special forces... it was hoped that it would cheer the men up...
ArtflDgr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 02:31 PM March 16th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that, that's an interesting point.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 05:02 PM March 16th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
In order to get above a certain rank and get certain considerations in the army, you must serve in a combat role for some period of time. For example there is a reason why there are very few female generals and even so they are generals in support/logistics areas. However if you want to be a general in command of combat units, you must have served in a combat unit yourself. The army has not budged on this issue nor can it nor should it. Now, the army also is under pressure to promote more women to generalships and since these women want to get combat unit commands, not logistics and support commands, "something must be done". So how do they make it so that females are eligible for promotions to these higher ranks in command of combat units but also keep them from actually being in combat in compliance with regulation and chivalry? This new colocation policy is the little trick to do that.
I.e., in the name of regulation, civalry, and feminist excess, men's lives are placed in yet greater danger.
Women: It's all about rights. Men: It's all about responsibilities.
*barf*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by crescentluna
(evil_maiden @ yahoo.com)
on 04:08 PM March 19th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Women: It's all about rights as long as there isn't any work or unpleasantness involved.
Men: It's all about the work and unpleasantness.
The stupidity in this policy is painful.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
ArtflDgr writes "The full text of the article can be found