Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Scooby_Doo on March 16, 2009, 06:13:37 pm
-
Ya, another channel to get dumped... Course hasn't been anything good on it in ages, besides crappy D movies.
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/sci_fi_channel_aims_to_shed_ge.php (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/sci_fi_channel_aims_to_shed_ge.php)
-
Battlestar will be over and the Stargate series is over too. No reason to watch SciFi anymore since I don't like wrestling or want to see Mansquito 6.
-
“The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular,” said TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network.
The letter Y attracts the girls?
Maybe the new sci-fi channel will teach the geeky, dysfunctional, antisocial basement-boys how to not be sexist assholes.
Tch. Doubt it. They're more likely to start up a reality show where they try to hook up vapid hot girls with adorably inept nerds. Of course, the girls will always leave them for equally vapid jerks.
“When we tested this new name, the thing that we got back from our 18-to-34 techno-savvy crowd, which is quite a lot of our audience, is actually this is how you’d text it,” Mr. Howe said. “It made us feel much cooler, much more cutting-edge, much more hip, which was kind of bang-on what we wanted to achieve communication-wise.”
Has anyone really ever texted "syfy" instead of "sci-fi"? That's insane. Also, he used the word "hip."
This is like straight parody.
One last thing:
“We spent a lot of time in the ’90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it’s called Sci Fi,” Mr. Brooks said. “It’s somewhat cooler and better than the name ‘Science Fiction.’ But even the name Sci Fi is limiting.”
Isn't that what MTV did, except with music?
-
Sounds more like what happened to TechTv....
Good rule of thumb... when the leaders say "we want to make the channel appeal to a larger
audience and be more hip" then nothing good can come of it.
-
Yup
MTV, TLC, VH-1, Discovery mostly, Home Garden network, techtv....
-
If they want the show to appeal to females more, then they should have more shows like BSG that pass the Bechdel Test. :\
-
BSG should have been an HBO series. Putting it on the SciFi channel was like putting T.S. Eliot on the shelf with the comic books.
As for the network's makeover, I think it could be a good thing, in that a larger target demographic means a bigger budget. It's already a terrible network with the exception of BSG, so for the sake of my stoned entertainment, I'd rather it were at least high-budget bull****.
-
Maybe the new sci-fi channel will teach the geeky, dysfunctional, antisocial basement-boys how to not be sexist assholes.
I'm geeky and anti-social but not sexist. :P
Tch. Doubt it. They're more likely to start up a reality show where they try to hook up vapid hot girls with adorably inept nerds. Of course, the girls will always leave them for equally vapid jerks.
Reality show that went on for two seasons called Beauty And The Geek, but they usually didn't end up getting left out.
-
Maybe the new sci-fi channel will teach the geeky, dysfunctional, antisocial basement-boys how to not be sexist assholes.
I'm geeky and anti-social but not sexist. :P
I'm not sure I believe you. Sexism is pretty deeply ingrained in geekiness.
I saw Beauty and the Geek. That's what they would revive on SyFy.
-
I never consider women to be inferior in any way. Shocking but I'm not the same as others.
If I could though I'd show you someone I know who does three things:
1: Puts his computer screen above everything else. :blah:
2: Claims to be anti-social unless bribed by food. :rolleyes:
3: Obviously fears emotion but claims to "supress his feelings." :doubt:
-
Yeah, but most people would say that, if only because they don't realize it.
Tch. That third one sorta pisses me off. Pretty much all the nerds I know are like that to some extent.
-
I think it's more a matter of them trying to bare their fangs, beat their chests and flutter their eyelids all at the same time, not so much sexism, as Machismo.
-
I think it's more a matter of them trying to bare their fangs, beat their chests and flutter their eyelids all at the same time, not so much sexism, as Machismo.
:lol:
Tch. That third one sorta pisses me off. Pretty much all the nerds I know are like that to some extent.
I was that way for a few years before I noticed symptoms of depression began to show, after I decided to admit it to myself everything changed for the better.
Hell, it got me in my first relationship that's been going on for almost seven months. :D
Then for everyone I know they congradulate me for "having a ****-buddy." :doubt: Assholes.
-
Mostly I hear guys whine about being virgins and girls being inherently irrational/crazy/dumb/pointless/etc in the same breath. I've met exactly one guy who I could say without a doubt was not sexist.
-
With BSG gone the channel has apparently decided to kill itself.
Weren't its ratings already pretty good? Up there with a lot of the big players?
-
KILL THIS POST!
-
I don't get it, unless you think it's Turambar, and it's definitely not.
-
No I read the post wrong. :nervous:
-
*facepalm*
SyFy? seriously? Sounds like elite speak's ill bred progeny.
-
:wakka:
That's sig worthy.
-
Thank goodness for SPACE channel. It may be cheesy but its true to its roots!
-
I'm glad I don't watch tv much. :\
-
*facepalm*
SyFy? seriously? Sounds like elite speak's ill bred progeny.
Actually, um, they said the reason they picked it was because their focus groups said it was how they'd text 'SciFi'. So it made them feel 'more hip'.
-
I'd like to know the age of these "groups."
-
I'd like to know the age of these "groups."
They cited the 18-34 tech-savvy demographic in that article, right?
-
"from the people who canceled farscape to bring you tremors... "
-
Thank goodness for SPACE channel. It may be cheesy but its true to its roots!
I read in one of these forums that even Space is starting to get infected.
"from the people who canceled farscape to bring you tremors... "
Wasn't Tremors another one of those D rated movies Sci-fi did?
-
I'll see your SyFy and raise you NASA TV (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html).
...srsly, wtf. (http://users.tkk.fi/~lmiettun/Kuvat/bum.gif)
-
The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that
God Dammit, that's part of what makes it awesome.
-
Wasn't Tremors another one of those D rated movies Sci-fi did?
actually Tremors was a fairly decent kevin bacon movie.
Tremors 2: aftershocks, was a moderately disappointing B movie.
Tremors 3: now they light there farts to fly (I ****ING **** YOU NOT!) was the abhorrent pilot to one of the most perfectly horribly shows to have ever been made.
-
Thank goodness for SPACE channel. It may be cheesy but its true to its roots!
Wait till they catch on and change it to the 5P4CE channel :P
-
Actually, um, they said the reason they picked it was because their focus groups said it was how they'd text 'SciFi'. So it made them feel 'more hip'.
well then shouldn't they have changed the spelling to 'lame'. because I know that's how I spell it.
-
I'm not sure I believe you. Sexism is pretty deeply ingrained in geekiness.
Ya lolz, girls should lsten 2 us bcause r brainz r biggerer.
Seriously though, Girls are pretty dumb. No wait, very dumb. Fortunately, I can make no claim about my gender being superior due to the simple fact that it seems like everyone is equally stupid these days. I hate to sound like you and Nuke but sometimes I think I'm the last standing bastion of intelligence with the exception of a few people. :hopping:
Now, onto the topic at hand. Yeah, good idea, dis your core audience. Let's see how far that gets you. :rolleyes:
-
I'm not sure I believe you. Sexism is pretty deeply ingrained in geekiness.
How so?
More often than not, geeky guys fall into the 'nice guy' category. The exact opposite to the frat boy ****wits that'll get a girl drunk before ****ing her because they don't have the balls to talk to a woman while she's sober.
-
I hate to sound like you and Nuke but sometimes I think I'm the last standing bastion of intelligence with the exception of a few people. :hopping:
I had that feeling once, but then my friends talked me down and we got Wendy's.
-
I'm not sure I believe you. Sexism is pretty deeply ingrained in geekiness.
How so?
More often than not, geeky guys fall into the 'nice guy' category. The exact opposite to the frat boy ****wits that'll get a girl drunk before ****ing her because they don't have the balls to talk to a woman while she's sober.
More often than not, "nice guys" and "frat boy ****wits" have the same attitude towards females. The difference is that "nice guys" are in denial, and that makes them condescending pricks.
-
"Nice guys" think of females as a walking hole to ****? :wtf:
Well...I guess I have seen the non-popular community of high schoolers act like they had bragging rights over it when I was in school two years ago.
-
So this channel was created to show science fiction and now they want to distance themselves from science fiction because science fiction is bad, so why create a channel for science fiction in the first place??? ARRRGH!!
-
Seriously, is it me being tired or getting crazy or what? Why do I find almost all of these current threads highly amusing to read?
SyFy? That really sounds like an STD. And blurs the original meaning also. But on the other hand, I haven't had TV for 8 years. Air Crash Investigations and Darkwing Duck on Youtube have satisfied relatively well my needs of entertainment when I need it.
Currently thinking if he should appear here as a borderline sexist or as a nice guy. Then again, I heard Mika is women's name in Japan. Oh hell...
Mika
-
So this channel was created to show science fiction and now they want to distance themselves from science fiction because science fiction is bad, so why create a channel for science fiction in the first place??? ARRRGH!!
****ing Sci-Fi Ghetto.
-
I'm not sure I believe you. Sexism is pretty deeply ingrained in geekiness.
How so?
More often than not, geeky guys fall into the 'nice guy' category. The exact opposite to the frat boy ****wits that'll get a girl drunk before ****ing her because they don't have the balls to talk to a woman while she's sober.
More often than not, "nice guys" and "frat boy ****wits" have the same attitude towards females. The difference is that "nice guys" are in denial, and that makes them condescending pricks.
boys are the product of there social surroundings and peer pressure as much as girls are , we have to look at them as firstly different species
girls mature at a very diferent rate to boys boys tend to start to loose there egotistical stupidness in there mid to late twenty's and girls also tend to stop being princess's around this period as well , but the most difficult period is early teens in a girl and late teens in a boy , having worked for the last twenty years with teenagers there is only one thing to say .... your either great or just psychopaths or a mixture .... but always fun
-
a lot of times, girls are worse sexists than guys.
-
a lot of times, girls are worse sexists than guys.
That's something we can all agree on.
Girls are ****ing evil.
-
a lot of times, girls are worse sexists than guys.
....? Weren't you just last page saying how bad guys were for being sexist? </confused>.
SyFy. SyFy. SyFy. SyFy. DAMMIT! It's just not the same anymore! Granted, it's been pretty bad lately anyway. Ghost Hunters (NOT SCIENCE FICTION), CHA$E, Scare Tactics? Not Sci-Fi. This is just making it stupid in name as well.
-
Ghost Hunters (NOT SCIENCE FICTION)
OH?
-
Yeah, more like modern horror. :P
-
More often than not, "nice guys" and "frat boy ****wits" have the same attitude towards females. The difference is that "nice guys" are in denial, and that makes them condescending pricks.
a lot of times, girls are worse sexists than guys.
>.>
-
Well, come on, girls go ahead and believe the stereotypes and ****, and then decide to go and perpetuate them!
The retarded ideas of masculinity and femininity are just as prevalent in females as males. But femininity is like 90% insult, and most girls don't do anything about it.
-
And therefore, femininity is 90% observation. If you don't like it, do something about it, but stop complaining about how guys are really sexist, especially geeks, and then flip around like that. How about we just call it even by saying, "neither is more sexist than the other."?
-
Well, come on, girls go ahead and believe the stereotypes and ****, and then decide to go and perpetuate them!
The retarded ideas of masculinity and femininity are just as prevalent in females as males. But femininity is like 90% insult, and most girls don't do anything about it.
Maybe its just the culture you live in...but feminity is an insult? What sort of stereotypes as well? What sort of things are you talking about?
-
"Women are catty and talk too much." "Women are emotional." "Women are bad at math." "Women are gentle and delicate." "Women are naturally nurturing." "She's pretty so she's probably not too bright."
Additionally, "Men are sex fiends." "Men can't express emotion." "Men don't understand women." "Men are naturally violent." "Men are afraid of commitment."
Socially prescribed gender roles can go to hell. They all suck.
-
"Women are catty and talk too much." "Women are emotional." "Women are bad at math." "Women are gentle and delicate." "Women are naturally nurturing." "She's pretty so she's probably not too bright."
Additionally, "Men are sex fiends." "Men can't express emotion." "Men don't understand women." "Men are naturally violent." "Men are afraid of commitment."
Socially prescribed gender roles can go to hell. They all suck.
I suck at math, show plenty of emotion, am naturally violent (although I'm a pacifist), and am afraid of commitment to anything.
God I suck at life.
-
Some roles are prescribed for a reason. Others aren't (and can go to hell as far as I'm concerned).
One example would be military. Men make better fighters. It's that simple.
-
The IDF disagrees. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces)
-
Trash, let's please not start this again, okay?
I think what you mean to say is that 'larger, stronger, more aggressive people with better endurance make better fighters'.
Generally, men fit that description. But sometimes women do too. Take a look at all the excellent female fighter pilots and snipers during WWII.
Can we agree on that?
-
Some roles are prescribed for a reason. Others aren't (and can go to hell as far as I'm concerned).
One example would be military. Men make better fighters. It's that simple.
Women make better snipers. :p
Edit: Damn, battuta beat me.
-
The only reason SciFi is up in ratings is because they're the only ones broadcasting BSG and Stargate. And the only reason they haven't plummeted from all the bull**** decisions they've made with BSG is we're all so addicted and living in the vain hope that the final mysteries will be explained tat we can't tell them to go **** themselves.
With the end of Atlantis and the imminent demise of BSG, it will once again return to being a mediocre network with programming that people only watch when there is absolutely nothing else worth switching on to rot our brains.
-
http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=237
-
"Women are catty and talk too much." "Women are emotional." "Women are bad at math." "Women are gentle and delicate." "Women are naturally nurturing." "She's pretty so she's probably not too bright."
Additionally, "Men are sex fiends." "Men can't express emotion." "Men don't understand women." "Men are naturally violent." "Men are afraid of commitment."
Socially prescribed gender roles can go to hell. They all suck.
Ahh yes those classic ones...very vague stereotypes but with tiny bits of truth embedded in them. Aside from the bits of truth totally bonkers.
So for instance women are definitely better at communicating emotion then men are. The emotions are largely the same and felt in slightly different but equally significant ways. The difference is that women have a superhighway connecting the two sides of the brain allowing those emotions to generally be expressed in a more communicative way whereas men have a country lane connecting the two sides of the brain and thus the inability to express in an equally communicative way.
Another classic is about women and men and how they navigate. For women the key factors are landmarks. Ask a woman how to get to a certain location and she will more likely use landmark such as a geographical feature or a significant building or sign or something like that. Ask a man and you will typically get a more direction oriented response such as head north for 5 blocks. Brain scans reveal that brain activity in women is equally active as men when doing navigation/geography/spacial tasks but the activity is decentralized into several areas. In men its focused in a single area.
I've written whole essays on this stuff so I could go on forever. But the key thing is...in any proper gender discussion where you start to bring in some of the really interesting (to me anyways) research its pretty clear that there are advantages and distavantages for both genders in any task that they do. Men will, structurally, be better at some tasks and women will be in the same way better at others and these differences tend to be extremely complimentary.
So even if we use say the classic stereotype that women are more emotional...thats not something to truly look down on and certainly feminity shouldn't be something looked down on either. Being able to communicate emotions more effectively would be handy for me sometimes...but I struggle with that while women around me find it very easy. That is based on a stereotype but its frankly a very real and structural difference.
And of course everyone is different so what I've laid out above is general. I know some men who are definitely more openly and outwardly emotional and dramatic than some women.
Also...to be on topic...the new SyFy name sucks :D
-
Is Caprica going to be on SyFy, or is it going to be on NBC or something like that? At least Caprica takes place 2,000 years from now on a world other than Earth.
-
So for instance women are definitely better at communicating emotion then men are. The emotions are largely the same and felt in slightly different but equally significant ways. The difference is that women have a superhighway connecting the two sides of the brain allowing those emotions to generally be expressed in a more communicative way whereas men have a country lane connecting the two sides of the brain and thus the inability to express in an equally communicative way.
This is a total myth. Women's brains are not more interconnected or communicative than men. It has become very prevalent but it is not supported by data. I can send you a few papers if you're interested.
Is Caprica going to be on SyFy, or is it going to be on NBC or something like that? At least Caprica takes place 2,000 years from now on a world other than Earth.
We have no idea what the chronology is relative to the present day, unfortunately.
-
So for instance women are definitely better at communicating emotion then men are. The emotions are largely the same and felt in slightly different but equally significant ways. The difference is that women have a superhighway connecting the two sides of the brain allowing those emotions to generally be expressed in a more communicative way whereas men have a country lane connecting the two sides of the brain and thus the inability to express in an equally communicative way.
This is a total myth. Women's brains are not more interconnected or communicative than men. It has become very prevalent but it is not supported by data. I can send you a few papers if you're interested.
Is Caprica going to be on SyFy, or is it going to be on NBC or something like that? At least Caprica takes place 2,000 years from now on a world other than Earth.
We have no idea what the chronology is relative to the present day, unfortunately.
Yes please send me the papers because what you said just contradicts what I've been reading.
-
Righto. Check it out...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Some roles are prescribed for a reason. Others aren't (and can go to hell as far as I'm concerned).
One example would be military. Men make better fighters. It's that simple.
The US army did tests on that. Turns out that women make better commandos for several reasons:
1. They work better in a team.
2. Their body fat is more spread out and so they have better insulation against cold. Men tend to have too much muscle and not enough fat, so they freeze very quickly.
3. They work better under pressure.
4. They tend to be more nimble, so they are usually better shots than men.
5. They are usually better drivers when trained (yes I know, don't say it...)
6. They don't whine as much.
-
6. They don't whine as much.
Are you actually in the military? That's a load of rubbish.
But EVERYONE whines like a bunch of babies, like no tomorrow.
-
6. They don't whine as much.
Are you actually in the military? That's a load of rubbish.
But EVERYONE whines like a bunch of babies, like no tomorrow.
I have to agree with that. Everyone *****es about everything, but they get the job done in the end :D
Some roles are prescribed for a reason. Others aren't (and can go to hell as far as I'm concerned).
One example would be military. Men make better fighters. It's that simple.
The US army did tests on that. Turns out that women make better commandos for several reasons:
1. They work better in a team.
2. Their body fat is more spread out and so they have better insulation against cold. Men tend to have too much muscle and not enough fat, so they freeze very quickly.
3. They work better under pressure.
4. They tend to be more nimble, so they are usually better shots than men.
5. They are usually better drivers when trained (yes I know, don't say it...)
6. They don't whine as much.
I think the first, third, and fourth points are much more dependent on that individual irrespective of their gender.
1. I think this comes down to personality to some extent, but from what I've seen, women seem to bicker and argue less when working in a team, so I half-agree with you there.
3. I can name plenty of incidents where women have effectively failed and crumbled under pressure. But I assume the study is referring to trained women. Otherwise, I find most younger, untrained women prone to breaking down in a life-death situation, but then again, so do most untrained people. Last year I think it was a guy and his mate decided to kill his ex-girlfriend and her friend after harassing her for a few months, he was about to shoot her and her mate and told them to run or he'd blow their brains out. The ex-girlfriend was too busy crying and begging for mercy rather than having her head screwed on right and thinking how the hell she was going to escape, which is what a trained person would've been thinking. The other girl made the second glaring mistake and ran in a straight line for seven hundred metres, she would've been an easy, easy target for anyone who knew how to pull the trigger, luckily she didn't die. My key point is training and personality play a big part in this. Women are basically taught by the media to be passive and be social-centered, while men are portrayed as seeking out conflict etc.
4. I agree women tend to be nimble, I play paintball on a regular basis and whenever I see women play, when they move their quick, but mostly they stay in the same position for too long, and often take too long to line up the shot. However if women are being used in a marksman role then lining up the shot is a good thing, I agree, women are better snipers. Then again most of these women are relatively untrained and not used to a paintball environment. But that's a heavy generalization, the other half of women I see play are fast-runners, run from cover to cover, and use their patience effectively and sneak behind you. I assume those women are the ones who were present in the study.
Training and personality are the two-big factors IMO.
-
Of course it depends on the individual. These studies can only talk about the average, and would never say that these things are true of all women or all men. Self-selection most likely also affects these statistics, as people who self-select into an unconventional role may be more competent in that role than the average person off the street. But the point is, large groups of women have proven themselves to be more than capable of performing alongside men in these contexts.
-
Back on-topic:
I just saw a preview for a new show, Warehouse 13. It looks promising if they can get and keep good writers.
-
Of course it depends on the individual. These studies can only talk about the average, and would never say that these things are true of all women or all men. Self-selection most likely also affects these statistics, as people who self-select into an unconventional role may be more competent in that role than the average person off the street. But the point is, large groups of women have proven themselves to be more than capable of performing alongside men in these contexts.
Yeah, someone like my mother for example, who is a good mother, but cracks under pressure very easily would stay well away from anything of the sort.
I have no personal issue against women in front-line infantry roles, the only significant reasons why women shouldn't/aren't in those roles are basically the way men treat women and the average woman's stature/strength versus their male counterparts. I would support women in front-line roles as they pass training and can do the same things as men do on the front-lines, thus would serve just as well as a male soldier. One-thing I don't agree with is women being given leeway in infantry training because they're women. Fair enough women have a shorter average stature and are prone to back problems carrying heavy loads, but that's what they're signing up for, front-line infantry is predominantly a mens world, so in the most non-sexist way, women have to play by mens rules if they apply for infantry.
Back on-topic:
I just saw a preview for a new show, Warehouse 13. It looks promising if they can get and keep good writers.
Does it happen to be an X-Files rip off?
-
Possibly. Wouldn't hurt any, really.
-
Well I did say commandos, so obviously they are highly trained. Also these arn't my opinions, they are just the official results from the test.
-
Well I did say commandos, so obviously they are highly trained. Also these arn't my opinions, they are just the official results from the test.
Fair enough then, they make more sense that way if the individuals were highly trained.
-
I hope Sci-fi doesn't turn into another Garbage4TV. Nothing but **** on that channel. I miss TechTV and I'll miss Sci-fi if it turns into garbage. ;_;
-
Question:
If men and female are physically as capable, why is there a division in the olympic games between men and women? Also, I heard about women who can carry heavy loads in the army, but in the end I never saw one. Why almost all women gymnasts refuse to learn the Thomas flare or planche?
True equality does not mean you substitute woman to a man job and vice versa. True equality means you accept that there is a difference between men and woman and acknowledge the strengts and weaknesses of both genders.
Mika
-
Righto. Check it out...
Interesting reading! Thanks!
-
What about the Discovery Heath Channel.
Before it was good now it just taking about Baby, Birth, and adaption.
How that is heath.
Sci-fi, discovery channel, health channel, and the history channel slowing turning into garbage.
-
Question:
If men and female are physically as capable, why is there a division in the olympic games between men and women? Also, I heard about women who can carry heavy loads in the army, but in the end I never saw one. Why almost all women gymnasts refuse to learn the Thomas flare or planche?
True equality does not mean you substitute woman to a man job and vice versa. True equality means you accept that there is a difference between men and woman and acknowledge the strengts and weaknesses of both genders.
Mika
I would certainly never claim this. Women have lower upper-body strength on average.
But many fit women probably have enough upper-body strength to play with the big boys. If they can pass qualifying exams, no reason to stop them!
We should discriminate on the basis of physical fitness, not gender.
-
However, in some places gender can pose distinct challenges and difficulties in some situations. That is one of the major issues with women on the front lines in the military (and some others, can't think of them right now). Plumbing is a major issue, as well as differing dietary requirements (slight, but still significant). Having to ship two different kinds of rations just to keep a unit functioning at a bare minimum would be a logistical nightmare.
-
However, in some places gender can pose distinct challenges and difficulties in some situations. That is one of the major issues with women on the front lines in the military (and some others, can't think of them right now). Plumbing is a major issue, as well as differing dietary requirements (slight, but still significant). Having to ship two different kinds of rations just to keep a unit functioning at a bare minimum would be a logistical nightmare.
Nope, these aren't huge issues, actually -- women have been effectively serving on the front line in major wars for years without starving to death or clogging the toilets or whatever. The differential dietary requirements are insignificant, and since women need only a tiny additional amount of iron compared to men, it'd be easy enough to provide -- just make all the rations nourishing for both.
Practical evidence suggests that the only two big obstacles are, first, the physical difference -- which is why we discriminate on the basis of fitness -- and, second, the attitude of men towards women, with respect to both sexuality (rape is an issue) and protectionism. Those will only be changed by the acceptance of women into these roles.
Remember, women serve in a front-line capacity all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's just not called front-line. And what difficulties there are are dealt with.
-
Having to ship two different kinds of rations just to keep a unit functioning at a bare minimum would be a logistical nightmare.
I think Army has an answer for that one: send only one. Or nothing at all (as usual)
What it comes to women in army, my grandfather fought against Russian units that had women. I think he carried the guilt of shooting them for the rest of his life. I suppose every veteran starts to regret his deeds in wars some time, but this was different from the other veterans I have seen. It was a much more deeper conflict that affected the rest of his life. And it must have been pretty much the same for those opposing side veterans that survived the conflict and saw the women die right in front of their eyes.
Mika
-
Well surely having soldiers on your side who the enemy feel too guilty to shoot at would be a major benefit. :)
-
Well that's a solution to the world's wars. Just pack both sides with women and instead of shooting each other they will have a Tupperware party.
>.>
:lol:
-
Well surely having soldiers on your side who the enemy feel too guilty to shoot at would be a major benefit. :)
Unless you deal with religious extremists.
-
Having to ship two different kinds of rations just to keep a unit functioning at a bare minimum would be a logistical nightmare.
I think Army has an answer for that one: send only one. Or nothing at all (as usual)
What it comes to women in army, my grandfather fought against Russian units that had women. I think he carried the guilt of shooting them for the rest of his life. I suppose every veteran starts to regret his deeds in wars some time, but this was different from the other veterans I have seen. It was a much more deeper conflict that affected the rest of his life. And it must have been pretty much the same for those opposing side veterans that survived the conflict and saw the women die right in front of their eyes.
Mika
This is definitely an issue -- male combatants report that they would go to unreasonable lengths to defend female comrades. But this is probably a cultural phenomenon, in no small part.
-
Well surely having soldiers on your side who the enemy feel too guilty to shoot at would be a major benefit
I really don't think it works that way. Think of them blasted all over the woods in all the colorful gory details and you get the idea.
This is definitely an issue -- male combatants report that they would go to unreasonable lengths to defend female comrades. But this is probably a cultural phenomenon, in no small part.
Unfortunately you can't nullify some thousands years of evolution just that easily. And as another point: being in the front line means pretty much total abstinction for a lengthy period (since you really don't have privacy). Consider that for a while. Now what do you think happens when you add women in the mix?
Mika
-
When you're in a field enviroment that doesn't have supplied restrooms (Outhouses) there's a sudden increase in urinary tract infections, and it's not the men getting them.
-
When you're in a field enviroment that doesn't have supplied restrooms (Outhouses) there's a sudden increase in urinary tract infections, and it's not the men getting them.
I doubt that's a huge issue.
There will never be many women in front-line combat roles, even if it does become legal. But the fact is that women do already serve in frontline combat all the time, because there aren't really any front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan. And they have done extremely well, as well as male soldiers.
There are certainly problems with an integrated service. Rape, pregnancy, and psychological issues are all concerns. But it seems as if the benefits outweigh the costs.
-
how the **** did we go from talking about the SciFail channel to women in the military? :wtf:
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/Shodan_AI/Extras/derail2.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/Shodan_AI/Extras/derail2.jpg)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Man, that's good