[Liberator]

Agreed flip, I'm not saying that women can't or shouldn't be in the military.  Far from it, just that they're assignments are, rightly so, away from the front in whatever conflict they're engaged in.  I'm not stating an opinion, AFAIK, the US Army will not assign a woman to a unit that will see front line combat.

As to the physical aspect thing.  It's rare to find a woman who can lift her own bodyweight, much less twice, hell it's rare to find a man who can life his own bodyweight, much less twice.  All I'm meant by that statement was that even a woman in incredible physical condition who can easily lift twice her bodyweight(250lbs on average) is going to find it impossible to lift a man who weighs more than three times her bodyweight 6 or 7 feet vertically, we're not talking about pulling him along the ground, we're talking about lifting him vertically, most men would have a hard time with that.  It sounds anti-woman to read that I know, and the feminists have done a really good job at making you think otherwise, but there are basic biological differences between men and women that have nothing to do with plumbing.

[NGTM-1R]

Screw evolution. Look at us, our teeth are tiny and flat, we have no real claws to speak of, we're gangly and naked and pathetic little creatures. And yet we are the number one predator of every animal on the planet, including ourselves.

We also taste bad, we don't come in ones or twos but in tens, we have vastly superior group coordination and communication, we adapt our camoflague. Ghostavo's endurance point is also well-made. We run marathons, twenty-six miles, in a few hours. A horse can't even run that far; they get blown out after four or five miles and if forced to do more will suffer permanent injury. A cheetah will injure itself if it tries to run more than about a mile at a stretch. A bear can't even make a half-mile. Lions can do about two. We could run them to death.

So basically, you're full of ****. But then, we knew that.

[BlackDove]

Liberator as a microcosm of this community here is more or less physical proof as to why one can say "It will never change for the better".

[iamzack]

Agreed flip, I'm not saying that women can't or shouldn't be in the military.  Far from it, just that they're assignments are, rightly so, away from the front in whatever conflict they're engaged in.  I'm not stating an opinion, AFAIK, the US Army will not assign a woman to a unit that will see front line combat.

As to the physical aspect thing.  It's rare to find a woman who can lift her own bodyweight, much less twice, hell it's rare to find a man who can life his own bodyweight, much less twice.  All I'm meant by that statement was that even a woman in incredible physical condition who can easily lift twice her bodyweight(250lbs on average) is going to find it impossible to lift a man who weighs more than three times her bodyweight 6 or 7 feet vertically, we're not talking about pulling him along the ground, we're talking about lifting him vertically, most men would have a hard time with that.  It sounds anti-woman to read that I know, and the feminists have done a really good job at making you think otherwise, but there are basic biological differences between men and women that have nothing to do with plumbing.

I'm incredibly out of shape, short, young, and chronically ill. I can lift Turambar, and he's nearly twice my size. Besides, that, people tend to do amazing things with adrenaline.

Screw evolution. Look at us, our teeth are tiny and flat, we have no real claws to speak of, we're gangly and naked and pathetic little creatures. And yet we are the number one predator of every animal on the planet, including ourselves.

We also taste bad, we don't come in ones or twos but in tens, we have vastly superior group coordination and communication, we adapt our camoflague. Ghostavo's endurance point is also well-made. We run marathons, twenty-six miles, in a few hours. A horse can't even run that far; they get blown out after four or five miles and if forced to do more will suffer permanent injury. A cheetah will injure itself if it tries to run more than about a mile at a stretch. A bear can't even make a half-mile. Lions can do about two. We could run them to death.

So basically, you're full of ****. But then, we knew that.

So, basically, endurance is 100% a predictor of win? So what if you can run 26 miles in a few hours. Cheetah is going to kill your ass before you can get 26 feet.

Besides, you cut my quote. I did finish with "evolution gave us brains, how about we use them."

[Liberator]

We are, battle is a "No Distractions" zone, even if you are the most masculine girl ever, you will be a distraction on the battlefield, unintended though it may be.  Or do you want to get your squad/battalion-mates killed because they were showing out to try and impress you?  Most feminists I've met(precious few) can't seem to get they're heads around the fact that females are inherently weaker physically(they're muscles are less dense pound for pound) and are not well suited to heavy laborious tasks.  We like that art and the idea of Wonder Woman, but the practical side is that she's a mythological character who doesn't exist.  She's a good role model, to be powerful and strong both physically and mentally, but at the same time, don't leave your femininity by the wayside.

On the topic of instincts, women ARE 9 times out of 10 better caregivers than men, it's just the way things are.  If you have it in you to go be a corporate muckymuck great, but corporate muckymucks seldom have time for children or families, not like they need anyway.

[iamzack]

Goddamn, just shut up. If a man can't not be dumbass who have to show off for anything with a vagina, he should NOT be on the front lines. Duhhhrrrr

"On average" does not mean ANYTHING to this discussion. If a man is weak, does he get to be in the military because he has a penis? NO. So why do you say a woman who IS strong enough be in the military shouldn't?

**** femininity. Having a vagina doesn't mean I'm obligated to act "feminine."

Women are better caregivers is bull****. Straight up.

I don't understand why idiots like you can't wrap their heads around "people" instead of "men vs women." We can't ban Asians from the military because they are smaller on average, why should we ban women? I'm sure a black in the military would be very distracting to racists in the military. In fact, keeping gays out of the military or in the closet is pretty much us catering to bigots. WHY are we catering to bigots? Oh, yeah, because they're shiny straight, white men, and that makes them somehow better than everybody else in the eyes of other straight white men.

[Liberator]

Nobody's banning anyone from anything.

Besides, your gays comment has little bearing on the conversation at hand.  You seem to be forgetting that a large portion of the enlisted man's time is spent in a communal living enviroment.  Now we can have separate dwellings for the men and women fine, but what about the gays?  It's a myth(I would assume) in American "macho" culture(a stereotype maybe?) that gay men might sneak around after lights out and do things to the other sleeping GIs.  Now while this isn't true, you can be damned sure it's on the minds of those GIs when they are bunking down for the night.

Liberals...so willing to do whatever it takes to make sure every little minority doesn't have to shed a tear from discomfort that they trample all over the majority's rights, usually trampling them into the dirt. 

What about MY right to not be offended? 
MY right to not pay higher taxes cause some nutcase thinks it's a good idea? 
What about MY right to succeed on my own and expect everyone else to?

I'm going to be very clear here, Iamzack, I don't give a fig if you or any other woman wants to be a creep about.  But I draw the line at making FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL POLICY to force it on me.  So I'll tell you like I'll tell any other bugger who wants to rain on my parade.  If you wanna be congenial and nice about whatever you have a bug up your ass about, fine, but if you wanna yell and scream and protest, then shut the hell up and get off my lawn!

There, I feel better now, bit of a catharsis that was...

[iamzack]

Nobody's banning anyone from anything.

Besides, your gays comment has little bearing on the conversation at hand.  You seem to be forgetting that a large portion of the enlisted man's time is spent in a communal living enviroment.  Now we can have separate dwellings for the men and women fine, but what about the gays?  It's a myth(I would assume) in American "macho" culture(a stereotype maybe?) that gay men might sneak around after lights out and do things to the other sleeping GIs.  Now while this isn't true, you can be damned sure it's on the minds of those GIs when they are bunking down for the night.

Liberals...so willing to do whatever it takes to make sure every little minority doesn't have to shed a tear from discomfort that they trample all over the majority's rights, usually trampling them into the dirt. 

What about MY right to not be offended? 
MY right to not pay higher taxes cause some nutcase thinks it's a good idea? 
What about MY right to succeed on my own and expect everyone else to?

I'm going to be very clear here, Iamzack, I don't give a fig if you or any other woman wants to be a creep about.  But I draw the line at making FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL POLICY to force it on me.  So I'll tell you like I'll tell any other bugger who wants to rain on my parade.  If you wanna be congenial and nice about whatever you have a bug up your ass about, fine, but if you wanna yell and scream and protest, then shut the hell up and get off my lawn!

There, I feel better now, bit of a catharsis that was...

1. Naw, really? Couldn't possibly why I worded everything as "why SHOULD we ban..."

2. Then maybe the GIs need some edumacation. They can't always be protected from TEH GAY by mommy government.

3. What is federal policy forcing on you, exactly? ONOES wimminz and gaez and blax with the same rights and opportunities granted to you?!

[Ghostavo]

So, basically, endurance is 100% a predictor of win?

You are right, it isn't.

I never said endurance was the only attribute humans had that made them a superior predator. But it is one of the (if not THE) most important one. It was what enabled us to start eating meat and probably modeled our entire physiology.

So what if you can run 26 miles in a few hours. Cheetah is going to kill your ass before you can get 26 feet.

Ironically, that could be the death of the Cheetah.   Because they've dedicated so much of their body for speed, endurance is one of their really low points. A hunt for a Cheetah is a matter of much greater risk than for all other predators. If it fails a hunt or gains very little reward from it (humans aren't exactly the filet mignon of the animal world) it could actually starve because it wastes so much energy on running.


Regarding women in the military, I actually agree with you. Ability should be the top focus in anything, not gender.

[iamzack]

Ironically, that could be the death of the Cheetah.   Because they've dedicated so much of their body for speed, endurance is one of their really low points. A hunt for a Cheetah is a matter of much greater risk than for all other predators. If it fails a hunt or gains very little reward from it (humans aren't exactly the filet mignon of the animal world) it could actually starve because it wastes so much energy on running.

I actually learned that a few weeks ago. I also learned that they're so inbred in some areas they might as well just ****ing die already, lol.

But, srsly, my meaning was more like in a human vs animal match, the human's not going to come out on top. Not humans in the past, I mean you vs cheetah, GO. At this point, I feel it's our intelligence that keeps us on top, for better or for worse, and that if we are so smart, we should be able to manually override instincts that no longer have any real benefit.

[General Battuta]

Agreed flip, I'm not saying that women can't or shouldn't be in the military.  Far from it, just that they're assignments are, rightly so, away from the front in whatever conflict they're engaged in.  I'm not stating an opinion, AFAIK, the US Army will not assign a woman to a unit that will see front line combat.

As to the physical aspect thing.  It's rare to find a woman who can lift her own bodyweight, much less twice, hell it's rare to find a man who can life his own bodyweight, much less twice.  All I'm meant by that statement was that even a woman in incredible physical condition who can easily lift twice her bodyweight(250lbs on average) is going to find it impossible to lift a man who weighs more than three times her bodyweight 6 or 7 feet vertically, we're not talking about pulling him along the ground, we're talking about lifting him vertically, most men would have a hard time with that.  It sounds anti-woman to read that I know, and the feminists have done a really good job at making you think otherwise, but there are basic biological differences between men and women that have nothing to do with plumbing.

We are, battle is a "No Distractions" zone, even if you are the most masculine girl ever, you will be a distraction on the battlefield, unintended though it may be.  Or do you want to get your squad/battalion-mates killed because they were showing out to try and impress you?  Most feminists I've met(precious few) can't seem to get they're heads around the fact that females are inherently weaker physically(they're muscles are less dense pound for pound) and are not well suited to heavy laborious tasks.  We like that art and the idea of Wonder Woman, but the practical side is that she's a mythological character who doesn't exist.  She's a good role model, to be powerful and strong both physically and mentally, but at the same time, don't leave your femininity by the wayside.

You are such an idiot (in this argument). I mean, I've seen idiots, and then you just can't even think (in this argument.) I wrote that 'you have the reasoning skills of a particularly cretinous I-beam' but then I decided that was just going too far.
 
Your entire argument here is 'weak people are bad soldiers.' Now, many women are weaker than many men. BUT THIS IS ONLY AN ARGUMENT FOR BANNING WEAK PEOPLE FROM THE MILITARY. It says nothing about whether or not the people taking the fitness tests have in-junk our out-junk (if you catch my drift.)

If the problem is that 'most women are too weak to be in the military' then your response should be 'people who can pass this standard of physical fitness can be in the military.' It should not be 'ban all women.' You let the women who can pass the test in (and yes, that will be very few women) instead of establishing a double standard (which the military today does.) A second-grader could figure that out. You cannot.

As for your utterly asinine argument that women on the battlefield are a distraction (simply more proof that you are a sexist prick who must scramble for excuses to keep women out of patriarchal positions), please explain the following to me:

this
this
this
this
the entire ****ing country of Israel
this goddamn Afghan warlord with a vagina
this woman who saved her wounded man-friends because she was a well-trained and effective soldier

I could go on forever.

You are ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic and crass. On top of that you are unintelligent and uneducated. If you continue to spout material which cannot be rationally defended as an opinion then it will be categorized as hate speech and I will petition for measures to be taken.

All that said, there are always going to be far fewer women in the infantry than men if physical fitness tests are fair...but if all else was fair women would make up most of the Navy and a significant portion of the Air Force (not to mention the entire space program.) Not to mention that those women snipers mentioned there were clearly doing a better job than most of their male comrades.

On the topic of instincts, women ARE 9 times out of 10 better caregivers than men, it's just the way things are.  If you have it in you to go be a corporate muckymuck great, but corporate muckymucks seldom have time for children or families, not like they need anyway.

As for this piece of sexist bull****, it apparently never occurred to you to consider that maybe women act this way because people like you teach them to? That maybe they live in a culture permeated with this stereotype?

Go **** around with the Israeli military for a bit, or with the all-women gangs in India, and then come back and assert that again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate

Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.

While that's actually a pretty valid concern, as iamzack pointed out it's more a problem with the men and the cultural values surrounding patriarchy and protection of women. And if there were more women in the military, such as in the Israeli military, I'm betting it'd be less of a novelty. The Soviets handled it fine.

So... men are driven by instinct to the point that it overrides military training and causes significant problems? I don't see how that's supposed to change my mind.

In nearly every major species capable of infighting on the planet, males do the job. To overturn evolution is not an easy thing to be accomplished in a few years.

Oh, c'mon, NGTM-1R, you know better than the rest of us that tool use trumps evolution. A good stance and a smooth trigger pull > genetic presets.

Plus, um, ants are a major species (possibly second only to humans in terms of land territory covered?), and the females do all the fighting there.

[Liberator]

Hatespeech?  If you honestly think I hate women, especially based on ANYTHING I've posted in this or any other comment...wow, I am speechless.

How dare you accuse me of hatespeech?!!?!?  I'll take a lot.  I mean it, you can insult and ridicule me all  you want, but that impugns my character and I won't have it!

[Blue Lion]

You really crossed a few lines there. You've tiptoed dangerously into pundit talk.

[General Battuta]

Hatespeech?  If you honestly think I hate women, especially based on ANYTHING I've posted in this or any other comment...wow, I am speechless.

How dare you accuse me of hatespeech?!!?!?  I'll take a lot.  I mean it, you can insult and ridicule me all  you want, but that impugns my character and I won't have it!

Well, I'm glad I at least got through to you. If the implication that you hate women is what it takes to make you realize that the things you're saying are hateful to women, then it has to be said.

I prefer to at least insult conditionally rather than dispositionally, so rest assured the fact that you're doing something now doesn't mean I think you are something. I've been pretty harsh on you but that doesn't mean I think you're a bad person.

I'm glad it made enough of an impact to make you think about what you're saying, but your conclusions are so disconnected from your premises that the only way to connect them is by the black box of sexist assumptions.

Seriously, Liberator. If you think you're hurt at being accused of hatespeech, imagine how the women who are reading this feel about what you're saying about women and their abilities in the world. 'Nine out of ten times they're better caretakers?' Great message to send to all the women who want to step into stereotypically male roles. It's exactly this kind of sexist, bull**** myths that keep women down because they're raised on this garbage. You should take a few implicit association tests; they're very revealing when it comes to prototypic associations and how powerful they are.

You really crossed a few lines there. You've tiptoed dangerously into pundit talk.

Not sure which of us you're referring to, but in my case, I'm giving Liberator fair warning, since other forum members have been monkeyed or banned just a few posts farther down the path he's treading.

[Liberator]

I'll concede that some of the stuff I said was uncomfortable from a feminist perspective.

But that highlights another growing problem in Modern America.  The thinness of skin when people start to get "offensive".  People are getting WAY to eager to call stuff Hatespeech.  I mean, I've seen and heard stuff that I wouldn't consider to be anything more offensive than mildly insulting and people go ape****.

I mean, lemme put it in context for you.  I'm from Alabama, for those not familiar with the state, we have NASA's largest research complex at the Marshall Spaceflight Center, we were the state the first open heart surgery was performed in and a lot of other stuff I forget about.  But, historically speaking, Alabama was also the birthplace of the Equal Rights movement during the 60's.  It's also one of the states that you classically think of when you hear the word "redneck".  Until Jeff Foxworthy popularized the term it was considered an insulting term.  Now imagine how would you feel if a bunch of hayseeds from Jackson County, Alabama marched on Washington because they were being oppressed?  We're talking about white, lower class clodhopping farmboys who couldn't find the country seat without a map.  Now, what if the source of that oppression was an organization of black people or women?  Who's side would you be on?  I have a pretty fair clue.

That rather wordy analogy was supposed to illustrate that certain groups have a very thin skin for dealing with insults.  Remember you are now and have for the last 5 or 10 years, arguing with a Redneck.  Now White Trash is whole different magilla....

[General Battuta]

I'll concede that some of the stuff I said was uncomfortable from a feminist perspective.

But that highlights another growing problem in Modern America.  The thinness of skin when people start to get "offensive".  People are getting WAY to eager to call stuff Hatespeech.  I mean, I've seen and heard stuff that I wouldn't consider to be anything more offensive than mildly insulting and people go ape****.

I mean, lemme put it in context for you.  I'm from Alabama, for those not familiar with the state, we have NASA's largest research complex at the Marshall Spaceflight Center, we were the state the first open heart surgery was performed in and a lot of other stuff I forget about.  But, historically speaking, Alabama was also the birthplace of the Equal Rights movement during the 60's.  It's also one of the states that you classically think of when you hear the word "redneck".  Until Jeff Foxworthy popularized the term it was considered an insulting term.  Now imagine how would you feel if a bunch of hayseeds from Jackson County, Alabama marched on Washington because they were being oppressed?  We're talking about white, lower class clodhopping farmboys who couldn't find the country seat without a map.  Now, what if the source of that oppression was an organization of black people or women?  Who's side would you be on?  I have a pretty fair clue.

That rather wordy analogy was supposed to illustrate that certain groups have a very thin skin for dealing with insults.  Remember you are now and have for the last 5 or 10 years, arguing with a Redneck.  Now White Trash is whole different magilla....

If it was a case of oppression of the poor and uneducated? I'd absolutely take their side.

But you cannot make a case that white males have as much of a right to be thin-skinned as women or other minorities. White males are the prototypic power-holders. Most government members, military officers, and CEOs are white males. They earn more and have more freedom.

White males have privilege which other minority groups have not earned. They have a number of negative freedoms: they are comparatively free from racism, free from rape, free from gender or race-based violence on the street (comparatively, mind), free from targeting on the basis of sexual orientation (assuming they are straight) and free from exclusion from power groups. What is more, white males are not held back by negative stereotypic associations in the way women are. Speech like yours holds women back because it reinforces these prototypic assocations. When you say things like what you said you are directly contributing to the perpetuation of sexism in this country.

But, all that said, I understand why you said it and why you believed it was appropriate when you wrote it. I don't think you're a bad person. I just really want you to realize why it's genuinely bad and not just 'bad from the viewpoint of a liberal thin-skinned feminist.'

[Rian]

Liberator, several of your posts have been overtly sexist. 100% of the women (and at least one man) in this thread are offended.  I would call that more than "uncomfortable."

Additionally, I believe the forum rules say that sexism is not permitted. So even if your words happened to fall short of the technical definition of hate speech, you've certainly crossed the line of what's acceptable here.

Also, about this:

On the topic of instincts, women ARE 9 times out of 10 better caregivers than men, it's just the way things are.  If you have it in you to go be a corporate muckymuck great, but corporate muckymucks seldom have time for children or families, not like they need anyway.

Just going by the sample available to us right here: would you honestly trust iaz or me with your children?

[Liberator]

Fair enough, I'll shut up.

In response to your question, if I had no other choice, probably, as I would expect both of you to be relatively clean, respectable people with an understanding of the resposibility I'd be handing you.  But seeing as I'm missing 2 of the 3 components for that particular bit of chemistry, it's kinda moot

[General Battuta]

What? You're missing both your testicles?

I...honestly don't understand.

[Liberator]

no no, the formula for children to spring from my loins is as follows:

Me + My Mate + safe home = healthy, respectful, well-raised children

I'm missing 2 of the 3, and I'm obviously not missing me.