[Kosh]

It's the same thing with DADT.  The military is barring homosexuals/women from serving based on what they think might will eventually happen, rather than what actually happens. 

Fixed.  If it's allowed it will happen eventually, humans are human and do stupid stuff.  Personally, I think soldiers should take libido suppressors for the duration of service.

Humans, like most other species link their libido with a variety of other factors including aggression (for both males and females).  Take away the sexual drive and you'll probably remove those aggressive tendencies and instincts that you want out of your soldiers too. So I don't think that's really a solution... there isn't too much of a solution except that people need to stop making big deals out of things and get on with it.

Maybe they should go with what the peacekeepers in farscape would do, make birth control mandatory, ban any sort of personal relationship, but still let them **** all they need.

[Ghostavo]

Silly people, the only article needed to check is this one.

 

[Dilmah G]

Kosh: I'm against fraternization between people in the same unit, period.

On the far more important aspect of integration, the troubles with establishing unit cohesion, I believe that's something training needs to address. A unit needs to train, and operate until there's no colour, or gender divisions. The men and women in your unit are not 'just' men and women, they're your brothers and sisters, and you need to operate as such. I'm not a soldier, but the doco details this as being the key issue.

For the moment though, I think we should try getting women into a normal infantry battalion, before we try spec ops. It'll be hard at first, but so was allowing women into Fast-Jets in America, if I recall. (We've never had any female FJ pilots in Australia... Yet.)

[TrashMan]

I dunno why you're all wasting your breath.  It's obvious Trash is a misogynist and thats probably not gonna change by offerin' reasonable arguments.

It's obvious you're a friggin retard, and there's not gonan change. Ever. Maybe a brain transplant might help.

Wow, Trashman proves again he doesn't know a damned thing about women in the armed forces.

But apparently more than you.
At least I'm not trying to denounce reality. Clear data on performance exists. You choose to ignore them.

Also, we are NOT talking about regular armed forces.

[Colonol Dekker]

Zero tolerance.
No play nice.
Take away the toys.

[karajorma]

It's obvious you're a friggin retard, and there's not gonan change. Ever. Maybe a brain transplant might help.

Says the guy who just stupidly earned himself a perma-ban from Gen Discuss.


EDIT : Since Trashman has been dealt with, this can be unlocked.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Somehow, I'm under the impression that women can be fit for Special Ops duties, especially if it involves lots of speed and balance. You know women are good at both, and they can be pretty good thinkers too.

[Nuclear1]

It's obvious you're a friggin retard, and there's not gonan change. Ever. Maybe a brain transplant might help.

Says the guy who just stupidly earned himself a perma-ban from Gen Discuss.

Can it really be perma this time?

[Liberator]

No one is saying that women can't be spec ops.  All that's being said is that the percentage that are physically and psychologically capable of not only making it into spec ops, but staying in spec ops, is small enough to be statistically meaningless, and that special rules should not be made for the situation.

The argument on the other hand is that if a woman wants to be in spec ops then she should be allowed in no matter what, at least that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.

I'll say it again however, since we are talking about a fictitious "wonder woman" from what will likely be another POS, no talent attempt to cash in on what used to be a bankable franchise by moronic, poo-flinging, Hollywood Execs.  She can be "Runway model gorgeous with Porn Star ethics" and still be a complete badass.  It's a movie, stop *****ing.

[Ford Prefect]

What?

[Klaustrophobia]

i believe he said this whole argument that stemmed from a female SF soldier in a MOVIE is utterly retarded.

[Nuclear1]

What?

NO U

[redsniper]

Oh, I reported Trash's post, but he already got banned. Disregard...

[Ford Prefect]

i believe he said this whole argument that stemmed from a female SF soldier in a MOVIE is utterly retarded.

Oh, right. I forgot how this started. Let the veiled misogyny proceed as scheduled.

[Nuclear1]

i believe he said this whole argument that stemmed from a female SF soldier in a MOVIE is utterly retarded.

Oh, right. I forgot how this started. Let the veiled misogyny proceed as scheduled.

I think most of it just got permabanned though.

[Colonol Dekker]

Get on-topic now!

[iamzack]

The argument on the other hand is that if a woman wants to be in spec ops then she should be allowed in no matter what, at least that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.

So you admit you haven't read a single post in this thread?

For ****'s sake man! WE ARE NOT LOWERING ANY ****ING STANDARDS.

A man or woman will meet the same standard or go home.

Please read the first link Dilmah provided. It says, in far more detail than I want to spend, that of all the women serving in the Armed Forces, only 1 % has the physical prerequisites to perform at the same level as a male. It also says that the standards are not lowered; in other words, women can enter the Armed Forces, even the special forces branches provided they meet the entrance criteria, which are the same for males and females.
[/i].

There is absolutely zero reason to bar female soldiers from trying out for any position they desire.
There is also absolutely zero reason to give them any kind of lower standards. They should have to meet the same fitness requirements as men.

[Scotty]

If you read all the posts, it's easy to mistake that to be a facet of the other hand of the argument (thanks to Trashman).

Lib, rest assured, that's entirely not the argument.  The argument is that women who prove themselves capable should be allowed in.  No more, no less, from what I can see.

[iamzack]

Not a single person argued that there should be lowered requirements for women.

[mxlm]

You're wrong, Liberator is on record as supporting lower requirements for women.

I mean, Liberator, women's lib, you think that's a coincidence?