12-07-2002, 02:31 AM
|
#41 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 698
| My two cents? I don't want to read the book, or even know what it is. I know I can't imagine anything anywhere near the horror of being raped. But what I CAN imagine is quite enough. And I don't like to think about it, because then I get into the kind of mood where I seriously consider looking up the sex-offender registries, finding the nearest convicted rapist, and cutting his throat out. There is not a single other thing on this earth that inspires such hatred in me as a rapist.
And when I get in moods like that, I become very unpleasant for the people who have to deal with me, and that's not fair to them.
As for "all-or-nothing" in draft and military: I can see your point. Remember, however, that we're talking about equal RIGHTS. Does anybody have a RIGHT to combat? For that matter, what should we want to do about somebody who desires it that badly? That's just a little unstable.
One more point: Equal rights are supposed to be applied [/i]where all other things are equal[/i]. Maybe you don't want to hire a woman for a certain job because she's a woman. If it's a secretarial job, that's sexism. If it's construction work, that's a different case - she's probably not physically qualified for it, and so it's just good sense. Of course, if she is physically qualified, then it's sexism again.
Basically, sexism, equal rights, etc. don't apply if all other things are not equal. And since not all things are equal in the situation of men and women at war, then allowances must be made.
__________________
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
| 
|  | | And now for this message... |
| |
12-07-2002, 02:38 AM
|
#42 | | Member
Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Vagrant
Posts: 47
| Good point. Allowances must be made, you're right. For example, on the Personal Fitness Test delivered by the Air Force, men are required to run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes. Women get 14.5 minutes. That's the way it is already, that's the way it would be should a draft be made.
Still won't sway me that it's fair, though.
But then, as they say, all is fair in love and war.
Bloody 'ell, just grab a sword and poke people already.
__________________
I've got a theory. It could be bunnies.
Proud to be serving as the Official Class Clown of the Seven. | |
| | |
12-07-2002, 02:49 AM
|
#43 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 698
| Well, that's kind of what I mean, and kind of not.
Two ways to do it:
1. Subject women to the same testing and training as men. The ones who then make it through, will then be just as qualified as any of the men that they serve beside. And because things will be equal, there would be no reason not to treat them identically.
2. Make allowances for them in training and testing (like the time difference for the PFT, let alone the PAE). However, now you have no reason to believe that a given woman is the equal of her male counterpart. Now that things are unequal, you must make unequal allowances to compensate - such as relegating females to support positions.
The idea behind women in the draft is this: They want all things to be equal. So, referring to my argument above, equal laws will have to apply to them. Including the draft. Funny how they want equality under the law when the law is beneficial to them, but not when the law will make them do something they don't want to do...
__________________
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
| |
| | |
12-09-2002, 12:02 PM
|
#44 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 502
| Is their a bigger picture here?
A governing body is forcing you (by lottery or whatever) to pick up a gun, and kill. Your a woman, a man? Who cares. You did not choose to join the military, and serve. And if you do not comply with your government's orders, you are punished.
Oh, I still think women in the military is not the end of the world! It today's modern theatre of war, I would think brains over brawn would win the war! | |
| | |
12-09-2002, 12:23 PM
|
#45 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 698
| Two things:
First of all, the draft is the law of the land. Work to get it changed if you wish. If you can't, there's nothing forcing you to stay in America. But whether or not to have the draft at all is another issue entirely.
Second, war still comes down to brawn over brains a lot of times. Those positions that tend to be in such situations are the positions we should be keeping women out of.
__________________
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
| |
| | |
12-09-2002, 01:46 PM
|
#46 | | Quit (no longer with us)
Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: usa
Posts: 1,307
| Quote: Originally posted by Crin Dalmeiier
Good point. Allowances must be made, you're right. For example, on the Personal Fitness Test delivered by the Air Force, men are required to run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes. Women get 14.5 minutes. That's the way it is already, that's the way it would be should a draft be made.
Still won't sway me that it's fair, though.
But then, as they say, all is fair in love and war.
Bloody 'ell, just grab a sword and poke people already. |
Well, it may not make a difference personally EXCEPT if you only have 12 minutes to get outta there. On the other hand, someone once complained about female firefighters: and I asked: well, if your room is burning down and you looked outside your window and a 6 foot 3 female said "jump honey and I'll catch you" would you jump......?  | |
| | |
12-09-2002, 10:57 PM
|
#47 | | Member
Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Vagrant
Posts: 47
| Quote: Originally posted by 135711
Well, it may not make a difference personally EXCEPT if you only have 12 minutes to get outta there. On the other hand, someone once complained about female firefighters: and I asked: well, if your room is burning down and you looked outside your window and a 6 foot 3 female said "jump honey and I'll catch you" would you jump......? | Well, a very good point. Most of the girls in my section could make it in 12 minutes *grins* The parameters are just more lax.
And I'd jump. Fire. Salvation from fire. Woman or man, I'm getting out of there.
*grin*
__________________
I've got a theory. It could be bunnies.
Proud to be serving as the Official Class Clown of the Seven. | |
| | |
12-10-2002, 12:33 AM
|
#48 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 698
| Quote: Originally posted by 135711
Well, it may not make a difference personally EXCEPT if you only have 12 minutes to get outta there. On the other hand, someone once complained about female firefighters: and I asked: well, if your room is burning down and you looked outside your window and a 6 foot 3 female said "jump honey and I'll catch you" would you jump......? |
Of course you'd jump. But would you rather have a six-three woman catch you, or a six-three man with twice the shoulder width? And how many six-three women are even out there?
As for the times - the point is that by allowing them easier conditions for the testing (and going easier on training), one necessarily admits that the woman is weaker. If she is weaker, then why have her fighting with (and against) men, who are stronger?
__________________
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
| |
| | |
12-10-2002, 02:41 AM
|
#49 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Utah
Posts: 423
| On the torture thing, I have to disagree. Men can be, and are, raped too. Rape is not about sex, it's about I will prove that I can control you in the most intimate way possible.
Someone said after the incident in Somalia where the corpse of a soldier was dragged through the street that that's why women shouldn't be in combat. Granted it's disturbing and I'm sure no one here wants to see their wife/mother/sister/daughter being treated like that--or I should say their corpse treated like that-- but would it really be any easier to see your husband/father/brother/son in that position? I don't think so. Second of all, while it is an act of disrespect, after you're dead, what do you care what they do with you remains? It's not going to hurt you anymore not matter what they do.
__________________
One cat leads to another--Ernest Hemingway.
Writing is very easy. All you do is sit in front of a typewriter (or computer)keyboard and wait until little drops of blood appear on your forehead."
-- Walter W. "Ked" Smith
| |
| | |
12-10-2002, 02:49 AM
|
#50 | | Member
Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Vagrant
Posts: 47
| Quote: Originally posted by Swordsman
Of course you'd jump. But would you rather have a six-three woman catch you, or a six-three man with twice the shoulder width? And how many six-three women are even out there?
As for the times - the point is that by allowing them easier conditions for the testing (and going easier on training), one necessarily admits that the woman is weaker. If she is weaker, then why have her fighting with (and against) men, who are stronger? | Darn straight I'd jump. And for your information, I do know a woman who is 6'3". So, ha! Okay, that doesn't answer your question, but I'm snippy tonight.
Although I'm against the draft and against women in the draft, actual strength is not so much as question in today's battles than it was when the men actually faced each other down with swords and clubs and spears. However, sometimes it does come down to hand-to-hand combat, but less often. It's not so much as an issue as it was hundreds of years ago.
And you must admit, even in jest, that a woman's touch in some of the WWII trenches might ahve been a nice thing anyway. But that's so stereotypical that I'm gagging over my own near-sightedness. *smirk*
__________________
I've got a theory. It could be bunnies.
Proud to be serving as the Official Class Clown of the Seven. | |
| | |
12-10-2002, 06:37 AM
|
#51 | | Member
Join Date: May 2001 Location: Israel
Posts: 67
| have any here heard of the role women played in the latest spat between Ethiopia and Eritriea? Granted, most of the Eritriean women in that conflict where volunteers, that fought side by side with the men, and against men. After the ceasefire, it was said by the (all male?) Ethiopia side, that they prefered to fight against the men...the men where not as ruthless.
__________________
--------------
...and after the spanking....
--------------
| |
| | |
12-10-2002, 07:26 AM
|
#52 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,617
| Quote: Originally posted by Swordsman
{snip}
If she is weaker, then why have her fighting with (and against) men, who are stronger? | Perhaps because physical strength is no longer the primary requisite for being a member of the military, and in many positions has no bearing whatsoever?
--Philistine | |
| | |
12-10-2002, 10:05 AM
|
#53 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Staying in DC
Posts: 1,429
| For what it's worth.
Quote: |
Although I'm against the draft and against women in the draft, actual strength is not so much as question in today's battles than it was when the men actually faced each other down with swords and clubs and spears.
| Oh really? Ask the guys that participated in Operation Annaconnda about that. Humping 100+ pound rucks up and down the mountains of Afghanastan doesn't take strength? I beg to differ. Lifting and loading 85# 120mm maingun ammunition for an M1 doesn't take strength? Hauling around and loading 125# projectiles for 155mm artillery doesn't take strength? And I could go on for pages of similar situations. And that's just from the Army's perspective and I think that you see my point.
I have served in both all male combat arms units (Armor from platoon to two company commands) and mixed male-female combat support units (Division Intelligence section and commanded an MI battlalion). I also was a part of the integration of women into a previous all male ROTC program. And served through the increase in the number of women in the military.
And yes, I had a problem with it. And still do to some extent. But as with any large organization there are going to be the ones on the extreme of the scale that you are going to remember. For instance, the ones that joined found out it was a lot more demanding than they realized (or couldn't just bat their baby blues and get out of things) got pregnant, which was grounds for early discharge, and then got an abortion as soon as they were out of the military. Or fully knowing the taboo of fraterniization with someone in their chain of command, destroy not only their's but their lover's careers. Or the ones that perennially are carried along (much like their male couterparts) and passed from unit to unit because no one wants to take the responsibility of confronting them because they are female or minority. It's this kind of soldier/sailor/marine/airmen that get others killed. And not just in combat, but training, too.
But then there are women out there that I would gladly have working with or for me. My Operations Officer (or S3) was one fo the toughest women I have known that regularly achieved the maximum score on the PFT for the men's standards in her age group. She was a consumate soldier, leader and Intel officer. If push came to shove, I knew that she would be out on the defensive perimeter with everyone else and do a great job ( and I saw that happen during one field exercise). I had many others that were as good. But they were, like the other end of the spectrum, not as numerous as the ones that tried hard, did their jobs and blended into the unit like the rest of the soldiers.
If I were speak in generalities about what I see problems are today, i would say:
1) Physical fitness is the biggest problem. Not just that the standards are different for men and women (although now there is no difference in the number of situps) but the fact that there is a higher proportion of women that cannot pass or maintain the required MINIMUM level of fitness.
2) Mental toughness is something that not only young women have a problem with, but a lot of young men. Those of you here that are coaches may see this, too. Today's reaction to stress and pressure is to withdraw and to avoid, rather than that inner "oh, yeah? watch this I'm gonna show you!" reaction.
3) Testosterone/estrogen volitility. It happens and yes, it causes touble. Not as much as it does in a civilian or office environment, but in units where you live together for extended periods of time. I saw this when I was deployed to Bosnia. A fair amount of trouble happened because of being separated from family and being thrown into close proximity to each other for 24/7 for 7 and a half months. Not a few marriges suffered and jelousies between troops caused a fair amont of trouble, too. And we were a much older (a National Guard unit) and supposedly more mature unit than most of the active units that were there.
Finally, Quote: |
Perhaps because physical strength is no longer the primary requisite for being a member of the military, and in many positions has no bearing whatsoever?
| Phil, I agree with this, especially since with the increases in communications ability we no longer have to deploy many functions to combat zones. The concept that most units use now is split-based operations. Almost all intel structures have what they call a sanctuary in the US that will support deployed elements. Do these folks need to be as strong as those deployed? I don't think so. And in that respect, perhaps there are places for physically handicapped soldiers here. But now you are creating a situation where not all soldiers are able to be moved where they need to be. You have created a situation of two classes of soldiers that will lead to morale and leadership challanges that will make an already difficult situation worse.
Anyway, just my $.02 (and change!)
__________________
Remember those who put their lives in danger for your sake.
For your copy of "The Care and Feeding of All Things Fencing" go to http://www.homfencing.com | |
| | |
12-10-2002, 10:42 AM
|
#54 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Hall School, Wellesely, MA
Posts: 3,721
| Quote: Originally posted by Philistine
Perhaps because physical strength is no longer the primary requisite for being a member of the military, and in many positions has no bearing whatsoever?
--Philistine | More importantly, it hasn't been for quite a while. Remember: thousands of Nazi's were killed by female snipers in the battle of Stalingrad.
-m | |
| | |
12-10-2002, 10:44 AM
|
#55 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 502
| Quote: Originally posted by Swordsman
Try being a straight white middle class male when it comes to college admissions time, and scholarship applications. If you want anything, you need to have (A) cured a major disease before the age of 15, (B) started a successful commercial enterprise and gotten it on the stock exchange, or (C) been captain of EVERY sport offered at your school. And if this number is less than twenty, well, you're screwed. Oh, and if you're not valedictorian, you'd better have done all three of those things to explain why you didn't have so much time to study for your Honors, AP, and IB classes.
Then you get the people (especially females) who are a minority from one of the coasts, with one or more parents that have some disability. All they have to do is express interest, and colleges start throwing money at them.
Why? Because if you don't have enough minorities, etc. in your school anymore, you're racist, sexist, and every other -ist you can think of. So colleges have to fill quotas, which means that the biggest group (straight white middle class males) is completely screwed.
Discrimination does work all ways. Just make the laws even for everybody, and things will work out in the end. That goes for the draft, too. |
I would think by your message here that you are a racist, sexist, or "insert title here" - ist. | |
| | |
12-11-2002, 12:37 PM
|
#56 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 698
| Quote: Originally posted by civiltech
I would think by your message here that you are a racist, sexist, or "insert title here" - ist. | It's generally advisable to qualify an opinion with other opinions, arguments, evidence, etc. in order to back yourself up. Doubly so if it is an offensive comment such as this. So, why?
__________________
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. - Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
| |
| | |
12-11-2002, 02:01 PM
|
#57 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Ypsilanti, Mi USA
Posts: 1,589
| The US Supreme court is taking the college admissions case vs. University of Michigan, we'll be hearing plenty about whats going on I think. | |
| | |
12-11-2002, 03:42 PM
|
#58 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 502
| Quote: Originally posted by Swordsman
It's generally advisable to qualify an opinion with other opinions, arguments, evidence, etc. in order to back yourself up. Doubly so if it is an offensive comment such as this. So, why? |
My comment simply states that your rant leads me to interpret you as racist, sexist or the such.
My intent is not to offend you. It is an observation which I hope you will take under strong consideration. If your post is not intended to be racist...or the such, and you don't want to be interpreted as a racist, I would recommend you revisit your post, and edit it. There are others who may interpret your post this way as well..
I'm sure you can agree that comments which single out particular groups: 'then you get the people' or 'try being a straight white middle class male.' can lead to the belief your a racist, sexist, or the such.
Your statement:
"Try being a straight white middle class male when it comes to college admissions time, and scholarship applications..."
Do you think this shall be interpreted as racist?
Your statement:
"Then you get the people (especially females) who are a minority from one of the coasts..."
Do you think this shall be interpreted as sexist?
Your statement:
"Because if you don't have enough minorities, etc. in your school anymore, you're racist, sexist, and every other -ist you can think of..."
Upon further review, how do you think this shall be interpreted?
From your apparent offense, it is now my understanding that you do not consider yourself a racist, or sexist. I am glad you have clarified this to me. However, your earlier message still does not give you very strong support on your claim.
"I would think that by your message that you are a racist, sexist, or 'insert title here' - ist."
Best regards, sorry for our misunerstanding.
Last edited by civiltech; 12-11-2002 at 03:55 PM.
| |
| | |
12-11-2002, 10:18 PM
|
#59 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 22,767
| Just looked like a rant about the institutionalization of political correctness in academia to me... | |
| | |
12-11-2002, 11:03 PM
|
#60 | | Just Joined
Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: ny
Posts: 28
| "Just looked like a rant about the institutionalization of political correctness in academia to me..."
Looked like that ot me too... | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
