Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

10 (76.9%)

No

3 (23.1%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Ogdibus]

The other things quoted were said by other people >_>

Irrelevant

Are you talking about me deleting the quotes attached?

Because I do that as a matter of etiquette. It stops quote pyramids that explode the forum. In regards to your quotes specifically, I quoted the full quote each time and the links were still up so anyone could follow the conversation that led to the points being made.

All I did was question oppression ingrained in our genetics, and asked for evidence in the contrary.

I didn't say anything about oppression being ingrained in our genetics.  Oppression can affect genetics, without the involvement of eugenics.  But my point in was in response to "Are women also shorter on average because beauty standards don't let them grow tall?"  It doesn't take much thought to realize that the answer is "sort-of, yes".  Associating the things I said with eugenics is an extreme conclusion to jump to.

Telling me, and everyone else that I don't know the meanings of words like 'oppression, acceptance, understanding, doubt,' and being 'receptive,' is insulting, misleading, and unnecessary.

I'm not addressing your response to the other posters, and you know it.  Do not pretend to be confused.  By removing the posts that I'm responding to, including one of yours, you are changing the context in which they are read.  The quote pyramids are not a problem if you spoiler them, and you know it.  Space does not justify changing the context of a quote.

[DJ]

What would you throw out? Water? Rations? First aid?

[Vector]

Let's be honest, though, that standards should change as gear becomes lighter.  Some things will remain about the same, some stuff is going to change significantly.

[Ogdibus]

Also, exoskeletons

[weenog]

Wow, I am impressed with the amount of misogynistic "few women have the physical strength to be infantry" comments that have sprung up while I was out.

Biotruths, man, so biotruths.

 

We, as a society, condemn women who try to build up their physical strength because it interferes with conventional beauty standards. We marginalize and never televise the multitudes of women who have builds amply suited to the battlefield. We perpetuate the myth of the physically incapable woman, institutionalize it using the very myths we perpetuate as facts to justify it, and then turn around and blame it on the very women we are marginalizing.

No. I refuse to accept the argument that there are few women capable of infantry duty. It's an outright lie, and it's offensive to me as a feminist.

I think the term Willfor was looking for here was sexual selection, and the later remarks about oppression influencing genetics were attempting to articulate that when sexual selection is applied and enforced on a cultural scale rather than individually, it may very well have small but significant effects on the way the human species evolves.

We haven't managed to sexually select women down to complete physical incompetence yet, fortunately.  Of course most of us don't really help with our attitudes.  How hypocritical are we to apply every pressure to women to stay small and feeble and soft, and sneer and insult when some of them stand up against that pressure and do things differently, and then blame the non-rebellious ones for not being big hard slabs of muscle?

It's not like they aren't capable of becoming that, though.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think they look pretty good, with a lot of raw physical capability.  Any one could meet or surpass the standards for being a soldier, even with Cory Everson being in her mid-50s.  I expect I'm in the minority for thinking that, even within this thread.

[pisskop]

mmmm muscles.  On some girls they look great.

Also exoskeletons wont come around to the average grunt for quite some time, I think.

[Neonivek]

Let's be honest, though, that standards should change as gear becomes lighter.  Some things will remain about the same, some stuff is going to change significantly.

Actually gear has gotten heavier from what I found. The mass use of mechanized infantry, the tendency to run less, as well as the popularity of using defensible locations has made the ability to carry heavier gear possible.

Civilian and paramilitary weaponry has gotten lighter. Military gear from what I can find, has gotten heavier.

As well as I said the 40kg is based around what a soldier can carry not from a standard list of gear that ended up at 40kg. In otherwords they found "hey soldiers can carry up to 40kg without hitting their capabilities too much. Lets pack standard gear in accordance to that 40kg"

What would you throw out? Water? Rations? First aid?

A bit of everything. I am looking at the list of gear right now and there are a few things you can cut. Certainly it would have impact but it would just mean you definitely wouldn't use a woman platoon who is going on foot into deep territory.

[Glowcat]

Also, exoskeletons

Power Armor solves everything!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Just as a note, soldiers have a bad habit of throwing away gear they consider unnecessary as soon as the officers stop paying attention. This lead to a lot of eye injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan when all the troops would get rid of their ballistic glasses.

Also, exoskeletons

Power Armor solves everything!

At that point you might as well just fill the exoskeleton with bullets and send it to fight by remote control.

[Vector]

I was going to say, I'm pretty sure even I could meet the standards for pushups, situps, and mile posted in this thread a while back after a year of light training--and I say that because I've been going the squishy mathematician route for the past seven years, so that would be if I were being lazy about it.

Still couldn't join because I have a terrible back (see: the 16-hour days spent bending over a problem set as a squishy mathematician), but I don't think the majority of women would have any real trouble with those particular exercises.  The pushups would be hard, yeah, but that's from a position of having never lifted weights or tried to get stronger.

[DJ]

Let's be honest, though, that standards should change as gear becomes lighter.  Some things will remain about the same, some stuff is going to change significantly.

It's not really becoming lighter, though. As individual components become lighter, they just cram more in. It's a matter of logistics. The longer a squad can go without resupply, the less trucks and helicopters they're tying down.

[Vector]

It's not really becoming lighter, though. As individual components become lighter, they just cram more in. It's a matter of logistics. The longer a squad can go without resupply, the less trucks and helicopters they're tying down.

Ah yeah, I hadn't thought of that.  I'd assumed that they'd put a greater emphasis on individual troops being able to move more quickly and suffering fewer injuries, which seems incorrect.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

2. Because of societal attitudes right now, many men in the military would in turn go full macho in rescuing women in danger during combat, possibly to the detriment of the entire mission. In turn, enemies note "Hey! If we aim specifically at the women in their army, they start doing stupid things! Lets kill/maim as many women in their army as possible to mess up unit cohesion!", which THEN leads to the PR nightmare of dead female soldiers having their pictures wind up in the news. This problem could conceivably go away with time, but not any time in the near future.

Men who would ignore their training and orders to do this should not be in the military.

She makes a great point and unwittingly highlights a tactic we use in country. We would probably have the girl adhere to our grooming standards (equality after all) so they would have short hair, probably a medium fade, and when you get right down to it, female figure is nonexistant when you are all tacked out in flak and kevlar.

I would risk my lif for any one of my marines, just as much as another, but mission is key. I really reccomend reading On Combat by colonel dave grossman, and also On Killing, same author. It talks about reactions and psychological mindset during taking fire and in combat.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not really becoming lighter, though. As individual components become lighter, they just cram more in. It's a matter of logistics. The longer a squad can go without resupply, the less trucks and helicopters they're tying down.

Ah yeah, I hadn't thought of that.  I'd assumed that they'd put a greater emphasis on individual troops being able to move more quickly and suffering fewer injuries, which seems incorrect.

Well, then you just hit them with sticks until they can run fast under a heavy load.

Injury reduction is mostly because of armor. Ceramic armor these days is really, really good. If you look at photos of IED wounds (which you probably don't want to do, because they're not pleasant) you can usually see a line where the skin goes from burnt and scarred to perfectly fine. That line is where the armor starts.

[Vector]

Ah, no, I meant the repetitive stress injuries that being a soldier tends to cause--bad backs, knees, ankles, etc.  Not stuff accrued from combat.