Print

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

[scriver]

I would like to state that when Americans tried to put in mix gender firefighters they had to lower the standards.

[Citation needed]

This is basically the unbased argument "if women is allowed to be firefighters they would have to lower the requirements" turned into "women were allowed to be firefighters and the requirements were lowered" after said permission came into action. In my experience, noone who said it has ever been able to back it up, and it seems to be pure propaganda of the "repeat it enough" kind and/or an example of people accepting unbased statements as proof just because it fits with their world view.

[Erkki]

Physical condition and abilities vary more within genders than between them... Whats the relevance, 20% or so?

Other than that, the only argument against might be slightly more demanding requirements for taking care of hygiene, as for physical differences.

[DJ]

They should *not* get special treatment for those. Yes, shared showers would be extremely uncomfortable. But the whole point of military life is that it's extremely uncomfortable, so that the soldiers get used to it and aren't bothered by the physical and psychological discomforts of the battlefield. Why else would they have broken down facilities, borderline inedible food and pointless work (moving a stump 20cm to the left, for example) when I was doing my mandatory service?

[Erkki]

They should *not* get special treatment for those. Yes, shared showers would be extremely uncomfortable. But the whole point of military life is that it's extremely uncomfortable, so that the soldiers get used to it and aren't bothered by the physical and psychological discomforts of the battlefield.

No, thats not the point. Have you experienced one?

Hygiene is a serious thing as well. Getting used to not sleeping, dirt and work is one thing, not being able to take care of yourself another. Regardless of training, soldier with full stomach, and clean panties, works better. Actual fighting is just a small fraction of soldier's work, even during a war.

[DJ]

You don't have showers in the trenches, and chances are you don't get bathrooms either. So you have to go in front of the other soldiers if you don't want a sniper bullet in your skull.

And speaking of full stomach, my brother went from 100 kg to 85 in 6 months of service, and he ate everything they gave him. He wasn't fat at the start, either, as he's rather tall. So yeah, apparently getting used to malnutrition is another goal of military training.

[Erkki]

You don't have showers in the trenches, and chances are you don't get bathrooms either. So you have to go in front of the other soldiers if you don't want a sniper bullet in your skull.

And speaking of full stomach, my brother went from 100 kg to 85 in 6 months of service, and he ate everything they gave him. He wasn't fat at the start, either, as he's rather tall. So yeah, apparently getting used to malnutrition is another goal of military training.

Sounds interesting... For what kind of war are they training and practicing people for there? WW1? 

With slightly more demanding hygienical requirements I didnt mean showers or bath.

[Nikov]

To me, if anyone got shot, and they were still alive, I would try to save them.. Be it man or woman.

And then the sniper gets you. And if I were a snake-eating pants-shitter, I'd target the women in the enemy unit, preferably in the legs, while they were crossing an open area.

[Urist is dead tome]

I can't provide evidence for the firefighter argument so that's a dead one.

Meh, the whole issue is that military is still very macho.
The only people that are against it is those who think women are the "weaker sex" (read inferior) and don't want to sully their beloved military with them.

Tsahal is one of the strongest army on earth and they had no problem including women in their rank.
Likewise, I really wouldn't want to fight a female commando.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israeli_Defense_Forces
Ok physical difference... would only be relevant is the strongest women was weaker than the requirement for being effective in combat. So no, it's not relevant.

Logistic problem... ok, I get it, two row of shower must be an insolvable problem for US military. wow, how have every other societies, company, school, ... managed to solve these problems. I really don't know... must be magic.

Ho no, wait the women will be taken hostage so that the men get killed when they run to help them. Well given that you'll lose the idiot who are not able to understand that they have to do their work , not to play hero by saving the "feeble damsel in distress", I'd say it's a good thing.

Men are instinctively programmed to want to save women. Its not an ego thing as you imply.

To me, if anyone got shot, and they were still alive, I would try to save them.. Be it man or woman.

And then the sniper gets you. And if I were a snake-eating pants-shitter, I'd target the women in the enemy unit, preferably in the legs, while they were crossing an open area.

Edit: Ah, Nikov, someone who I can finally agree with.

[Sheb]

What? Come on, do you really think half of what you say? We're not programmed for nathing for god's sake!

[Urist is dead tome]

What? Come on, do you really think half of what you say? We're not programmed for nathing for god's sake!

Yes. Lets all take things too literally and try to present that as a working argument.

[freeformschooler]

Men are instinctively programmed to want to save women. Its not an ego thing as you imply.

That's a pretty sweeping statement. Can you back that one up with science/evidence? After all, if I saw a woman OR man lying on the battlefield and knew that saving them meant my own life, I probably wouldn't want to save them, as not only would they probably already be dead or dying but then the army would be down two soldiers instead of one.

And you can't even discredit one person such as me considering you said "men" and not "most men" or "some men".

[Erkki]

Men are instinctively programmed to want to save women. Its not an ego thing as you imply.

That's a pretty sweeping statement. Can you back that one up with science/evidence? After all, if I saw a woman OR man lying on the battlefield and knew that saving them meant my own life, I probably wouldn't want to save them, as not only would they probably already be dead or dying but then the army would be down two soldiers instead of one.

And you can't even discredit one person such as me considering you said "men" and not "most men" or "some men".

Thats why the concept of "sniper" is so efficient.

Its just not a man or woman in a similar univorm there. Its most likely someone you've known for years, maybe your best friend. Hes/shes crying his/her soul out and bleeding. You jump in to save him or her.

[freeformschooler]

Men are instinctively programmed to want to save women. Its not an ego thing as you imply.

That's a pretty sweeping statement. Can you back that one up with science/evidence? After all, if I saw a woman OR man lying on the battlefield and knew that saving them meant my own life, I probably wouldn't want to save them, as not only would they probably already be dead or dying but then the army would be down two soldiers instead of one.

And you can't even discredit one person such as me considering you said "men" and not "most men" or "some men".

Thats why the concept of "sniper" is so efficient.

Its just not a man or woman in a similar univorm there. Its most likely someone you've known for years, maybe your best friend. Hes crying his soul out and bleeding. You jump in to save him or her.

If you present it that way you're right, but the argument is no longer about men being programmed to save women in general. It's about saving someone because that's what they are to you: someone.

[Erkki]

Men are instinctively programmed to want to save women. Its not an ego thing as you imply.

That's a pretty sweeping statement. Can you back that one up with science/evidence? After all, if I saw a woman OR man lying on the battlefield and knew that saving them meant my own life, I probably wouldn't want to save them, as not only would they probably already be dead or dying but then the army would be down two soldiers instead of one.

And you can't even discredit one person such as me considering you said "men" and not "most men" or "some men".

Thats why the concept of "sniper" is so efficient.

Its just not a man or woman in a similar univorm there. Its most likely someone you've known for years, maybe your best friend. Hes crying his soul out and bleeding. You jump in to save him or her.

If you present it that way you're right, but the argument is no longer about men being programmed to save women in general. It's about saving someone because that's what they are to you: someone.

Indeed.... Talking about stereotypes, one could think women would not try to save men.

Wrong. The hell they do...

[Vector]

With slightly more demanding hygienical requirements I didnt mean showers or bath.

Yeah, seriously >_>  Just saying, there's plenty of bonafide women who don't actually shower all that often.  I'm guessing that the ones who come out looking naturally photoshopped are more divesting of group attention, but that's definitely not all of us.  Or probably even most of us.

And you know, if no one's giving you shit for getting a little blood on things, it really doesn't matter that much.  It's gross, but it's not such a big deal.

I'll also add that women are historically considered better about blood because of their, er, intimate knowledge of it.  I don't know if that's just another rumor, but if we're throwing out rumors then I figured I'd add mine to the heap.

What? Come on, do you really think half of what you say? We're not programmed for nathing for god's sake!

Yes. Lets all take things too literally and try to present that as a working argument.

To be honest, I really have to ask how much this "programming" is not biological, but cultural.

I suspect that it's rather a lot.  I don't think men are instinctively "programmed" to never hit a girl, or that women are instinctively "programmed" to act like passive, masochistic twerps.  Either that, or my biological programming is even more fubared than I ever thought it was, and playing "knight," tackle catch, and football with my male friends in elementary school had nothing to do with who I am and how I act today.

That's not saying that there aren't issues--and yeah, as Nikov said, snipe the woman (I would totally do it, if I were in that situation).  This isn't some sort of situation were I say "well, you guys are totally wrong and women are A-O-freaking-K in every situation."  I think risks have to be taken in the name of progress and a better future, though, in which we are all more free.  I don't think that moving straight from not-in-army to the front lines is a good idea, for obvious reasons.  Baby steps, to go with our changing society.  I'm glad to see that we're making progress.  Hopefully the rapes will start to be resolved, and diminished.  Hopefully the rest of society will do something about its "rape culture."  I guess I'm just saying that I see hope for the future, despite all of this crud and the obvious drawbacks we're currently experiencing.