Next Generation Emulation banner

1 - 20 of 103 Posts

·
band
Joined
·
4,912 Posts
wut a guy. i just hate bush. but i think he has a point. i mean, there has to be a reason why women cant compete with men in sports rite. i think the same can be said about military training where stamina and brute strenght are important. unless of course they make a world standard where theres a men vs men section of a battlefield and a women vs women part...

thats my 2 cents anyway.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
DarkAurora said:
Bush is now saying that women are not good enough to be in ground combat.

Hmmm... in a way I understand the logic. But I still think women should have the same choice of combat or non combat roles as men (as long as the have appropriate training). Another issue is that male and female solders don’t work well together. Unless society makes a big change (unlikely) male and female fighting forces should be separate.

D.D. said:
wut a guy. i just hate bush. but i think he has a point. i mean, there has to be a reason why women cant compete with men in sports rite. i think the same can be said about military training where stamina and brute strenght are important.
I see women do extremely well in all kinds of sports. And brute strength is nothing compared to true skill
 

·
Back from the dead
Joined
·
3,741 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Whether or not male and female soldiers get along outside the battlefield, I think they would put aside thier differences when fighting in combat. All of this "men are stronger than women" crap is just an excuse for sexist beliefs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
DarkAurora said:
Whether or not male and female soldiers get along outside the battlefield, I think they would put aside thier differences when fighting in combat.
Perhaps… but being outside of combat and functioning effectively with your fellow solders is just as important as fighting.

DarkAurora said:
All of this "men are stronger than women" crap is just an excuse for sexist beliefs.
Like I’ve said before. Brute strength is nothing compared to true skill.
 

·
band
Joined
·
4,912 Posts
I see women do extremely well in all kinds of sports. And brute strength is nothing compared to true skill
Im definitely not saying that women dont do well in sports. Im just saying that even in the Olympics theres a men and theres a women division. You just cant expect a woman to take on a man in wrestling or boxing...or ... at those levels

EDIT: i also want to say that im all for the fact that ON THE BATTLEFIELD, women cud very well be just as good soldiers as men, but the fact is the military training camps as they are rite now are simply not the best place for women to be. Im not sure about the trainng camps in the united states, but my friends from Korea (all men need to go through the army there) tell me that u get treated like dirt and when u come out of there after 2 yrs ur completely changed. sure, they mite be skilled, but im thinking very few women can withstand the "macho nature" of these places.
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
8,882 Posts
I agree with DarkAurora regarding sexism.
Imagine if anyone came up saying that black and white soldiers don't get along well in the battlefield, so there should be separate forces, based on color. I'm sure there would be an outrage, and for good reasons.
The argument against women is analogous to the above argument. But our society is good at dealing with double standards ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,829 Posts
Boltzmann said:
I agree with DarkAurora regarding sexism.
Imagine if anyone came up saying that black and white soldiers don't get along well in the battlefield, so there should be separate forces, based on color. I'm sure there would be an outrage, and for good reasons.
The argument against women is analogous to the above argument. But our society is good at dealing with double standards ;)
it sounds nice but, there are actual functional differences between the vast majority of men and women unlike black and white people.



Katsuya said:
Like I’ve said before. Brute strength is nothing compared to true skill.
then why do we need different guidelines for accepting women into combat from those that are used for men? I'd be fine with "women in combat" as long as the performance measurements are the same and not comprimised.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
Boltzmann said:
I agree with DarkAurora regarding sexism.
Imagine if anyone came up saying that black and white soldiers don't get along well in the battlefield, so there should be separate forces, based on color.
I'm sure there would be an outrage, and for good reasons.
The argument against women is analogous to the above argument. But our society is good at dealing with double standards ;)
I think I see how you can apply the racism reference to this situation. But the fact of the matter is male solders treat women like crap. All the time you hear about the mistreatment of female trainees and full solders. If they become officers things get somewhat better. I have personally spoken with several female military personnel. (Some of them are even my friends) they told me of the many hardships they had to face. Frankly it disgusts me. (Would you want to work with a group of people who mistreated you?)

Like I said. Unless society makes a big change…

Unicron said:
it sounds nice but, there are actual functional differences between the vast majority of men and women unlike black and white people.
Also a good point!

I think we need a female member of NgEmu to talk on this subject (are there any left? Or did They scare them all off) :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
Society will change, it just takes time. Like the white and black scenario, it's still not on equal levels where everyone is treated the same, and it's been many many years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
I think some good points have been made so far, but I can't help but feel that one important thing has been left unsaid...

Men and women are fundamentally different!! :smash:

You can beat around the bush all you want, but when it comes down to it, the average man is very different compared to the average woman. Men are known for being more physical, and women are known for being more emotional. That is not to say men are better than women or vice versa, only different.

Please note that almost no man or woman fits completely into the above specifications/stereotypes. No one I know is a completely physical or emotional being. Furthermore, there are many cases in which men are very emotional and less physical, and in which women are very physical and less emotional. In fact, I tend to be more emotional than the average man, but I hide it to fit in the above stereotype.

Having said that, the average man is not only more physically adept, but also more able to cope with the horrors of war given that he isn't as emotional as the average woman. Notice that I said AVERAGE, not all, or even a vast majority. I just know that I would do much better in combat than my sister, who is usually in tears once or twice because of day to day life.

And to answer your final question -- no, I am not in favor of Bush, nor did I vote for him. Personally, I think he is mentally handicapped. However, I see this thread as another attempt to discredit him in an area where he is not at fault. No, DarkAurora, just because Bush doesn't want women to be grunts doesn't mean he is sexist. If you had read the article properly, you would have noticed that bush only said, "No women in combat." He did not say or imply, as you did, that "women are not good enough to be in ground combat." According to the article, women are doing important things such as flying aircraft, etc.

Do I support Bush fully in this regard? I can't say I can, but I can understand why disallowing women from ground combat is a good decision. First, as I said above, the average woman is more emotional than the average man. I see no problem in training women for combat. I'm sure they can handle weapons and orders just as well as any other man. The problem I forsee is when people actually start dying in combat. I just don't know if the average woman would be able to handle that kind of emotional stress and be able to fight effectively at the same time. Let me reiterate that I am not saying men are better than women, only different.

The second reason is the bonds that form between a group of men in combat, a.k.a. a "band of brothers." I'm not sure if the same kind of bonds or trust would exist between men and women in a fighting unit.

Lastly (finally), Bush is going to be President of the US for four more years, and no amount of name-calling or complaining is going to change that. Yes, I think Bush is just as much a ******* as you guys do, but I'd rather make the best of a situation than whine about it. What we should be focusing on is ending the fighting in Iraq and making it stable enough for self-government. If the US leaves now, it will be worse than not having had the war in the first place. The US messed up, and now we have to make up for it with our own lives, money, and resources. Not doing so would be a worse sin.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,283 Posts
Just shoot Bush please.
 

·
PCSX2ベータテスター
Joined
·
1,457 Posts
either that or you don't see that there would be greater outrage from the american public if you send women into combat than there would be if you said you wouldn't. Actually I personally would be angered if women would be placed into combat situations. I grew up being taught things like opening doors for women , don't curse in front of women, never hit a woman. Sending a woman into a combat situation would basically break everything i grew up to believe. And it's not just me. After the 2004 election it has become evident that America has a huge conservative tradition across most of the land. And i'm sure it would piss off the mass majority of them too.

DarkAurora said:
Bush is now saying that women are not good enough to be in ground combat. Click here to see how he offends America today: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050111-101005-5277r.htm
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,111 Posts
I am sure that you know that we settle this with proper opinions and not a flame war so don't spam and think about people who are using 56K
 

·
Knowledge is the solution
Joined
·
7,168 Posts
either that or you don't see that there would be greater outrage from the american public if you send women into combat than there would be if you said you wouldn't. Actually I personally would be angered if women would be placed into combat situations. I grew up being taught things like opening doors for women , don't curse in front of women, never hit a woman. Sending a woman into a combat situation would basically break everything i grew up to believe. And it's not just me. After the 2004 election it has become evident that America has a huge conservative tradition across most of the land. And i'm sure it would piss off the mass majority of them too.
Well.... during most of my study history courses I was thought that conservative have been the Big Bad guys throughout Mexican history, that they are the main forces behind retrogradism, hinderers of progress, yaddayaddayadda. Does something becomes an absolute truth just because you were thought so? :)

PS: And yes, I consider things like opening doors for women, not cursing only before females (as if males didnt deserve respect) and things like that to be sexists and demeaning for both sexes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
netghost2.0 said:
FLAME ON!
Indeed.

But I once read the opposite: Women soldiers are now serving in the front line.
http://66.216.126.164/owens/owens200412090818.asp
So Army commanders have simply transferred FSCs from the maneuver battalions into "gender-integrated" brigade-support battalions, thereby avoiding the requirement to report the policy change to Congress. Of course, no matter where the FSCs appear on a table of organization, the fact is, they will live and work with the maneuver battalions all the time.
And on it goes...
Despite claims to the contrary, there is substantial evidence that the presence of women in a combat environment fragments unit cohesion. The first reason is traceable to the fact that men and women have radically different bodies. For instance, the female soldier is, on average, about five inches shorter than the male soldier, has half the upper-body strength, lower aerobic capacity, and 37 percent less muscle mass. She has a lighter skeleton, which leads to a higher incidence of structural injuries than for men. She also tends, particularly if she is under the age of 30 (as are 60 percent of military personnel), to get pregnant.

These differences have had an adverse impact on U.S. military effectiveness. Women are four times more likely to report ill, and the percentage of women being medically non-available at any time is twice that of men. If a woman can't do her job, someone else must do it for her. Only 10 percent of women can meet all of the minimum physical requirements for 75 percent of the jobs in the Army. Women may be able to drive five-ton trucks, but need a man's help if they must change the tires. Women can be assigned to a field artillery unit, but often can't handle the ammunition.
That doesn't sound so equal to me. But hey, I'm just sexist.
As the eminent military sociologist Charles Moskos has commented, "When you put men and women together in a confined environment and shake vigorously, don't be surprised if sex occurs." Mixing the sexes and thereby introducing eros creates the most dangerous form of friction in the military, corroding the very source of military excellence itself: the male bonding necessary to unit cohesion.
The charge that Bush is sexist or racist holds no water at all considering the incredibly diverse cabinet he holds.
Quote from Time: "The President is not done naming yet-there are more Cabinet positions and at least one Supreme Court nomination to come - but no one will be suprised if Bush selects people who are neither white not male"
 

·
Experenced But New User
Joined
·
866 Posts
I think that women can participate in anything they want to. If they have enough dedication to go for it, they can do anything. My sister was just watching a movie, I believe to be called, “G.I. Jane”. This is a story about a woman who strives to be in the army and treated fairly. (Now, I didn’t watch the whole movie, so if she died or something, well, maybe this isn’t the best example.)

PS: I think bush is an idiot, and probably 95% of the people on emuforms are smarter than he is.
 

·
Experenced But New User
Joined
·
866 Posts
Player-X said:
more like 99.9% minus the n00bs
I was just trying to be nice to all the bush fans out there :p
 
1 - 20 of 103 Posts
Top