Gi Jane, if you please

exchemist said:
I think you need to justify your implicit assumption that mere physical strength is the main prerequisite for the modern infantry. What is your evidence for that?
Click to expand...

I never said it was the only one. But infantry is more physically arduous and that is why it was not open to women. I really dont think it had anything much to do with sexism. But like any profession, its no longer based on gender or shouldnt be.

If a woman is qualified, then gender doesnt matter. There are just other political and social issues that may need to be addressed such as if there will be a rise in sexual harassment charges or how the women would be treated. These may not be a major issue or it could be eventually ironed out.
 
PhysBang said:
Again, you reply with misogyny.

I never said that there were no physical differences. Indeed, you seem to have completely ignored the post I made with links actually discussing the physiological differences.

You assume that there is a vast physiological difference that makes all women incapable. Even when you are forced to retract this statement, you always return to it as a default. This is your misogyny at work.


Done by me, ignored by you.


Wow, sexist and racist. What a surprise.

The evidence says no to those last two, but I doubt you care to learn.
Click to expand...

Your reply along with others is an outright lie. This is your tactic in order to formulate a false argument.

I never said 'all women are incapable'.

I would really like to see someone post an actual legitimate argument. All i see is a bunch of accusations and strawmen.

Why is it that everyone is too much of a coward to do so?

Fiddling with the genome and changing standards is about it.

My position is if someone is qualified, thats all that matters. The addendum added that fewer women compared to men qualify is still the undercurrent of why you ultra-liberals are upset.

You really think its not obvious? Or have you all just using this thread to poke at me? Lmao

Btw, this is not misogyny. What i posted in another thread is sexist. Do you think i dont know what sexism is?

What is really going on is you are going by my statements in another thread or topic (which was more a joke) to formulate a character profile to base your arguments on this thread. None of you have really been that interested in the topic seriously at all.

Its evident by your accusation of 'racism' which had no bearing on this subject matter.

Do you really think that you are the only people who can think? You people underestimate others.
 
Last edited:
birch said:
I never said it was the only one. But infantry is more physically arduous and that is why it was not open to women. I really dont think it had anything much to do with sexism. But like any profession, its no longer based on gender or shouldnt be.

If a woman is qualified, then gender doesnt matter. There are just other political and social issues that may need to be addressed such as if there will be a rise in sexual harassment charges or how the women would be treated. These may not be a major issue or it could be eventually ironed out.
Click to expand...

OK fair enough. Your reply prompted me to have a look on the internet, as a result of which I found this recent (2014) assessment of whether the British Army should allow women into Ground Close Combat (GCC) roles, from which they are currently excluded, it seems: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf

An interesting consideration of the various requirements here and indeed it looks as if physical strength and robustness are regarded as significant issues, though the Army is clearly starting to think about the availability of recruits and the limitations they impose on themselves if they rule out the talent pool represented by women interested in serving in these roles. A situation currently in flux, evidently.
 
birch said:
Your reply along with others is an outright lie. This is your tactic in order to formulate a false argument.

I never said 'all women are incapable'.
Click to expand...
Ah, the standard conservative tactic to attribute their own behavior to others.
 
PhysBang said:
Ah, the standard conservative tactic to attribute their own behavior to others.
Click to expand...

Ah Touche, another false dichotomy. You really needed to paint me as a conservative so you all could have the polar-opposite enemy to argue your extreme leftist bs against. How embarassing for you. Didnt work out too well, did it?

The funny thing is my first post was a generalization though true, at least for now. My second post clearly stated if thats a woman's chosen profession, more power to her.

Anyone with common sense would have been able to deduce just from those two posts i was in favor of women, really anyone, going for what they want but with more realism because i know infantry and spec ops is difficult as it currently stands.
 
Even before i read it, i knew it was the road march that did those women in. After having ran five miles in under forty minutes, the road march was twelve miles with a fifty pound pack in under three hours.

Still i think women can do this as fifty pounds is heavy but not impossible if one is very determined and trains before they get to ranger school. It would take a lot of conditioning focused on upper body/back.

many veterans have claims from back injuries from when they were in the service. It doesnt always show up right away.
 
birch said:
Anyone with common sense would have been able to deduce just from those two posts i was in favor of women, really anyone, going for what they want but with more realism because i know infantry and spec ops is difficult as it currently stands.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
There seems to be a bit of confusion of terms used in this thread.
Point of clarification:
At 3473 troops, the rangers are less than 1%(.63754%) of the us army meanwhile about 33% of the army are "combat troops".

There are more when you add in the green berets and delta force.
 
birch said:
Ah Touche, another false dichotomy. You really needed to paint me as a conservative so you all could have the polar-opposite enemy to argue your extreme leftist bs against. How embarassing for you. Didnt work out too well, did it?
Click to expand...
Dude. I call you a conservative because you are betraying all the symptoms of one. Eg., ordinary people do not run around calling people "liberals" and "extreme leftists".
 
birch said:
Ah Touche, another false dichotomy. You really needed to paint me as a conservative so you all could have the polar-opposite enemy to argue your extreme leftist bs against.
Click to expand...

birch, not only were you the first one to bring up political sides, in post 78:
This is why die-hard conservatives think extreme liberals are idiots or unrealistic.
Click to expand...
but you beat on it several more times. In post 115:
any passersby can witness just how extremely liberal (dishonesty) sciforums leans
Click to expand...
post 151:
this is an extremely liberal forum.
Click to expand...
and post 153:
you are just making liberals look extremely stupid.
Click to expand...

It wasn't until post 201 that anyone other than you did any political labeling.

And now you're whining about it.

As has been said - each time you've accused others of something, it has been you who kicked the door open.

Have you considered growing up?
 
birch said:
Allow women longer or more intense training to get them up to par?
Click to expand...

Umm, at tasks where I'm bad at, that's my natural reaction - spend more time training, and practise more intesely. I've done martial arts for ten years, and I got a quite clear picture that I'm not naturally talented, but I must make up for my lack in talent by investing more time and effort.

In average it took me twice as long to reach the same grade than others.

Same in art - many years have passed and I advanced from bad to mediocre, in some areas to good. What I can do after ten, fifteen years, other could do after 1 or 2. Yes, I suck like that at art. But still, I made my way.

On the other hand, I'm a good software designer and programmer. That's where my natural talent lies.

But where is the problem? It's always like this, not only between men and women, but also in a group of the same sex - some are better at something and the others must work harder for the same results. If someone is lacking but wants to achieve a goal, the answer is more training, more practise.
 
Edont Knoff said:
But where is the problem? It's always like this, not only between men and women, but also in a group of the same sex - some are better at something and the others must work harder for the same results. If someone is lacking but wants to achieve a goal, the answer is more training, more practise.
Click to expand...

The basic training and AIT are limited for a specific period of time. The additional training for a soldier comes in at his/her first assignment. Unfortunately, during a time of war, that might be a combat assignment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top