Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 01-23-2013, 08:38 PM   #81
macashmack
Maskcashmack
 
macashmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
I get the distinct impression that your knowledge of special ops comes from CoD.


I don't like call of duty.
macashmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 08:45 PM   #82
rockingamer2
Larmarky Remark
 
rockingamer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rainy Northwest
Quote:
Originally Posted by macashmack
I don't like call of duty.

Way to sidestep the point.
__________________
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^

"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity."

MUSIC THEORY LINK

SteamID: CarrionComfort
rockingamer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 08:46 PM   #83
redandwhite12
red and also white
 
redandwhite12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by macashmack
Because special operations are out on missions without the ability to clean for months sometimes.
If a woman does not clean her Vagina every day (every three days AT THE MAXIMUM) she is at risk of serious infection which could put the mission in jeopardy.

Also, pretty much no woman is physically able to pass the special operations basic training, so waisting money/time for that is not as important as having an effective special operations unit IMO.

I thin we need (as a society) to understand that there ARE some things that are sex-specific, and there isn't anything wrong with that.


I totally agree that somethings are sex specific. But this is not one of them.

I really don't think it would be a waste of money. It gives people the chance to do something that they want to do. If a woman wants to join Special Ops ,even if she in specific (Not because of her sex), is not capable she should be given the option. Lots of males go in and are rejected as well but they still find capable troops in the midst of trial and error.

And you better be trolling regarding the vagina comment. Thats like saying stopping to take a shit could comprise the mission. Yah theres a very slight chance it could, but come on dude.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanwhufc
everyone needs a beer

My Youtubez

http://www.youtube.com/user/redandwhite12?feature=mhee
redandwhite12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 08:48 PM   #84
Carnivean
Banned
 
Carnivean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: n.a.
There are women out there that could play in the NFL given some training. So why aren't they in the NFL?
Carnivean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 08:49 PM   #85
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
 
Todd Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
There are women out there that could play in the NFL given some training. So why aren't they in the NFL?


Viewing figures.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Todd Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 08:49 PM   #86
Nelshizzle
Find a place and go there
 
Nelshizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Far out man
Sure, go for it, lets see how it works out.

We really can't say it's a good or bad idea until the facts check out when women who are combat ready are willing to fight.
__________________
Too many thoughts

Not enough action

Too much action

Not enough thoughts
Nelshizzle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 08:49 PM   #87
redandwhite12
red and also white
 
redandwhite12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
The time spent finding recruits is most likely pennies as well in comparison to what else is spent the military. I severely doubt putting a couple women in the mix of male testees would clog up the system to the point of mass money loss and budget cuts.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanwhufc
everyone needs a beer

My Youtubez

http://www.youtube.com/user/redandwhite12?feature=mhee
redandwhite12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 08:56 PM   #88
Carnivean
Banned
 
Carnivean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: n.a.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
Viewing figures.


Ratings? Yea probably.
Carnivean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:01 PM   #89
crazysam23_Atax
Burning away
 
crazysam23_Atax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Frozen North! (read: Northern Wisconsin)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivean
There are women out there that could play in the NFL given some training. So why aren't they in the NFL?

Because the LFL is so much better...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend...e#Playing_style
__________________
Tunes?

Bandcamp

Now working on my upcoming EP "Discarnate". See the expected track list on my bandcamp.



Terry Prachett is funnier than you! Discworld
crazysam23_Atax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:03 PM   #90
macashmack
Maskcashmack
 
macashmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by redandwhite12
I totally agree that somethings are sex specific. But this is not one of them.

I really don't think it would be a waste of money. It gives people the chance to do something that they want to do. If a woman wants to join Special Ops ,even if she in specific (Not because of her sex), is not capable she should be given the option. Lots of males go in and are rejected as well but they still find capable troops in the midst of trial and error.

And you better be trolling regarding the vagina comment. Thats like saying stopping to take a shit could comprise the mission. Yah theres a very slight chance it could, but come on dude.


I see what you are saying. However i just do not think that woman would be able to join special forces given the current standards that are given. I mixed time/money together but i mostly meant time, i should have made that a little more clear. If a force (say, the Navy SEALs, which i actually hope to join in a year ) can only try out 1,000 people every half year, and already only get 200-230 of the best of the best, would it be effective for the military to allow a group of people that (and i hope you understand that i am saying this in the most objective way possible) are genetically not as strong as males? It would bring the percentage of people who pass down unless they lower the standards (which they really should not do for something like this).

Im thinking about this as if i was in charge of the military. In that position, i wouldn't care about being equal or giving everyone a fair chance. I would care about having the best unit that i can have. And I truly don't believe that a woman would be the best. Im sorry if i offend anyone.
macashmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:06 PM   #91
StewieSwan
Play my dudelsack
 
StewieSwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The lake
I'll play devil's bro for a second.


Is there a risk that, when the numbers eventually come out and show that combat positions are still dominated by men, the physical requirements will be lessened in order to be 'more inclusive' and weaken the combat units overall?
StewieSwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:08 PM   #92
Dreadnought
Vengeance Weapon
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Steep trails
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Hart
No-one else on here is claiming to know more.
Then don't rag on him and be so condescending when he has a legitimate and understandable opinion.

Quote:
And why? If a woman is equally as competent as a man then she should be treated identically in any workplace (except something like 'male actor', I guess).


Personally, this is a conflicting issue. I am very egalitarian and very much for social equality and justice.

However, I am not so naive as to not acknowledge that you cannot simply expect absolute equality in all areas of life and expect everything to work out as well as it did before. If, by some crazy chance (I personally doubt it) women were to be allowed in the same capacity to be in units such as the Ranger Regiment, or in Special Forces, or what have you, that it will inarguably weaken the abilities and effectiveness of that unit.

I'm not denigrating women, but I am speaking from experience and honesty. Many (most if not all) men in those units will react very negatively to such a move, either purposefully or subconsciously, and it would severely limit the cohesion and capabilities of that unit.

You can say "well they should just get over it and ignore all of that!" Well, quite frankly that's not how things work. People need to understand that other people don't work that way, and a little bit of friction is all good and well in social changes, however not if a country wishes to maintain the same effective military.

If this were to happen, my hypothetical scenario, it would severely weaken all of America's special operations forces. For a variety of reasons; cohesion, friction, potentially different standards, etc. My job is extremely difficult and most men cannot do it. Couple that with the fact that I've worked "the best of the best" women who have been there with us and they have never been anything more than a hindrance during times of duress or increased physical demand.

My two cents is that if America wants to continue having the best and most capable special operations force in the world, it cannot mix the gender of its operators for certain units. I don't think it is worth it just for the name of social and gender equality.

There is more involved (and more at stake) than just the potential of a beastly woman who can absolutely crush all the physical requirements.
__________________
But we little know until tried how much of the uncontrollable there is in us, urging across glaciers and torrents, and up dangerous heights, let the judgment forbid as it may.

Last edited by Dreadnought : 01-23-2013 at 09:11 PM.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:15 PM   #93
redandwhite12
red and also white
 
redandwhite12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by macashmack
I see what you are saying. However i just do not think that woman would be able to join special forces given the current standards that are given. I mixed time/money together but i mostly meant time, i should have made that a little more clear. If a force (say, the Navy SEALs, which i actually hope to join in a year ) can only try out 1,000 people every half year, and already only get 200-230 of the best of the best, would it be effective for the military to allow a group of people that (and i hope you understand that i am saying this in the most objective way possible) are genetically not as strong as males? It would bring the percentage of people who pass down unless they lower the standards (which they really should not do for something like this).

Im thinking about this as if i was in charge of the military. In that position, i wouldn't care about being equal or giving everyone a fair chance. I would care about having the best unit that i can have. And I truly don't believe that a woman would be the best. Im sorry if i offend anyone.



I agree with you in the fact that the majority of women are weaker then the majority of men. That is fact and that is genetics. But there definitely women who are capable of doing military and/or male work. Women should get a right to try just like their male counterparts. Everyone should get the right to try whether or not you enter that military unit is up to the authority in charge.

I suppose I just have very idealistic views whereas the military is based from a utilitarian standpoint.

I'm not really arguing with you its more the fact that there should be more options for women. SEALS should be able to try more people and open up there options to people who want to serve regardless of whether they will make it or not.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanwhufc
everyone needs a beer

My Youtubez

http://www.youtube.com/user/redandwhite12?feature=mhee
redandwhite12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:23 PM   #94
redandwhite12
red and also white
 
redandwhite12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Then don't rag on him and be so condescending when he has a legitimate and understandable opinion.



Personally, this is a conflicting issue. I am very egalitarian and very much for social equality and justice.

However, I am not so naive as to not acknowledge that you cannot simply expect absolute equality in all areas of life and expect everything to work out as well as it did before. If, by some crazy chance (I personally doubt it) women were to be allowed in the same capacity to be in units such as the Ranger Regiment, or in Special Forces, or what have you, that it will inarguably weaken the abilities and effectiveness of that unit.

I'm not denigrating women, but I am speaking from experience and honesty. Many (most if not all) men in those units will react very negatively to such a move, either purposefully or subconsciously, and it would severely limit the cohesion and capabilities of that unit.

You can say "well they should just get over it and ignore all of that!" Well, quite frankly that's not how things work. People need to understand that other people don't work that way, and a little bit of friction is all good and well in social changes, however not if a country wishes to maintain the same effective military.

If this were to happen, my hypothetical scenario, it would severely weaken all of America's special operations forces. For a variety of reasons; cohesion, friction, potentially different standards, etc. My job is extremely difficult and most men cannot do it. Couple that with the fact that I've worked "the best of the best" women who have been there with us and they have never been anything more than a hindrance during times of duress or increased physical demand.

My two cents is that if America wants to continue having the best and most capable special operations force in the world, it cannot mix the gender of its operators for certain units. I don't think it is worth it just for the name of social and gender equality.

There is more involved (and more at stake) than just the potential of a beastly woman who can absolutely crush all the physical requirements.


I can agree on that actually. Women are different then men. Some things need to be equal between the two but not everything is the same between us.

This is a little bit more difficult to discuss then I thought. I still think women should be able to serve but perhaps not in the same unit as males. I can see how in some hypothetical situation it could cause a rift. Maybe all female units?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanwhufc
everyone needs a beer

My Youtubez

http://www.youtube.com/user/redandwhite12?feature=mhee
redandwhite12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:24 PM   #95
blake1221
‭‭
 
blake1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by StewieSwan
Is there a risk that, when the numbers eventually come out and show that combat positions are still dominated by men, the physical requirements will be lessened in order to be 'more inclusive' and weaken the combat units overall?


Didn't they already propose lowering the bar for women getting into the Rangers, or did I dream a whole thread up?
blake1221 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:26 PM   #96
Dreadnought
Vengeance Weapon
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Steep trails
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake1221
Didn't they already propose lowering the bar for women getting into the Rangers, or did I dream a whole thread up?


You're referring to Ranger School, which is not "getting into the Rangers"
__________________
But we little know until tried how much of the uncontrollable there is in us, urging across glaciers and torrents, and up dangerous heights, let the judgment forbid as it may.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:29 PM   #97
macashmack
Maskcashmack
 
macashmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
I REALLY don't think they should lower the bar. That is just stupid. But i also don't think they would lower the bar.
macashmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:35 PM   #98
redandwhite12
red and also white
 
redandwhite12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by macashmack
I REALLY don't think they should lower the bar. That is just stupid. But i also don't think they would lower the bar.


Completely agree with this. A soldier needs to meet a soldiers qualifications not some lowered standard made by those who are too weak to meet it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanwhufc
everyone needs a beer

My Youtubez

http://www.youtube.com/user/redandwhite12?feature=mhee
redandwhite12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:38 PM   #99
macashmack
Maskcashmack
 
macashmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by redandwhite12
Completely agree with this. A soldier needs to meet a soldiers qualifications not some lowered standard made by those who are too weak to meet it.


Yea. And in truth i can understand what you are saying. Idk. I can't tell
macashmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:39 PM   #100
Todd Hart
Do Sadists go to Hell?
 
Todd Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Then don't rag on him and be so condescending when he has a legitimate and understandable opinion.


He claimed that he was in special forces, or in the running for it or something along those lines and he's not really living up to that claim; that's what I was calling him on.

Quote:
Personally, this is a conflicting issue. I am very egalitarian and very much for social equality and justice.

However, I am not so naive as to not acknowledge that you cannot simply expect absolute equality in all areas of life and expect everything to work out as well as it did before. If, by some crazy chance (I personally doubt it) women were to be allowed in the same capacity to be in units such as the Ranger Regiment, or in Special Forces, or what have you, that it will inarguably weaken the abilities and effectiveness of that unit.

I'm not denigrating women, but I am speaking from experience and honesty. Many (most if not all) men in those units will react very negatively to such a move, either purposefully or subconsciously, and it would severely limit the cohesion and capabilities of that unit.

You can say "well they should just get over it and ignore all of that!" Well, quite frankly that's not how things work. People need to understand that other people don't work that way, and a little bit of friction is all good and well in social changes, however not if a country wishes to maintain the same effective military.


America's military dwarfs that of the rest of the world by a massive margin, I'm sure you can handle a short term tiny drop in commitment from some soldiers and not get your arses handed to you.

Quote:
If this were to happen, my hypothetical scenario, it would severely weaken all of America's special operations forces. For a variety of reasons; cohesion, friction, potentially different standards, etc. My job is extremely difficult and most men cannot do it. Couple that with the fact that I've worked "the best of the best" women who have been there with us and they have never been anything more than a hindrance during times of duress or increased physical demand.

My two cents is that if America wants to continue having the best and most capable special operations force in the world, it cannot mix the gender of its operators for certain units. I don't think it is worth it just for the name of social and gender equality.

There is more involved (and more at stake) than just the potential of a beastly woman who can absolutely crush all the physical requirements.


Women will never be able to be an effective part of the military if they're looked down on as being weaker inherently. Allowing women to join, not initially into special combat units, will begin to erase this prejudice. One could easily make the same argument as you are and substitute 'women' for 'black people', and indeed many did make such arguments. However, if the 20th century taught us anything (other than that we should be messing with nuclear bombs) it's that groups against which prejudice is held can surpass all expectations. It's all very well saying that women will undermine the military, especially in higher levels of operations, but unless we test that assertion all it is is enforcing a harmful stereotype. Currently the American army is sitting so pretty it's winning pageants, integrate women now and see how things work, and then we can discuss things on empirical grounds.

I agree that the equality does not require identical situations, indeed I've had occasion to say as much quite a lot recently, but until you offer the chance for sameness you're just helping to maintain a blind affirmation.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Todd Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:25 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.