Don't you have conscription?Shahter wrote:
true. as the matter of a fact, that shit did keep me out of russian military.Parker wrote:
ya, i would think that dedovshchina would keep most females out of the russian military.
shit, that would keep me out
Poll
Should women be allowed to serve in the infantry?
| Yes | 52% | 52% - 48 | ||||
| No | 47% | 47% - 44 | ||||
| Total: 92 | ||||||
there are ways to avoid it.jord wrote:
Don't you have conscription?Shahter wrote:
true. as the matter of a fact, that shit did keep me out of russian military.Parker wrote:
ya, i would think that dedovshchina would keep most females out of the russian military.
shit, that would keep me out
school, i think is the most popular choice....which most people take out of fear of dedovshchina.
Women shouldn't be in a war zone in the first place.PureFodder wrote:
That's only a reasonable argument if they've actually tried letting women fight.jord wrote:
I'll caps lock a reason good enough for the sexist card users to be quite.
MILITARY PEOPLE THAT KNOW MORE ABOUT THE MILITARY THAN US AND HAVE BEEN IN MANY MORE YEARS THAN ANYONE HERE SAY WOMEN CAN'T FIGHT. THEIR OPINION IS GOING TO BE MORE ACCURATE THAN WATCHING A WOMENS RIGHTS DOCUMENTARY. THEY SAY WOMEN CANT FIGHT, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, SO WOMEN CAN'T FIGHT.
And armchair fight....continue!
Remember, not that long ago the similar things were said about race.
No its you saying "an INSTINCT... learned over thousands of years that is ingrained in our very existence".Parker wrote:
no, its me saying "instinct", and you saying "learned behavior"....but not before you tell me im wrongDrunkFace wrote:
There's just nothing to say to this, its like giving you a cake and you claiming its an apple... There is just no hope.
see how that works?
Generally I agree, but that does not exclude the women who are just as capable as the men.Parker wrote:
men are genetically superior for combat roles.DrunkFace wrote:
Yeh, but men a completely expendable because they play no part in the reproductive cycle.
simple as.
im sure it doesnt fit in with your view on the world, but facts are facts.
thats why you dont see armies full of women
On the contrary, you see all women as being inferior and needing of protection, while I see that some can and are just as capable as the men.Parker wrote:
and there it is.DrunkFace wrote:
Because there is no logical reason, only your sexist perceptions.
you are SO enlightened!
in fact, superior to me cause you judge everyone "equally" even though they arent.
I'm sorry you can only see your preconceived stereotypes in a world of black and white.Parker wrote:
im sorry that reality doesnt coincide with your PC bullshit, but us here in the real world operate on past experience.
you have no points to make, except that im "sexist".
No, but why are do you want to ban ALL females again, because obviously none can be like that?Parker wrote:
of course, this woman represents ALL females......DrunkFace wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hester
females, from now on this is the kind of behavior i expect out of all you!
how about no,
argument already given;
complication of combat missions.
Also, I'm not to keen on the physical capabilities of a woman to a man. They certainly aren't physically as strong as a man is, and this MAY indeed be a liability in combat situations.
Furthermore;
-Peroids. very very important as hurricane already said, they need to keep themselves clean.
-Pregnancy.
-if taken as prisoner, they'll endure torture probably alot worse than their male counterparts would. Also seeing as female circumsision is a must in fundemental islamic ideals they're in for ALOT of pain + rape (this is a definite)
oh and there's such a thing as the "white knight syndrome" which quite some men seem to have;
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … t+syndrome ((seeing as most infanterists are young men))
whether you like it or not women make it harder for the infantry to focus on their job. a man seeing a woman in distress makes it more likely that he will make a decision which he shouldn't have made.
If you can fix it all sure let em in, also pregnancy is a very tough one on the matter too imho, as are periods.
this is logic, no sexism. sorry, females can't do everything that males can, fact.
drunk I suggest you read that carefully
argument already given;
complication of combat missions.
Also, I'm not to keen on the physical capabilities of a woman to a man. They certainly aren't physically as strong as a man is, and this MAY indeed be a liability in combat situations.
Furthermore;
-Peroids. very very important as hurricane already said, they need to keep themselves clean.
-Pregnancy.
-if taken as prisoner, they'll endure torture probably alot worse than their male counterparts would. Also seeing as female circumsision is a must in fundemental islamic ideals they're in for ALOT of pain + rape (this is a definite)
oh and there's such a thing as the "white knight syndrome" which quite some men seem to have;
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … t+syndrome ((seeing as most infanterists are young men))
whether you like it or not women make it harder for the infantry to focus on their job. a man seeing a woman in distress makes it more likely that he will make a decision which he shouldn't have made.
If you can fix it all sure let em in, also pregnancy is a very tough one on the matter too imho, as are periods.
this is logic, no sexism. sorry, females can't do everything that males can, fact.
^^^^eEyOrE wrote:
when i was still with the army (mechanized infantry) disliked female soldiers for a couple of reasons...
1) most of them (if not all) did not meet the physical and mental standards put up by our instructors, therefore forcing the rest of us to do their job too, which is fine at times, since being in the military is also about the man (or girl...) next to you, not just yourself...but most of the time they couldnt carry their bags for longer than 20 minutes, meaning some us had to do it for them
2) also, being surrounded only by guys, doing "man stuff" (drinking, gettin ditry, talkin about god knows what...) doesn not leave a lot of room for female soldiers to fit in...
3) also, being away from home and your gf / bitch / staurday night hooker, i found myself lookin at female soldiers in ways i shouldnt according to our instructors, which the females obviously noticed, and what them feel uncomfortable i'd imagine
4) the few female soldiers that really did a good job being a soldier looked like men and behaved like men, they would over-do the whole drill-instructor-boot-up-your-ass to seem as though as they possibly could have....
5) smelling their parfum made my uniform take on a different shape.......
drunk I suggest you read that carefully
Last edited by dayarath (2008-12-01 11:04:42)
inane little opines
yes, there are ways, and tbqh the ways i used to avoid military service weren't exactly legal.Parker wrote:
there are ways to avoid it.jord wrote:
Don't you have conscription?Shahter wrote:
true. as the matter of a fact, that shit did keep me out of russian military.
school, i think is the most popular choice....which most people take out of fear of dedovshchina.
two years of service in russian military (ordinary military - your basic infantry) are pretty much like two years in prison - nobody in their right mind would want that in here.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
quite right.DrunkFace wrote:
No its you saying "an INSTINCT... learned over thousands of years that is ingrained in our very existence".
but then you tell me that im wrong.
yes it does. like i have been saying for this whole fucking thread;Drunkface wrote:
Generally I agree, but that does not exclude the women who are just as capable as the men.
WOMEN COMPLICATE COMBAT
SIMPLE COMBAT=GOOD
COMPLEX SITUATIONS DURING COMBAT=BAD
why cant it be black and white?DrunkFace wrote:
I'm sorry you can only see your preconceived stereotypes in a world of black and white.
sounds to me that you just like to be a pain in the ass.
you want to fix something that is not broken to begin with....you want to relearn a lesson that was learned ages ago.
those who fail to remember are doomed to repeat.
DrunkFace wrote:
No, but why are do you want to ban ALL females again, because obviously none can be like that?
so im gonna go out on a limb here and call this:Parker just a minute ago wrote:
because like i have been saying for this whole fucking thread;
WOMEN COMPLICATE COMBAT
SIMPLE COMBAT=GOOD
COMPLEX SITUATIONS DURING COMBAT=BAD
rhetorical bullshit, since you seem to be avoiding it like the black plague now.DrunkFace wrote:
I also disagree with practically everything you have said about 'men'.
I'm just curious Parker, where are you from/live?
im from st louis.xBlackPantherx wrote:
I'm just curious Parker, where are you from/live?
inb4 redneck
and i would be stoked if you could address this:
no?xBlackPantherx wrote:
Sorry Parker, but please get a realistic view of people and not stereotypical views.
just more rhetorical bullshit that cant be backed up i guess...
/Voted no.
It's not a sexiest thing.
I believe that man can be man on the battlefield introducing women in to the factor "could" spell disaster.
It's male natural instant to protect women what would happen if she became kidnapped, shot or died? The men's moral would become low.
Worse yet if she was kidnapped buy a group of enemy male solders, she would most likely become rapped, that would be worse than dying and would defiantly kill the men's moral yet again.
Women already play a large role in the army doing every thing but infantry/front line behind enemy line and I feel it should stay that way.
It's not a sexiest thing.
I believe that man can be man on the battlefield introducing women in to the factor "could" spell disaster.
It's male natural instant to protect women what would happen if she became kidnapped, shot or died? The men's moral would become low.
Worse yet if she was kidnapped buy a group of enemy male solders, she would most likely become rapped, that would be worse than dying and would defiantly kill the men's moral yet again.
Women already play a large role in the army doing every thing but infantry/front line behind enemy line and I feel it should stay that way.
No, men would just get hornier and not concentrate on their duties
Armies should consist of robots and technological constructs, all humans make mistakes and are instinctual creatures- this only furthers the margin for error and failure.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
One thing that hasnt been mentioned is that when women menstrate they omit an odor that dogs can track down. That could factor negatively towards any surprise infiltrations.
Malloy must go
Your theory is interesting, however, flawed. Being that men instinctively are protective over women that would indicate, at least psychologicaly, that men would be inclined to fight even harder against their enemy in order to protect their female counterparts. Actually, it is said that is why Greek soldiers had many homosexual encounters with their fellow soldiers. It was common practice for the men to engage in sexual acts as an attempt to get them to fight harder.xRBLx wrote:
/Voted no.
It's not a sexiest thing.
I believe that man can be man on the battlefield introducing women in to the factor "could" spell disaster.
It's male natural instant to protect women what would happen if she became kidnapped, shot or died? The men's moral would become low.
Worse yet if she was kidnapped buy a group of enemy male solders, she would most likely become rapped, that would be worse than dying and would defiantly kill the men's moral yet again.
Women already play a large role in the army doing every thing but infantry/front line behind enemy line and I feel it should stay that way.
Malloy must go
Hahaha, actually I was going to make a similar comment about women attracting bears if they menstruate in the wild.deeznutz1245 wrote:
One thing that hasnt been mentioned is that when women menstrate they omit an odor that dogs can track down. That could factor negatively towards any surprise infiltrations.
Comedy gold.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
This thread...everytime I read it....
...
Female as your average grunt. No fucking way. Female as medic back at the base and such is okay, but nothing related to run around with an M16 or watever in her hand, unless she clean the armory.
@Hurricane. It seem no one else seen what you said in this thread so far. I seen it and i agree. I also agree with Parker.
TL;DR: Women as grunt = no wai. Female as anything back on base = Me no care.
@Hurricane. It seem no one else seen what you said in this thread so far. I seen it and i agree. I also agree with Parker.
TL;DR: Women as grunt = no wai. Female as anything back on base = Me no care.
Should women be allowed to serve in the infantry?........Yes, but they're not allowed to drive.
Last edited by DrPeePeeFace (2008-12-03 09:02:30)
Oops, I guess you mistook work, school and a mass of late night work, concerts and practices as avoidance of a forum question.i guess my views arent THAT fucked up, seeing as how you cant even back up what you said.-Parker
Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2008-12-04 21:30:51)
Women and gays should be allowed to serve however they want to as long as they are capable at the job in question.
wow.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Oops, I guess you mistook work, school and a mass of late night work, concerts and practices as avoidance.i guess my views arent THAT fucked up, seeing as how you cant even back up what you said.-Parker
A. you took the time to post the karma message i gave you, but STILL did not address the point. are you a politician?
B. in between the time which you made the original comment and i gave you that karma, you posted here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p2406183
here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p2406656
and here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p2409090
i had assumed that you had seen my post, but had not planned on replying. which, tbh im still thinking is the case....seeing as how you made a post, but STILL failed to address the point.
C. now, since you have avoided addressing your original statement for so long, why dont you take the time now and tell me what you mean by this:
....and the wait goes on.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Sorry Parker, but please get a realistic view of people and not stereotypical views.
Because right now I have time for a quick post or two and not to go through 1-3 pages looking for the right quotes. Stop trolling on my posts and ill get to it when I get time.Parker wrote:
A. you took the time to post the karma message i gave you, but STILL did not address the point. are you a politician?
i had assumed that you had seen my post, but had not planned on replying. which, tbh im still thinking is the case....seeing as how you made a post, but STILL failed to address the point.
C. now, since you have avoided addressing your original statement for so long, why dont you take the time now and tell me what you mean by this:
Parker, you obviously feel very strongly about this issue, so would you mind summarizing the gist of why you're against female infantry?
i dont troll. im sorry i called you out like that, but you wiggle a little bitxBlackPantherx wrote:
Because right now I have time for a quick post or two and not to go through 1-3 pages looking for the right quotes. Stop trolling on my posts and ill get to it when I get time.
@ turq:
its not that i feel strongly about the matter. its me defending myself because he is basically calling me sexist.
now dont get me wrong here, i am a lot of things, but being raised by a single mother leaves very little room in my principles to be sexist.
what it comes down to is this:
combat is an extremely stressful situation for all involved. things that are added to the situation, in this case a female soldier IN A COMBAT ROLE, only help to complicate matters.
why fix what isnt broke?
why relearn a lesson that was learned so long ago?
why complicate something that lives are at stake over, just so everyone feels like they are equal?
THAT gives me "stereotypical" "unrealistic" views...thats fine, he doesnt seem like he wants to address the issue, and i have made my point three times over in this thread.
Being a former 0311(Infantry) I say no they shouldn't. It would complicate the mission and cause too many logistical problems.