Sorry ladies, you can't hang with the SEALS

[astro]

@miss_elizabeth

Yes here is what I said (bolding and size increases mine):
You’re welcome. Stupid.

My goodness bolding and sizing. Let’s see how that works

How is this on page 6 now? How is this even happening? We actually have someone saying that equality isn’t a goal worth fighting for, in and of itself. We actually have a poster who thinks 51% of the world’s population is useless. These are not the crazy posters, these are not spammers or one-offs from Stormfront or AVFM. These are posters that have been here a long time, posters that are accepted as part of our community. What is wrong with this board?? Misogyny-gate was a fucking clusterfuck, but there is something seriously rotten here. This whole thread makes me so disappointed.

There is 6 pages of arguing over whether it’s ok to let women TRY to be SEALS. Damn.

Oh … that’s how it works. Good to know.

[Little_Nemo]

@MOIDALIZE

Right now, there’s a controversy in the US about how the military handles sexual assault, and how to address the problem. People are outraged not simply because it’s wrong to sexually assault women, but because it’s a labor issue. Women are recruited to serve in the armed forces because their contributions are valued. Their service is an asset to the military and the country, and the military has a duty and responsibility to protect its assets. There’s a fool-proof way of ensuring that female service members don’t get sexually assaulted, and that’s to bar all women from service. But that’s obviously not even a consideration, because their service is desired and valued, so it’s unreasonable for the military to fail to address the problem adequately.

Now if their contribution to certain branches of the US special forces would be negligible at best, and would introduce the types of problems seen in other parts of the military, then what’s the point? Why stir things up just to stir things up?

Are you arguing that we shouldn’t allow women to try out for the SEALs because it would encourage rape? And we shouldn’t upset the rapists?

Here’s a counter-proposal. We take every rapist in the armed forces and lock them up in prison. If there are any units in the United States armed forces where sexual assault is part of their unit identity, then we should disband those units.

Sexual assault is not some military tradition we need to tolerate.

[the_diego]

we’ve had female ace fighter pilots and top-scoring snipers. we might be spending too much time arguing about qualifications without considering probable end-result.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Wow, this thread is incredibly dumb. Not quite “Summer of '12 New Deal Democrat” dumb, but getting there. Oh, and Klaatu and Modalize are both ass spelunkers.

[Kokopilau]

@astro

Oh … that’s how it works. Good to know.

Wow, you really are an idiot.

[pancakes3]

@astro

You painted the whole thread as driven a pack of rabid mysigonists attacking women. That was incorrect as I pointed out. Modalize’s position is only a part of this thread.

I for one appreciated your breakdown since I haven’t read the entirety of this absurd thread.

As for the debate in general? Isn’t the solution blindingly obvious? Do NOT have gender restrictions because it’s discriminatory. If the standards need to be changed to fit a changing battlefield then so be it. I’m pretty sure our lay opinions on modern warfare and how strength applies doen’t amount to shit.

[astro]

@pancakes3

I for one appreciated your breakdown since I haven’t read the entirety of this absurd thread.

As for the debate in general? Isn’t the solution blindingly obvious? Do NOT have gender restrictions because it’s discriminatory. If the standards need to be changed to fit a changing battlefield then so be it. I’m pretty sure our lay opinions on modern warfare and how strength applies doen’t amount to shit.

Indeed it’s kind of irrelevant, the military will make it’s own decisions. As to non- gender restrictions I think that’s going to be the direction it should go. Let everyone go for it. The main issue I was addressing was that the notion that a cadre of elite female soldiers materializing that could pass the BUDS course as it is currently set up is magical thinking. Women should be in the special forces, but if BUDS (or other special forces tests of similar physical difficulty) is going to be the filter almost none will get through.

And if it’s really an equal opportunity access argument (which is fine) what happens when almost no women at all can pass the test? We’re not talking drive, or desire, or positive attitude we’re talking about a fairly specific and near mandatory physiological profile of exceptional cardio capacity and (relative to body weight) extreme upper body strength that very few men, and virtually no genetic women have.

Women need (IMO) to have a challenging separate track into special forces. Making them pass BUDS to be in special forces is unfair and counter productive.

But, whatever… we’ll see how it plays out.

[Kokopilau]

@astro

Women need (IMO) to have a challenging separate track into special forces.

Separate but equal, you might say?

[ElvisL1ves]

@astro

And if it’s really an equal opportunity access argument (which is fine)

It is, and what are you arguing about then?

what happens when almost no women at all can pass the test?

Then almost no women at all become SEALs. Duh.

Women need (IMO) to have a challenging separate track into special forces.

Why?

[SenorBeef]

@Kokopilau

Separate but equal, you might say?

Do you guys really, truly think that saying “women have a different physiology than men, they aren’t suited to some roles that require a very high degree of physical strength” is the same thing as saying “black people are inferior to white people and should be treated as second class citizens”?

[Ludovic]

@SenorBeef

Do you guys really, truly think that saying “women have a different physiology than men, they aren’t suited to some roles that require a very high degree of physical strength” is the same thing as saying “black people are inferior to white people and should be treated as second class citizens”?

If only there were a way to determine if they are suited to those roles. Some sort of physical test. But alas, all that we can use is their genetic code!

[Troppus]

@SenorBeef

Do you guys really, truly think that saying “women have a different physiology than men, they aren’t suited to some roles that require a very high degree of physical strength” is the same thing as saying “black people are inferior to white people and should be treated as second class citizens”?

A quick glance at the NBA would cause me to believe that black men are superior athletes to white men, but the over representation of blacks wouldn’t lead me to discourage white men from attempting to compete.

[Shodan]

@Kokopilau

Separate but equal, you might say?

No, it can’t be equal, because women are not equal to men in the kinds of things that special forces are looking for.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lucas_Jackson]

@miss_elizabeth

EQUALITY is the fucking point, you worthless piece of human excrement. Jesus fucking wept. Normal, non-asshole Americans see it as a goal in and of itself, an ideal to which we should strive. Equality of opportunity is the fucking foundation of civilized society, you cretin.

I’ve been following along passively because others have made points (on both sides) better than I probably could have. I am open to both sides of the argument, though there are opponents posting here who have gone way to far the other way.

However, I must disagree with the above quote. Equality is the point of a society, not the forces fighting for it. I have no idea if women in SEALS would help or weaken the fighting force overall, but the ONLY criteria for allowing women should be if they help. In other words, even they could qualify would their numbers be worth building separate barracks, adding sensitivity training, etc?

Militarily speaking, this is not the place for ‘equality for equality’s sake’. Without knowing much about this issue, my guy reaction is they should be allowed to try. But the only goal of a fighting force should be winning.

[Great_Antibob]

@White SIFL

Militarily speaking, this is not the place for ‘equality for equality’s sake’. Without knowing much about this issue, my guy reaction is they should be allowed to try. But the only goal of a fighting force should be winning.

Bullshit.

Then why allow women into the military at all? Or let minorities fight in desegregated units? Or allow minorities to serve at all? Or allow open homosexuals to serve?

We can fight and win without any of those things and have done so in the past. And the same arguments about whether its worth it or not (to build separate facilities, etc) have been used before and found wanting.

This argument is tantamount to “preserve the status quo”, and it’s total bullshit.

[Little_Nemo]

@Shodan

No, it can’t be equal, because women are not equal to men in the kinds of things that special forces are looking for.

Most men are not equal in the kinds of things special forces are looking for. We’re not talking about all men or all women. What we’re saying is that the rare individuals who have the abilities to join special forces should be allowed to do so, regardless of whether they’re male or female.

Or are you arguing that no woman will ever have the abilities to be a special forces member?

[Sicks_Ate]

@Little_Nemo

Most men are not equal in the kinds of things special forces are looking for. We’re not talking about all men or all women. What we’re saying is that the rare individuals who have the abilities to join special forces should be allowed to do so, regardless of whether they’re male or female.

Or are you arguing that no woman will ever have the abilities to be a special forces member?

Again the conflation of “special forces” and “SEALS”.

Please note that depending on how you choose to classify them, there are several “special forces”. SEALS are arguably the force with the most difficult selection process.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@White SIFL

Without knowing much about this issue, my guy reaction is they should be allowed to try.

Given what’s been said in this thread, I honestly can’t tell whether that was a typo.

[Lucas_Jackson]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Given what’s been said in this thread, I honestly can’t tell whether that was a typo.

Wow, whoops. Definitely a typo! Sorry…

[Lucas_Jackson]

@Great_Antibob

Bullshit.

Then why allow women into the military at all? Or let minorities fight in desegregated units? Or allow minorities to serve at all? Or allow open homosexuals to serve?

We can fight and win without any of those things and have done so in the past. And the same arguments about whether its worth it or not (to build separate facilities, etc) have been used before and found wanting.

This argument is tantamount to “preserve the status quo”, and it’s total bullshit.

Stop your frothing, I meant no such thing and you should know it.