RE: Women In the Infantry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


MrRoadrunner -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 12:27:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I suppose a case could be made that a hundred years ago large numbers of blacks in front line roles in the US army might have undermined the confidence of white male soldiers who happened to adhere to the racial stereotypes of their time. I'm sure if we backpeddled a dozen decades there would be plenty of flak about allowing blacks to serve frontline status and all sorts of anecdotal evidence might be cited to reinforce this belief. I just wonder if this issue with women in combat is not another case of cultural prejudices getting in the way of the advancement of minority rights.


Sup Gary, how's everything been? ……hope all is well as it is here !

That has to be your all-time” race card” record, I dont get your correlation/metal gymnastics and i'm not so sure you even get it , but thumps up on the Triple Lindy ….[&o]



Sarge, I agree with you.
It is funny how some feel the need to throw the "race" hand grenade into a discussion of gender difference.
It also displays that Gary does not know real (true) history.
Blacks were integrated into the military after the Civil War (during for the North and almost during for the South). Up until the racist President Wilson decreed that Blacks needed to be segregated to coincide with his domestic agenda regarding blacks. Blacks were in segregated units until Patton included them in rifle platoons, as replacements, at the end of WWII.

People like Wilson and Margret Sanger directed policy, against blacks, based upon the theories of Darwin, Freud, and Marx. We would not have had "white's only" water fountains and restaurants had it not be for the Presidential edicts of Wilson.

I'm sure that Gary is intellectually stable enough to do some research that might change his viewpoints and keep him from throwing race into every discussion. Especially throwing in false information.
The earliest issues governing the black enrollment in the military was overcoming the inherent view of the regulars toward the black group. Maybe Gary can look up the reason the Black Jack Pershing was called "Black Jack"?
It was the same as when Irish and Italians joined. Especially at the time when signs like "no dogs or Irishmen allowed" and "without papers (wops) go home" were prevalent.
Wilson simply plugged his own brand of racism onto things.
Blacks fought in every War the US had from the Revolution forward. In WWI many US blacks joined French and British units to fight on the front lines. Some even were pilots (and aces). But, they were not allowed to fight in US front line units.

Americans surely are not taught this in our schools.

There are no differences between Irish, Italian, or black men in performing combat soldiering duties. There are definite differences between men and women.

RR




Empire101 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 2:15:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


There are no differences between Irish, Italian, or black men in performing combat soldiering duties. There are definite differences between men and women.

RR


+1

I think RoadRunner summed up the entire thread very well in two sentences.

Nuff said.




parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 2:33:13 PM)

quote:

People like Wilson and Margret Sanger directed policy, against blacks, based upon the theories of Darwin, Freud, and Marx. We would not have had "white's only" water fountains and restaurants had it not be for the Presidential edicts of Wilson.


And don't forget Sanger was a committed person of the (D) party. A Libtard.




MrRoadrunner -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 2:47:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski
And don't forget Sanger was a committed person of the (D) party. A Libtard.


And, a Fabian Socialist who thought abortion should be legal up to the age of two years old.

RR




Sarge -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 3:10:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
so why not female infantry commanders.


and there it is........this has nothing to do with equal combat rolls of the enlisted by any stretch, this is about that little blue CIB and their “career” advancement and nothing to do with defense or strategic advantage ..... [;)]







parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 3:28:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

What we are witnessing is the pansiefication of the american male
If women are our total equals why then are the olympics devided into male and female categories?
These same creatures that we open doors for,stand up for if were sitting and they approuched
we're now going to throw a weapon and tell them"stand too soldier and act like a man"
Yea thats real lady-like behavior!But i forget we men want our women to be more like men and we be metrosexual
a kinder gentler WIMP!



Honestly, we're talking about a small minority of women here who want the right to qualify for combat roles. I think you can rest assured that there will be plenty of us around who still want to have doors opened for us and other courtesies.

I don't want all men to become WIMPs but I also have no problem with the minority that are kinder and gentler. It takes all kinds of people to make a world and we need to respect everyone's right to be their own person. All gender attributes, both physical and mental reside on a wide spectrum between very masculine to very feminine. Males and females come down all over that spectrum... strong, masculine women and weak, effeminate males. We've all known people who deviate from the average male and female roles. There are strong women out there who will make great soldiers, just as there are weak males who have no business being anywhere close to combat.

I'll stand by my prediction that five years from now this will be a forgotten issue. It will work for some women and not for others. Standards will be adjusted as appropriate based upon experience with women in combat. We may very well discover that women make a significant contribution based on their gender differences and not despite them. If women are better shots as Gunny suggested, perhaps they will make excellent snipers. I've already suggested that women may be stealthier for infiltration and recon. We won't know till we try it.

Just as an aside, I watched "The Front Line" for the 2nd time last night and reflected on this discussion as the North Korean female sniper "2 second" killed one man after another. She wasn't carrying a 65 pound pack either, just her rifle and a rucksack. I would suggest that a woman in a combat unit doesn't necessarily have to carry the same load as the men as long as she has skills that compensate. For example, being able to act as a translator, special weapon skills, or maybe just being really, smart, or a natural leader.

It will be interesting whatever happens. I still say let's meet back here in five years and evaluate. In the meantime, the world isn't going to come to an end if some women get a combat MOS or even end up being a company commander (or higher). We have women commanding fighter squadrons now, so why not female infantry commanders. We can also discuss whether the Army collapsed due to the repeal of DADT (another hot button issue).


Great thoughts on the issue rhonda. I would hold a door open for you anytime. Since the barn door has been opened we will get to see how this social experiment goes. I still think it is a mistake to do this. Politicians do things in baby steps that chip away from our basic freedoms, and yes, traditions. This is like a dripping faucet, it does not seem so bad as it drips, but overall it adds up.

Still, you posted the best, reasoned response to the pro-side we have had here.[&o]




Jim D Burns -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 7:07:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
Honestly, we're talking about a small minority of women here who want the right to qualify for combat roles.


Nope, that's not how the military works. Women are going to be moved wholesale into infantry units just like the men. Numbers on a piece of paper are what they will be and you go where you are told to go in the military, personal choice has nothing to do with it. No pre-selection process to filter out only those who can cut it exists nor will one be made. Instead what will happen is what has happened in every other field women have entered where they failed to meet the male standard. The standard will be dropped so they can qualify and it will have an overall devastating effect on combat readiness and morale.

Jim




EisenHammer -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 10:46:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Women are going to be moved wholesale into infantry units just like the men.



I don't see this happening at all. Things would have to get really bad for that to happen. Like maybe an alien invasion or something. lol

The most I think we'll see is women as tankers, snipers, medics, chopper pilots, Artillery, Drones pilots, and frontline HQ staff and support units. The Army may come out with one experimental Amazon Battalion just to see how it would work out, but that would be about it. I think most of you are overreacting.




parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 10:47:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski
And don't forget Sanger was a committed person of the (D) party. A Libtard.


And, a Fabian Socialist who thought abortion should be legal up to the age of two years old.

RR



Yeah, she also wanted to control the black population with abortion.




warspite1 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 10:47:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Women are going to be moved wholesale into infantry units just like the men.



I don't see this happening at all. Things would have to get really bad for that to happen. Like maybe an alien invasion or something. lol

The most I think we'll see is women as tankers, snipers, medics, chopper pilots, Artillery, Drones pilots, and frontline HQ staff and support units. The Army may come out with one experimental Amazon Battalion just to see how it would work out, but that would be about it. I think most of you are overreacting.
warspite1

Women as chopper pilots.... oh well made me laugh [:)][:D]




parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 10:48:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Women are going to be moved wholesale into infantry units just like the men.



I don't see this happening at all. Things would have to get really bad for that to happen. Like maybe an alien invasion or something. lol

The most I think we'll see is women as tankers, snipers, medics, chopper pilots, Artillery, Drones pilots, and frontline HQ staff and support units. The Army may come out with one experimental Amazon Battalion just to see how it would work out, but that would be about it. I think most of you are overreacting.


EisenHammer, YOU are over doing it.

The most I think we'll see is women as sappers, palm readers, cannon fodder, and dressed in body bags.




EisenHammer -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 10:59:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

EisenHammer, YOU are over doing it.


Never!





EisenHammer -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/9/2013 11:23:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Women as chopper pilots.... oh well made me laugh [:)][:D]

Why that… women suck as helicopter pilots?




warspite1 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2013 7:47:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Women as chopper pilots.... oh well made me laugh [:)][:D]

Why that… women suck as helicopter pilots?
warspite1

Fnaar Fnaar - he said chopper (sniggers)




EisenHammer -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/10/2013 2:12:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Women as chopper pilots.... oh well made me laugh [:)][:D]

Why that… women suck as helicopter pilots?
warspite1

Fnaar Fnaar - he said chopper (sniggers)


I see.. I see.. said the blind man.

But I would never had guess that motorcyclist pilots their bikes. lol




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2013 6:28:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

People like Wilson and Margret Sanger directed policy, against blacks, based upon the theories of Darwin, Freud, and Marx. We would not have had "white's only" water fountains and restaurants had it not be for the Presidential edicts of Wilson.


And don't forget Sanger was a committed person of the (D) party. A Libtard.


Don't forget that when she lived the Democratic party was violently racist, enforcers of Jim Crow in the Solid South. But don't let history get in the way of your "views."




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2013 6:30:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Women are going to be moved wholesale into infantry units just like the men.



I don't see this happening at all. Things would have to get really bad for that to happen. Like maybe an alien invasion or something. lol

The most I think we'll see is women as tankers, snipers, medics, chopper pilots, Artillery, Drones pilots, and frontline HQ staff and support units. The Army may come out with one experimental Amazon Battalion just to see how it would work out, but that would be about it. I think most of you are overreacting.


As the JCS has said they will review and propose plans for how to do this over at least a year, and more likely several, no one has any idea of how this is going to go. Especially those who are sure they know.




mullk -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2013 7:12:59 PM)

As was pointed out earlier woman must be moved wholesale into combat if allowed. If they were allowed to only enter combat roles if they felt like it, it will create incredible morale issues if men must go and woman only go if they feel like it. I know some will not like this, but the military will look to fill body bag with woman to show how integrated they are so they can't be accused of keeping woman out of combat. I personally witnessed things done in the Air Force that were horrible in regards to woman in service/battle but no one dared to say a thing due to the fear of public perception of the service (perception is more important than facts). Even the topic was forbidden except to say how wonderful it was. Any comment even privately to the contrary of current political correctness in the military was a carer ender. At some point when they run out of volunteers to combat roles they will have to start assigning troops, men and woman.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2013 10:00:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mullk

As was pointed out earlier woman must be moved wholesale into combat if allowed. If they were allowed to only enter combat roles if they felt like it, it will create incredible morale issues if men must go and woman only go if they feel like it. I know some will not like this, but the military will look to fill body bag with woman to show how integrated they are so they can't be accused of keeping woman out of combat. I personally witnessed things done in the Air Force that were horrible in regards to woman in service/battle but no one dared to say a thing due to the fear of public perception of the service (perception is more important than facts). Even the topic was forbidden except to say how wonderful it was. Any comment even privately to the contrary of current political correctness in the military was a carer ender. At some point when they run out of volunteers to combat roles they will have to start assigning troops, men and woman.


And I repeat--you have no idea how this will be done. There's no "must." All the horror talk in the world doesn't make it true. When the JCS takes the program to SecDef and shows how they want to impliment it then you can throw stones. Right now it's just a policy shift statement.




Jim D Burns -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2013 11:31:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Don't forget that when she lived the Democratic party was violently racist, enforcers of Jim Crow in the Solid South. But don't let history get in the way of your "views."


And how exactly has anything changed. Keeping people stuck in poverty dependant on a welfare state and keeping the education system that could help them break out of the poverty cycle firmly in the hands of self serving (read arm of the democratic party) unions for the past 50 years has done nothing to help those trapped in poverty. Nothing has changed in the inner cities of the US even though they have been staunchly democrat for half a century or more. So in my view keeping a specific voter block totally dependent on you via welfare benefits to guarantee your power base is just as violently racist as they've ever been. More subtle sure, but just as racist.

It's a fact, if the inner cities were able to break the welfare cycle and get ahead in life outside the dependencies of government programs, the democratic party would cease to exist, so they have a vested interest in keeping their voter blocks stuck in poverty so they depend on government. Historical precedent shows they do nothing 'real' to help benefit the poverty stricken in America. What they actually do when in control is create more government programs that keep those same people dependant on government to guarantee voter turnouts that will re-elect them.

That's not to say the Republicans are any better. They serve the wealthiest interests in America. Political parties that actually care about the people haven't existed in America for a very long time. But as long as they can sell you a bill of goods that makes you believe your guys are the good guys and the other guys are the bad guys, things will never change. If you actually cared you'd look at your own party and criticize it, yelling at the other side will never do anything or bring about any real change. But start to hold your own guys feet to the fire will/should have dramatic effects.

A democracy can only really work for you if your vote is truly up for grabs. That's why I find it so sad that the poverty stricken have been so staunchly democrat for so long even with no real results ever happening that change things for them. Had they backed the other side now and again, I bet the democrat party would actually start to worry about making some real change/progress for their constituents. If you are not willing to switch your vote, then you have given up your only real leverage in the game. By keeping you hating the other guy, they've locked you in and basically neutered your voice.

Watch this old 20/20 show to get an idea of how bad the education system is. At around 10:00 listen to the guy running the private school in Oakland. His poor students outperform the kids from the rich hills area, so it isn't the economic class of the students that matters it's the failed education system the democrats keep pushing on the kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

Jim




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/11/2013 11:52:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mullk

As was pointed out earlier woman must be moved wholesale into combat if allowed. If they were allowed to only enter combat roles if they felt like it, it will create incredible morale issues if men must go and woman only go if they feel like it. I know some will not like this, but the military will look to fill body bag with woman to show how integrated they are so they can't be accused of keeping woman out of combat. I personally witnessed things done in the Air Force that were horrible in regards to woman in service/battle but no one dared to say a thing due to the fear of public perception of the service (perception is more important than facts). Even the topic was forbidden except to say how wonderful it was. Any comment even privately to the contrary of current political correctness in the military was a carer ender. At some point when they run out of volunteers to combat roles they will have to start assigning troops, men and woman.

[&o]




PipFromSlitherine -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/12/2013 12:17:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Don't forget that when she lived the Democratic party was violently racist, enforcers of Jim Crow in the Solid South. But don't let history get in the way of your "views."


And how exactly has anything changed. Keeping people stuck in poverty dependant on a welfare state and keeping the education system that could help them break out of the poverty cycle firmly in the hands of self serving (read arm of the democratic party) unions for the past 50 years has done nothing to help those trapped in poverty. Nothing has changed in the inner cities of the US even though they have been staunchly democrat for half a century or more. So in my view keeping a specific voter block totally dependent on you via welfare benefits to guarantee your power base is just as violently racist as they've ever been. More subtle sure, but just as racist.

It's a fact, if the inner cities were able to break the welfare cycle and get ahead in life outside the dependencies of government programs, the democratic party would cease to exist, so they have a vested interest in keeping their voter blocks stuck in poverty so they depend on government. Historical precedent shows they do nothing 'real' to help benefit the poverty stricken in America. What they actually do when in control is create more government programs that keep those same people dependant on government to guarantee voter turnouts that will re-elect them.

That's not to say the Republicans are any better. They serve the wealthiest interests in America. Political parties that actually care about the people haven't existed in America for a very long time. But as long as they can sell you a bill of goods that makes you believe your guys are the good guys and the other guys are the bad guys, things will never change. If you actually cared you'd look at your own party and criticize it, yelling at the other side will never do anything or bring about any real change. But start to hold your own guys feet to the fire will/should have dramatic effects.

A democracy can only really work for you if your vote is truly up for grabs. That's why I find it so sad that the poverty stricken have been so staunchly democrat for so long even with no real results ever happening that change things for them. Had they backed the other side now and again, I bet the democrat party would actually start to worry about making some real change/progress for their constituents. If you are not willing to switch your vote, then you have given up your only real leverage in the game. By keeping you hating the other guy, they've locked you in and basically neutered your voice.

Watch this old 20/20 show to get an idea of how bad the education system is. At around 10:00 listen to the guy running the private school in Oakland. His poor students outperform the kids from the rich hills area, so it isn't the economic class of the students that matters it's the failed education system the democrats keep pushing on the kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

Jim


Let's keep politics out of the thread please.

Cheers

Pip





parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/12/2013 12:56:43 AM)

quote:


That's not to say the Republicans are any better. They serve the wealthiest interests in America.


Oh good Lord. I tire of that old argument. I have never been rich but have enough sense to be a R. WHY? Because a very rich man, who owns 611 convenience stores, hired me while I was in college. He became richer as I advanced through his company, but I had a job(it paid well)that allowed me to retire early just a few weeks ago. Don't like the rich? Go get a job from a poor or barely middle class person.




t001001001 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/12/2013 1:41:05 AM)

quote:

When I was in Chicago, I hurried and opened a door for a lady entering a convenience store. She thanked me with a dirty look and said 'My arms aren't broken'.


I was walking into the bank and some crazy chica shoved the door open and walked out. Bank windows are tinted I couldn't even see her let alone open the door for her. I walked in w/o having to touch the door. She angrily said: "you're welcome!" over her shoulder. gesh [:D] You can't win don't even try.


Women in front line fighting might have a psychological effect on the other side. Ppl don't like shooting other ppl, but nobody would shoot Mary Ann or Ginger.




parusski -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/12/2013 2:48:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: t001001001

quote:

When I was in Chicago, I hurried and opened a door for a lady entering a convenience store. She thanked me with a dirty look and said 'My arms aren't broken'.


I was walking into the bank and some crazy chica shoved the door open and walked out. Bank windows are tinted I couldn't even see her let alone open the door for her. I walked in w/o having to touch the door. She angrily said: "you're welcome!" over her shoulder. gesh [:D] You can't win don't even try.


Women in front line fighting might have a psychological effect on the other side. Ppl don't like shooting other ppl, but nobody would shoot Mary Ann or Ginger.


I am sure women will thank enemy troops for treating the with respect and ...uhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Then women will sue enemy male soldiers for sexism. Actually, using women might scare most enemy soldiers away, out of confusion about to act.




Gary Childress -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/12/2013 4:29:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I suppose a case could be made that a hundred years ago large numbers of blacks in front line roles in the US army might have undermined the confidence of white male soldiers who happened to adhere to the racial stereotypes of their time. I'm sure if we backpeddled a dozen decades there would be plenty of flak about allowing blacks to serve frontline status and all sorts of anecdotal evidence might be cited to reinforce this belief. I just wonder if this issue with women in combat is not another case of cultural prejudices getting in the way of the advancement of minority rights.


Sup Gary, how's everything been? ……hope all is well as it is here !

That has to be your all-time” race card” record, I dont get your correlation/metal gymnastics and i'm not so sure you even get it , but thumps up on the Triple Lindy ….[&o]



Sarge, I agree with you.
It is funny how some feel the need to throw the "race" hand grenade into a discussion of gender difference.
It also displays that Gary does not know real (true) history.
Blacks were integrated into the military after the Civil War (during for the North and almost during for the South). Up until the racist President Wilson decreed that Blacks needed to be segregated to coincide with his domestic agenda regarding blacks. Blacks were in segregated units until Patton included them in rifle platoons, as replacements, at the end of WWII.

People like Wilson and Margret Sanger directed policy, against blacks, based upon the theories of Darwin, Freud, and Marx. We would not have had "white's only" water fountains and restaurants had it not be for the Presidential edicts of Wilson.

I'm sure that Gary is intellectually stable enough to do some research that might change his viewpoints and keep him from throwing race into every discussion. Especially throwing in false information.
The earliest issues governing the black enrollment in the military was overcoming the inherent view of the regulars toward the black group. Maybe Gary can look up the reason the Black Jack Pershing was called "Black Jack"?
It was the same as when Irish and Italians joined. Especially at the time when signs like "no dogs or Irishmen allowed" and "without papers (wops) go home" were prevalent.
Wilson simply plugged his own brand of racism onto things.
Blacks fought in every War the US had from the Revolution forward. In WWI many US blacks joined French and British units to fight on the front lines. Some even were pilots (and aces). But, they were not allowed to fight in US front line units.

Americans surely are not taught this in our schools.

There are no differences between Irish, Italian, or black men in performing combat soldiering duties. There are definite differences between men and women.

RR


I don't think you've understood or even tried to understand the point I was making and I doubt trying to explain it further is going to do any good so I give up. You win. Congratulations on your scathing victory. I guess holding your hands over your ears and screaming "lalalalala" works afterall. Good job! [image]http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/goodwork.gif[/image]




Sarge -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/12/2013 4:52:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I don't think you've understood or even tried to understand the point I was making and I doubt trying to explain it further is going to do any good so I give up. You win. Congratulations on your scathing victory. I guess holding your hands over your ears and screaming "lalalalala" works afterall. Good job! [image]http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/goodwork.gif[/image]

No I understand completely, you have no idea the two issues have zero in common and are truly taken back by the ignant folk that don’t find the racism in any given “cause”




Gary Childress -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/12/2013 5:13:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I don't think you've understood or even tried to understand the point I was making and I doubt trying to explain it further is going to do any good so I give up. You win. Congratulations on your scathing victory. I guess holding your hands over your ears and screaming "lalalalala" works afterall. Good job! [image]http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/goodwork.gif[/image]

No I understand completely, you have no idea the two issues have zero in common and are truly taken back by the ignant folk that don’t find the racism in any given “cause”


Of course. Two minority groups seeking equal rights against a bunch of conservative reactionaries can't possibly have anything in common. Acknowledging any common ground would bring up the inconvenient thought of, maybe, just maybe, we're wrong...again. No. You have a good point there. I don't know what I was thinking. Insanity on my part for sure...




MrRoadrunner -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/12/2013 10:44:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Of course. Two minority groups seeking equal rights against a bunch of conservative reactionaries can't possibly have anything in common. Acknowledging any common ground would bring up the inconvenient thought of, maybe, just maybe, we're wrong...again. No. You have a good point there. I don't know what I was thinking. Insanity on my part for sure...


Regardless of your original condescending tone, I believe it is you who just does not get it.

Two minority groups seeking equal rights? That is almost farcical.

Women are different from men. Women (with the exception of black women) are different from blacks.
You bring out antiquated stereotypes and expect us to go along with you.
You throw a "flash bang" into an argument about women fighting in front line combat and expect us to say "Hey, great point. Women are only trying to be equal, just like blacks."
Do you expect everyone to just cede the issue because of that? Bleh!

Prior to and from the Civil War blacks were beginning to integrate into American society. It was not until the progressive movement, and especially the Woodrow Wilson era, that classified blacks as less than whites based upon the principles found in Darwin's theory of evolution, and wild claims in the medical community.
At that point blacks who were "finding themselves" and "stepping up" were put down by numerous executive orders and "laws" that separated blacks from whites.
Wilson and Sanger believed that blacks carried diseases and should not be integrated into society. When the Wilson/Sanger theories became institutionalized blacks who had become entrepreneurs, teachers, soldiers, and even politicians were relegated to second class status. Similar to what the immigrants who were Irish and Italians had to endure. But, it was "government sanctioned".

Having women in the military, and now in combat, has and will, further the reduction in the standards that are used to determine the combat effectiveness of an individual soldier. And, you believe that makes the men and women equal?

They have equal rights. But, is it an equal right to be in a combat unit if your standards have to be reduced for you to get there.

The floor is yours.

RR




warspite1 -> RE: Women In the Infantry (2/12/2013 11:54:03 AM)

Gents and Lady

Can I suggest that we bring this thread to a halt now?

The case for and against has been made and strongly argued by both sides, but the danger now is that - with nothing really new to add - the thread runs the risk of descending into more heated comments with all that that means.

Its good that Matrix have allowed this thread to continue - we've seen threads closed early where just the likelihood of an argument getting out of hand makes it safer to end it soon - and this discussion has been worthwhile. Hopefully we can be trusted to be allowed more thought provoking topics to discuss in future.

As far as this debate is concerned, sadly the fact is is that those of us in the "no" camp have already "lost"; women are out there now, on the frontline. Only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

Just my 2 cents.




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.296875E-02