[quote]Lynata wrote...
"Natural" in that mankind has a tendency to organize in exclusive groups using the aforementioned categorizations, yes.[/quote]
Are you implying that separating men and women into two different groups is wrong? So men and women should use the same bathrooms, showers etc....?
[quote]You sound as if hormones, gender and personality are inseparable factors, however, and this is clearly wrong. If we were to judge persons equally, we should judge them based on how they act and how they perform. Using gender alone as an indicator for performance is about as accurate as judging people based on their first name[/quote]
Well if it sounds that way, it certainly wasn't my intention since I know that hormones are
DIRECTLY responsible for your gender in so many ways, and have a strong influence on your personality.
Also, I don't know how you can say gender alone isn't a strong indicator of performance. If it isn't, then why do men and women
not compete against each other in sporting events?
[quote]You do realize that it is laws and regulations that have kept women out of the military for so long, don't you? In this light, doesn't it seem likely that
your perception is based on an illusion?[/quote]
Most laws exist for a reason. In this case (specifically women in combat), they exist because women are typically weaker than men, slower reaction times and movement speed, greater susceptability to PTSD, more prone to injury, have less endurance, less aggressive etc.... These discrepancies are due to inherent physiological differences.
As a result, most cultures and societies have opted not to send their women into direct combat because they have less of a chance of survival than men. Also, not one single culture or civilization has never relied solely on it's women for defense, unlike men..
Not a single one. That alone says something right there.
[quote]As I said, somewhat similar to the situation coloured people faced a few decades ago. Open up every position and test everyone equally.[/quote]
You can't compare the situation with minorities with women in combat. A black man is still a man. A woman (of any color) on the other hand, is fundamentally different from a man in so many ways.
[quote]Also remove the lower entry requirements for female soldiers on the current positions (where they exist), as all they do is support an existing bias.[/quote]
If they did this, there would only be a handful of women in the Military, as most of them would not be able to meet the same standards that are imposed on men.
[quote]Basically, do it like Australia:
"If an individual woman has got the physical, mental and psychological
capacity to do a job, then if they can do the job on merit, pass the
same standards that a man passes, qualify in the same way a man does,
then she should not be excluded."http://www.sbs.com.a...al-forces-units[/quote]
I don't know how the German Military does it, but most militaries (including both the U.S and Israel) have different physical standards for men and women. This is needed, because women simply cannot compete on the same level as men.
[quote]For example by taking a look at history - how many people know there were actually female knights in medieval times? Until the Pope had them banned, that is, just like female warriors were banned in the territories converted to the faith.[/quote]
The term Knight is just a title, so it doesn't necessarily mean you were fighting in wars and battles if you were a "Knight."
There were female Knights, but they did not fight in battles or war as far as I know.
[quote]So? This is not their only role, and neither do their requirements or training differ from the male soldiers. Frankly, that line sounds quite misleading, perhaps intentionally so.
They wouldn't train for infantry combat in sub-zero temperatures if they'd only act as "infiltrators".
http://www.spiegel.d...635-iframe.html[/quote]
I don't know enough about this particular regiment to say anything specific, so I'll refrain from doing so.
[quote]Well, looks like you don't know what you are talking about, for I have held both a gun (G36 during my time with the German Air Force) as well as a blade (reenactment bastard sword). Perhaps we've had different experiences with female soldiers, but my squad was nearly 50% female, including our sergeant - serving with them is how I've come to adopt my current stance.[/quote]
I made a mistake, sorry about that. Anyway, so if you have held a gun, you know how heavy they can be. Put some body armor, gear, ammo and equipment on, and you could have anywhere from 60 to 130lbs of extra weight.
[quote]And my reference was not about
carrying the stuff (which should be self-explanatory and which female soldiers already
do), it was about using it.[/quote]
Women don't carry the weight in the same capacity that men do. Thats why I mentioned active Militaries earlier.
A lot of nations that employ women in combat roles, do not have active Militaries and thus do not send their women out into enemy territory for extended periods of time to fight.
Very, very few women (if any) could handle the weight of gear and ammo for long periods of time (which is a requirement for infantry) without getting stress fractures.
Few men can handle that sort of physical punishment either.
[quote]Sorry if I've been unclear there, I did not think it could have been misinterpreted. Anyways, the damage you can inflict with a sword or a warhammer is directly connected to the physical strength of its user - with a rifle you simply pull the trigger, which leaves the weapon's own weight and its recoil as the only potential factors making it difficult to wield. The bullet won't fly faster regardless of whether it is fired by a man or a woman, as the exploits of various female snipers have shown ... or continue to show.[/quote]
OK gotcha!
[quote]Lastly, there's implants. With the
Armali sniper teams we have an in-game example of soldiers boosting their physical strength with cybernetics in order to wield a 39kg sniper rifle.
I really don't see the problem.
[/quote]
I agree that in the context of the Mass Effect Universe, weapon and armor weight would have little bearing due to supposed technological advances like mechanized armor.
Modifié par Carfax, 29 mars 2012 - 09:24 .
Retour en haut
