223 réponses à ce sujet

[nicocap24]

Lincoln MuaDib wrote...

nicocap24 wrote...

The fact that he was born in Buenos Aires makes him the best character in the history of anything... ever.

Anyone know where Earthborn Shepard was born?

London. Oh no wait, that's Anderson.

[Made Nightwing]

The grumblings of 'disgruntled grunts' are the considered opinions of honorable men who have been there, done that and have the scars to prove it.

How do you know they can when common sense says they can't? Have they been tested for it? The centuries have shown that men are more capable of enduring war, not women.

Quote your own sources, not feminist ideology.

[Lincoln MuaDib]

Made Nightwing wrote...

@Lincoln MuaDib. My MMA sensei is not my lawful superior in the way that my CO at cadets was. Yes, I bow, but out of honour, not legal necessity such as in the military. Saluting is not just a preference or some mark of respect, it is a reminder of who is in charge. You will notice that while Shepard doesn't necessarily salute (Spectre, after all, legal requirement isn't there), Ashley and Kaidan will immediately snap to attention and render the honorific.

Nothing you've said supports your assertion that Shepard HAS to salute.

Is it requisite now in the Aus and US Armed Forces? Yes, I never said it wasn't.

But it may not be so in the ME Universe.

Ash n Kai do snap to attention, but maybe they want to- as you bow in MMA, so they have the choice to salute, which they both take.

It may not be a legal requirement in the future, or in the ME Universe.

[Lincoln MuaDib]

Made Nightwing wrote...

The grumblings of 'disgruntled grunts' are the considered opinions of honorable men who have been there, done that and have the scars to prove it.

Women who have served in the Front Lines (not in the USA, where they cannot) also have an opinion on this. Considered opinions of honorable women who have been there, done that and have the scars to prove it.

Made Nightwing wrote...

How do you know
they can when common sense says they can't?

The fallacious "Common sense" argument again. My common sense says if you can carry a gun and shoot it, you can kill. In fear for your life, you will kill. Gender is irrelevant in this equation. Common sense.

Or is your "common sense" different to mine?

I note you quoted Psychology until I pointed out you were talking tosh, at which point you spontaneously abandoned the implied authority of psychologists.

Made Nightwing wrote...

Have they been tested for
it? The centuries have shown that men are more capable of enduring war,
not women.

Well, as you say, it's only been recently women have been in the front lines. So of course testing was impossible.

The centuries have not shown that men are more capable of enduring war.


I do not need to prove women are better at it. You, however, need to prove your assertions with more than opinion.

Is a weaker soldier a danger?
Is a small soldier a danger?
Is a slow soldier a danger?
Is an inarticulate soldier a danger?
Is a myopic soldier a danger?

Test for that in entry requirements.
Whatever soldiers get in can do the job.

Now that's common sense.

[Lincoln MuaDib]

Out for a bit.

[Made Nightwing]

Not dropped, but it wasn't relevant. I thought it would be a blatantly obvious point that no matter the few academic studies that like to pretend otherwise, men and women are naturally different. Think of a man, think of a woman. They are equal, but different in so many ways. What makes the man different? Heightened aggression, a frame that is usually built to be stronger, faster and take more damage. What makes the woman different? Natural compassion, the ability to bear children (this is a biological fact, not sexism) and a frame is usually slower, weaker and less hardy than the male.

Consider this. Take all the males you know and all the females you know and pit them against each other in a brawl. Not a controlled, dojo like enviroment, but a full on fight for sheer survival using brute force. If your friends meet the usual demographic, then most of your female friends are theoretically dead. Among my female friends, there are two that could kick my ass, one of them has been training in Judo since she was eight, and the other is my MMA sparring partner. However there are many of my male friends, most of whom have no training, who I wouldn't pick a fight with if you paid me a million dollars. This is your average population, nothing will change that.

Here's a quote from author Kathleen Parker on the subject: "Physically, women are simply not on the same level as men, and, you know, everybody knows this. There's a reason there are no women in the NFL. But if you want to just go down the line, there are statistics out there, there have been studies, plenty of them. We pretend that they don't exist, but they do. Women are five inches shorter, on average. They have half the upper-body strength of men. They have a lower aerobic capacity. They have 37-percent less muscle mass. They have a lighter skeleton and are prone to more stress fractures. These aren't the same for every woman, but it is a clearly shown baseline, and the military is all about the baseline."

People like to quote the Israelis as having women in combat, but the truth is that they do not permit women to join the infantry or special forces units whose goal is to kill. The New Zealanders and Canadians have women in the infantry, sure, but they are not taken seriously as a threat by the 'big players' because their militaries are tiny and their deployments are scarce. When was the last time Switzerland fought a war? Do Norway and Sweden actively deploy into combat zones on a consistent basis?

For sources that actually demonstrate the sheer illogical position of having women actively recruited or being permitted to volunter for combat, here's an article that expresses the physical differences that simply make it impossible.

theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/women-have-no-place-in-combat/story-e6frgd0x-1226149860334

http://www.lewrockwe.../kirkwood3.html

This one hooks a little too much into the Christian culture, but his other points are extremely valid.

http://en.wikipedia....War_and_Society

Written by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, he details how Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and natural sacrifice toward female soldiers, leading to the deaths of many Israeli soldiers under fire. He also notes that Islamic soldiers never surrendered to female soldiers, leading to more deaths on both sides.

http://www.thedailyb...-in-combat.html

And here's another article detailing some of the simple and brutally honest casepoints against women in combat. Read them all and then get back to me.

[Made Nightwing]

You don't need to prove women are 'better' at it. It is proven that a majority of men are capable of being good line animals, and the best men are selected for that job (in Australia, the line for infantry and Special Forces is fiercely competetive). You need to prove that a majority of women are capable of being good killers. The infantry doesn't select the best of the few, they select the best of the majority.

Is a weaker soldier a danger? Yes. And with few exceptions, most women are weaker than men.
Is a small soldier a danger? Yes. And with few exceptions, most women are smaller than men.
Is a slow soldier a danger? Yes. And with few exceptions (trained athletes) most women are slower than men.

I can frankly say, straight off the bat, that I would not follow a woman into combat. She could be the toughest, meanest, best trained soldier in the world and I still would willingly not go into a firefight with her. I worked with plenty of women in the cadet forces, good and bad, and that was fine. But knowing that I had to have absolute trust in my commanding officer, trust him to be personally responsible for my safety, and be willing to follow him into hell, is just something that I, as an mentally evolved being, am not designed to do. And I am not, as a matter of survival, inclined to change my evolved perspective, it's been doing a swell job of keeping me alive so far. In combat flying or naval warfare, it's different, you're removed from the danger. But a woman does not evoke the same trust that a man does, hell, there are a few men that don't. That's because we have an evolutionary trigger that sparks a psychological reaction that builds this trust. Men don't have that with women, and never will, not in Western society. GI Jane is a film, not a documentary.

The opinions of the armed forces chiefs means little in an age where they can't advance up the ladder without being champions of women serving. The opinions of the boots on the ground does, and most of those boots are men who are saying that they don't want to follow or have to look after women in a rifle platoon. Equality of the sexes and democracy mean jack s*** on the battlefield.

Side Note on saluting: With the amount of saluting going on, it's pretty obvious that it is still a standard military procedure. Ash/Kaidan still salute you, even if you're a jackass to them. You can demand Ken and Gabby salute you because 'you run the ship military'. You salute the rank, not the man. Twas always thus, and always will be.

Now, if you're quite finished with the feminist ideology, maybe we can get back on topic?

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Written by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, he details how Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and natural sacrifice toward female soldiers, leading to the deaths of many Israeli soldiers under fire. He also notes that Islamic soldiers never surrendered to female soldiers, leading to more deaths on both sides.

Right, so women shouldn't be put in combat because of male prejudice?
Instead of dealing with that, just exclude the women! This is laughable.

But a woman does not evoke the same trust that a man does, hell, there
are a few men that don't. That's because we have an evolutionary trigger
that sparks a psychological reaction that builds this trust. Men don't
have that with women, and never will, not in Western society. GI Jane is
a film, not a documentary.

Dial this back a few decades and people were making this exact same argument with race instead of gender.
Society will not stop progressing because you are prejudiced, and the fact that female generals, leaders and naval captains exist proves your assertion wrong. Women can lead in military situations, and if you have a problem with it then you are undisciplined, and not worth anyone's time and effort.

Modifié par The Angry One, 19 avril 2012 - 11:43 .

[Made Nightwing]

The Angry One wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Written by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, he details how Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and natural sacrifice toward female soldiers, leading to the deaths of many Israeli soldiers under fire. He also notes that Islamic soldiers never surrendered to female soldiers, leading to more deaths on both sides.

Right, so women shouldn't be put in combat because of male prejudice?
Instead of dealing with that, just exclude the women! This is laughable.

In case you haven't noticed, the primary point made was that the Israelis went out of their way to safeguard their women, inefficient and impractical in a serving military. That Muslims don't surrender to women is incidental, but still makes it impractical.

[MattFini]

Whaaaaaa?

There are people who hate Hackett?

Lance!?!?

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Written by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, he details how Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and natural sacrifice toward female soldiers, leading to the deaths of many Israeli soldiers under fire. He also notes that Islamic soldiers never surrendered to female soldiers, leading to more deaths on both sides.

Right, so women shouldn't be put in combat because of male prejudice?
Instead of dealing with that, just exclude the women! This is laughable.

In case you haven't noticed, the primary point made was that the Israelis went out of their way to safeguard their women, inefficient and impractical in a serving military. That Muslims don't surrender to women is incidental, but still makes it impractical.

And that's prejudice. Those men assume those women need protecting when they don't. They need to learn to deal with that. Women should not be punished and prevented from roles we can work to be capable because men have issues.

[hopeisreal]

Sorry, but Hackett aka LANCE HENRIKSEN....was one of the best bits about ME3 along with Anderson

[Made Nightwing]

@TheAngryOne.

No. It is not prejudice, but chivalry and evolutionary instincts. Those men could no more suppress those instincts than they could suppress the urge to breathe. If you take chivalry away from a man, you create a thug. They DO NOT learn to deal with that because it is NOT necessary for them to do so.

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

@TheAngryOne.

No. It is not prejudice, but chivalry and evolutionary instincts. Those men could no more suppress those instincts than they could suppress the urge to breathe. If you take chivalry away from a man, you create a thug. They DO NOT learn to deal with that because it is NOT necessary for them to do so.

Chivalry is a social construct. Do not patronise me with such silly terms.
A woman considered fit for front line duty has earned her place and the respect of her fellow soldiers, she does not need protecting or to be treated like a flower.
We are a sapient species, not animals relying on instinct. So yes, they can deal with it, and they should.

The only thugs I see are men who refuse to take orders from or trust women simply because they are women.

As society progresses and more women are placed into equal roles, people like you will pretty much have to deal with it or be left behind. It's that simple.

Modifié par The Angry One, 19 avril 2012 - 11:55 .

[Made Nightwing]

Chivalry may be a social construct, but every time a man keeps his temper and refrains from acting violently toward a woman, he is exercising it. Societies that do not have it sorely miss it (predominantly in the Muslim world).

In war everyone is an animal, this is common knowledge. Social constraints and temperaments are stripped away, leaving only instinct. That basic evolutionary instinct is to kill or be killed if in the company of the pack. If a woman is present, the priority changes to protect the woman. The Israelies withdrew women from combat for a reason.

No, your point is mistaken. Men trust men to lead them into danger. They do not trust women, no matter how hardcore they are. Evolution brought us to this point, it cannot be ignored. Pointless to try.

EDIT: And can I just point out that saying women will be 'placed' into equal roles implies the dangers of Affirmative Action when it is practiced in combat. Men will die for feminist mistakes.

Modifié par Made Nightwing, 19 avril 2012 - 12:08 .

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Chivalry may be a social construct, but every time a man keeps his temper and refrains from acting violently toward a woman, he is exercising it. Societies that do not have it sorely miss it (predominantly in the Muslim world).

Hardly. What's practiced in the muslim world is merely a form of extreme chivalry.
It's an antiquated concept, thanks. When a man does not hurt a woman it should be for the same reason he does not hurt a man, simple civility.

In war everyone is an animal, this is common knowledge. Social constraints and temperaments are stripped away, leaving only instinct. That basic evolutionary instinct is to kill or be killed if in the company of the pack. If a woman is present, the priority changes to protect the woman. The Israelies withdrew women from combat for a reason.

And that reason is that the men need to learn to deal with it. If we were all driven primarily by instinct we'd still be living in caves.

No, your point is mistaken. Men trust men to lead them into danger. They do not trust women, no matter how hardcore they are. Evolution brought us to this point, it cannot be ignored. Pointless to try.

Except, men have trusted women. Men do trust women. You don't. Please learn the difference, and try to get over your social issues.

EDIT: And can I just point out that saying women will be 'placed' into
equal roles implies the dangers of Affirmative Action when it is
practiced in combat. Men will die for feminist mistakes.

I can see you're a waste of time to talk to.
Stay in 1950 if you want. The rest of us have a future to build.

Modifié par The Angry One, 19 avril 2012 - 12:12 .

[Made Nightwing]

Allow me to correct your ancient history. The Muslim world never practiced chivalry. Ancient Muslims of various nationalities generally acknowledged that men and women held separate but equally important roles in society. Then in the 1950s, radicals took Islam in a whole different direction, into a past that never even existed. The burqa was usually only worn at court in the Middle Ages, and women held important roles as teachers and doctors. Theirs is a form of extreme disparity of the sexes, nothing to do with chivalry.

'Civility' is also a social construct. At the heart of it, a man doesn't hurt another man because he's afraid of punishment or retribution. Nietzsche and Freud have good points on it.

Your evolutionary theory is also rusty. Instinct is what allowed us to survive beyond the caves and into civilisation. In warfare you don't have time to think 'Oh, she's a trained soldier.' You think 'she's a woman, protect and defend'. Natural instinct, should be encouraged, not crushed.

Erroneous conclusion based on lack of facts. Extended combat is different from other situations where men follow women. Firefighting, police work, etc, do not have the same requirements as life and death on the battlefield. Considering how many times men have refused to follow other men into combat, it should be thought twice before considering women for the same roles.

Regrettably, I volunteered to serve my country, and sit the Officer Selection Board in three days. My opinions are shared by every officer I have consulted in my recruiting process, as well as the men in the ranks. My opinions are from the 21st century reality. Yours are from 21st century fantasy.

Modifié par Made Nightwing, 19 avril 2012 - 12:24 .

[General User]

The Angry One wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Written by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, he details how Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and natural sacrifice toward female soldiers, leading to the deaths of many Israeli soldiers under fire. He also notes that Islamic soldiers never surrendered to female soldiers, leading to more deaths on both sides.

Right, so women shouldn't be put in combat because of male prejudice?
Instead of dealing with that, just exclude the women! This is laughable.

In principle, I agree.  Bending over backwards to accommodate the culture of the enemy is a bad idea on oh so many levels.  So if a few extra nutters have to be put down because their primitive mindset won't let them surrender when they're beat, I won't shed any tears.

On the other hand... we do have to deal in reality.  We can't change their attitudes but we can change ours.  Elevate our own people and eliminate theirs, so to speak.

Modifié par General User, 19 avril 2012 - 12:26 .

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Allow me to correct your ancient history. The Muslim world never practiced chivalry. Ancient Muslims of various nationalities generally acknowledged that men and women held separate but equally important roles in society. Then in the 1950s, radicals took Islam in a whole different direction, into a past that never even existed. The burqa was usually only worn at court in the Middle Ages, and women held important roles as teachers and doctors. Theirs is a form of extreme disparity of the sexes, nothing to do with chivalry.

It's an oppressive form of chivalry, it matters not what they call it.

'Civility' is also a social construct. At the heart of it, a man doesn't hurt another man because he's afraid of punishment or retribution. Nietzsche and Freud have good points on it.

The difference is, civility is a decent social construct. Chivalry is a farce.

Your evolutionary theory is also rusty. Instinct is what allowed us to survive beyond the caves and into civilisation. In warfare you don't have time to think 'Oh, she's a trained soldier.' You think 'she's a woman, protect and defend'. Natural instinct, should be encouraged, not crushed.

There are many women who do not need to be "protected and defended". There are some men who do.
Stop being patronising.

Erroneous conclusion based on lack of facts. Extended combat is different from other situations where men follow women. Firefighting, police work, etc, do not have the same requirements as life and death on the battlefield. Considering how many times men have refused to follow other men into combat, it should be thought twice before considering women for the same roles.

Why? Because you and your favourite pseudo-philosophers say so? If a woman has the necesarry charisma and know how to lead soldiers, why shouldn't she? Oh and seriously? Firefighting and policework are not about life and death? What?

[Made Nightwing]

No. Chivalry is the respect of women and of man. Chivalry is concept of doing what's right no matter what comes at you. That is the chivalry of Western society. Demolishing it is a mistake that has only led to massive increases in domestic violence.

Agree. But can't change the instinct. Stupid to try. Also stupid to allow a situation like that to occur.

Firefighting and police work about serving the common good, serving the citizens. Fighting on the frontlines is fighting the enemies of the state. Big difference, you'd be wise not to confuse them.

Side note: Hah! Pseudo philosophers? That's what you call the most knowledgable writers about the human psyche? You're not exactly doing wonders for your cause here. The problem is that 99.9999 (ad infinitum) women are not suited for frontline combat. And the men that have been serving with honour and courage do not not want them there. Soldiers don't want political statements, they want men they can trust easily to lead them and serve with them. Altering that dynamic is stupidity of the highest order, no matter what century you're living in.

[General User]

The Angry One wrote...
The difference is, civility is a decent social construct. Chivalry is a farce.

Chivalry is a cultural artifact, one to whom the Western world in general owes a great deal.

The Angry One wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...
Erroneous conclusion based on lack of facts. Extended combat is
different from other situations where men follow women. Firefighting,
police work, etc, do not have the same requirements as life and death on
the battlefield. Considering how many times men have refused to follow
other men into combat, it should be thought twice before considering
women for the same roles.

Why? Because you and your favourite pseudo-philosophers say so? If a woman has the necesarry charisma and know how to lead soldiers, why shouldn't she? Oh and seriously? Firefighting and policework are not about life and death? What?

I think you're both right.  Military service is indeed fundmentally different from civil public service jobs.  And the percentage of females who are capable of performing at that level is indeed lower than the percentage of males who are capable of the same.  But they do exist and should have the opportunity to earn a place at the table.

[Made Nightwing]

General User wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Written by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, he details how Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and natural sacrifice toward female soldiers, leading to the deaths of many Israeli soldiers under fire. He also notes that Islamic soldiers never surrendered to female soldiers, leading to more deaths on both sides.

Right, so women shouldn't be put in combat because of male prejudice?
Instead of dealing with that, just exclude the women! This is laughable.

In principle, I agree.  Bending over backwards to accommodate the culture of the enemy is a bad idea on oh so many levels.  So if a few extra nutters have to be put down because their primitive mindset won't let them surrender when they're beat, I won't shed any tears.

On the other hand... we do have to deal in reality.  We can't change their attitudes but we can change ours.  Elevate our own people and eliminate theirs, so to speak.

In war, you do what's necessary to win. If you know the enemy won't surrender to female soldiers, and sending female soldiers will cause more casualties, you do the smart thing and don't send them. That's called 'strategy'. Good strategy wins wars. Stubbornly refusing to 'bow backwards' is called 'bad strategy'.

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

No. Chivalry is the respect of women and of man. Chivalry is concept of doing what's right no matter what comes at you. That is the chivalry of Western society. Demolishing it is a mistake that has only led to massive increases in domestic violence.

Nonsense. Common decency is what prevents domestic violence.

Agree. But can't change the instinct. Stupid to try. Also stupid to allow a situation like that to occur.

Firefighting and police work about serving the common good, serving the citizens. Fighting on the frontlines is fighting the enemies of the state. Big difference, you'd be wise not to confuse them.

Who's confusing? Both are life and death situations and both require good leadership and the ability to follow orders under stress.

Side note: Hah! Pseudo philosophers? That's what you call the most knowledgable writers about the human psyche? You're not exactly doing wonders for your cause here. The problem is that 99.9999 (ad infinitum) women are not suited for frontline combat. And the men that have been serving with honour and courage do not not want them there. Soldiers don't want political statements, they want men they can trust easily to lead them and serve with them. Altering that dynamic is stupidity of the highest order, no matter what century you're living in.

No. You and people like you don't want us there. You can make up statistics all you like. I'm not saying 100% of women are suited for combat, or even 50% or 30% or whatever. But those that have proven themselves able, and they HAVE, deserve the chance. Men can and have dealt with it.

Again, decades ago the same arguments were made about race. The men serving don't want them there. It alters the dynamic. There's no trust. All that was thrown away. This will be too.

Deal with it.

[The Angry One]

General User wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
The difference is, civility is a decent social construct. Chivalry is a farce.

Chivalry is a cultural artifact, one to whom the Western world in general owes a great deal.

It's a relic. Relics are of no use to modern society. It's time has passed.

I think you're both right.  Military service is indeed fundmentally different from civil public service jobs.  And the percentage of females who are capable of performing at that level is indeed lower than the percentage of males who are capable of the same.  But they do exist and should have the opportunity to earn a place at the table.

I've never disputed that significantly more males will always be suited to combat roles.
However, those women that prove themselves deserve as much respect, and deserve those roles too.

[General User]

Made Nightwing wrote...

General User wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Written by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, he details how Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and natural sacrifice toward female soldiers, leading to the deaths of many Israeli soldiers under fire. He also notes that Islamic soldiers never surrendered to female soldiers, leading to more deaths on both sides.

Right, so women shouldn't be put in combat because of male prejudice?
Instead of dealing with that, just exclude the women! This is laughable.

In principle, I agree.  Bending over backwards to accommodate the culture of the enemy is a bad idea on oh so many levels.  So if a few extra nutters have to be put down because their primitive mindset won't let them surrender when they're beat, I won't shed any tears.

On the other hand... we do have to deal in reality.  We can't change their attitudes but we can change ours.  Elevate our own people and eliminate theirs, so to speak.

In war, you do what's necessary to win. If you know the enemy won't surrender to female soldiers, and sending female soldiers will cause more casualties, you do the smart thing and don't send them. That's called 'strategy'. Good strategy wins wars. Stubbornly refusing to 'bow backwards' is called 'bad strategy'.

Tactics more like.  If, when calling for surrender, handing the megaphone to Cpl. Mike instead of Cpl. Melissa will end in the baddies laying down arms; it only makes sense that you do so. 

It's the larger principle I'm concerned with.  I don't want to handicap our people to acommodate theirs.  Because, in the end, we're just holding ourselves back.