223 réponses à ce sujet

[Made Nightwing]

Civility, common decency and chivalry imply much of the same thing. The version of chivalry that I and my brothers were taught was respect for women. It's the same version that my sisters expected from us. It's the same version that every man worth his salt learns by heart from his childhood. Those that beat their wives and kids have not learnt it at all.

I'd like you to sit down with a firefighter and a soldier and ask them to compare the differences in their jobs. Then get back to me once you have the several pages of material they will provide you.

Guess what sister, I do not yet count myself among the honoured few who are privileged to serve. But in six months, provided my OSB goes well, I will. The nebulous 'people' you refer to are the men who have been there, done that and got their tickets punched. They are the men I respect and trust. And they have given me their frank and polite opinions as to why women in combat are a bad idea. And these opinions are simple common sense, coming from the men who are doing the fighting, not civillians who will never see a day's fighting in their lives.

The arguments made against black soldiers joining were about sociology, not biology. There's little to no biological and psychological difference between a black man and a white man, and this was proven. There is an enormous difference in biology and psychology between a man and a woman, particularly in our society, that make women unsuitable for the frontline. The point was made that the dynamic was not altered, that trust was built through common bonding. Women do not bond with men in the same way that men bond with men. This argument will never go away, because it cannot afford to. It will get people killed.

Deal with that.

[RVallant]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

Oh hardly. Society only ever repeats its mistakes when they dismiss events and concepts as 'relics' amusingly.

[Made Nightwing]

General User wrote...

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.

Except sending women into battle WAS handicapping the troops, and WILL handicap the troops. At the time, the Israelis couldn't afford to hold back, they were literally press ganging every man and woman into battle. Afterwards, they could afford to follow common sense.

[Biotic_Warlock]

He stole my end speech.
*throws space magic at*

[General User]

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

Not at all!  The world that gave birth to the concept of chivarly may be gone, but we are still much the same people in alot of ways and we face many of the same challenges.  We would be fools to simply discard wholesale an element of our history that has served us so well for so long, and continues to do so to this day.

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.

I agree entirely.

[Made Nightwing]

Also, TheAngryOne, at the time the arguments made about excluding black soldiers, black troops already fought on the front lines and in 'all black' units. They had fought in the Civil War and the Revolutionary War, en masse. The past had proven what they could do. In the case of women in war, history shows that they can fight and kill as well as men, but with detriment to unit cohesion and combat effectiveness.

Anyway, signing off for a while to study. As always, have a nice day.

EDIT: The points about feminine hygiene (PMS, the menstrual cycle) still apply. A woman can fight and kill if she's born that way, but she can't defeat her own biology.

Modifié par Made Nightwing, 19 avril 2012 - 01:03 .

[General User]

By giving the command to start the attack from Normandy's Bridge, Admiral Hackett was doing Shepard a great honour.

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Civility, common decency and chivalry imply much of the same thing. The version of chivalry that I and my brothers were taught was respect for women. It's the same version that my sisters expected from us. It's the same version that every man worth his salt learns by heart from his childhood. Those that beat their wives and kids have not learnt it at all.

Oh please, patronise someone else already.

I'd like you to sit down with a firefighter and a soldier and ask them to compare the differences in their jobs. Then get back to me once you have the several pages of material they will provide you.

For god's sake, who said there are no differences? I said that both are life and death situations and are stressful. Do you somehow deny this?

Guess what sister, I do not yet count myself among the honoured few who are privileged to serve. But in six months, provided my OSB goes well, I will. The nebulous 'people' you refer to are the men who have been there, done that and got their tickets punched. They are the men I respect and trust. And they have given me their frank and polite opinions as to why women in combat are a bad idea. And these opinions are simple common sense, coming from the men who are doing the fighting, not civillians who will never see a day's fighting in their lives.[

The arguments made against black soldiers joining were about sociology, not biology. There's little to no biological and psychological difference between a black man and a white man, and this was proven. There is an enormous difference in biology and psychology between a man and a woman, particularly in our society, that make women unsuitable for the frontline. The point was made that the dynamic was not altered, that trust was built through common bonding. Women do not bond with men in the same way that men bond with men. This argument will never go away, because it cannot afford to. It will get people killed.

Deal with that.

Ridiculous. You are purely engaging in sociology. You and the men who you've talked to carry a specific set of beliefs. You don't bond with women because you don't want to, because we are diminished in your eyes.
But you know what? THAT'S NOT OUR DAMN PROBLEM. I'm sick and tired of you thinking women should shut up and go away because you can't deal with it.

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Except sending women into battle WAS handicapping the troops, and WILL handicap the troops. At the time, the Israelis couldn't afford to hold back, they were literally press ganging every man and woman into battle. Afterwards, they could afford to follow common sense.

I have no words for this. So Israel would handicap itself in it's hour of greatest need? Seriously?
More likely, when Israel had room to breathe, misogynist attitudes prevailed and women were short-changed. Again.

Common sense, whatever.

[The Angry One]

Not at all!  The world that gave birth to the concept of chivarly may be gone, but we are still much the same people in alot of ways and we face many of the same challenges.  We would be fools to simply discard wholesale an element of our history that has served us so well for so long, and continues to do so to this day.

Sorry but I find the concept patronising and restrictive. I'm not saying all of it's bad, but there comes a point where you just have to set that aside and realise many women are formidible enough to exist without this "protection", and in the end both men and women deserve to be respected for who they are and be free of prejudice or violence.

Modifié par The Angry One, 19 avril 2012 - 01:29 .

[Made Nightwing]

You did not refute the point.

The differences are everything. Crossing the road every morning with heavy traffic is a life and death situation. Engaging in missionary work in foreign countries can lead to life and death situations.

I bond with women just fine. I worked with plenty of teenage girls and adult women as part of cadets. I never heard one of them insisting that women should be part of front line forces. Women are not diminished in our eyes at all. But extended combat requires a psychology and biology that women cannot replicate. The ones that have to do the job, that volunteered to do the job, have said 'No. It won't work. Here are our reasons.' YOUR PROBLEM is that you write those reasons off as sexism. Just because you can't acknowledge the differences between the sexes does not mean that the military has to suffer for it.

[Made Nightwing]

The Angry One wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

Except sending women into battle WAS handicapping the troops, and WILL handicap the troops. At the time, the Israelis couldn't afford to hold back, they were literally press ganging every man and woman into battle. Afterwards, they could afford to follow common sense.

I have no words for this. So Israel would handicap itself in it's hour of greatest need? Seriously?
More likely, when Israel had room to breathe, misogynist attitudes prevailed and women were short-changed. Again.

Common sense, whatever.

No. Women still serve a massive role in the Israeli military. But it never again forced situations like that. When the enemy is at the gates, then it's all hands on deck. When a war's finished, you step back, see what ideas are still good, and then put the bad ones back in the bag for when civilization is on the line again.

[General User]

The Angry One wrote...

Not at all!  The world that gave birth to the concept of chivarly may be gone, but we are still much the same people in alot of ways and we face many of the same challenges.  We would be fools to simply discard wholesale an element of our history that has served us so well for so long, and continues to do so to this day.

Sorry but I find the concept patronising and restrictive. I'm not saying all of it's bad, but there comes a point where you just have to set that aside and realise many women are formidible enough to exist without this "protection", and in the end both men and women deserve to be respected for who they are and be free of prejudice or violence.

I am so very close to agreeing with you.  I think people should be respected for what they do, not who they are.  Because, afterall, can we ever really know just who another person really is?  But what they do is for the world to see.

Modifié par General User, 19 avril 2012 - 01:40 .

[Made Nightwing]

The Angry One wrote...

Not at all!  The world that gave birth to the concept of chivarly may be gone, but we are still much the same people in alot of ways and we face many of the same challenges.  We would be fools to simply discard wholesale an element of our history that has served us so well for so long, and continues to do so to this day.

Sorry but I find the concept patronising and restrictive. I'm not saying all of it's bad, but there comes a point where you just have to set that aside and realise many women are formidible enough to exist without this "protection", and in the end both men and women deserve to be respected for who they are and be free of prejudice or violence.

Many does not equal 'majority'. It is not 'protection', but restraint.

[Calamity]

 I loved Hacket as much if not more than Anderson.

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

No. Women still serve a massive role in the Israeli military. But it never again forced situations like that. When the enemy is at the gates, then it's all hands on deck. When a war's finished, you step back, see what ideas are still good, and then put the bad ones back in the bag for when civilization is on the line again.

You kidding me? So call women up when it's convenient then dump them to the back row at other times because the men might get all upset? Come on dude.

[The Angry One]

Made Nightwing wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Not at all!  The world that gave birth to the concept of chivarly may be gone, but we are still much the same people in alot of ways and we face many of the same challenges.  We would be fools to simply discard wholesale an element of our history that has served us so well for so long, and continues to do so to this day.

Sorry but I find the concept patronising and restrictive. I'm not saying all of it's bad, but there comes a point where you just have to set that aside and realise many women are formidible enough to exist without this "protection", and in the end both men and women deserve to be respected for who they are and be free of prejudice or violence.

Many does not equal 'majority'. It is not 'protection', but restraint.

Restraint should be applied to all.

[Made Nightwing]

I agree, but men and women interact differently. Chivalry covers the gaps.

No. When society is threatened, the social norms necessary for civillian life are discarded. Afterward, if they benefit society, they are restored. The Israeli's did this.

[Peranor]

Sorry for interrupting your little banter. But I just thought it was time to return to the subject

Modifié par anorling, 19 avril 2012 - 02:08 .

[Father Alvito]

Why would anyone dislike Hackett? He's not as compelling as the Illusive Man as a source of orders, but Martin Sheen is a top-flight actor that absolutely delivered the goods on that character.

Henriksen turned in a very convincing performance as a career military man. I suppose that you won't like Hackett if you don't like that type of person, but out-and-out dislike is a little surprising.

[Made Nightwing]

@anorling, Please and thank you, it's a bloody relief.

[xefiroEA]

Made Nightwing wrote...

No. Women still serve a massive role in the Israeli military. But it never again forced situations like that. When the enemy is at the gates, then it's all hands on deck. When a war's finished, you step back, see what ideas are still good, and then put the bad ones back in the bag for when civilization is on the line again.

I'm sorry, but this argument contradicts itself.

If when civilization is on the line, that is to say in the most extreme circumstances, calling on the women to serve strengthens your force, how can you then argue that women can't serve the rest of the time?

If women in the frontlines weakens the troops, then you have to keep them away from the frontlines, specially when the situation is difficult. Following your reasoning, calling on the women would have weakened the rest of the troops. But magically, in this particular situation the women helped.

You say you throw everything you have, yeah, but you still wouldn't send a toddler, because a toddler would be detrimental to your efforts. If you are sending women, you are admitting that they are contributing. If they can contribute, they deserve a spot.

It may not be ideal, perhaps. But unless you have a fixed size for your army, and only accept the very best, and you can prove that the very best are all men, it makes no sense to discard the women a priori. If you don't have a fixed size for your army, and can accept anyone who will help, then there's no reason to turn down the women that add to your force.

I'm also a little disturbed by the idea that men don't fight each other because of fear of repercussions. I'm a man, and I've hardly ever felt the desire to fight others in the first place. When I have, I stopped myself because I realize I either have a dumb reason, or following through is only going to make things worse. Your reasoning would lead to fighting when you think you have the upper hand.

Also, the very idea that women need to be protected leads to many abuses done in their "defense". It leads to panels of men debating over how female contraception should be handled. You think civilian life is so different from military? Women have just as much trouble being respected in the workplace as they do everywhere else, and the people that do it use the exact same arguments.

Chivalry is an excuse for men to feel better about themselves and make superficial concessions to better their position. It has nothing to do with looking out for anyone else. And most of what you call instinct has more to do with how you were raised than any real biology at work. Lastly, military training is about squashing instinct and replacing it with discipline, not turning men into animals.

[Skull Bearer]

xefiroEA wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

No. Women still serve a massive role in the Israeli military. But it never again forced situations like that. When the enemy is at the gates, then it's all hands on deck. When a war's finished, you step back, see what ideas are still good, and then put the bad ones back in the bag for when civilization is on the line again.

I'm sorry, but this argument contradicts itself.

If when civilization is on the line, that is to say in the most extreme circumstances, calling on the women to serve strengthens your force, how can you then argue that women can't serve the rest of the time?

If women in the frontlines weakens the troops, then you have to keep them away from the frontlines, specially when the situation is difficult. Following your reasoning, calling on the women would have weakened the rest of the troops. But magically, in this particular situation the women helped.

You say you throw everything you have, yeah, but you still wouldn't send a toddler, because a toddler would be detrimental to your efforts. If you are sending women, you are admitting that they are contributing. If they can contribute, they deserve a spot.

It may not be ideal, perhaps. But unless you have a fixed size for your army, and only accept the very best, and you can prove that the very best are all men, it makes no sense to discard the women a priori. If you don't have a fixed size for your army, and can accept anyone who will help, then there's no reason to turn down the women that add to your force.

I'm also a little disturbed by the idea that men don't fight each other because of fear of repercussions. I'm a man, and I've hardly ever felt the desire to fight others in the first place. When I have, I stopped myself because I realize I either have a dumb reason, or following through is only going to make things worse. Your reasoning would lead to fighting when you think you have the upper hand.

Also, the very idea that women need to be protected leads to many abuses done in their "defense". It leads to panels of men debating over how female contraception should be handled. You think civilian life is so different from military? Women have just as much trouble being respected in the workplace as they do everywhere else, and the people that do it use the exact same arguments.

Chivalry is an excuse for men to feel better about themselves and make superficial concessions to better their position. It has nothing to do with looking out for anyone else. And most of what you call instinct has more to do with how you were raised than any real biology at work. Lastly, military training is about squashing instinct and replacing it with discipline, not turning men into animals.

^ Post of awesome. Thank you sir.

[joshko]

I like Hackett very much. It's nice to see that the hero (Shepard) is not the awesome super badass mastermind good guy. Through ME 2 and 3, and a little in 1 but not much, it felt as though Hackett and the Illusive Man were the white and black kings of a galactic chess game, and Shepard is an interchanging pawn who they are desperatly trying to get to the other end of the board.