Argonath RPG - A World of its own
Argonath RPG Community => Speakerbox => World and local news => Topic started by: [WS]Jacob on January 26, 2013, 04:25:07 pm
-
The UK should consider following the US and allow women to serve in combat roles, says a woman who became one of the most senior female army officers. Brigadier Nicky Moffat, who retired in December, said it was wrong to dismiss people just on gender.
Major Judith Webb, who became the first woman to command an all-male field squadron disagrees. She said resources would be wasted trying to train women up to a standard they were unlikely to reach.
On Thursday US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the military's ban on women serving in combat roles, potentially opening frontline positions to women.
Brig Moffat told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Ultimately the responsibility for the operational effectiveness of the army and for the lives of the soldiers that are deployed lies with ministers and with the heads of the services and they must make that judgement."
But she said that judgement should be made on the basis of "capability" and she was "deeply uncomfortable" with the idea of excluding a whole group of potentially capable soldiers, just because of gender.
She said "It is not just about physical strength. It's about endurance, it's about ability to operate within a team, it's about a range of skills. But we shouldn't dismiss the point about strength. The infantry combat fitness test is extraordinarily demanding and individuals are required to carry herculean amounts of kit. But if we look at the achievements of our women Olympians I don't think any reasonable person could say that there aren't some women who could meet those standards."
Brig Moffat said the British Army was in a difficult position because it worked closely with the US and the Canadian army, which has already allowed women into combat roles.
Source: BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21210585)
-
Whats the point...? :poke:
-
Whats the point...? :poke:
In my opinion we have enough men to cope with the demand and women aren't as strong as men so whether they would be able to perform the same duties I don't know.
-
In my opinion we have enough men to cope with the demand and women aren't as strong as men so whether they would be able to perform the same duties I don't know.
Thats what I thought, it's a fact that men have the stature that is required of a good soldier, don't women already have as equal rights as men? Why do they need to complain about even this little thing..
-
Thats what I thought, it's a fact that men have the stature that is required of a good soldier, don't women already have as equal rights as men? Why do they need to complain about even this little thing..
It's the fact that I think Cameron is feeling pressured by the US into taking steps which may not be right for the long term. Women are already allowed to be dog handlers which go infront of the frontline soldiers sniffing for IEDs etc. So I don't see what the problem is.
-
Woman already have a lot of roles available to them in the Army, just not infantry, cavalry and a few others. But the can do things like artillery, engineers, air support, logistic support and other services.
-
It's the fact that I think Cameron is feeling pressured by the US into taking steps which may not be right for the long term. Women are already allowed to be dog handlers which go infront of the frontline soldiers sniffing for IEDs etc. So I don't see what the problem is.
Well the US needs to butt out and run their own country for a change, not everyone wants to be a political sheep herded by the US government.
Awesome logic from the Welsh guy.. :lol:
Woman already have a lot of roles available to them in the Army, just not infantry, cavalry and a few others. But the can do things like artillery, engineers, air support, logistic support and other services.
Exactly, and even that high ranking women says no to this, do women really want the dangerous part of this job that badly?
-
(http://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder-content/26/equipment.jpg?h=YX2iATCHy9yjpK7_5fIEEhPi4rs=)
-
(http://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder-content/26/equipment.jpg?h=YX2iATCHy9yjpK7_5fIEEhPi4rs=)
:lol: Make me a sandwich
-
Exactly, and even that high ranking women says no to this, do women really want the dangerous part of this job that badly?
Some really do. There are women, same as men, who want to actually go into combat and fight for their country...and I don't blame them. They also want to be treated equally. Granted, most people don't like the idea of running straight into gunfire, but there are some who do, and I bet you that there's just as many women as men that feel that way.
Think of it this way: You join the Army. You're all excited and young, ready to run in and fight, guns blazing, the whole deal. Then you find out that because of some biased regulation based on a stereotype, that you are unable to see combat and do anything you wanted to have the chance to do, simply because people believe you can't do it. You know in your heart you can, and you're more than willing to try and prove them wrong, but you're just not allowed to.
You can see why this would be an issue. It's similar to the very early days of war in the United States where non-Caucasian Americans weren't allowed to fight in combat. It was later proved that some of them wanted the chance so badly, that when given the chance, blew other Companies away and were some of the most successful troops in many notable wars.
As said, you can't judge people based on a stereotype, nor should you ever. Everyone is unique, and capable of different things. Even identical twins can sometimes have different preferences, traits, and desires. Everyone should be given a fair chance at everything in this world. That way, it is up to them to succeed...not some rule stopping them from trying.
-
Seeing a fair amount of British tourists here where I live, I think it would be a good idea!
-
Some really do. There are women, same as men, who want to actually go into combat and fight for their country...and I don't blame them. They also want to be treated equally. Granted, most people don't like the idea of running straight into gunfire, but there are some who do, and I bet you that there's just as many women as men that feel that way.
Think of it this way: You join the Army. You're all excited and young, ready to run in and fight, guns blazing, the whole deal. Then you find out that because of some biased regulation based on a stereotype, that you are unable to see combat and do anything you wanted to have the chance to do, simply because people believe you can't do it. You know in your heart you can, and you're more than willing to try and prove them wrong, but you're just not allowed to.
You can see why this would be an issue. It's similar to the very early days of war in the United States where non-Caucasian Americans weren't allowed to fight in combat. It was later proved that some of them wanted the chance so badly, that when given the chance, blew other Companies away and were some of the most successful troops in many notable wars.
As said, you can't judge people based on a stereotype, nor should you ever. Everyone is unique, and capable of different things. Even identical twins can sometimes have different preferences, traits, and desires. Everyone should be given a fair chance at everything in this world. That way, it is up to them to succeed...not some rule stopping them from trying.
It's not based on stereotyping, it's based on gender.. Women are not as strong as men, which is why they are not allowed to do all the combat areas of the military, and they are helping their country if they are doing the area's of the military that they are allowed to.
-
But it's not just about their want to fight, it's also about capability. If they were faced by an "angry man terrorist" who was within arms distance away from them would they be strong enough to take on that challenge and get rid of the threat. What's certain with this is that we will see a lot more women dying in combat if the ban is lifted here.
-
It's not based on stereotyping, it's based on gender.. Women are not as strong as men, which is why they are not allowed to do all the combat areas of the military, and they are helping their country if they are doing the area's of the military that they are allowed to.
That is a stereotype. Women are capable of being just as strong as men, both mentally and physically. There are some women out there in the world that could crush us just by throwing us down, they are so strong. There are also women that have seen and done things most men themselves cannot even imagine or handle. Every person is unique. You can't judge everyone as a fact based on an opinion of a few.
Women have always been just as capable as men are. Just because most of the women you see traditionally are "family ladies" who don't work out and can't lift anything heavy doesn't mean they are all like that in this world. Even Law Enforcement and Firefighting shows their abilities compared to men quite well. I believe the U.S. Military even allows women to be Military Police...a job which in itself is very tough, dangerous, and requires a strong body and mind.
-
Aye, women can also be more deadlier than men in specific situations in war.
-
Aye, women can also be more deadlier than men in specific situations in war.
Exactly. Those with smaller bodies also have an advantage, as it makes them more stealthy and can help them move/fight faster.
-
That is a stereotype. Women are capable of being just as strong as men, both mentally and physically. There are some women out there in the world that could crush us just by throwing us down, they are so strong. There are also women that have seen and done things most men themselves cannot even imagine or handle. Every person is unique. You can't judge everyone as a fact based on an opinion of a few.
Women have always been just as capable as men are. Just because most of the women you see traditionally are "family ladies" who don't work out and can't lift anything heavy doesn't mean they are all like that in this world. Even Law Enforcement and Firefighting shows their abilities compared to men quite well. I believe the U.S. Military even allows women to be Military Police...a job which in itself is very tough, dangerous, and requires a strong body and mind.
They are capable of being as strong as men but they have to work at it more as women are naturaly the weaker sex, it's not a stereotype it's a fact, yes women CAN be just as strong as men, men naturaly get more muscular during puberty where as women do not, if you can see what I'm getting at here.. This is because of human evolution, the women stayed at home in the cave or leather tent and looked after the kids, whilst the men chased cows round a field with a spear, sure my logic might suck here but you should get the point.
-
That is a stereotype. Women are capable of being just as strong as men, both mentally and physically.
Thats why most of the physical feat records are of men?
-
Thats why most of the physical feat records are of men?
I'm sure there's already been tests for the military regarding strength tests against men and women. And who is likely to come out on top, the men. It's not a stereotype it's the fact of how male/female bodies are built and how they develop.
-
Thats why most of the physical feat records are of men?
That is because women are hindered by the stereotype. Until the mid-to-late 1900's, women weren't even allowed to do a lot of things because of this stereotype. It's going to be a very long time, if ever, that we see as many women as men competing in such things.
-
I actually see no problems with this as far as women are treated equally. Their positions should be decided by tests as it already happens for men.
-
I actually see no problems with this as far as women are treated equally. Their positions should be decided by tests as it already happens for men.
Agreed.
-
That is because women are hindered by the stereotype. Until the mid-to-late 1900's, women weren't even allowed to do a lot of things because of this stereotype. It's going to be a very long time, if ever, that we see as many women as men competing in such things.
Sadly, not really. Unless you want to fight nature, men are always dominating women, in accordance with humans and mammals. It's the fact that women cannot simply gain enough strength in their muscles due to their hormones being absolutely different to that of men. Women are not made to have that amount of testosterone, that is why women's strength will always be vastly inferior man's.
I absolutely agree, there may be women who are better than men, but, while consulting human physiology, if you make a man and a woman have exactly same amount of training for a year, man will ultimately come stronger.
-
It is foolish that they did not allow this even before, considering the times we live in.
Besides, woman + period + gun =
-
Sadly, not really. Unless you want to fight nature, men are always dominating women, in accordance with humans and mammals.
Wrong. There is a lot more female dominance in nature than people realize. Matriarchies exist all over in the animal kingdom.
Besides, woman + period + gun =
Not funny.
-
In case of war, women should remain in the cities, creating ammunition and leading the cities. (Just like WW1 and WW2)
-
In case of war, women should remain in the cities, creating ammunition and leading the cities. (Just like WW1 and WW2)
That was only done because of that same stereotype. They were the only people around.
-
That was only done because of that same stereotype. They were the only people around.
I'm talking about total war. During total war a country's way of life, governing, economy so shortly said everything is about the war. This means that every man has to go to the frontline, unless handicapped. This leaves women behind to create ammunition, which is extremely vital.
-
In case of war, women should remain in the cities, creating ammunition and leading the cities. (Just like WW1 and WW2)
You're still living in the first half of the 20th century?
You just need to test one's abilities, not just judge by the gender.
-
I'm talking about total war. During total war a country's way of life, governing, economy so shortly said everything is about the war. This means that every man has to go to the frontline, unless handicapped. This leaves women behind to create ammunition, which is extremely vital.
I think you are missing the point of this topic. We are saying that women are just as capable in combat as men. Not all men and not all women are capable of fighting in war. The ones that should be on the front lines are the ones capable. The others should be staying home to run the things you mentioned. Judging them purely on gender is pointless, as every single person is different in this world.
-
You're still living in the first half of the 20th century?
You just need to test one's abilities, not just judge by the gender.
You need to be psychologically tough. Most women can't handle life in war for several years.
Google shell shock and see what war has done with men. You think women who are proven to be mentally weaker can handle that?
I think you are missing the point of this topic. We are saying that women are just as capable in combat as men. Not all men and not all women are capable of fighting in war. The ones that should be on the front lines are the ones capable. The others should be staying home to run the things you mentioned. Judging them purely on gender is pointless, as every single person is different in this world.
Same as above.
-
You need to be psychologically tough. Most women can't handle life in war for several years.
Google shell shock and see what war has done with men. You think women who are proven to be mentally weaker can handle that?
Never said all women should be allowed to. I said that just who passes tests go, without watching the gender.
Obviously it will come out for many reasons that most of them will be men. This is still not a reason not to allow women.
-
You think women who are proven to be mentally weaker can handle that?
Women have never been proven to be mentally weaker.
-
Women have never been proven to be mentally weaker.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-562627/Are-women-really-weaker-sex-The-intriguing-medical-facts-settle-oldest-argument-all.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-562627/Are-women-really-weaker-sex-The-intriguing-medical-facts-settle-oldest-argument-all.html)
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-562627/Are-women-really-weaker-sex-The-intriguing-medical-facts-settle-oldest-argument-all.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-562627/Are-women-really-weaker-sex-The-intriguing-medical-facts-settle-oldest-argument-all.html)
All of which can also depend on the person themselves, as the article says.
-
Besides, woman + period + gun =
:lol: Why don't FBI have females then sir?
At the end of the day it's a bad idea, women are proven to be the physicly weaker sex which is why they are not in combat roles today, yes women can be just as strong as men but as I've said they need to work at it more which would only cost the government more money getting them up to the physical standard that's required for the British armed forces. Theres just no point anyway, look how many men in the UK wan't to join the army but can't because of government cuts.
-
Statistically, women are much more flexible than men. Therefore, they can do epic high kicks, making them effective fighters in the cop force 8), go women!
-
Statistically, women are much more flexible than men. Therefore, they can do epic high kicks, making them effective fighters in the cop force 8), go women!
Whoo, epic high kicks against the Taliban
-
What if the women are married and have kids. I am against women joining COMBAT at the present point. There are numerous ways they can assist such as logistics, medicine, transport, but plain combat sounds too hasty. Though I would love to see them fight these: Iran's female ninjas in training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn0F2DVGFqs#ws)
-
Whoo, epic high kicks against the Taliban
Yeh because fly kicks always come in handy against someone with a gun. :lol:
-
Have nothing against this. People, no matter of gender or any other norm quality, should be able to take the role that they aspire to and are suitable for on a personal level.
It's good that the military in the UK doesn't have such restrictions on all areas and this is only a partial thing.
If we were going on the "who's stronger" argument, well physically looking at it from a biological level males tend to have greater muscle growth. However, the pain thresholds of females are higher. In the same way, different physical skills and areas of mental aptitude could be scaled.
Just make the best use of resources...
In sports teams they very rarely mix up genders or let opposing genders compete. This is largely a device to ensure fairness on a competitive playing field, but the opportunities are there.
Thankfully we are breaking out of certain social (and possibly cultural) moulds that really constrained us some time back.
-
Wrong. There is a lot more female dominance in nature than people realize. Matriarchies exist all over in the animal kingdom.
What does matriarchy has to do with it? Just so you know, matriarchy was also with tribal people back at prehistoric time, how does that prove that women back then were stronger than men?
-
What if the women are married and have kids.
Many of the men in combat have kids and are married.
What does matriarchy has to do with it? Just so you know, matriarchy was also with tribal people back at prehistoric time, how does that prove that women back then were stronger than men?
They had to keep control and lead. They had to overpower anyone who defied them. They had to lead their people into war and battle. They had to make the same decisions and take the same actions as men in leadership positions.
-
Many of the men in combat have kids and are married.
But I think that kids get more attached to their mums rather than their dads. It's just a psychological thing and if they were to loose their mum at the age that some of these kids are then that will impact on the rest of their lives. I'm not saying that the death of a father would not hurt the kids but a mum, I think would be a lot worse.
-
I think the argument leans heavily on tradition, social views and science among other things... maybe there just isn't a right answer, but the UK's meant to uphold an open democracy. If this became a significant enough issue, it could be pitched to the public and the public vote would reflect well on what the nation thinks.
-
I think the argument leans heavily on tradition, social views and science among other things... maybe there just isn't a right answer, but the UK's meant to uphold an open democracy. If this became a significant enough issue, it could be pitched to the public and the public vote would reflect well on what the nation thinks.
And I doubt there'd be a vote on it, it isn't a big issue as of now..
-
By the way.. from the 24th..
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has lifted the military's ban on women serving in combat roles, potentially opening hundreds of thousands of frontline positions to women. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21172033)
-
By the way.. from the 24th..
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has lifted the military's ban on women serving in combat roles, potentially opening hundreds of thousands of frontline positions to women. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21172033)
Already mentioned in the first post and that is the reason why this debate started.
-
Already mentioned in the first post and that is the reason why this debate started.
Ohh! Didn't see the US part in the main post.. sorry :)
-
They had to keep control and lead. They had to overpower anyone who defied them. They had to lead their people into war and battle. They had to make the same decisions and take the same actions as men in leadership positions.
To me you're just talking out of your ass, can you backup your claims that women did indeed were the superior force both physically and mentally?
-
can you backup your claims that women did indeed were the superior force both physically and mentally?
Generally, no. In some cases, yes.
This is why they should have the right to access to the examinations..
-
Ohh! Didn't see the US part in the main post.. sorry :)
Doh! It's okay :)
-
This is why they should have the right to access to the examinations..
I never said they shouldn't have, that is one of the reasons I hate UK is because it is at some point is sexist. I would even vote to make it mandatory for women.
But saying that woman are on par with men or even superior is preposterous.
Post Merge: January 30, 2013, 02:23:12 pm
for some odd reason i cant edit my post, i meant "women"*
-
one of the reasons I hate UK is because it is at some point is sexist.
So you are saying by not allowing women to go into frontline combat we are sexist? Well I disagree as the research shows that men are better suited to combat roles than are the women, due to science of their body construction. We do not have total women/men equality in everything as some jobs you can't, but to generalise and say we are all sexist is a bit far.
-
I never said they shouldn't have, that is one of the reasons I hate UK is because it is at some point is sexist. I would even vote to make it mandatory for women.
But saying that woman are on par with men or even superior is preposterous.
Post Merge: January 30, 2013, 02:23:12 pm
for some odd reason i cant edit my post, i meant "women"*
Theres jobs that women do that men don't, the UK isn't sexist at all, infact it tries to make things as fair as possible, for example the Welsh government has been told they need more women, by a man.. That seems sexist doesn't it? :roll:
-
the research shows that men are better suited to combat roles than are the women, due to science of their body construction. We do not have total women/men equality in everything as some jobs you can't, but to generalise and say we are all sexist is a bit far.
Equality means let do who is capable, not who you think is capable..
-
Equality means let do who is capable, not who you think is capable..
It will probably end up that women who want to go into these front-line roles will have to go through tests to prove they are strong enough to stand and face the Taliban in combat roles.
-
It will probably end up that women who want to go into these front-line roles will have to go through tests to prove they are strong enough to stand and face the Taliban in combat roles.
Don't men have tests as well?
-
Don't men have tests as well?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Mine was a rhetorical question. If men already have to go through tests already, why would it be a problem to test women as well?
-
Mine was a rhetorical question. If men already have to go through tests already, why would it be a problem to test women as well?
It wouldn't and I don't have a problem with it. It's just that there's the scientific fact that women are not as strong physically as men are and so are likely not to pass the test, that even some men fail at.
-
Mine was a rhetorical question. If men already have to go through tests already, why would it be a problem to test women as well?
I'm just agreeing with you. It doesn't make sense to argue that women are incapable when there are some men who are too. Even as you mentioned, it should be based on the person and not their gender, or what others think of their gender. :)
-
I read about a different reason quite a while back, forgot where I found it.
It said that there is a higher emotional affect on men if women are in combat with the men, therefor decreasing the men's ability to perform at their best. Some science study shown this, it also makes a lot of sense.
-
I read about a different reason quite a while back, forgot where I found it.
It said that there is a higher emotional affect on men if women are in combat with the men, therefor decreasing the men's ability to perform at their best. Some science study shown this, it also makes a lot of sense.
That would go both ways then. If they can't keep it in their pants, that is their own fault. :P
-
I read about a different reason quite a while back, forgot where I found it.
It said that there is a higher emotional affect on men if women are in combat with the men, therefor decreasing the men's ability to perform at their best. Some science study shown this, it also makes a lot of sense.
Yes I heard that, we all know what men are like round women, especially when they have to share a tent/small military base with them.. :lol:
You could say, so why not have a full women army instead of full men? But that'd be because men are still generally the stronger sex.
-
But that'd be because men are still generally the stronger sex.
Once again, no they are not. Both genders have different strengths and weaknesses, and they cannot be compared because every single person is different.
-
Once again, no they are not. Both genders have different strengths and weaknesses, and they cannot be compared because every single person is different.
Phyisicly stronger, yes they are... It's been scientificly proven, and thats because over human evolution.
-
Phyisicly stronger, yes they are... It's been scientificly proven, and thats because over human evolution.
Wrong. There is no evidence to prove this.
-
Wrong. There is no evidence to prove this.
Ok mr scientist.
-
Ok mr scientist.
Back up your statements with evidence if you are going to say they are scientific facts, instead of provoking people with name-calling.
-
Back up your statements with evidence if you are going to say they are scientific facts, instead of provoking people with name-calling.
Typically in Western societies, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.[12] This sex difference does not apply equally to all human societies, however. In Bali, for example, where men do not usually participate in heavy work, there is less difference between the muscle mass of men and women.[13]
Gross measures of body strength suggest a 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.[14][15] The smaller difference in lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing.[16] Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength.[16] One study of muscle strength in the elbows and kneesâ€â€Âin 45 and older males and femalesâ€â€Âfound the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.[17] Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes.[18] Differences in width of arm, thighs and calves also increase during puberty. Exercise can lower the degree of sex differentiation in muscle development as adults. For example, the amount of oxygen that the blood can carry is very similar in male and female athletes, while in untrained people women cannot carry as much oxygen.[13]
Most statistics in the areas of strength, power, muscle mass, and height of human males and females is based on mean numbers, but these numbers are not exact representations of a society as they exclude information on the spread of the data. When considering the spread of most statistics, there is significant overlap in the values of physical traits between men and women. In addition, there are a significant number of individuals who deviate from from the average statistics.[19]
-
That would go both ways then.
Whilst that is true, if it would cause problems for the current men to have women in the 'front-line', then I would not want to see it happen. Numerous problems could come from doing so if men because emotionally unstable/attached whilst in an environment where their life could be in danger.
The army is built up to what it is today, for some men it is their life. I can't see of anyway where women could go into the front lines and not cause problems somewhere along the lines because of how we have made it already.
-
Whilst that is true, if it would cause problems for the current men to have women in the 'front-line', then I would not want to see it happen. Numerous problems could come from doing so if men because emotionally unstable/attached whilst in an environment where their life could be in danger.
Women are already out there. They just aren't in the combat zones. If those men can't control themselves, they need to be retrained or transfer.
-
If those men can't control themselves, they need to be retrained or transfer.
You really expect men to be trained in having a strong willpower in this generation, which is same and worse as before?
-
You really expect men to be trained in having a strong willpower in this generation, which is same and worse as before?
That is of their own fault if they can't abide by the rules set out for them. Women shouldn't be punished because a few men act like immature sex fiends.
-
That is of their own fault if they can't abide by the rules set out for them
Aye, they get discharged, reduced payment or rank, or even get away from it. Very righteous man-made laws indeed. Note, some high "dignitaries" don't exactly follow the laws themselves.
-
Theres jobs that women do that men don't
Being a prostitute is one. Name me more?
, the UK isn't sexist at all, infact it tries to make things as fair as possible, for example the Welsh government has been told they need more women, by a man.. That seems sexist doesn't it? :roll:
Do you even have an idea what's sexist or you are engaging full retard mode?
Post Merge: January 31, 2013, 02:03:21 pm
So you are saying by not allowing women to go into frontline combat we are sexist? Well I disagree as the research shows that men are better suited to combat roles than are the women, due to science of their body construction. We do not have total women/men equality in everything as some jobs you can't, but to generalise and say we are all sexist is a bit far.
I was saying in general. I've read multiple times that throughout Europe there is a big issue of sexism job-wise, UK having the most. I can't find the article right now so you may consider that as speculation, but still.
Post Merge: January 31, 2013, 02:06:56 pm
Back up your statements with evidence if you are going to say they are scientific facts, instead of provoking people with name-calling.
I guess everything's a provoke for you, but back on 3rd-4th page I asked you to give scientific proof that women generally can be stronger than men, yet you decided to ignore my message, and now you're the one provoking by saying "NO YOU"RE WRONG" like a little child in the kindergarden. If you're the one to counter the claims, you're the one to bring up the evidence.
-
Being a prostitute is one.
Wrong..
throughout Europe there is a big issue of sexism job-wise, UK having the most.
Actually the English people is known for being/having been quite racist as well, that wouldn't surprise me.
In any case, you guys keep generalizing. That's true. Women are generally weaker and sensitive than men. Is this a reason to keep this ban in general even if there are patricular cases, that would actually suit a soldier duty?
-
Sugar, I gave you your scientific proof and you ignore it, proven wrong are we?
Do you even have an idea what's sexist or you are engaging full retard mode?
I'm not being sexist, I'm putting a fact forward which is true.
Typically in Western societies, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.[12] This sex difference does not apply equally to all human societies, however. In Bali, for example, where men do not usually participate in heavy work, there is less difference between the muscle mass of men and women.[13]
Gross measures of body strength suggest a 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.[14][15] The smaller difference in lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing.[16] Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength.[16] One study of muscle strength in the elbows and kneesâ€â€Âin 45 and older males and femalesâ€â€Âfound the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.[17] Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes.[18] Differences in width of arm, thighs and calves also increase during puberty. Exercise can lower the degree of sex differentiation in muscle development as adults. For example, the amount of oxygen that the blood can carry is very similar in male and female athletes, while in untrained people women cannot carry as much oxygen.[13]
Most statistics in the areas of strength, power, muscle mass, and height of human males and females is based on mean numbers, but these numbers are not exact representations of a society as they exclude information on the spread of the data. When considering the spread of most statistics, there is significant overlap in the values of physical traits between men and women. In addition, there are a significant number of individuals who deviate from from the average statistics.[19]
You are 'engaging in full retard mode' by not being able to decypher the difference between sexism and factual comments.
Am I being sexist to men if I say women have a better pain tolerance which is true? No, I'm stating a fact.
Men = Stronger because of human evolution, men have always had the physical work such as hunting and building.
Women = Better pain tolerance as they're the ones that birth kids which as everyone knows is extremely painful.
Actually the English people is known for being/having been quite racist as well, that wouldn't surprise me.
So by singling out English people, you're saying Welsh, Scottish and Irish people arnt as racist?
Just saying this as alot of people think everyone in the UK is English, derp.
-
Am I being sexist to men if I say women have a better pain tolerance which is true? No, I'm stating a fact.
This is true generally once again.
So by singling out English people, you're saying Welsh, Scottish and Irish people arnt as racist?
Just saying this as alot of people think everyone in the UK is English, derp.
UK then. Happier?
-
This is true generally once again.
Generally being the larger amount which makes it a fact that the opposite sex has better pain tolerance or muscular capacity.
UK then. Happier?
British.* :roll:
-
Generally being the larger amount which makes it a fact that the opposite sex has better pain tolerance or muscular capacity.
Why making rules that exclude the minority who actually have the skills needed?
-
Why making rules that exclude the minority who actually have the skills needed?
Well it'd be costing millions to sort through the people that actually have what it takes, that is why they don't allow women, as the 'general' amount of them have been proven to be the weaker sex, they would have to go through loads at a time just to find the ones that are physicly strong enough, and all that work/training would cost to much, the UK's military already has alot of budget cuts, the last thing they need to do is blow more millions on just going through a group of people to find 1 specific person that suits a combat role.
-
Women are already out there. They just aren't in the combat zones. If those men can't control themselves, they need to be retrained or transfer.
It's not that they cannot control themselves, it's the fact their instinct would be to 'protect' the women that are in danger, which in the front line would be always. There was an American study which showed that men, on average, would protect women even if it meant putting others at risk. It's their subconscious, their instinct, not their mental capability.
-
There was an American study which showed that men, on average, would protect women even if it meant putting others at risk.
Which is a potential for catastrophe if in the wrong situation.
-
Which is a potential for catastrophe if in the wrong situation.
A man would obviously press the "destroy your country" button to save a girl.. oh, come on!
If you let skilled people to join the army you won't have these problems.
What's the difference between man and woman with the very hard rules/behaviour a soldier goes under?
-
What's the difference between man and woman with the very hard rules/behaviour a soldier goes under?
It's not that they cannot control themselves, it's the fact their instinct would be to 'protect' the women that are in danger, which in the front line would be always. There was an American study which showed that men, on average, would protect women even if it meant putting others at risk. It's their subconscious, their instinct, not their mental capability.
-
Oh well you want to play with quotes, here you are!
If you let skilled people to join the army you won't have these problems.
-
First quote is blank #awkward :D It doesn't matter if you are skilled or not, you see someone in danger and your instinct takes over which would be to save them. As Jones has said in males if a female was in danger they would be compelled to instinctively save the woman, putting themselves as well as comrades in potential danger.
-
First quote is blank #awkward :D It doesn't matter if you are skilled or not, you see someone in danger and your instinct takes over which would be to save them. As Jones has said in males if a female was in danger they would be compelled to instinctively save the woman, putting themselves as well as comrades in potential danger.
Not necessarily. Some women instinctively save children or men first too.
-
Do you even have an idea what's sexist or you are engaging full retard mode?
I'm not being sexist, I'm putting a fact forward which is true.
Uh...? (http://www.chronicle.su/editorial/hate-editorial/jason-mick-what-the-f**k-are-you-doing/)
-
First quote is blank #awkward :D It doesn't matter if you are skilled or not, you see someone in danger and your instinct takes over which would be to save them. As Jones has said in males if a female was in danger they would be compelled to instinctively save the woman, putting themselves as well as comrades in potential danger.
Then your army is not well trained. The guy who tries to save the girl has the fault, not the girl for being a girl :rofl:
That should be easy to understand..
-
People are made to cooperate and live together on this planet.
I do not understand why people kill and fight each other. Its just nonsense and not worth it for anything in the world.
People nowadays are just stupid, want all the fortune for themselves, all the rich and fame... The world is not going to end with a huge meteor collision or whatsoever, its gonna end with all the people fighting, wanting everything for themselves, being selfish and greedy.
-
Then your army is not well trained.
Saying that to the guy from the country with the worlds most well trained and technologicly advanced military. :roll:
The guy who tries to save the girl has the fault, not the girl for being a girl :rofl:
Who said it'd be the girls fault?
People are made to cooperate and live together on this planet.
I do not understand why people kill and fight each other. Its just nonsense and not worth it for anything in the world.
People nowadays are just stupid, want all the fortune for themselves, all the rich and fame... The world is not going to end with a huge meteor collision or whatsoever, its gonna end with all the people fighting, wanting everything for themselves, being selfish and greedy.
The UK wouldn't be the way it is today without war, power and greed.
-
Saying that to the guy from the country with the worlds most well trained and technologicly advanced military. :roll:
Indeed.. then why would they save them. As Jones has said in males if a female was in danger they would be compelled to instinctively save the woman, putting themselves as well as comrades in potential danger.
-
Indeed.. then why would they
It's natural instant of males to protect females, if you seen a guy beating the shit into a women in the street would you try to stop him?
-
It's natural instant of males to protect females, if you seen a guy beating the shit into a women in the street would you try to stop him?
You're saying that your super-well-trained forces couldn't handle.. instinct?
-
You're saying that your super-well-trained forces couldn't handle.. instinct?
They are trained to protect all of their colleagues, male or female.
-
They are trained to protect all of their colleagues, male or female.
Then where is the problem?
-
Then where is the problem?
Hollywood!
-
Then where is the problem?
I never actually brought up the 'male to female attractions' thing, I brought up who is more physicly stronger..
-
I never actually brought up the 'male to female attractions' thing, I brought up who is more physicly stronger..
It's not attraction it's instinct. Or it could be both
-
So you're saying they will turn some kind of zombie that will follow the instinct even if it means putting their on lives in risk?
-
So you're saying they will turn some kind of zombie that will follow the instinct even if it means putting their on lives in risk?
It's the way that the brain works
-
It's the way that the brain works
Trained soldiers rarely rely on instinct. At least veterans and spec ops.
-
Trained soldiers rarely rely on instinct. At least veterans and spec ops.
Indeed. This is what I wanted to state.
If their soldiers are really well trained then why do they fear women? I bet they would bahave normally, considering them as soldiers. Remember that the army is quite democratic from this point of view. Color, religion and even gender become less important.
-
If their soldiers are really well trained then why do they fear women?
It was never about fearing women it is about them acting instinctively to save the woman instead of calculating the risks.
-
it is about them acting instinctively to save the woman instead of calculating the risks.
... they are trained to repress the instinct :poke:
-
... they are trained to repress the instinct :poke:
So are they trained to avoid people from getting killed also.
-
So are they trained to avoid people from getting killed also.
Exactly. If they had to choose between a man or a woman they'd choose not what they want, but the one they're told to save.
Your argument is a bit hole-in-the-water-looking :)
-
Exactly. If they had to choose between a man or a woman they'd choose not what they want
Look at the science, the facts..
-
I know a hell of a lot of front line infantry soldiers... On a night out they will destroy at least three girls a night... Do you want to put women anywhere near those men....
-
It's the way that the brain works
I'm sure those who are not idiots do at least have some control over themselves..
-
I'm sure those who are not idiots do at least have some control over themselves..
Can instincts be controlled?
-
Can instincts be controlled?
Yes but you are meant to follow your instincts so not doing so would be stupid. :D
-
Can instincts be controlled?
...
-
Instinct - A natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking: "rely on your instincts".
-
You may choose to follow them or not.