Women On The Battlefield

[4588686]

Throwing acid in face, now comparable to not ordaining.

 

 

The Church has murdered a lot of women for stupid, misogynistic reasons too.  In fact the Church has had quite a few more women murdered than the Taliban in its history.  

[Evangetholic]

The Taliban actually wasn't especially strong on Lady Killing. Despite stereotypes.

[4588686]

The Church has murdered a lot of women for stupid, misogynistic reasons too.  In fact the Church has had quite a few more women murdered than the Taliban in its history.  

 

 

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/technicality-condemed-joan-arc-death

[Evangetholic]

Hasan what religion are you?

[Winchester]

The Church has murdered a lot of women for stupid, misogynistic reasons too.  In fact the Church has had quite a few more women murdered than the Taliban in its history.  

 

You should read Regine Pernoud.

[Evangetholic]

You should read Regine Pernoud.

 

What manner of man are you? <3 Yes. Madame Pernoud.

[Semper Catholic]

1. The "male will react worse" idea is a myth. Newsflash if I see my buddy get blown up, or shot I'm going to have an adverse reaction regardless of their sex. 

2. "Males can't handle the integration of women, hygiene issues, social issues."  Suck it up. When the military desegregated I'm sure there were plenty of members who got butthurt over it. You don't join the military because you want to be comfortable.

 

However....

 

The reason I am against women in the infantry is because for and wide the female Marines I have come in contact with during my time in the service are utterly incompetent. I don't need anymore Marines who can't hike, who whine and complain, and who can't do their job. Yes this is subjective, and I'm sure their are some females who can keep up, but I'm not interested in dealing with the (even further) lowering of standards, just so Suzie can be a grunt. 

[4588686]

1. The "male will react worse" idea is a myth. Newsflash if I see my buddy get blown up, or shot I'm going to have an adverse reaction regardless of their sex.
2. "Males can't handle the integration of women, hygiene issues, social issues." Suck it up. When the military desegregated I'm sure there were plenty of members who got butthurt over it. You don't join the military because you want to be comfortable.

However....

The reason I am against women in the infantry is because for and wide the female Marines I have come in contact with during my time in the service are utterly incompetent. I don't need anymore Marines who can't hike, who whine and complain, and who can't do their job. Yes this is subjective, and I'm sure their are some females who can keep up, but I'm not interested in dealing with the (even further) lowering of standards, just so Suzie can be a grunt.

You've been gone for a while. Welcome back.

[Basilisa Marie]

By a fellow Church member?  I doubt that.  I don't know what the rate of sexual assault in Latin America is versus the military but I doubt that the level of sexual assaults in Catholic countries is anything to brag about.  

 

By "church" I meant literal ecclesial community vs company/battalion/platoon/etc.  Not big-C Church.  And for what it's worth I was only thinking about the US. 

[Basilisa Marie]

1. The "male will react worse" idea is a myth. Newsflash if I see my buddy get blown up, or shot I'm going to have an adverse reaction regardless of their sex. 

2. "Males can't handle the integration of women, hygiene issues, social issues."  Suck it up. When the military desegregated I'm sure there were plenty of members who got butthurt over it. You don't join the military because you want to be comfortable.

 

However....

 

The reason I am against women in the infantry is because for and wide the female Marines I have come in contact with during my time in the service are utterly incompetent. I don't need anymore Marines who can't hike, who whine and complain, and who can't do their job. Yes this is subjective, and I'm sure their are some females who can keep up, but I'm not interested in dealing with the (even further) lowering of standards, just so Suzie can be a grunt. 

 

 

Right, but it always sounded to me that the most universal argument was eliminating "gendered" requirements and just go with combat vs non-combat requirements.  Would you say that's true?  I've heard that when they opened up the officer's training school to women, the few who have tried so far couldn't hack it.  Seems to me that if it was true that only men could handle a particular position, only men would be able to meet the standard required for it.  You wouldn't need a rule about women or whatever, as long as the standards were up to par. 

[PhuturePriest]

Right, but it always sounded to me that the most universal argument was eliminating "gendered" requirements and just go with combat vs non-combat requirements.  Would you say that's true?  I've heard that when they opened up the officer's training school to women, the few who have tried so far couldn't hack it.  Seems to me that if it was true that only men could handle a particular position, only men would be able to meet the standard required for it.  You wouldn't need a rule about women or whatever, as long as the standards were up to par. 

 

But if only men can do it, why let women try? That's kind of like being a tease, don't you think? I'm sure there are some women that can do it, but why deny 999 women fail because they can't do the training just for the odd one thousandth girl that can actually do it?

 

And I'm not arguing, I'm just bringing up a point. It's a waste of resources and money for the government to pay nine hundred and ninety nine women to fail just so they can have one girl in the military with the abnormal strength and endurance to complete the training.

Edited February 9, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[EmilyAnn]

Miles, I don't know how no-one has slapped you yet. 

[4588686]

But if only men can do it, why let women try? That's kind of like being a tease, don't you think? I'm sure there are some women that can do it, but why deny 999 women fail because they can't do the training just for the odd one thousandth girl that can actually do it?

 

And I'm not arguing, I'm just bringing up a point. It's a waste of resources and money for the government to pay nine hundred and ninety nine women to fail just so they can have one girl in the military with the abnormal strength and endurance to complete the training.

 

I'm sure that the army will get along fine.  They'll probably structure it in a 'heads I win, tails you lose' sort of deal.  Like they did with the 18x program.  Kids coming out of HS will join up in the expectation that they're going to get into Special Forces.  Very, very few will succeed.  So the army gets those very few where they should be and the rest, from what I understand, get assigned wherever the army wants and needs. 

By "church" I meant literal ecclesial community vs company/battalion/platoon/etc.  Not big-C Church.  And for what it's worth I was only thinking about the US. 

 

 

I don't know if that helps you as the ecclesiastical community seems to have some sexual assault abuse programs of its own.  There are way more people in the military than in the Priesthood/religious life.  So we'd have to do percentages.  

[Winchester]

Right, but it always sounded to me that the most universal argument was eliminating "gendered" requirements and just go with combat vs non-combat requirements.  Would you say that's true?  I've heard that when they opened up the officer's training school to women, the few who have tried so far couldn't hack it.  Seems to me that if it was true that only men could handle a particular position, only men would be able to meet the standard required for it.  You wouldn't need a rule about women or whatever, as long as the standards were up to par. 

 

Funny thing how classroom and outside training isn't remotely comparable to actual conflict. We only really know when we get in the situation. The training helps, but it's controlled. I'm not military, but I'm in emergency service, and the live fire training the cadets go through works most of the time to prepare them, but the real thing is far different. Problem is, when people in the field are incompetent, the chances of jumping through the political hoops to get rid of them are nearly nil. I've seen people fired for cowardice in the line of duty get their jobs back, and continue to plague us (and thus the people we're supposed to be protecting) for the duration.

 

This is political. It isn't about ability. Ability is on an individual level. You and I would agree on that. But the people running the show aren't looking at individuals. They're looking at groups. They always look at groups. They want appearances, and damn the results. There are endless excuses for failure in conflict and disaster, so we can almost always find a reason other than "The ladder crew cut a hole in the wrong location, pushed fire on the hose crew, and then ended up getting a guy killed". And there are gobs of lawyers and desk jockeys looking for those excuses.

Entry standards are what you're talking about. Guess what? People wash out after making it through the initial entry standards. They always have. It's a long haul, and not everyone makes it.