Page 32 of 97 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 967

Thread: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

  1. #311
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    There seems to be a repeated argument in this thread that doesn't make any sense to me.

    On one hand, you have those arguing that women being allowed into certain aspects of the military will lead ot reduced standards. The response from the other side is that there shouldn't be reduced standards, and that the women should have to meet the same standards minus the current gender qualification.

    The rebuttal to this is that NOW and other groups would protest that.

    This makes no sense, because the proposed alternative by those who are fearful of this feminazi protest believe the best solution is to ban women from these aspects of the military... which will, of course, lead to NOW and Feminazi protests.

    How in the world does that make sense to anyone?

    It's possibly the silliest argument I've ever heard.

    It essentially boils down to: "We don't want protests about unfairness for women, so we should be as unfair to women as possible."

    The simplest solution is to remove the gender qualification only. Keep all of the other standards equal and as they currently are.

    You'll have protests either way, but the protests in this scenario will have less impact as there are no disqualifications based on an arbitrary measure.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #312
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Yes, it's the military's fault. They made the idiotic two different sets of qualifications. If women are weaker in the military, it is the military's fault for giving them lesser qualifications. Whose fault could it possibly be but the ones who made the lax and unfair qualifications?

    They make two sets of qualifications that allow weaker women into the military and then bitch about weaker women in the military? ROFL
    The service was ordered to inact gender norming, by Congress. Wanna blame someone? Blame the congress critters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #313
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    There seems to be a repeated argument in this thread that doesn't make any sense to me.

    On one hand, you have those arguing that women being allowed into certain aspects of the military will lead ot reduced standards. The response from the other side is that there shouldn't be reduced standards, and that the women should have to meet the same standards minus the current gender qualification.

    The rebuttal to this is that NOW and other groups would protest that.

    This makes no sense, because the proposed alternative by those who are fearful of this feminazi protest believe the best solution is to ban women from these aspects of the military... which will, of course, lead to NOW and Feminazi protests.

    How in the world does that make sense to anyone?

    It's possibly the silliest argument I've ever heard.

    It essentially boils down to: "We don't want protests about unfairness for women, so we should be as unfair to women as possible."

    The simplest solution is to remove the gender qualification only. Keep all of the other standards equal and as they currently are.

    You'll have protests either way, but the protests in this scenario will have less impact as there are no disqualifications based on an arbitrary measure.
    It makes perfect sense because that's the idiotic do-loop that is caused by trying to force a square peg in a round hole. In many case they can't meet the freaking standard, but the leaders turn back and say make it work because they don't want to deal with the politics. Consequently standards are lowered until the protesting ceases. The men will always get the higher standard to meet than the women, which most men don't mind until the paycheck comes in and the women get the same. That doesn't mean that women don't have areas in which they are superior, but we're talking about the military, we're talking about combat, being testosterone aggressive. Hold women to the exact same standards and assure me you'll find enough women to include that will satsify the equal rights groups that you are fair and have a high enough quota to make them happy. Lowering the standards so more women can get in is more or less a "Yes Dear" move by the military. I'm assuming we're speaking about those positions where there is any question of equal ability, not the supply clerk with the clipboard or high skilled desk jobs.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #314
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,505

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    It makes perfect sense because that's the idiotic do-loop that is caused by trying to force a square peg in a round hole. In many case they can't meet the freaking standard, but the leaders turn back and say make it work because they don't want to deal with the politics. Consequently standards are lowered until the protesting ceases. The men will always get the higher standard to meet than the women, which most men don't mind until the paycheck comes in and the women get the same. That doesn't mean that women don't have areas in which they are superior, but we're talking about the military, we're talking about combat, being testosterone aggressive. Hold women to the exact same standards and assure me you'll find enough women to include that will satsify the equal rights groups that you are fair and have a high enough quota to make them happy. Lowering the standards so more women can get in is more or less a "Yes Dear" move by the military. I'm assuming we're speaking about those positions where there is any question of equal ability, not the supply clerk with the clipboard or high skilled desk jobs.
    One more factor is being left out to consider. Females make up 11% of the military of the US. Many of these women are in mission critical jobs. If the standards were made the same across the board (in the end everyone is infantry) the majority of the females could not pass. More than 10% according to other studies would wash out. This would hurt rather than help our fighting forces. Or fighting forces would forever be less than 1% female. This takes men off the front lines to man positions a female can handle just fine.

    This is the reality of the situation. No amount of wishful thinking no matter how well intended or in this case correct, will change this.

    You can call it sexist if you want, but reality says no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  5. #315
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    One more factor is being left out to consider. Females make up 11% of the military of the US. Many of these women are in mission critical jobs. If the standards were made the same across the board (in the end everyone is infantry) the majority of the females could not pass. More than 10% according to other studies would wash out. This would hurt rather than help our fighting forces. Or fighting forces would forever be less than 1% female. This takes men off the front lines to man positions a female can handle just fine.

    This is the reality of the situation. No amount of wishful thinking no matter how well intended or in this case correct, will change this.

    You can call it sexist if you want, but reality says no.
    Look on the bright side, rape and sexual harassment within the ranks would nearly disappear.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #316
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    One more factor is being left out to consider. Females make up 11% of the military of the US. Many of these women are in mission critical jobs. If the standards were made the same across the board (in the end everyone is infantry) the majority of the females could not pass. More than 10% according to other studies would wash out. This would hurt rather than help our fighting forces. Or fighting forces would forever be less than 1% female. This takes men off the front lines to man positions a female can handle just fine.

    This is the reality of the situation. No amount of wishful thinking no matter how well intended or in this case correct, will change this.

    You can call it sexist if you want, but reality says no.
    That's exactly what I'm going to do:

    what a sexist comment.

  7. #317
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,505

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    That's exactly what I'm going to do:

    what a sexist comment.
    You can ignore the reality of the situation, thats OK.

    Continue to live in fantasy land.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  8. #318
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    One more factor is being left out to consider. Females make up 11% of the military of the US. Many of these women are in mission critical jobs. If the standards were made the same across the board (in the end everyone is infantry) the majority of the females could not pass. More than 10% according to other studies would wash out. This would hurt rather than help our fighting forces. Or fighting forces would forever be less than 1% female. This takes men off the front lines to man positions a female can handle just fine.

    This is the reality of the situation. No amount of wishful thinking no matter how well intended or in this case correct, will change this.

    You can call it sexist if you want, but reality says no.
    Everyone is not infantry, so the military would have to do massive amounts of retraining in order to get file clerks, cooks, medics, and mechanics up to speed with a rifle.

    As to your wash out percentage, are you saying the military would only replace from within the ranks and not hire new personnel?

  9. #319
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    Everyone is not infantry, so the military would have to do massive amounts of retraining in order to get file clerks, cooks, medics, and mechanics up to speed with a rifle.

    As to your wash out percentage, are you saying the military would only replace from within the ranks and not hire new personnel?
    You want to apply that statement to the Marines?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #320
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    Everyone is not infantry, so the military would have to do massive amounts of retraining in order to get file clerks, cooks, medics, and mechanics up to speed with a rifle.
    Not really, since everyone has to go through weapons training the Basic Combat Training and annually after that. So, ultimately, everyone in the Marine Corps and Army are already infantry.

    As to your wash out percentage, are you saying the military would only replace from within the ranks and not hire new personnel?
    They would hire new help, but only 1% of the new hires would be females.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 32 of 97 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •