Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo\
Which translates to BECAUSE I SAID SO, whereas I can point to the deleterious results of allowing women into the military.
At best you're being dismissive of women's abilities.
If a woman signs up for the military she knows what she's getting into. Ideally rapes would be something that wouldn't happen if discipline was maintained among the ranks, as it stands you're basically blaming it on the victim, which doesn't surprise me one bit but which would offend any normal, sensible person. You could apply the rape argument to basically anything. "No coed schools, rapes might happen"
Hell, what's to say that the risk of rape means women shouldn't live in separate cities from men who aren't their husbands or relatives?
The fact that a woman is smaller and weaker on average than a man makes little difference most of the time considering hand to hand combat isn't nearly as important in modern warfare as it was in the days of battleaxes when your gender politics were in vogue.
I'd be more concerned with marksmanship abilities and psychological strength than brute force or size in a soldier.
You could have a seven foot tall, 300 lb moose who can't shoot for shit and snaps the first time a mortar shell goes off in his base.
Diversity training is something necessary to ensure you don't have a bunch of...well...guys like you running the military.
Oh and once more for effect: NOTHING IN THIS CASE FORWARDS YOUR ARGUMENTS THAT WOMEN SHOULDN'T BE SOLDIERS
This is why progressives ruin everything.
Ideally rapes would be something that wouldn't happen if discipline was maintained among the ranks, as it stands you're basically blaming it on the victim, which doesn't surprise me one bit but which would offend any normal, sensible person.
The fact that a woman is smaller and weaker on average than a man makes little difference most of the time considering hand to hand combat isn't nearly as important in modern warfare as it was in the days of battleaxes when your gender politics were in vogue.
I'd be more concerned with marksmanship abilities and psychological strength than brute force or size in a soldier.
Diversity training is something necessary to ensure you don't have a bunch of...well...guys like you running the military.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, I'm not blaming it on the woman. I'm saying that the sheer number of rapes that occur in the military put women in danger, and they should be excluded for their own safety.
So why does the military have different fitness standards for men and women? Because of idiots like yourself, no doubt.
Women? Psychological strength? Good God, you've got to be shitting me. Women are far more emotional than men on average, and they are twice as likely to suffer from PTSD than men are.
What the military needs is a bunch of lesbians telling soldiers how they need to respect womynkind. That'll help our military!
For you, Zeal:
Wow, that's not only demeaning of women, it's also lazy and surrendering to the "inevitability" of rape.
Lol, where have I suggested I want different standards for men or women? In fact, the only person here who wants different standards between the sexes in any way seems to be you.
Lol, way to make a blanket statement with no support.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The military is not supposed to be an equal opportunity employer. The duty of the military is to be as efficient as possible. Will women disrupt this? Yes. Will sexual assault happen? Yes. The people who end up in the military generally aren't quality human beings. Never have been, though the neocons don't want you to believe that. They're the guys who didn't have anywhere else to go in life, so they took up arms. Doesn't mean I don't respect them, but they're not the most well-adjusted people out there.
...hmm...good idea Zeal, we'll field an army entirely of dangerous prisoners.
Actually, you'd probably approve of that.
Once more, rather than keeping women out of the military who sign up of their own will to "protect them" it should be our duty to ensure that discipline is maintained so that this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
So why do different standards exist?
I don't need statistics to prove that women are more emotional than men; anyone who has spent any time around women knows that's the case. And I'm sure you can look up PTSD on Wikipedia to learn the statistics. [/B]
By this same logic we shouldn't try to prevent murder and fights between soldiers either...so what...the only people qualified to be in the military are people who have proven the ability to be able to watch their own back to prevent shiving and raping......hmm...good idea Zeal, we'll field an army entirely of dangerous prisoners.
Actually, you'd probably approve of that.
Once more, rather than keeping women out of the military who sign up of their own will to "protect them" it should be our duty to ensure that discipline is maintained so that this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
Combination of affirmative action and idiots like you who think that women need to be coddled or protected.
Military: Fine, we'll allow women in the military but they have to pass the same tests as men.
Bulldyke feminist: EXCUSE ME THERE AREN'T ENOUGH WOMEN IN THE MILITARY, YOU ARE DISCRIMINATION
Military: Fine, we'll lower the standards so women can make it in.
Bulldyke feminist: WOMEN HAVE TO PASS THE SAME TEST AS MEN SO THEY'RE JUST AS QUALIFIED
Beta male feminist f*ggot: Diversity is our strength!
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Minimize the threat of rape by minimizing the potential rape victims.
Kind of like taking away the drugs from the drug addict? Or removing the alcoholic from the bar?
I partially agree with you but I do not like to victim blame unless the victim did something to get victimized. For instance, like taunting or picking on a dog that retaliates by attacking you...but failing to wear a full-body covering does not justify an "ok" reason to raep a Muslim woman. Does that clarify my stance?
Or how about this: remove all men from the military and only let highly qualified females serve? The men are the problem, not the victim. We can't blame the women for the stupid men. I know, that sounds awfully feminist of me but I'm a lukewarm feminist.
Another solution is to keep "Synch-cordings"* for every soldier to prove with 100% veritiability that a person was or was not raepd, then beat the utter living sh*t out of the r*pists and put them in solitary confinement for 2-5 years.
*This thing is an audio-video recording that is always on, 24/7. Our memory technologies do not allow for something like this to happen, yet, due to size and energy limitations. However, it is the only "best" solution. The FBI stats show that there are too many false-accusations of raep and that hurts the individuals that actually WERE raepd...people don't believe them as often (even though the false-accusations only account for less than 10% of reports, iirc.)
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Military: Fine, we'll allow women in the military but they have to pass the same tests as men.
Bulldyke feminist: EXCUSE ME THERE AREN'T ENOUGH WOMEN IN THE MILITARY, YOU ARE DISCRIMINATION
Military: Fine, we'll lower the standards so women can make it in.
Bulldyke feminist: WOMEN HAVE TO PASS THE SAME TEST AS MEN SO THEY'RE JUST AS QUALIFIED
Beta male feminist f*ggot: Diversity is our strength!
This hyperbole actually captures the truth. We want to eat our cake while having it, too. (A saying that I am stuck with a lot, lately). We cannot make the standards equal while creating more gender representation equality at the same time. As a necessity, the more rigorous standards will automatically disqualify many women because we are a sexually asymmetric species. It just so happens that the males are bigger and stronger.
Find me a 5'2" 105 lbs. (kind of like our former cheerleader Annie Dryden) female that can carry a 60 lbs. pack (in addition to the body armor) 40 miles and I'll find you an extreme exception. I do not think the extreme majority of males at that size could accomplish that task, as well.
I would be very happy with a 5'10" 160 lbs., in shape, female joining the arm or marines. She could probably accomplish that task. It might be difficult, but she could do it a majority of the time. Her gender does not matter, in this instance: only that she is physically capable of carrying her armor, rations, ammo, guns, knife/knives, and any other utilities she may have to haul in her pack.
Originally posted by Robtard
Seems similar to same idiot mentality of blame-shifting that happens in some Islamic countries were women have to cover themselves in blankets and go about dressed like a silly ninja.'Men can't control themselves, so lets hide a woman's form.'
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm saying that if you have women in the military, they will be raped. Period. The best way to keep them from getting raped is to keep them out of the military.
I agree that that is the absolute most effective way to keep women from getting raped IN the military. If they aren't there to begin with, then they can't get raped. 100% effective.
However, women will still get raped by the US military.
On another note: if it is so common (and common knowledge) for women to get raped in the military, WTF are girls thinking when they join up? Are they thinking, "That shit won't happen to me"? Being a girl can be awesome in ways...but it also sucks major balls. I like the idea of that Star Trek: TNG episode where that planet had a female dominated society. The men were smaller and weaker than the women and the women ruled the extreme majority of everything: from business to government. Commander Riker got his freak on, obviously because he was large enough...or something.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm not victim blaming at all. I'm not saying that it's the fault of women. I'm saying that if you have women in the military, they will be raped. Period. The best way to keep them from getting raped is to keep them out of the military.
If women go to university, they will be raped
if women walk on the streets, they will be raped
if women do X, they will be raped
the existence of the phenomenon of rape really isn't a reason to restrict women's rights... or, it means women should have no rights and need to be kept in doors under constant protection by castrated men who have no ability to rape them
Originally posted by inimalist
If women go to university, they will be rapedif women walk on the streets, they will be raped
if women do X, they will be raped
the existence of the phenomenon of rape really isn't a reason to restrict women's rights... or, it means women should have no rights and need to be kept in doors under constant protection by castrated men who have no ability to rape them
Fair point. Where is the line, though?
Meaning, at what threshold of rape occurring do we say, "okay, that's the line."?
Military definitely has "above normal" levels of rape. Numbers say that 1/3 of women are raped in the military.
WTF?!?!?!?!?!
That's an epidemic, to me.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3848/
"Department of Defense reports show that nearly 90 percent of rape victims in the Army are junior-ranking women, whose average age is 21, while most of the assailants are non-commissioned officers or junior men, whose average age is 28."
"• A 2004 study of veterans from Vietnam and all wars since, conducted by psychotherapist Maureen Murdoch and published in the journal Military Medicine, found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving."
WTF!?!?!?!
I seriously said "WTF!?!?!?!" out loud when I read that.
But, raping women during wartime might be part of what it means to be human: "The view of women as sexual prey has always been present in military culture. Indeed, civilian women have been seen as sexual booty for conquering soldiers since the beginning of human history."
Is it a social construct or is it something more primal/genetic? Remember we talked about the female response to rape? Remember where the researcher concluded that (sorry to be so graphic) women get juicy during rape because it is an evolutionary mechanism that could possibly save the poor girl's life (if they didn't lube it up, there could be tearing and that could result in a loss of life). Of course, that conclusion is impossible to verify but it makes a ridiculous amount of sense.
But why are human males so rapey? An observation made was of male chimps climaxing faster when the female chimps screamed more. Seems rape may be exciting to at least 2 great apes?
I am not advocating rape: just trying to figure out why humans are so rapey. I myself enjoy mutual affection; rape is a complete turn-off.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Fair point. Where is the line, though?Meaning, at what threshold of rape occurring do we say, "okay, that's the line."?
Military definitely has "above normal" levels of rape. Numbers say that 1/3 of women are raped in the military.
WTF?!?!?!?!?!
That's an epidemic, to me.
but lets compare scenarios
if 1/3 women in university were being raped, would the answer be women can't get educated or that the universities aren't doing enough to protect women and police their own campuses?
Originally posted by inimalist
If women go to university, they will be rapedif women walk on the streets, they will be raped
if women do X, they will be raped
the existence of the phenomenon of rape really isn't a reason to restrict women's rights... or, it means women should have no rights and need to be kept in doors under constant protection by castrated men who have no ability to rape them
Drink bleach.