nitePhyyre wrote:This also leads to the interesting questions of: can we even fix the problem without expanding it first?
Yes and no. Part of the fixing involves preventative measures; part of the fixing involves reacting to offenses. Until women get raped there's no way to tell who the rapists are.
That sounds crappy.
nitePhyyre wrote:I'm sorry, but sucking dick or having pigment isn't comparable to a million years of evolutionary instincts.
Ah yes. Because modern warfare is something men have "instincts" for but women do not. Remind me, what part of caveman life involved driving a Humvee?
Here's an idea: READ. THE FUCKING. THREAD. Seriously, there's been multiple posts about this.
Malice wrote:Basic training is able to get people over their instinctual fear of death, I'm guessing it can equalize men and women if there really are differences.
No it doesn't, hence PTSD. I agree that training will most likely
be able to fix the problems that arise. But, that will happen by acknowledging the problems and fixing them. Not, by ignoring them and chanting 'equality' until things get better.
nitePhyyre wrote:Where do you two get off valuing one person's job preference over another person's LIFE? Seriously, What. The. Fuck?
Respecting other people means helping them make informed but independent choices. If I want to choose to be a coal miner, astronaut, or soldier, it's my goddamn choice no matter how dangerous the job. It's your responsibility to reduce the danger as much as possible without stepping on my freedoms, while also keeping me informed as to the danger.
In other words, we're not valuing one person's job preference over another person's life; we're respecting one person's valuing their own job preference over the risk to their life.
Here's an idea: READ. THE FUCKING. THREAD. Others and myself have been over this. Let me try and break it down into simply words and small sentences. The military fights in squads. In units. Wait, is 'military' too complex? The 'army people' fight in 'groups'. If, for any reason, you endanger the group more than you help it, you should not be in that group.
It is up to the people who are trained to figure out if you will help or hurt the group to decide if you belong in the group. The people who are trained to make this type of decision, who have experience making this type of decision, the people whose JOB it is to make these decisions.
Imagine for a moment: You are hiding in a bush with your squad mates. An enemy battalion is walking by. You sneeze. Congratulations! Because you
decided that your
allergies weren't a big deal to you
think that they are an acceptable danger to you
, ten other
people who never got to make those choices about your allergies are dead. The military does not, cannot
, function like that.
(Yeah, allergies aren't the greatest example. But I was going through a sneezing fit as I typed, So it fit.)
nitePhyyre wrote:Hypothetically: Women walking down a dark path have a 90% chance of being raped.
Sourmilk: That's horrible, we should do something about it. How about we stop women, but not men, from walking on these unlit paths until we retrofit them with lights.
Ulc: You sexist bastard! Don't you see how that leads directly to requiring male escorts and hijabs?
No, I really, really don't.
I bolded my correction; now do you see? If not, why?
Except, the thread is about opening up a new line of work for women in the military. Opening a new path for their chosen career. Not closing down the paths that are currently open to them. You would probably know this if you bothered to READ. THE FUCKING. THREAD.
If the thread title was 'Marine Corps bans women from all service', your change might have a point. But its not, so you don't.
Ulc wrote:We cannot in any ethical way deny women rights that men have, without enforcing a culture where each individual woman's agency are taken away from her, and she's left without the ability to hold a independent agenda - and that's exactly the culture that we call rape-culture, a culture where women are property, and taking the sex you see them "owing you", against their will, is an common act that a lot of people nod at and say "sure, I can understand him" (even if they publicly criticize him). In the short term, denying women the right to enter the military might seem like it's combating rape, but in the long term, it's exactly the kind of rules that directly lead to the base-line rape incident rate being 16-25% (depending on studies and estimates of dark numbers).
You have to be older than 17 to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where youth have their agency taken away?
You have to be younger than 28 to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where people who are older than 30 have their agency taken away?
You have to have a high school diploma to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where high school dropouts have their agency taken away?
You have to be physically fit to join the marines. Are we enforcing a culture where the handicapped have their agency taken away?
Malice wrote:Is there a culture for each of those to enforce?
Is it that you are
reading and simply have poor language skills? Ulc was quite clearly talking about macro-culture, not subsets of subcultures.
Malice wrote:Is sex at birth a choice? Is it something that will change over time? Is it a requirement fundamental to the position? Fun fact: the answer to all of those is "no".
Is being crippled at birth a choice? Is being stupid at birth a choice? Are they things that will change over time? Are they fundamental to the position? Fun fact: the answer to all those is "no".
Now let me spell it out, because you are clearly incapable of reading between the lines: If you are claiming that it is unethical to discriminate against minorities, then it is unethical to discriminate against minorities
. You don't get to say its OK to place restrictions on this minority but not that minority.
Malice wrote: nitePhyyre wrote:
Ulc wrote:Rape culture, it exist, we're all part of it.
Correlation does not imply causation. I.e.: Do we rape a lot because making jokes about rape removes the stigma, or do we make jokes about rape because rape happens a lot and humour is a coping method?
Both, actually. Such is the Mobius flow of culture: we influence and are influenced by it.
Indeed. Which is why it is childish, naive, and incorrect
to go on a several paragraph rant blaming culture alone.
Malice wrote:Fine, it's the real world. You have to create a one-size-fits-all determination. Is a 5% average increase in rape from "everybody" to "just the military" worth banning women? What's the increase in mortality rate? What's the increase in the rape rate for men in the military? Do you have any basis for comparison here to justify discrimination?
I don't know, but they were high enough for the IDF to de-integrate its military.
Apparently a 10 fold increase.
Yes, the data that's been mentioned a billion fucking time in the thread, which you would know by now if you bothered to read the goram thread. What's wrong with EP?
nitePhyyre wrote:"Why should I make their decisions?" Because they are the ones asking me for a job.
The military shouldn't answer to you because you're a civilian, but as a civilian applicants to the military should answer to you? The military is a tool commanded by civilians; anything else is flat-out dangerous. As such it is all our responsibilities to use them wisely and properly, which includes preventing unnecessary discrimination in their hiring practices
If you personally were hiring people for a non-military job, would it be okay to turn women away solely because they're women? Because it's sure as shit not legal, at least when sex has nothing to do with the job requirements.
The "I" up there is some recruitment officer or commanding officer talking.You are begging the question.
nitePhyyre wrote:Pre-integration, blacks got an education from black schools, whites from white schools. After integration blacks and white got and education from schools. My history knowledge is pretty non-existant on the CRM. How are they vastly better off afterwards? Is it that black schools were of a much lower quality?
Often they were, yes (as it turns out, when you group minorities together, it makes it easier to shit only on their heads). It was also better for society in general--by physically separating people from each other based on skin color, you make them the Other. You know who's more likely to be racist against black people? Somebody who's never met a black person before.
Should have forcefully integrated ghettos while you were at it.
nitePhyyre wrote:I think the crux of the issue is exactly what traits should go on that list.
Do you have a logical reason why "sex" should not go on that list? Preferably one that doesn't rely on evolutionary psychology?
Yes. Tons. Here's an idea: READ. THE FUCKING. THREAD.
Malice wrote: nitePhyyre wrote:
Nordic Einar wrote:It was pretty fuckin' dangerous to be black in the military in the early days post-segregation. It's still pretty dangerous to be queer in the military. Also, being in the military is pretty fuckin' dangerous. This is a ridiculous argument, because the very nature of volunteering to join the military is to volunteer to be at danger.
Exactly! That's why we don't bother to give soldiers body armour.
Oh! So what you're saying is, we should just allow women into combat roles, but issue them chastity belts.
I'm not as rape centric as sourmilk is.
nitePhyyre wrote:How about letting them be separate but equal? Have all female units, and all male units. It beats separate and unequal during the transition, no?
Separate is inherently unequal.
Ever seen SDF-1 Macross? Sure its fiction, but they have a seperate but equal military. It worked well. Do you believe all-boy/all-girl schools are unethical?
Malice wrote:In a specific sense, separating all men from all women to protect female victims from male rapists sends the specific message that all men are rapists and all women are victims. Rapists and victims are unequal.
Couldn't it simply send the message that the chain of command doesn't want grunts to fraternize?
The Great Hippo wrote:And if members of the group in question state in clear, unambiguous terms, that they'd rather be treated equally--and take that risk--rather than let you make the decision for them? What then?
It not their risk to take. It is the military's. Once you sign up, your life is theirs.
The Great Hippo wrote:We're talking about people signing up for a job that involves being shot at by people who want to kill you. We are already 'enabling unsafe choices', here. When a woman tells you she wants to serve in the military, what's going to be your response--"Sorry, but the government feels really strongly about letting you make decisions that put you at any sort of risk. Oh, by the way, did you hear about those soldiers of ours that just got blown to fucking pieces yesterday? Man, talk about crazy!"
This is a fundamentally stupid argument. Everyone who has made it should feel ashamed of themselves.
The military exists because it is safer than not having one. The military should only be used when not using it is less safe. We aren't enabling unsafe choices. We are making the best of a bad situation.
Seriously guys, ashamed
The Great Hippo wrote:This is not rocket surgery. To the contrary: This is simple. We're talking Sesame Street levels of simplicity. Like, to explain it any more simply, I'll need some crayons, construction paper, paste, and a classroom of pre-schoolers. I'd have to build you a goddamn diorama to make this any easier to understand.
There are women who want to serve their country in the same capacity that men do. Let them.
Yeah, it takes Sesame Street
levels of simplicity to claim a problem is solved while ignoring any problems the solution creates.
sourmìlk wrote:I don't really get this argument. Yes the military is unsafe, but why does that mean we should be okay with making it more unsafe? Even in the military, we should work to maximize safety. It's just that, being a military and all, it's never going to be as safe as, say, programming.
Its because it is a horrendously stupid argument. Everything after your question mark? That's what people with more than a hundredth of a brain would say.
The Great Hippo wrote:There are women who want to serve their country in the same capacity that men do. Let them.
The Great Hippo wrote:Then let them serve. Why is this argument even happening? Women want to serve their country. They're aware of these risks. Why are we stopping them?
You keep using that word: SERVE. It is the right one.
a. To work for.
b. To be a servant to
Last I checked you don't tell the person you are serving how exactly you are to serve them.
Lucrece wrote:I just don't get this growing notion that the military gets to do what it wants and desires. They are not an independent body. We pay them to perform a task however we want it done. They signed that contract giving their lives over to the government (by extension the people), so there should be no surprise with the fact that being a public servant involves bowing to public demands.
That's not entirely true. For the most part, POTUS gives an order to his secretaries. "Go bomb there". The specifics of how that is done is all military. Or, "I want to bomb there, bring me tactical options in an hour." ... "OK, I pick this option." Although some things like gays being banned from the wilitary was done be a motion of congress. For anything they haven't been ordered or barred from, it is their discretion, no?