In today's news...

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

I know this will make some people very happy

You must be registered to see the links

I suppose there's still time for it to be derailed, but the current plan calls for integration in even the highest special forces roles.

 

[Serifyn]

Re: In today's news...

No offense but that sounds like an unnecessary distraction; with the amount of unreported rape that goes on already within the military, integrated combat units could cause alot of unforeseen problems.

I'm all for equality but I'd imagine officers already have enough to worry about without adding this additional element; i'm sure ranking military officials would rather concentrate on things other than sexual harassment and rape allegations such an integration is sure to bring.

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

Well, that's partially one reason why it's set to take awhile, but just because something is hard to accomplish doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. No matter how long the issue gets delayed there will be problems, and the problems will probably never fully 100% be resolved, so waiting on them is akin to saying that it will never happen, which in my opinion is unacceptable. I never take "it's too hard" as an excuse for anything. Not saying these problems don't deserve attention, because they do, but they require WORK, which is what's going to happen now, not an instant change.

 

[Armacalic]

Re: In today's news...

Just saying, if it's gonna likely generate more troubles that the current system holds, it's not a matter of if it will be hard or not. It's stupid to implement something that will make the snuff harder than it already is, and no improvement over the current system, save having more pair of knockers everywhere.

It's a no brainer, this shouldn't be.

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

No improvement? How about drastically increasing the pool of potential combat soldiers. Recent reports show around 60% of american men of military age are unfit for duty due to problems like obesity, and some Generals even fear that this may impact our ability to fight wars in the future.

All change causes a few eggs to be broken in the process, so of course this would be no different, but not changing is like waiting to go to the dentist after your teeth have already fallen out. As for the actual extent of any such disruption, plenty of other countries around the world have fully integrated armed forces and everything works just fine, first and foremost Israel, which whatever else might be said about them, has been very successful in past armed conflicts with neighboring states.

 

[dmronny]

Re: In today's news...

It's no more of a distraction than it was before, not that it was a distraction before mind you. All officers and soldiers already have to do sexual harassment and equality training as it is. In fact most combat units already have females with them as it is, because a large number of medics, fuelers, cooks, etc, etc are all task forced together in combat teams. In essence all they've really done is admitted that it's pretty stupid to not be fully integrated already.

I was going to say something else to but I completely forgot what it was, maybe I'll remember later.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: In today's news...

It's a no brainer, this shouldn't be.

Fuck you. So you're saying that I should be barred from fighting for my country because I have tits. It's been working rather well here in Canada, where women have been integrated into Combat Arms trades for years with little issue.

Also, that knocker's comment just made me... ugh.

No offense but that sounds like an unnecessary distraction; with the amount of unreported rape that goes on already within the military, integrated combat units could cause alot of unforeseen problems.

Or maybe the system does need to be changed to prevent further rapes, instead of creating glass ceilings for fear that something that already occurs will occur.

I'm all for equality but I'd imagine officers already have enough to worry about without adding this additional element; i'm sure ranking military officials would rather concentrate on things other than sexual harassment and rape allegations such an integration is sure to bring.

Apparently you're not all for equality.

I wonder, of those speaking out against putting women in Combat Arms trades, how many are actually military... and how many have actually done a tour?

 

[XSI]

Re: In today's news...

No improvement? How about drastically increasing the pool of potential combat soldiers. Recent reports show around 60% of american men of military age are unfit for duty due to problems like obesity, and some Generals even fear that this may impact our ability to fight wars in the future.

I like to think we're not far from being past needing humans to fight.

You must be registered to see the links

It's a bit old, but still

As for women in the military, as far as I know it works fine for almost all of Europe. It really shouldn't be a problem and they can always look to other countries and their systems if they can't figure one out themselves.
I don't think it's fair in any way shape or form to ban a group of people from certain jobs based purely on gender.
Instead, look to the individual. If they fit the requirements, then good. If they don't, then they won't get the job.

 

[Serifyn]

Re: In today's news...

Apparently you're not all for equality.

I wonder, of those speaking out against putting women in Combat Arms trades, how many are actually military... and how many have actually done a tour?

Rape and Sexual Harassment within the military has been described as an epidemic by ranking officials and it is as bad right now as it has ever been. Don't you think that this is something which should be remedied before we further integrate women into combat situations where more lives are at risk?

Please don't ask questions like 'How many tours have you been on?' as if I'm not qualified to hold an opinion on this because I've never held a M4A1 before; i could easily counter this question by asking you how many Tours you've been on within the US Military.

As i said, I'm all for equality, i believe in homosexual's right to marry, their right to serve in the military and many other similar social issues other people still seem to have a problem with, eventually full integration should and will happen, but if they forced it now without fixing these issues it would be a complete fucking disaster and would inevitably lead to more incidents.

I don't believe i am being unreasonable in questioning the timing of this decision given the recent reports.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: In today's news...

This is the same venue as placing fault on the victim, rather than stop the problem at its source. Women should not be held back from positions they want to fill simply because there are bad apples within the batch. Perhaps its those people that should be withheld from military service, and not the people who've not done anything.

The arguments are the exact same for withholding women from the military as it was for withholding homosexuals. And back in the day, those of colour. Unit cohesion (so you're saying men can't get along with women outside of sex?) being the biggest and loudest. Of course next comes physical demands, but isn't that the reason there is a minimal standard to be held to? In Canada we've finally gotten rid of segregation when it comes to the physical standard. There are no longer lower minimal standards in accordance to age or gender. The Americans could do the exact same thing, ensuring that those women who want to enlist in Combat Arms trades are indeed fit enough to do the job.

And while I'm not American, I'm Canadian, I have worked closely with American soldiers in Afghanistan during my tour (as infantry) and they never had a problem with the fact that I was a woman. Amongst my own Canadian comrades, there were 8 other people in the room I slept in, all of whom were male. Of course there was porn on the walls, and "guy" humour (I often found it as funny), but they were able to get along with a woman who didn't want to suck their dicks, and they never tried to rape me. So, what is it about the American military that the prevalence of rape within the Armed Forces means women should be kept out, rather than firmly dealing with that situation?

And they're not forcing it, they're giving it until 2016 before this happens. That's three years to look through the personnel enlisted within the organization to root out those that would commit such acts. I don't think that someone who would rape a woman in the army would stop on civilian side either.

So again. Do not claim you support full equality with a straight face when you'd rather keep women out of the combat arms, even though they are already put within combat scenarios due to the nature of the modern battleground. Women are already being killed and having to fight, why not give them the training and equipment as well?

Because rape seems to be the prevalent answer. I think that, more than anything, means the American military needs something changed. Perhaps the mindset of the people too. Keeping them out of Combat Arms will not hinder the issues with sexual abuse, as they are still in the military. Keeping them out of a chunk of military trades is not going to save them from such heinous acts.

And these reports have been around for years. Years! Why is now that people suddenly care... because women want in the combat arms because they want to fight for their country.

 

[Serifyn]

Re: In today's news...

Of course there was porn on the walls, and "guy" humour

Few modern work forces would allow these things, i just recently got hired for a job and i had to watch a two hour video on sexual harassment before they would even let me put my name on the necessary documents.

You are a member of a community dedicated to a guy who made a game involving fictional rape so perhaps your opinion on what would constitute sexual harassment might be different than many other women.

Im sure there are are plenty of women who would find having to endure porno and "guy humor" in their living space to be unacceptable, I'm sure you can imagine how this would create a problem and these are the kind of unforeseen consequences I'm talking about, what do you tell these women? If you can't tolerate the culture then don't join the military? What if these women are patriotic just like you and they feel as though it is their right to do so without being exposed to this kind of environment.

Do you think that this kind of culture would be so easily changed? Do you think that combat units posted in the middle of nowhere with the opposite gender for long periods of time wouldn't be inclined to have sex in order to combat boredom? Do you understand the possible social ramifications of such a scenario within a unit?

So the military decides to get rid of all of the porno and enforces a strict no sexual harassment policy, who will be blamed by the grunts?

These are just some examples, if these situations are impossible, please let me know.

 

[Ranger Princess]

Re: In today's news...

It sounds like your argument is that integration can't happen because men are such disgusting creatures that they can't stop themselves from shoving their dick into any living creature that moves. If so, that's a pretty sorry state of affairs for the male gender don't you think?

I'd like to give men more credit than that personally. There are a lot of problems in the military that need to be rooted out for this to work, including maybe the recruitment process (I've heard horror stories from some military officer friends about that) - but there's no reason why a group of good human beings can't work together to achieve something, regardless of profession.

Besides, it sounds like integration is already a de facto reality.

 

[Serifyn]

Re: In today's news...

It sounds like your argument is that integration can't happen because men are such disgusting creatures that they can't stop themselves from shoving their dick into any living creature that moves.

I never said anything remotely close to this, so yeah.

It sounds like your argument is that integration can't happen because men are such disgusting creatures that they can't stop themselves from shoving their dick into any living creature that moves. If so, that's a pretty sorry state of affairs for the male gender don't you think?

I'd like to give men more credit than that personally. There are a lot of problems in the military that need to be rooted out for this to work, including maybe the recruitment process (I've heard horror stories from some military officer friends about that) - but there's no reason why a group of good human beings can't work together to achieve something, regardless of profession.

Besides, it sounds like integration is already a de facto reality.

I'm talking about an existing culture, not a generalization on a sex (my own sex), and i didn't say integration can't happen, i said that if it happens now, it would be a fucking disaster. There is alot of work to be done before it would happen and there are plenty of unforeseen consequences which are going to need to be handled properly within the exclusive organization which is the military, an institution which has repeatedly shown us how resistant it is to change.

We shouldn't give up on it, people should be able to pursue whatever opportunities they wish in life, I'm just voicing my skepticism that it will be a good idea.

there's no reason why a group of good human beings can't work together to achieve something, regardless of profession.

This may be unrelated to this entire argument but you understand that a soldier's profession is to kill people.......right? I suppose you can call a group of trained killers "a group of good human beings".

After all, when you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.

 

[Shrike7]

Re: In today's news...

from what I have seen, you appear to be completely missing the arguments placed against you, Serifyn.

1) What difference do you see in chances of rape between A) a woman who is part of the combat group, and fights shoulder to shoulder with a gun in hand, and B) a woman who is not allowed to do A, but who's job it is to stay back in camp to cook and clean and patch wounds. The latter kind is around already, and by rape logic, seems the much more attractive option.

you keep saying adding A would be a 'fucking disaster', but I think that those women would have a smaller chance of becoming a victim than the already existant issues that are apparently so widespread within the US military.

So far, your only argument against this seems to be 'they'll be raped, it's gonna happen, rape rape rape.' which is what Ranger Princess there was talking about with her comment you didn't recognize. That appears to me to be the only thing you can see happening were this to be implemented now, which i find to be rather insulting, the same as teh other two women you've been talking to seem to have taken it. Please, state your reasoning behind this, I don't understand why placing more aggressive and competent women in the armed forces would increase the chances of said women getting raped.

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

And the key point is integration has happened in plenty of other places without having issues explode like that.

 

[Ranger Princess]

Re: In today's news...

This may be unrelated to this entire argument but you understand that a soldier's profession is to kill people.......right? I suppose you can call a group of trained killers "a group of good human beings".

After all, when you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'll just say this. I have dozens of friends who served time in the army, air force, and navy, and I know most of them had to kill people during their tour. Does it make me happy? No, but it doesn't make them bad people. It's just what had to be done.

Most of the military people I've met have been really awesome. Some are really close friends that helped me get through some really hard times in my life. I wouldn't change being friends with them for the world, and I would definitely not hesitate to call them a good person.

I don't blame them at all for having to kill. I blame the world for being a place where such a profession is necessary.

 

[Serifyn]

Re: In today's news...

from what I have seen, you appear to be completely missing the arguments placed against you, Serifyn.

1) What difference do you see in chances of rape between A) a woman who is part of the combat group, and fights shoulder to shoulder with a gun in hand, and B) a woman who is not allowed to do A, but who's job it is to stay back in camp to cook and clean and patch wounds. The latter kind is around already, and by rape logic, seems the much more attractive option.

you keep saying adding A would be a 'fucking disaster', but I think that those women would have a smaller chance of becoming a victim than the already existant issues that are apparently so widespread within the US military.

So far, your only argument against this seems to be 'they'll be raped, it's gonna happen, rape rape rape.' which is what Ranger Princess there was talking about with her comment you didn't recognize. That appears to me to be the only thing you can see happening were this to be implemented now, which i find to be rather insulting, the same as teh other two women you've been talking to seem to have taken it. Please, state your reasoning behind this, I don't understand why placing more aggressive and competent women in the armed forces would increase the chances of said women getting raped.

Perhaps I'm not doing a very good job explaining what the problem is.

In the real world, if you "rape rape rape" you get convicted of rape rape rape and you in turn get rape rape rape while in prison. There is a reason why rape is so prevalent in the Military, it is because it is not talked about, the people in positions of power generally don't go out of their way to investigate allegations. Sexual harassment is rampant all over the place in the real world, even in places where you can lose your job if you do it, this is because it isn't illegal, but it is still something a company can be sued for if they don't follow up properly and usually all people get is a warning.

There is no such system currently existing within the US Military, you aren't going to be fired for sexually harassing a female comrade, you might be disciplined but this isn't likely, the officers would be more likely to tell the female soldier to 'sack up' and deal with it themselves and this is the essence of the problem right now.

Do you believe women have the right to do their job without being sexually harassed? Because I'm sure there are millions of people who will say that they do, getting there is the issue.

And the key point is integration has happened in plenty of other places without having issues explode like that.

Once again, reports are that sexual assault is an "epidemic" in the US military, i can't speak for any other group.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'll just say this. I have dozens of friends who served time in the army, air force, and navy, and I know most of them had to kill people during their tour. Does it make me happy? No, but it doesn't make them bad people. It's just what had to be done.

Most of the military people I've met have been really awesome. Some are really close friends that helped me get through some really hard times in my life. I wouldn't change being friends with them for the world, and I would definitely not hesitate to call them a good person.

I was merely pointing out the irony of calling a trained group of professional killers a 'a group of good human beings'.

Its just like the irony of calling all soldiers 'Heroes' when most of them probably just sit on one base or another for their entire career, if they are called to duty it's usually to serve as enforcers for some sort of government agenda, but i won't get into politics.

I don't blame them at all for having to kill. I blame the world for being a place where such a profession is necessary.

There are some countries which require military service; Israel and South Korea come to mind, but in America and Canada you sign up for it, you know full well that in signing up, you may be required to kill because it your job. you are a soldier.

You most certainly could blame someone for putting themselves in a position where killing is their job, if you were a pacifist you could do something else, you choose the military because it has good benefits and they take control of your life, giving some people the direction and structure they wouldn't be able to find otherwise.

I'm not saying these people are bad, i'm just saying that you can't feel sorry for someone who has to kill someone else because they signed up for it, if you believe homicide is wrong and bad wouldn't that make someone bad and wrong for doing it? Irony. Hypocrisy. Sin.

As far as this world being a terrible place where such a profession is necessary all i can say is that "at the end of the day, as long as there's two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead. " (not to be taken literally of course)

It is human nature to kill, we life in a world of haves and have nots, not every cause is noble and there is no 'Good and Evil' there is only 'Us and Them', everyone wants their piece of the pie and there aren't enough slices for everyone, this is why there is war and why there will always be war.

You seriously just said that last part?

Yes, i thought it was a

You must be registered to see the links

.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: In today's news...

Because rape seems to be the prevalent answer. I think that, more than anything, means the American military needs something changed. Perhaps the mindset of the people too.

As a side comment, I have to agree on this bit (along with all the rest, from Sin, Ranger, and Shrike). Fix recruitment, fix the standards, double or triple the training period, teach them at least a drip of war politics and about the countries they're being sent to, and dump the "Break down build up" training philosophy that turns recruits mindsets into that of an obedient and aggressive child.

The trope concept of "I flunked school so I'll have to join the military" doesn't work at all here in the UK. It's damned competitive just to pass initial selection. My brother self trained and studied for months before his selection exam, and still didn't make it into basic training. I watched him work really hard on it.

A modern apprenticeship in working at a finance office is one to two years.
So why are US Marines of the same age handed guns, sent to war, and expected to represent their country in only 13 weeks?

Of all the professions in the world, surely the best possible training of a nations soldiers is worth the investment.


((And sorry Serifyn. I could get behind your initial cautious view towards the issue, but the others have been far more convincing. And I can't believe you actually said that "Group of good human beings" bit.))

 

[Shrike7]

Re: In today's news...

Perhaps I'm not doing a very good job explaining what the problem is.

In the real world, if you "rape rape rape" you get convicted of rape rape rape and you in turn get rape rape rape while in prison. There is a reason why rape is so prevalent in the Military, it is because it is not talked about, the people in positions of power generally don't go out of their way to investigate allegations. Sexual harassment is rampant all over the place in the real world, even in places where you can lose your job if you do it, this is because it isn't illegal, but it is still something a company can be sued for if they don't follow up properly and usually all people get is a warning.

There is no such system currently existing within the US Military, you aren't going to be fired for sexually harassing a female comrade, you might be disciplined but this isn't likely, the officers would be more likely to tell the female soldier to 'sack up' and deal with it themselves and this is the essence of the problem right now.

Do you believe women have the right to do their job without being sexually harassed? Because I'm sure there are millions of people who will say that they do, getting there is the issue.

You don't seem to explain yourself well. the proposed additions to the US military will be women who are much less likely to be subject to this harassment, or who will 'sack up' on their own when it does happen. (generalizing here) The women will be more agressive, more capable of defending themselves, and much less likely to put up with bullshit. How can you believe that placing them in the military is going to cause -more- cases of females being victimized?

 

[Serifyn]

Re: In today's news...

I could get behind your initial cautious view towards the issue, but the others have been far more convincing.

We don't disagree that integration is important, we disagree on the timeline.

Far too often are solutions rushed before they can be properly implemented, this 'We need this now so implement it now' approach used to solve problems, it often creates more problems until you are left with an even more complicated situation which inherits the old problems and exacerbates them.