Don't Ask Don't Tell - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-02-2007, 09:46 AM   #136
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The gays may be irrelevent but having women in frontline combat positions does seem more problematic. In general women are physically weaker than men and may present problems.
So because some women are not as strong all women are problematic? I know some women who could kick your ass from here to Austrailia and back. I know some women who could outshoot, out maneuver, and definately outthink AEON with their arms tied behind their back any day of the week.

Just another small view post.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:47 AM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
MrPryck2U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Long Island, NY, USA, Earth
Posts: 8,944
Local Time: 01:53 AM
You all make valid points, but the truth of the matter is that we're talking about the US military here! In a perfect world, all of your suggestions would have weight, but this ain't a perfect would. The military is not going to change their stance about "don't ask, don't tell", and that's fine with them. (Remember, they haven't a had good war victory since WW2. I don't really count the first Gulf War, because we should've taken out Saddam back then, but didn't.)
Anyway, the big question is: Why would gay people want to join the military when clearly they're not wanted there?
Another thing to remember is that these soldiers are all trained to be mindless killers and to only listen to their superiors. Well, their superiors are pretty much saying "stay in the closet or get the fuck out of here!". Who, in their right mind would want to be a part of this?
__________________

__________________
MrPryck2U is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:48 AM   #138
The Fly
 
Greenlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Never far from a cup of coffee
Posts: 282
Local Time: 07:53 AM
I'm just completely bemused by this thread. Are you telling me that gays aren't allowed to continue serving in the US army if they are open about their sexuality? As far as I know most European countries including the UK don't discriminate against gays openly serving in the forces (it's illegal to do so) and that's been the position for some years.
I'm sure there's still cases of homophobia in European forces but I'm not aware of any instances at all where it's compromised any military operations. If it's not a problem elsewhere why should it be a problem for heterosexual males in the US forces or is their make up different??
__________________
Greenlight is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:53 AM   #139
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So because some women are not as strong all women are problematic? I know some women who could kick your ass from here to Austrailia and back. I know some women who could outshoot, out maneuver, and definately outthink AEON with their arms tied behind their back any day of the week.

Just another small view post.
You just flipped it; it isn't some women who are physically weaker than men it is most women, a point that I made in the post (I did not state that all women are weaker than men, I am talking relatively and one would think that this sexual dimorphism can get raised without being labelled small minded). Now if they can acheive the same standards and function equally well then it isn't as much as an issue, but it is downright stupid to compare the resistance to have women put in those combat roles to the opposition to gays (straight or gay a man is a man).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:53 AM   #140
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Greenlight
If it's not a problem elsewhere why should it be a problem for heterosexual males in the US forces or is their make up different??


becuase there's a big, loud group of people in America, and they're called evangelical* Christians.






* - yes, there are liberal evagelicals, i know, but when we speak of "evangelical Christians" in the political sense, we mean those who's social platform is based around abortion and homosexuality
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:55 AM   #141
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrPryck2U
[B]You all make valid points, but the truth of the matter is that we're talking about the US military here! In a perfect world, all of your suggestions would have weight, but this ain't a perfect would. The military is not going to change their stance about "don't ask, don't tell", and that's fine with them. (Remember, they haven't a had good war victory since WW2. I don't really count the first Gulf War, because we should've taken out Saddam back then, but didn't.)
the same argument was presented before the army was racially desegregated.


[q]Anyway, the big question is: Why would gay people want to join the military when clearly they're not wanted there?[/q]

well, some gay people are as intensely patriotic as some straight people and feel as if serving in the military is a great way to honor one's country, and there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of military jobs that aren't in the infantry. i keep bringing up intelligence work because that's probably more important to success in the GWOT than the infantry.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:58 AM   #142
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
You just flipped it; it isn't some women who are physically weaker than men it is most women, a point that I made in the post (I did not state that all women are weaker than men, I am talking relatively and one would think that this sexual dimorphism can get raised without being labelled small minded). Now if they can acheive the same standards and function equally well then it isn't as much as an issue, but it is downright stupid to compare the resistance to have women put in those combat roles to the opposition to gays (straight or gay a man is a man).
But if there are women capable of the front line why hold them back because you say most women are weaker.

Sorry but that's small minded.

And yes it is downright stupid to compare the 2, AEON is responsible for that.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:58 AM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrPryck2U

Anyway, the big question is: Why would gay people want to join the military when clearly they're not wanted there?
Another thing to remember is that these soldiers are all trained to be mindless killers and to only listen to their superiors. Well, their superiors are pretty much saying "stay in the closet or get the fuck out of here!". Who, in their right mind would want to be a part of this?
What the fuck?!?!?

When I wanted to enlist, it had nothing to do with wanting to be a mindless killer. I wanted to study meteorology and work for the airforce. If you work for them, you can do the SAME jobs as meteorologist working for NASA, NWS, or any local news station but they help pay for college (or all of it).

"The Military" is not synonymous with the relatively small numbers of marines stationed along front lines during war time. You can be a nurse, an engineer, a mechanic, a meteorologist, a pilot, etc, etc - all pretty normal jobs that don't have to involve combat.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 10:05 AM   #144
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But if there are women capable of the front line why hold them back because you say most women are weaker.

Sorry but that's small minded.

And yes it is downright stupid to compare the 2, AEON is responsible for that.
Quote:
By Me

The gays may be irrelevent but having women in frontline combat positions does seem more problematic. In general women are physically weaker than men and may present problems.
The gay thing is a non-issue; but having women in those front-line combat roles does actually raise some points worth consideration (hence more problematic than a non-problem) - I think that if they meet the standards then it is alright but thats not to say that there aren't legitimate arguments against putting women in those combat roles.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 10:09 AM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by redhotswami


I do know some women who are stronger and more physically able then some men I know. I say, regardless of one's sex, as long as they can meet certain standards (having a penis is not included among them) and pass the PT test, then why not?
The PT test in the Army is different for men and women. I say, give everyone the exact same PT test and set the same standard - regardless of gender or age.

In the Infantry, at times we are required to carry over 100 lbs on our back for up to 20 to 25 miles. We are asked to lift buddies up cliffs or drag a 200 lbs wounded soldier to safety. How many women do you know who could seriously do this? Seriously? Moreover, the Infantry isn't a game - if someone fails to perform physically, people die.

Honestly, only a very small percentage of men can physical handle the Infantry. That's just a mathematical fact. I imagine that somewhere out there, you can find that one isolated GI Jane story, but that is exceptionally rare. The Army is too big and fast to accommodate such isolated cases.

I went through OCS with several women. The truth is, the Army treats them differently and they were literally carried (often by me) through the more difficult parts of the course. While I don't mind the occasional "help out your buddy" - it certainly wears on you a bit when you see a woman graduate with "special honors" after you carried her crap for 10 miles (on top of your own crap) because she was literally weeping hysterically that she couldn’t continue. My action at this time kept her from being kicked out of the course. And other soldiers carried her load at other points in the course. Yet, despite all of this, she was one of two honor graduates.

Also, I wanted to acknowledge that I do understand that there already gays serving in the military. My posts are more about the issue of what the standard should be and what is optimal.

There are times "in the field" where it is so cold that you have to huddle with your battle buddy in order to stay warm. Forcing a heterosexual to huddle closely to a homosexual is a form of sexual harassment.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 10:11 AM   #146
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The gay thing is a non-issue; but having women in those front-line combat roles does actually raise some points worth consideration (hence more problematic than a non-problem) - I think that if they meet the standards then it is alright but thats not to say that there aren't legitimate arguments against putting women in those combat roles.
Well maybe you should just have stopped at saying putting weaker people in the front line is problematic.

You keep saying "having women in those front-line combat roles...", but then later on say "if they meet the standards..."

Well which one is it?

Are women the problem or just weaker individuals?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 10:17 AM   #147
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Honestly, only a very small percentage of men can physical handle the Infantry. That's just a mathematical fact. I imagine that somewhere out there, you can find that one isolated GI Jane story, but that is exceptionally rare. The Army is too big and fast to accommodate such isolated cases.
So only a small % of men can do it, and the Army is TOO BIG and fast to add another to that small %, because she may have breasts? This makes about 0 sense.


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

There are times "in the field" where it is so cold that you have to huddle with your battle buddy in order to stay warm. Forcing a heterosexual to huddle closely to a homosexual is a form of sexual harassment.
Because you may accidently touch his penis? But if you accidently touch a straight man's penis you're still straight, right?

Give me a fucking break!!!

Do you use this logic in real life or in the ministry? How do people take you seriously?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 10:20 AM   #148
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:53 PM
The question is not if women should be allowed to serve in the military, I don't think anybody is arguing against that. It is a question of what roles they should be integrated into and most militaries do not have fully integrated forces with women being allowed to serve in any position.

The positions that they aren't allowed to serve in I generalised as front-line combat roles; I personally think that equally applied standards are reasonable but that doesn't stop there being potential problems, ones that are much more important than what difference where a guy wants to stick his dick makes.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 10:25 AM   #149
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 12:53 AM
No one is arguing if women should be allowed in the military. You said something specific, I responded and asked you a question, because frankly you contradicted yourself. Now you are saying that even if there are equal standards there are still potential problems. Yet you don't state what they are, sounds like you're backtracking.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 10:25 AM   #150
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Forcing a heterosexual to huddle closely to a homosexual is a form of sexual harassment.
You've got to be kidding. If you want to know what REAL sexual harassment is in the military, ask a woman who serves in it. Do you know what real sexual harassment is?

And poor you who had to help those hysterical crying women, and I guess it's just a blow to your male ego that they still graduated with honors. You clearly are still seeming to harbor resentment about it. You know what, that's the way life goes sometimes. Women deserve the opportunity and if the military won't cooperate sometimes they have to be forced. Same thing with rights for racial minorities, or maybe we should just go back to whites only drinking fountains and all that. That's the way the world works sometimes. I bet for every "hysterical" woman you helped there was at least one other (I bet several) who refused to let anyone see she was feeling anything. That's called mental toughness, and so many women have it in spades. And so many men in your wonderful Army have had the emotions mentally beaten out of them, if not physically. Just because they're not "hysterical" doesn't mean they're not crying and dying inside.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com