Arctic55 Posted May 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 Willing to bet they won't turn away a guy with the same level of "inferior" vision Guys can't stand being equated with women, especially not the top brass"Inferior" men don't generally get to the top brass because they are turned away when they try to apply, since they can't meet the standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 "Inferior" men don't generally get to the top brass because they are turned away when they try to apply, since they can't meet the standards.That's not what I mean.Ex.Normal Guy has X visionNormal Girl has X-5 vision They'll turn down a normal girl but take in a guy with X-5 vision if that's not bias idk what is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maeriberii Haan Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 "Inferior" men don't generally get to the top brass because they are turned away when they try to apply, since they can't meet the standards. tell that to the multitudes of incompetent generals throughout history. All this talk about women being physically inferior to men in a significant enough degree for it to matter and no actual arguments about the actual differences where it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 The standard is: Got a dick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctic55 Posted May 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 No, there is a set standard for joining any part of the military. Women technically have the same rights, if they can reach the standard, your in. All I'm saying is, don't lower the standards just so more women can get in, or you end up lowering the lethal effect of the military. "Isn't the goal be to have the most lethal fighting force in the world? The military isn't -- and should never be -- the great social equalizer." -- Unknown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Crouton Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 The military should obviously start a Diva's division that can handle missions that don't require seeing 100 meters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctic55 Posted May 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 The military should obviously start a Diva's division that can handle missions that don't require seeing 100 meters.Though I agree with the Diva's division, the whole "100 meters" thing was a fictional example. Note sure why you guys keep referring back to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♪ ♪Aria ♪ ♪ Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 Women's force can make the enemy force stand on their knees, which is literally useful...., plus it allows women to have a chance to participate in military Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicmemesbro Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 I think that the main reason women are not allowed combat roles is because people believe that it may negatively affect the behavior of men in combat. I guess an example could be women participating in a men's american football team. I have noticed that when women get injured or something of that nature, some of the other men in the team act recklessly. Although I am neutral to this idea.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 It's not. The government's job is to keep the country running...purging idiots could be seen a form of betterment anywayThis is just sick and useless. Someone who you consider an "idiot" that should be purged very well could have something to contribute, even if it's just manual labor. Not to mention that if you send just anyone to the battlefield they can get others killed. Anyway. I got kinda confused. Half the arguments sounds like "If a woman can do it they should be allowed in" when the OP states."If a woman can meet the standards, they should be allowed to join. It's that simple. Men already have this rule on them, and so should women." So I'm not sure what the point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 This is just sick and useless. Someone who you consider an "idiot" that should be purged very well could have something to contribute, even if it's just manual labor. Not to mention that if you send just anyone to the battlefield they can get others killed. Anyway. I got kinda confused. Half the arguments sounds like "If a woman can do it they should be allowed in" when the OP states."If a woman can meet the standards, they should be allowed to join. It's that simple. Men already have this rule on them, and so should women." So I'm not sure what the point is.*shrugs* Stratify them then. Put those seen as liabilities together or give them non-frontline roles If people want to be emotional and go to war, then war, glory, and death they shall get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 if they meet the same standards as the males, then why not let them? so long as they meet the same standards, they deserve the same roles. nothing more, nothing less. as for lowering standards, that's not an option, it's war, you lower standards, you end up getting more people shot. i'm all for women in combat if they want to be, i'm against lowering standards for combat roles though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctic55 Posted May 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 if they meet the same standards as the males, then why not let them? so long as they meet the same standards, they deserve the same roles. nothing more, nothing less. as for lowering standards, that's not an option, it's war, you lower standards, you end up getting more people shot. i'm all for women in combat if they want to be, i'm against lowering standards for combat roles though.Thank you! Literally what I've been trying to say. *drops vla1ne's mike* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.