GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Demortis]and this is suppose to help how? this is just a link to the main site[/QUOTE]

i was making a snide subversive snipe about something by giving that link...sort of an understated version of kant's familiar tribute to shakespeare in a way.

[QUOTE=Witch King]i was making a snide subversive snipe about something by giving that link...sort of an understated version of kant's familiar tribute to shakespeare in a way.[/QUOTE]

To translate: He was taking the piss.

Personally I've found women can be quite capable of violence, it's just usually their motivation and triggers for such acts are different than most guys. The only reasons I can think of for women to have a liability in a military setting is their little monthly problems. Two of my ex's are pretty much miserable and unable to get out of bed at that point each month, and if they were caught in a battle situation like that, they'd die.

Other than that, I see absolutely no reason they should be kept out. I've got a nasty temper, and I do my best to avoid violence but there are occasions I have been pushed to being violent before unfortunately. Guys run, girls aren't afraid. That, in and of itself is one thing. Not only that, I've seen girls put a serious hurting on guys twice their size before. My ex who I have about 6' in height and 100 lbs in weight on her put me up against a wall to kiss me before she left. She wasn't pissed and wanting to hurt me, just felt like it. They aren't weaker in any way, just generally don't bother to do the same things as guys and therefore develop different things.

A girl wanting to join the army or whatever, I say let her. Chances are standing in the way will end up having her prove you wrong and landing you on the seat of your pants wondering what hit you from my experiences with determined females. I've more respect for what women can do than men to be honest. They generally work harder, more efficiently and smarter than men from what I've seen.

Well more women than men are able to multitask so it would make them ideally suited for a command position where they need to direct multiple forces in differing situations. And women just like men fight hard for a cause they beleive in so really there is no difference. The only problem could be some of the stupid men or women forming unsuitable emotional attachements which could pose a threat in battle.

Of course women in warfare is a good idea!

[QUOTE=Macleod1701]Well more women than men are able to multitask so it would make them ideally suited for a command position where they need to direct multiple forces in differing situations. [/QUOTE]

Actually, this is not correct according to the many scientific studies that has investigated gender differences (or rather, gender likeness) in cognitive functions. Performance in "multitasking", or working memory as it is called in cognitive science, shows no gender difference.

At group level, women have faster visual perception and faster motoric response to visual perceptions, so based on gender differences, more women than men would be suitable as fighting pilots.

Woman=Human
Man=Human
Human=All humans are different no matter what sex they are!

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Actually, this is not correct according to the many scientific studies that has investigated gender differences (or rather, gender likeness) in cognitive functions. Performance in "multitasking", or working memory as it is called in cognitive science, shows no gender difference.

At group level, women have faster visual perception and faster motoric response to visual perceptions, so based on gender differences, more women than men would be suitable as fighting pilots.[/QUOTE]

Ah my mistake, I did know about the pilot thing. I've never flown with a woman as yet though and it wouldn't be as a fighter pilot (bloody bad eyesight). There are more and more female pilots going into the military but like most things nowadays human ability only goes so far before technology surpasses it.

I see no problem neither from a psycological or physiological (spellings?) view point as to why women shouldn't be allowed in combat if they so choose.

The only problem I can see is with the perception society has about women being weaker, and that it is demoralizing to men soliders and the generel population to see women injured or killed in combat. But that is a problem of society as a whole and its perception; and has nothing really to do with women.
Let them fight if they so chooses, they are as capable as men in my view.

[QUOTE=Xandax]
The only problem I can see is with the perception society has about women being weaker, and that it is demoralizing to see women injured or killed. But that is a problem of society as a whole and not with women.
[/QUOTE]

But is not also demoralising to see men injured and killed? Agree with what you mean though.

I think Demortis said that women haven't been fighting in wars or joining the army except recently. I believe the reason for that is that women were generaly accepted to be weaker and didn't really have any rights in olden days. Wives were often no more than slaves "Firstly women are property of their fathers and then to their husbands" that would be either the Romans or Greeks, my memory has always been a bit muddled.

[QUOTE=Macleod1701]But is not also demoralising to see men injured and killed? Agree with what you mean though.[/QUOTE]

Well - one thing I've picked up over the years, is that more people belive it is more demoralizing to see women then men getting injured and killed in combat.
My bet is that perception springs form the "weaker gender".
Now - personally - I do not agree with it, but it is one of the reasons I've seen mentioned, both when I was serving my conscription and outside in "society".

Fair dos there matey! The only weakness is in the minds of those who beleive themselves superior to other sexes/races, etc.
Chavers don't count cause they really are inferior!

My future lord what are Chavers?

[QUOTE=Macleod1701]Ah my mistake, I did know about the pilot thing. I've never flown with a woman as yet though and it wouldn't be as a fighter pilot (bloody bad eyesight). There are more and more female pilots going into the military but like most things nowadays human ability only goes so far before technology surpasses it.[/QUOTE]

The differences are minor, but if you take 1000 women and 1000 men and compare the group average, women has slightly faster visual perception and men has solve mental rotation tasks slightly faster.

[quote="Xan]
Well - one thing I've picked up over the years"]

I am sure that's the way a majority of people see it now, but you can never change prejudice unless you start opposing it. As soon as women start to participate in military activities, people will adapt to it.

During the 19th and 20th century, there has been doubts surrounding almost any professional area and women. Are women strong enough to become doctors? To see blood? To have responsibility over life and death? Are women strong enough to be judges? CEO:s? Politicians? Should women be allowed to inherit property and money? Should women be allowed to vote? You name it - it all stems from the traditional western christian gender role that women and men are different in nature, and that women are weaker. But society changes, and the perception change.

[QUOTE=oozae]My future lord what are Chavers?[/QUOTE]

Ah young oozae I have much indeed to teach you! You may not have them in the land down under but in the hellish cess pit that is the UK, Charvers are those ignorant troglodites who insist or wearing large plastic/gold jewelery and tracksuits and claiming beneifts instead of working. They are very common and beneath our majestic thoughts.

In Australia, women are admitted to all branches of the military, but are not assigned to active combat areas. I cannot see any particular reason why they should not be able to participate equally in all activities.
There are many examples of women fighting alongside men in recent conflicts - women were in front line Red Army units in WW2, many young women fought for the Viet Cong etc etc.

Who decides if they should be "allowed"? Men? HAHA! Come on, this is not he Middle Ages!

If someone wants to fight, it doesn't matter if it's a woman or a man, imho. I'd rather ask: why are men forced to fight? Who has the right to order someone else to go here and there and kill and have himself killed?

Here here Brynn! If someone gave me a gun and ordered me to fight if i didn't want to I'd more than likely shoot them! But then again I'd shoot most people! Treat everyone the same, apart from charvers!

you apparently haven't read the latest clinical studies results out of Berne labs. it has been scientifically proven that, though sometimes beautiful, women just don't have have what it takes for a vast plethora of vocations, particularly those involving science, math, art or any of the areas requiring higher brain functions.

Gimme the link to the published article/s and I'll demonstrate that you have most likely drawn premature conclusion based on subjective wishes for endless rows of women helplessly dropping their clothes before you.

it's only been a few weeks since i've seen a row of women dropping their clothes in front of me, but that is not going to stop me from wishing for it again...and stop trying to ruin my baiting....

Okay, this officially made my morning.

Back to what passes for reality. Demortis, any society which refuses to allow women to serve in combat is simply halving their military's potential effectiveness, in my opinion. Granted, cultural values may work strongly against this, but a reasonably shrewd government should be able to nudge a reexamination of this issue into active debate, and at least cause some longrange social rethinking. Few leaders are willing to surmount their own prejudices and see the logic of this, however.

Fable I think you officially lost the plot for the first part of that, have you been at grannies special brownies again?