Gi Jane, if you please

Or should I apologize because you're so good?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wonder what purpose Birch has for this thread. ..?
Is he a military for real? If so this is even more befuddling. Is it part of a campaign to make more women enlist? To use provocation in order to target the most competetive?
Because I hardly think it's a problem with too many women in the military. Perhaps a few persons then who has aggravated Birch to such an extent that he needs to adress this anonymously in here.
You need more GI - Janes? Is that the real issue?
I'm not going to fight for your cause. I'm not going to die for it either. I have better things to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bebelina, this thread has become rather acrimonious but in fact it does seem there is an issue here. A few posts back, I posted a link to a 2014 review by the British Army of whether women should be allowed to fight in "GCC" (=Ground Close Combat) conditions: today they are not. It makes quite interesting and sober reading I think. There is no hint that the writers of the report have any prejudices: they are solely trying to consider the pros and cons rationally, not least because the army has trouble finding enough male recruits at the moment.

Birch has made some provocative statements, but I think it is more interesting to get this thread back onto the orginal subject, in as scientific a way as possible. That is why I posted the link. Nobody has commented on it, though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A number of people have presumed birch is male. Birch is female.

(Gender is not normally a factor in discussions, but it was birch who inserted her own anecdotes - as a member of the military we are discussing - into the topic.)

 

Okay, so it's an issue of self-preservation.

There is also the case of turning against your own kind when depicted as weak. She doesn't want to belong to the "weaker gender", or doesn't want competition in her own field of work. Being unique is perhaps important ( as in the only female, male or asian on a workplace) . Haha, sorry no offense against asians.

 

if thats true she is in desperate need of a therapist because she has shown some issues with women

 

Look at the "How to spot a bastard" and other threads about relationship woes that Birch made. Sure there is no proof, but Birch quite frankly stated that she is a woman. (Along some strange views on men and particularly what she calls an "Alpha")

 

so she has issues in general.

 

How about playing the ball rather than the man (or putative woman)?

 

I got to the point in this thread (and the others that it started) where I finally realized . . . who cares?

 

I did read the study you linked, though I have not commented (at all, until now) in this thread. Certainly, with the present standards and requirements (both U.S. and British), it does seem that women (by are large) would be significantly less likely to qualify--especially for GCC.

What I am most curious about, and the study does not really attempt to address this, is just how relevant certain of these qualifications are with regards to ground combat in the contemporary world. Upper body strength, lessened susceptibility to illness or injury, etc. are obviously important attributes for a potential combat, and I can also appreciate the limitations with regards to minimum allowable body weight and BMI; yet, I'd venture that a significant percentage of the persons who "won" the Vietnam War did not meet those minimum requirements of 70 kg. and 23 BMI--by a long shot. (Obviously, strategy and tactics played an enormous role, as well, but that's beside the point.) I can imagine plenty of combat and combat-related contexts for which the scrappy and scrawny (and likely faster and more flexible than their opponents) would possess a considerable advantage--I'm also speaking from my own personal experience here.

While not quite in accordance with Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns, weaponry has undoubtedly gotten considerably lighter--along with whatever other materials a combatant is likely to have to schlep about. Physical flexibility is an area in which women (largely) far surpass men, yet this attribute seems largely ignored in assessing, and training, potential combatants. I haven't parsed every possible scenario which a combatant is likely to encounter, but I would think flexibility would be of some considerable import. Etc.

The U.S. and British requirement have been revised over the course of decades, yet they still seem a product of--and methinks this indisputable--a phallocentric and misogynistic culture--seriously, the Mother Jones link which birch provided a few pages back, cites menstruation and excessive emotionality as genuine concerns--of the military, not the writers for Mother Jones-- regarding the inclusion of women in combat roles! That aside, the requirements don't reflect the massive changing nature of ground combat in today's world.

 

Well I too found it interesting and a bit surprising that brute strength was still so important in modern fighting. But I would not think it makes a lot of sense to criticise the British Army for "phallocentricity" and other silly derogatory terms. The report makes it fairly clear they are looking at whether they can relax the criteria, as they would like to get more women in, for a number of reasons, not least shortage of male recruits.

 

Yes. ad hominems are the one fallacy I strongly object to in debates.

But in this case the ball has spoken of its own experiences in the military, and since the thread is about gender and personal experiences, it has opened the door to birch's personal circumstances in the debate.

OTOH, if birch were to stick to objective facts, it wouldn't matter about her gender.

Same thing goes for politics. birch has stated that left/right politics are also relevant to her case (see post 215 for clarification). It normally wouldn't come into play.

 

I should have directed that remark specifically towards the U.S. armed forces--did you happen to look through the MotherJones article linked several pages back?
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/female-officers-break-down-myths-about-women-at-war

Within it are references to this-- http://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ons-for-Integrating-Women-Into.html#document/

That document is about 300 pages, but there are a number of extracted quotes in the MJ article which should give you an idea of some of the attitudes prevalent within the U.S. services. Damn. I was going to try to post a few examples, but copying-and-pasting those extracts is kind of a pain in the ass: I can't highlight the text, and I can't copy them as images. Here's one though:

It gets much worse than that--just take a look through the article, while keeping in mind that a significant portion of Americans do not believe that the "right to life" necessarily implies the right to adequate health care.

 

Is that supposed to be a disparagement? A 12 year old is at the peak of their learning. Sharp as a tack. You only go downhill from there.

Ask any teacher. That is by far the best age to teach to. They're like sponges.

I'd give my left cahone to have the mental dexterity and trainability of a 12-year old!

 

I think birch gave both of his (or is it "her" now?) cahones.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm still trying to understand the point of your participation in this thread. You seem more occupied with picking a verbal brawl than actually adding anything to the conversation. Tell me, have you ever served in the military?

 

No, I have never served in a military, and I never wish to.

If you want to cut me out, go for it.

 

Just trying to get a thoughtful reply.