• Santorum Says, "If Women Are In Combat, Men May Try To Protect Them"
    230 replies, posted
[QUOTE=catbarf;34686393]Studies show that men respond very differently to women when in combat. A woman being killed has more of an impact on morale, and men are more likely to go out of their way to protect women. No, not every person reacts the same way, but it's pretty much hardwired into our brains and it's not something that can be simply ignored, or superseded via training. It's not a valid reason to outright bar women from service, but it isn't something to be simply ignored and for god's sake it's not sexism. Nothing Newbs said is factually incorrect and a lot of people are leaping to conclusions.[/QUOTE] Thanks a lot. :) I felt like I was the only person outside of Plato's Cave for awhile there.
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34686406]I'm a U.S. Army infantryman. The females I see in my battalion fall apart in the field all the time over the stupidest shit...so yes..id say I've met a woman or two in the military.[/QUOTE] My ass you're in the military.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34686842]My ass you're in the military.[/QUOTE] That, or he's why my "properly trained" argument falls on it's face.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34686842]My ass you're in the military.[/QUOTE] Add me on Facebook?
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34687010]Add me on Facebook?[/QUOTE] Okay maybe you are but why should people be kept out of the military because they might be bullied? Surely anyone who bullies peers should be kicked out since they're clearly not mentally fit for service.
Physically, most women are weaker than men, but some women are far tougher and stronger than anyone i know. It's fucked up that people think they shouldn't be in combat because some people's life wish is to go into combat for honor.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34687110]Okay maybe you are but why should people be kept out of the military because they might be bullied? Surely anyone who bullies peers should be kicked out since they're clearly not mentally fit for service.[/QUOTE] They're already in the military..I'm talking about the infantry...and trust me.. School bullies come nowhere close to an infantry nco..in my company the theory is if you haze more you'll toughen up the new guys.
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34687258]They're already in the military..I'm talking about the infantry...and trust me.. School bullies come nowhere close to an infantry nco..in my company the theory is if you haze more you'll toughen up the new guys.[/QUOTE] And that's a pretty asinine policy. At no point should idiots that may very be exclusive to your battalion force women to stay out of combat positions they wish to be in,
To be fair men WOULD be overprotective of women, not in everyone's case but more so than men protecting men
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34687382]And that's a pretty asinine policy. At no point should idiots that may very be exclusive to your battalion force women to stay out of combat positions they wish to be in,[/QUOTE] I'm not agreeing with it.
This doesn't make any sense, people who join the army have to be physically fit and willing individuals. Women in the army aren't gonna be fucking fixing their make up they're going to be doing exactly the same things as any one else would do.
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34637617] Women CANNOT currently serve in open combat (In the United States anyway), and a lot of us want to change that.[/QUOTE] Haha, wow, I thought this shit was sorted out a while ago. How is this even [i]allowed[/i]?
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;34688148]Haha, wow, I thought this shit was sorted out a while ago. How is this even [i]allowed[/i]?[/QUOTE] In pretty much every first world country, it's not, but the USA is a bit slower to adopt progressive policies so we get this bull going on. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;34687382]And that's a pretty asinine policy. At no point should idiots that may very be exclusive to your battalion force women to stay out of combat positions they wish to be in,[/QUOTE] Agreed, why the hell should they be forced out just because some NCO thinks what he's doing is a good idea.
[QUOTE=newbs;34637429]I fucking hate how all political correctness looks past the obvious implications of evolutionary psychology. I'm in no way a sexist, but I can see why woman would have priority in a life/death situation as they are a key resource for reproduction in our species. When we are put in a life/death situation we are going to prioritize the woman, because a single man can impregnate multiple woman, thus securing the continuation of our species. It's just how are fucking minds work when we're in survival mode because we're fucking animals. Fucking lean to deal with it.[/QUOTE] I'm gonna have to agree with this. I've heard a few stories (first and second hand sources) whereby people who have been on the front lines have said that they instinctively feel more compelled to aid a female combatant in need than a male, and have even in some cases been torn between the objective at hand and giving said aid. I'm not saying we SHOULD keep females out of the armed forces, but what I'm saying is that you DO have to take into consideration the way the human mind works in a high pressure situation when it comes to the sex of an individual and try to work around any problems it may present.
[QUOTE=Mamok Zalku;34688067]This doesn't make any sense, people who join the army have to be physically fit and willing individuals. Women in the army aren't gonna be fucking fixing their make up they're going to be doing exactly the same things as any one else would do.[/QUOTE] *sigh* obviously you've never served with women in the military.
[QUOTE=catbarf;34686393]Studies show that men respond very differently to women when in combat. A woman being killed has more of an impact on morale, and men are more likely to go out of their way to protect women. No, not every person reacts the same way, but it's pretty much hardwired into our brains and it's not something that can be simply ignored, or superseded via training. It's not a valid reason to outright bar women from service, but it isn't something to be simply ignored and for god's sake it's not sexism. Nothing Newbs said is factually incorrect and a lot of people are leaping to conclusions.[/QUOTE] Nothing you just said is factually correct, and I'm almost embarrassed I have to reply to this. You can start getting up to speed by reading [URL="http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB7515/index1.html"]one of the reports commissioned by RAND on noncombat affairs[/URL] and [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/women-military-commission-combat_n_809241.html"]this little news article[/URL] as a reminder that the morale argument has never actually been proven, and, since you'll note that article was written before the report in question was completed, you might take note of the [URL="http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Final%20Report/MLDC_Executive_Summary.pdf"]executive summary[/URL] of it, specifically recommendation 9, or that portion of the [URL="http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/final-report"]full report.[/URL] Of course, if you were making a serious argument, you'd have cited [URL="http://dacowits.defense.gov/Reports/2010/Annual%20Report/dacowits2010report.pdf"]DACOWITS[/URL], but you can't, considering they clearly state "Most service members in DACOWITS focus groups reported that women serving in combat have a positive impact on both mission accomplishment and unit morale." Hard to argue against that one unless you're suggesting the military at present doesn't suffer enough casualties. Now, if you've got research that wasn't performed by a politically oriented think-tank or sample of a non-European integrated unit (reason for the exception is without it you'd cite Israel in the 50s which is bullshit for obvious reasons) I'd be glad to hear it, otherwise, I think you can stop talking. [QUOTE=sltungle;34688962]I'm gonna have to agree with this. I've heard a few stories (first and second hand sources) whereby people who have been on the front lines have said that they instinctively feel more compelled to aid a female combatant in need than a male, and have even in some cases been torn between the objective at hand and giving said aid.[/QUOTE] I've heard a few stories about the [URL="http://skippyslist.com/list/"]Anti-Mime campaign in Bosnia[/URL]. That does not make it a real conflict. [QUOTE=sltungle;34688962]I'm not saying we SHOULD keep females out of the armed forces, but what I'm saying is that you DO have to take into consideration the way the human mind works in a high pressure situation when it comes to the sex of an individual and try to work around any problems it may present.[/QUOTE] Okay. And we have, which is why we listen to the DOD and empirical evidence, not any retard with a half-baked pseudobiological argument about male urges. [QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34689782]*sigh* obviously you've never served with women in the military.[/QUOTE] I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't either, scooter. [QUOTE=newbz;34685878]I read your sources and I only credit articles posted on .org (sometimes) or .gov.[/QUOTE] That's okay, I've been aware since the beginning you don't know if you're on foot or horseback, let alone have a clue as to the current state of academics on the internet. [QUOTE=newbz;34685878]Your last source (.org) implies that my claim has credit.[/QUOTE] I am not actually sure how you determine this while admitting you are incapable of reading academic articles to begin with. Actually, I'm not sure how you even say you care about them and then admit you have an issue with their verbosity in good faith. [QUOTE=newbz;34685878]Anyways, I do not have a lot of time to go into citing long and often verbose academic articles. I believe I can make my claim on triggering latent subconscious reactions to my statements and following a strict chain of logic.[/QUOTE] You can make the claim, certainly, but dismissing it is a rather simplistic affair.
@Xenocidebot The cliche [I]"on foot or horseback"[/I] has been outdated since [U]1927[/U] ([I]Ford Model T.[/I]) Are you like, a time traveler maaaaaan? xD I am not incapable of reading them, I honestly don't have the time to do so, therefore I am dismissing the separate conversation you are instigating about the topic of Evolutionary Psychology, in a manor that won't invoke the "normal people". ;) My affair was "simplistic" to begin with. I believe I may quote Numidium who responded to QueenSasha24's post: [QUOTE=Numidium;34637733] [QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34637617]I wasn't aware we were all enslaved to evolutionary priorities. [/QUOTE] I don't even know how to respond to that. Did you meet humans yet?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=newbz;34692265]@Xenocidebot The cliche [I]"on foot or horseback"[/I] has been outdated since [U]1927[/U] ([I]Ford Model T.[/I]) Are you like, a time traveler maaaaaan? xD I am not incapable of reading them, I honestly don't have the time to do so, therefore I am dismissing the separate conversation you are instigating about the topic of Evolutionary Psychology, in a manor that won't invoke the "normal people". ;) My affair was "simplistic" to begin with. I believe I may quote Numidium who responded to QueenSasha24's post:[/QUOTE] People are not enslaved to evolutionary responses.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Jhyo2.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ZvtKc.png[/IMG] What kind of protection did he have in mind? Edit: [QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34688907]Agreed, why the hell should they be forced out just because some NCO thinks what he's doing is a good idea.[/QUOTE] He's hoping his "sensitivity to their nature" gets him laid.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34692734]People are not enslaved to evolutionary responses.[/QUOTE] Can we overpower them? Sure, if we are in a rational state. My argument however, is that beings are rarely in a rational state (especially when in survival mode). Are there latent evolutionary subroutines in every beings subconscious? If you can't answer the question above, I advise you to invest the time to meet some humans as Numidium would put it, or at least introspect your own subconscious in your daily routine. :/ The answer to this question is obviously a huge attack on the "I", therefore, it comes to no supprise why so many people are attacking it so rashly.
[QUOTE=newbz;34713678]Can we overpower them? Sure, if we are in a rational state. My argument however, is that beings are rarely in a rational state (especially when in survival mode). Are there latent evolutionary subroutines in every beings subconscious? If you can't answer the question above, I advise you to invest the time to meet some humans as Numidium would put it, or at least introspect your own subconscious in your daily routine. :/ The answer to this question is obviously a huge attack on the "I", therefore, it comes to no supprise why so many people are attacking it so rashly.[/QUOTE] No, you're being dismissed for speaking on a subject you have made it clear you do not understand and are unwilling to learn more about. To start with, "latent evolutionary subroutine" is gibberish, and the point you're trying to make an impossibility. [QUOTE=http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html]It is estimated that just the human neocortex alone has about 1015 (one followed by 15 zeros, or one thousand million million) synapses. Since the human genome has only about 3.5 billion (3.5 x 109) bits of information (nucleotide base pairs), with 30% to 70% of these appearing silent, some neural and molecular scientists have concluded that our genes simply do not have enough storage capacity to specify all of these connections, in addition to including information on the location and type of each neuron plus similar information for the rest of the body. The problem is not unlike trying to save a document made up of 100 million characters on a computer disk that can hold only 1.4 million characters. As Changeux noted: Once a nerve cell has become differentiated it does not divide anymore. A single nucleus, with the same DNA, must serve an entire lifetime for the formation and maintenance of tens of thousands of synapses. It seems difficult to imagine a differential distribution of genetic material from a single nucleus to each of these tens of thousands of synapses unless we conjure up a mysterious "demon" who selectively channels this material to each synapse according to a preestablished code! The differential expression of genes cannot alone explain the extreme diversity and specificity of connections between neurons. Additional understanding of the relation between the genome and the nervous system can be gained by considering Daphnia magna. ... If its genome completely controlled the development of its nervous system, it should be the case that genetically identical daphnids should have structurally identical nervous systems. However, examination of daphnid eyes using the electron microscope reveals that although genetically identical clones all have the same number of neurons, considerable variation exists in the exact number of synapses and in the configurations of connections leading to and away from the cell body of each neuron, that is, the dendritic and axonal branches. As we move to more complex organisms, the variability of their nervous systems increases. This provides clear evidence that the structure and wiring of the nervous system are not the result of following a detailed construction program provided by the genes. ... We thus see that the normal development of the brain depends on a critical interaction between genetic inheritance and environmental experience. The genome provides the general structure of the central nervous system, and nervous system activity and sensory stimulation provide the means by which the system is fine-tuned and made operational. But this fine-tuning does not depend on adding new components and connections in the way that a radio is assembled in a factory, but rather it is achieved by eliminating much of what was originally present. It is as if the radio arrived on the assembly line with twice as many electrical components and connections as necessary to work. If such an overconnected radio were plugged in and turned on, nothing but silence, static, or a hum would be heard from its speaker. However, careful removal of unnecessary components and judicious snipping of redundant wires would leave just those components and connections that result in a functioning radio. This snipping is analogous to the elimination of synapses in the human brain as part of its normal development.[/QUOTE] I'm going to give you a modicum of credit and suggest whatever you're trying to say is something that stems from the Triune brain model, which has since become outdated and was not updated, making it theoretically invalid. You really oughta stop talking and just read for a bit.
He does have a point, there may be a large amount of special treatment in the ranks. he's still fucking dumb
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34714655]No, you're being dismissed for speaking on a subject you have made it clear you do not understand and are unwilling to learn more about. To start with, "latent evolutionary subroutine" is gibberish, and the point you're trying to make an impossibility. I'm going to give you a modicum of credit and suggest whatever you're trying to say is something that stems from the Triune brain model, which has since become outdated and was not updated, making it theoretically invalid. You really oughta stop talking and just read for a bit.[/QUOTE] Here's what I got out off it. The human genome does not have enough nucleotide base pairs (bits) to specify bijectional addresses to the synapses in the human neocortex. A single nucleus maintains tens of thousands of synapses => the differential expression of genes is not the only reason to explain diversity of connections between neurons. There is great verity in the development of the nervous system which shows that the development is not strictly controlled by genes. Lastly, he/she concludes that development on the brain is influenced by genetic inheritance and environmental experience and that "fine-tuning" relies on taking components out rather than adding new ones. Based on average genetic inheritance and environmental experience (we all have felt pain, we have all felt the need to reproduce etc.) I believe my original proposition still holds true. Taking into account the conclusion of your article, we may add a predicate related to environmental experience and training. [editline]15th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=No Party Hats;34714997]He does have a point, there may be a large amount of special treatment in the ranks. he's still fucking dumb[/QUOTE] You are inferring your own insult on yourself.
[QUOTE=newbz;34713678]Can we overpower them? Sure, if we are in a rational state. My argument however, is that beings are rarely in a rational state (especially when in survival mode). Are there latent evolutionary subroutines in every beings subconscious? If you can't answer the question above, I advise you to invest the time to meet some humans as Numidium would put it, or at least introspect your own subconscious in your daily routine. :/ The answer to this question is obviously a huge attack on the "I", therefore, it comes to no supprise why so many people are attacking it so rashly.[/QUOTE] That's kind of the point of the training people go through in the military, to train instinctive responses into people. All this 'save the weak women' bullshit is brought in by society, it has little to nothing to do with genetics.
[QUOTE=Nikota;34637317]Man. That's as ridiculous as them saying that if gays can serve openly, they would be fucking any time there would be combat.[/QUOTE] I thought the argument was that the hostility between straight and gay soldiers would cause them to let them die in a combat situation, or am I wrong?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34717005]All this 'save the weak women' bullshit is brought in by society, it has little to nothing to do with genetics.[/QUOTE]I hate to disagree with you because I think women should be held up to the same standards as men and allowed everything, but human history says differently. Entire conflicts have been fought over women, child-bearing women have often been put onto a special pedestal by many, many societies and that all happened before the industrial revolution. I mean, come on, it makes perfect sense if you remove all emotion and ethics out of the equation. A fertile female is a very important resource to a society, you could have a few hundred and say, maybe 15 fertile males and potentially rebuild an entire civilization in twenty years. I'm not even going to pretend to understand the science behind instinct, nature vs nurture or any of that, but it's a simple concept that I'm sure is in our brains somewhere. While this doesn't excuse a policy of barring women from the frontlines, it may explain why men seem to want to protect women more than other men. I read somewhere that IDF mixed-gender units in combat had a special impact on the male soldiers, they got ripshit pissed when one of their own women were injured/killed/whatev. I can't find the source, so take that with a grain of salt. I, personally, think that the physical standards should be uniform across the board and all roles opened up to anyone actually capable of doing the job. No standard for men, women, old people or officers, just one for everyone. If you can't hack it, get the fuck out.
[QUOTE=newbz;34715983]Based on average genetic inheritance and environmental experience (we all have felt pain, we have all felt the need to reproduce etc.) I believe my original proposition still holds true. Taking into account the conclusion of your article, we may add a predicate related to environmental experience and training.[/QUOTE] This is gibberish. It's like talking to a child. An adult says the car has a misfiring cylinder and you reply that the [I]real[/I] problem with your engine is the hydroculor flange has grommited fifteen degrees to the left. You're not even wrong, just sorta typing words that seem like they make sense. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;34720270]I'm not even going to pretend to understand the science behind instinct, nature vs nurture or any of that, but it's a simple concept that I'm sure is in our brains somewhere. [/QUOTE] "I don't actually understand this subject in the least but I'm sure I'm right." Any time you preface an opinion with "I'm not even going to pretend to understand the science" you can be pretty damn assured your opinion isn't worth sharing.
So wait, conservatives are angry because soldiers can save eachother? That makes sense because they want to breed live babies to be raised as dead soldiers [/george carlin]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;34720270]you could have a few hundred and say, maybe 15 fertile males and potentially rebuild an entire civilization in twenty years.[/QUOTE] no because you'll have a very non-diverse population which will probably be killed by disease or something genetic. there's a reason why humans are 50-50 when it comes to sexual organs. not all creatures on the planet share that.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34721854]no because you'll have a very non-diverse population which will probably be killed by disease or something genetic. there's a reason why humans are 50-50 when it comes to sexual organs. not all creatures on the planet share that.[/QUOTE] Aye, there is a term in biology called minimum viable population, which is used to refer to the fewest number of organisms necessary to achieve sufficient biodiversity in the future in order to survive. Note that humans are somewhat unique in that we can artificially alter that number (to be smaller) through selective breeding (usually of animals on verge of extinction, but if we were on the verge, we could theoretically do the same thing). There is, of course, still a lower limit. I believe that one male and even a hundred women might be insufficient. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.