women in special operations?
only a creep who will rightfully stay single, lonely and angry for the rest of his life calls women feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemales.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait, is "female" an unacceptable word now or did I miss the sarcasm there?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's quite dehumanizing to use such a clinical term instead of "women".
A lot of bitter "neckbeards" and PuAs also use the term exclusively so it can be insulting.
Also
Comment has been collapsed.
You're serious? The term "female" is dehumanizing? How does that make any sense?
"A lot of bitter "neckbeards" and PuAs also use the term exclusively so it can be insulting."
Ok so douchebags being douchebags doesn't mean that "female" is an insulting word now when other people use it. You'd have to infer somehow that everyone using that word is applying the same non-verbal connotation to their dialogue that some dbags are. That makes no sense. What about all the other words other dbags use? Those don't suddenly become universally insulting, do they?
Comment has been collapsed.
Women & men = human term.
Female & male = scientific, used for all animals. Which is why its dehumanizing.
When you refer to someone at their most basic then yes it devolves them of everything else that makes them human.
Female is the most basic term for a creature with vagina instead of a penis.
When someone says "female" referring to women and then uses "men" and not "male" when referring to men that's when it can become insulting, objectifying and dehumanizing.
And I said it CAN be insulting, not always or "universally".
You don't have to believe me.
Comment has been collapsed.
"...it CAN be insulting, not always or "universally"."
That's the key. However you said that the term "female" is dehumanizing. It can be dehumanizing in the same way that it can be insulting, but similarly is not universally so.
Someone could very well use the terms male and female instead of man and woman to refer to either sex without the generally accepted connotative meanings within the terms man and woman. Generally "man" and "woman" implies some degree of age or adulthood, so it doesn't convey one's meaning as clearly if they wish to refer to everyone that is biologically male or female within the age range of 0+. There are other ways in which the terms male and female are simply more clear descriptors of what someone is trying to say than the terms man and woman so to assert that they are universally dehumanizing is not really accurate. They can be if deliberately used so, but always assuming they're being used in that manner will only make conversations you have with people needlessly and unfairly difficult for you and those around you. There's just no good point in always assuming the worst when it's not always going to be the case.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's because female (and male) is dehumanizing and is purposely used a such. In a scientific and medical environments its much easier to work with something you are not attached to and that is where the terms are best used.In scientific and medically environments it is never insulting because you're working with facts. Getting to know a person beyond those facts can kill a career as a doctor.
Only when you take it out of the biology lecture, the surgery, the nature documentary, etc does it start to be insulting and again it isn't always the case. Would you seriously say "those females over there" or "those males sitting down"? Its unnatural in an everyday context.
And as for age groups; when talking about groups below adulthood we say "boys", "girls", children". Sometimes with teens we say "young men" & "young women".
When talking about mixed groups people usually say "everybody" or some combination or those we want to get the attention of.
I truly don't believe you find that hard. Most people learn to address people as "men and women" before they learn about "female and male".
When did I start assuming the worst? Because I was poking fun at him by implying he is ferengi?
As I said before you don't have to believe me.
Why don't you tell me why it isn't dehumanizing instead?
Comment has been collapsed.
Warning: long post is long
"...and again it isn't always the case"
Exactly what I was saying. It can be insulting, but is not always so (even outside of the context of science/medicine). However you keeps saying that it is (which means universally) dehumanizing. It's one or the other (is or can be) and I've already noted at a case in which it is not, it cannot be accurately be asserted that it is universally so. The case I noted was even outside the context of science/medicine, so even outside of those contexts the word is not always dehumanizing.
"And as for age groups..."
It seems you missed that point. I mentioned using it to refer to biologically male (or female) people of age 0+. You gave a few other words that do not fit that group. "Boys", "children", "young men", "everybody", and "men and women" never mean biologically male people of age 0+, but only describe a subset thereof. It remains a fair and non-dehumanizing descriptor of the group whole group. It's just less cumbersome than saying "biologically male humans of age 0+" and does not by necessity (as you're asserting) have anything to do with disassociating that group's humanity from them in your dialogue.
"When did I start assuming the worst?"
Well you did clearly assert that the word "is" dehumanizing. That was when. That would mean that anyone that says "male" or "female" instead of man or woman is dehumanizing them. So you're excluding any other possible meaning or intent without knowing why they used that word. That is assumption of the worst of the possible uses of the word. I have every expectation you can see that.
"Why don't you tell me why it isn't dehumanizing instead?"
I did in my previous comment. I clearly noted a situation in which it is not. There are others. So to state that the word is only one of it's possible connotative meanings is very clearly inaccurate. It can be dehumanizing, but whether or not it is such depends heavily upon the context, speaker, and a number of other related factors. Given OP's apparent opinions on the question he posed, it might be fair to assume he would use the word that way, but that's specific to just this context and not the word itself.
"As I said before you don't have to believe me."
Belief isn't really involved here. A single case in which X != Y is sufficient to prove the statement X = Y invalid.
As a side note, just to be clear, please don't think I'm upset with you about any of this. You can think whatever you please, but I'd rather other people didn't take this sort of thing as direly as it seems to be trendy lately to do. Generally speaking communicating works best when those involved let people prove their ill intent instead of assuming it based on personal experience outside the context of the conversation at hand. If someone like OP wants to be...this way...about things then all it takes is some pretty straightforward logic to refute his/her idiocy without even bothering with the possible connotations of the language selected.
Comment has been collapsed.
Every single time I said it can be insulting. You're the one that implied I said it's always insulting in you're first reply.
You go into a room and say "all males aged x+"? I can't even think of a situation outside a medical study where people would use language like that.
You described how you would use them? To separate people? I don't see how using words like "men&boys" is difficult but I'm gonna roll with it for just a moment and I would like some examples of sentences that you would actually use in real life situations because I'm trying my best here and it either sounds like something only a doctor would say or just plain grammatically weird.
Just because something is dehumanized doesn't mean it's the worst. Heck, there are plenty of things that aren't human that arguably better than humans can ever be. "Female" and "male" are not human terms as they are used for all animals in the world to determine sex. That is why they're dehumanizing just by its definition because it doesn't refer specifically to humans and on their own the words are neutral, not negative and definitely not "the worst". Maybe you're the one who thinks being dehumanized is the worst?
Most animals have words that are specific for their female, male and young counterparts. Bull, Cow, Calf. Tomcat, Queen, Kitten. Stag, Does, Fawn. Ours are "Man, Woman, Chlld," you would never use these terms on animals other than ourselves, which, unless you're secretly a dog on the internet, is why you use those instead of "female" and "male". That could be referring to a duck for all we care.
Using the terms "male and "female" on someone out of context and their humanity is being taken away, often for the sake of antagonizing them. There are some people would love to take away a persons humanity thinking they're greater than that person, thinking of others as rats or pigs or dogs, sometimes even lesser than those animals. Plenty of examples in history. The quarrel lies in people, often "neckbeards", "radfems", "puas" and "terpers" who will refer to another human as their basics (male/female) to make them appear lesser than their holier-than-thou selves. I think terpers actually flat out call women hamsters.
I would imagine the guy that posted this thread hates women, in particular feminists, maybe he even thinks he's part of those groups mentioned. He's probably nothing more than a teen full of angst but his use of the word female does fall in line with degrading people the way I've seen post from mentioned groups on other websites. He obviously tried to hide it at the beginning before his replies to people telling them they're wrong after they say "if they passed, why not".
Comment has been collapsed.
"Every single time I said it can be insulting. You're the one that implied I said it's always insulting in you're first reply."
Unfortunately shifting the goalposts only works if you're subtle about it. You very specifically said it is dehumanizing and that is what I questioned (here's a screenshot of your very first post in case you don't believe me).
"I can't even think of a situation outside a medical study where people would use language like that."
So if you aren't aware of something then it does not exist and we should police our language accordingly? That makes no sense so your ability or lack thereof to imagine a time you'd refer to an entire sex in a discussion is completely immaterial to whether or not the word male and female are problematic.
"'Female' and 'male' are not human terms..."
You're doing it again. Just because they are not exclusively human terms does not preclude the ability for them to reference humans. This is plainly absurd.
"There are some people would love to take away a persons humanity..."
Yes, which does not mean that all people would which is part of why the word is not necessarily dehumanizing but only can be. Some people wanting to use a baseball bat to hurt someone else doesn't mean that's what it's purpose is. See the logical problem then with your generalization that the terms are exclusively bound to one connotation (ie - saying that they strictly are dehumanizing).
"I would imagine the guy that posted this thread hates women..."
That's certainly possible, but again only proves that the words can be used in an attempt to dehumanize a group of people but is not sufficient so to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
... you're still at this?
I don't really understand why you choose that quote when it doesn't say dehumanizing only "can be insulting". I never changed my tune about the word "female" and "male" lacking human connotations and I've already said that just because it isn't human doesn't always mean its bad.
'It's quite dehumanizing to use such a clinical term instead of "women".' - In reference to OPs usage.
'A lot of bitter "neckbeards" and PuAs also use the term exclusively so it can be insulting.' - People who use the term in a way to separate and alienate women from themselves.
'Also <picture>' - A joke that's been passed around a few years about people who use "female" in such a way, often by mentioned groups.
I know it's not always insulting. It is however used to remove all identity and I sure as hell don't mind being mostly anonymous for certain things. Without an identity, a mind, a personality there isn't much left. You have taken away their humanity.
Whether or not being dehumanized is a bad thing is determined by context. Someone referring to someone as male/female like they're an object or even another species entirely, pretty damn insulting. Doctor studying a patient "male aged 19" to help cure them, not in the slightest.
If you try replacing the words into sentences they sound at the very least strange, sometimes creepy, sometimes rude and yes people do use them like this.
For example - "The female has arrived" vs "the woman has arrived". "The male has arrived" vs "The man has arrived".
& Be subtle about what exactly?
Guessing I'm not getting example I requested though.
We police our language everyday, whether or not your realise it. What you say in a bar around friends is going to be vastly different than what you say around children. Why is too hard to use different words that have different meanings when referring to a study than an actual human.
You tell me I lack imagination, getting personal now? Pretty sure I have to have an imagination to be so wildly different to your opinions but sure. ;)
You can use a lot of words to reference as humans but that doesn't mean they are words that mean human.
Some people use neutral language specifically in a manner to give it negative connotations to put other people down a notch, to insult them.
I used this the final two paragraphs to explain in more detail about how in specifics the word is used be insulting considering what others think and feel about what they're being called or what others call people and why they do it. This is why I said earlier that "you don't have to believe me", you don't have to believe how someone thinks or feels. I was never trying to change your mind. Did you think I was attacking you or something?
After I posted that I asked 15 people (9men/6women) on my skype list that were online at the time. I asked them whether they thought it was insulting to refer to someone as male/female instead of man/woman outside of a science environment and whether it was dehumanizing. Only one person said that it wasn't insulting but they agreed it was dehumanizing and our short discussion ended with him telling me, "maybe you have a point". Given that you have the old stars n' stripes flying on you're profile I'm going to guess it's a cultural thing about the way you think about words and their relations to people because the people I asked are not from the USA.
All I wanted was some examples, evidence, of sentences from you and where they would be used outside of the science & medical.
Well you don't have to do that now.
I did think of one eventually and by think I happened to overhear the TV. It's still dehumanizing but not really insulting, just cold hard facts describing a situation.
Reporters will sometimes refer to potential criminals as "male aged x"/"female aged x". It hides their identity but can still give out information about an event that occurred. It's perfect really. Then they often put the person back into the story when they learn who they are and whether their crimes are confirmed. This still doesn't really feel like an everyday life example but it's the closed I've got.
Look you don't have to believe me or anyone else, about how others think, how others feel, how words are interpreted. Now you can leave it at that instead of analysing everything I type in some attempt to prove wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
"... you're still at this?"
Was I not supposed to reply then?
"I don't really understand why you choose that quote when it doesn't say dehumanizing..."
Not sure if serious...because that was literally the first thing you said
"...I've already said that just because it isn't human doesn't always mean its bad."
Then why complain about the word "female" being dehumanizing? The goalposts are shifting again.
"Whether or not being dehumanized is a bad thing is determined by context."
As is whether or not it is dehumanizing in the first place. It is factually inaccurate to assert that it is always so.
"Be subtle about what exactly?"
I'm not sure how that part was unclear really. "Unfortunately shifting the goalposts only works if you're subtle about it." "it" clearly refers to "shifting the goalposts".
"Guessing I'm not getting example I requested though."
It was provided 3 comments ago which was before you even asked for such. I understand you don't care for the specificity of the example, but as is it remains sufficient to disprove the universality of your initial assertion that the word female is dehumanizing (even with the granted scientific/medical context aside).
"We police our language everyday, whether or not your realize it. What you say in a bar around friends is going to be vastly different than what you say around children."
Actually those are 2 very different things. Policing is an external force. Choosing for yourself what terms to use is not an external decision. It's as significant a distinction as it is self-evident.
"Why is too hard to use different words that have different meanings when referring to a study than an actual human."
Because that is very clearly a false dichotomy.
"You tell me I lack imagination, getting personal now?"
It should be relatively clear that I just reiterated your own comment and pointed out the logically problematic assumption therein and the irrelevancy of one's own imaginative capacity in determining what does and does not exist.
You: "I can't even think of a situation outside a medical study where people would use language like that."
Me: "...your ability or lack thereof to imagine a time you'd refer to an entire sex in a discussion is completely immaterial to whether or not the word male and female are problematic."
I'll clarify this point though. Your self-described inability to "think of a situation" does not mean such does not exist. The only way it could mean that is if that you were omniscient, which I know you are not claiming to be. This actually makes no judgement about the scope of your imagination whatsoever. Instead it clarifies why any scope of imagination (save omnisciency) is as I said immaterial to the validity of an assertion of the universal meaning or effect of a word.
As a direct consequence, it is an inherently impersonal remark. If you took it personally, that was just a misunderstanding. These things happen and it's not a big deal once the misunderstanding is cleared up.
"Some people use neutral language specifically...to insult them."
Yes, we've been over this repeatedly. That only means such terminology can be dehumanizing and/or insulting. It does not mean the word(s) always is(are) so.
"Did you think I was attacking you or something?"
Nope, I've already specifically addressed that 2 comments ago.
"After I posted that I asked 15 people..."
I'm not sure in what way you saw this paragraph and the assumptions therein as evidenciary or even statistically significant. This is anecdotal literally by definition.
"...I'm going to guess it's a cultural thing..."
Culture clearly shapes understanding, however the formal logic of necessity and sufficiency (from which I've been making this objection to your initial assertion all along) is not bound by nor altered across geographic or cultural boundaries.
"Look you don't have to believe me..."
Again, belief is not germane. We have already agreed that the words male and female can be used in an attempt to dehumanize one or more persons. All I've challenged is the assertion that goes beyond that axiom to the point of stating that they are dehumanizing words. And given that you yourself have now given an additional example (even outside of the scientific and medical contexts) in which they are not, you have invalidated the universality that your very first comment asserted.
"...instead of analysing everything I type in some attempt to prove wrong."
Intellectually honest analysis and discussion is typically one of the best means of finding truth, so I don't see anything wrong with such. I challenged an assertion/idea, not a person.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well it had been quite a few hours I had forgotten about it in its entirety.
"Every single time I said it can be insulting. You're the one that implied I said it's always insulting in you're first reply." What you quoted. Not a single mention of dehumanizing in that quote. Beside my initial post was a joke reply, it had a star trek meme in it not exactly serious reply of the day, then you got serious and wanted me to explain what I meant which I did.
I'm not "complaining" about it being dehumanizing, I have no problem with it being so. I am saying female AND male shouldn't be used in such a dehumanizing manner which oOFriendlyBanditOo was probably attempting to do and was soon called out by peterpansen23, a manner which is often to used to put people in their place and to belittle them, to insult them, to gain "one-upmanship".
Anecdotal or not, I just wanted more views on the subject other than one person from across the pond.
If it's about facts then you go by dictionary definitions, if not its about belief and culture in which case neither of us is right or wrong.
For me male and female takes way human qualities leaving only a description of what role they play when it comes to reproduction, something shared with many animals. Taking away everything bar the sex from a human is dehumanizing whatever the reason (good/bad/neutral) for doing so.
If the only quarrel you have is that female/male is not always dehumanizing then leave it at that because you're making more out of this than it needs to be. I have one view, you have the another. I'm sure there's many variants in between.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if you were talking about men in general, say, "Men don't cry"(forget about the sexism inherent in that expression itself for a second), you'd say just that. It'd be weird to hear someone say "Males don't cry". Or "Why do men like football so much?", similarly you wouldn't say "Why do all males like football so much?". It just sounds wrong, like you're talking about animals instead of fellow species members. Same goes for female.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing, but what about any social situation is objective? It's all about the nuances and it differs from person to person and from culture to culture. I just said how I see it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah ok. And that's entirely understandable and it's a fair conversation to have.
What doesn't really fly so well is more universally declaring the word "female" as a bad word or dehumanizing as some people then will. To be clear, I'm specifically not ascribing that sentiment to you or saying you've said that. Talking about language and individuals' perceptions of it is good and healthy discourse. It only becomes problematic when some other people begin to assert that their interpretation should be the rule by which everyone else should interpret language too. There will obviously be cases in which those that intend to be offensive choose to use specific words (as clever as they may think themselves for doing so) over others, but that won't change the meaning of the word unless society as a whole (or the majority of it) uses that word in the same way.
TL;DR - I get what you're saying and within that context I can see your point, but that context is so specific and narrow that it can't be ascribed to everyone that says female in all other contexts. Generally speaking you'd have to know a little more about the person to know if they were deliberately trying to disassociate the humanity from the people they're referring to by using the word "male" and "female".
Comment has been collapsed.
Glad we agree! :) I wouldn't throw around that accusation at any person I see use the word "female" - but I think we know full well where our OP stands on sexism :p
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, I didn't initially (just took it as an honest question at first), but yeah, it's becoming somewhat more clear as he has posted more on the topic. Regardless of his use of the word, my opinion on OP's question remains the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup, already saw it and fully agree. High five back at you, friendly internet person! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that sentiment is pretty widespread in your country. It has led you to much greatness I see :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I hope you're not being serious because you know nothing about anything that is happening here now -or our life before this- other than what you learn from the media.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is completely not true, I have quite the first hand experience with Syria. But let's assume for a second it was, and that it's only because of evil western propaganda that I think that Syria is by and large a very conservative and therefore very sexist society(important note: THIS DOESN'T IMPLY ALL SYRIANS ARE THAT WAY. Only that it is the prevalent culture), your post hasn't done much to shake that stereotype for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
this is why sarcasm doesn't work online.
i and i know syrian. look where i'm from
like all people, there are those who are in the past, and those who just want to live quietly...
Comment has been collapsed.
like all people, there are those who are in the past, and those who just want to live quietly...
I did say that. You can't deny the overall culture isn't quite western.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, there are a lot of conservative religious families but that doesn't mean that the people who are willing to think and be logical about stuff are a minority.
And that's actually a real social problem in this country, where -regardless of religion/political views/other stuff that divide people into groups- conservatives and people who are logically open-minded are always fighting in some way or another.
And my post was a joke.
May I ask though about how were you able to have a first hand experience with Syria?
Comment has been collapsed.
If your post was a joke you should have made that clearer. It's not like there is a deficit of people who actually think that way.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't tell a joke or mock something and then say "jk" or "it's a joke"...
And I don't care if someone who has a phobia from a certain race/group/country/etc thought that I was serious.
Because you know, I might be lying anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I don't care if someone who has a phobia from a certain race/group/country/etc thought that I was serious.
Judgmental much? Leftists aren't particularly known for being racist. All I said was that Syria had a conservative society which is objectively true no matter how you look at it. If you're so zealously patriotic you can't take criticism of your country without crying "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!!", that is hardly my problem.
Also
You can't tell a joke or mock something and then say "jk" or "it's a joke"...
Actually, not only is that possible, it is common courtesy. Especially when the joke is not funny in the first place. (Haha, look at me I'm a sexist! Haha lol so funny - It would be if some people didn't actually believe women's place was in the kitchen. As it stands it's just distasteful.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't mean anybody particular by that sentence, you could've took it personally if I said "you are so and so" but I didn't.
And yes, Eastern/Arabic societies are mostly conservative, I said that in my last post.
But I didn't even say anything that would indicate that I'm being "zealously patriotic" and I don't see how I can't take criticism about my country/society, when I talked about the problem that you referred to in my second comment.
" "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!!" " what are you even talking about?
Also, why are you even discussing that?
I just say weird stuff all the time, I'm not going to start saying "jk bro" for any reason.
And if you want to take problems so serious like that, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Still, it's a matter of perspective and this is not the main issue here.
Issue of how I tell jokes/other weird stuff that I come up with
Btw, you still haven't said how were you able to have a "first hand experience with Syria"?
Comment has been collapsed.
I am Lebanese. Literally a third of the people in my country are Syrians. Even before that, "our" cultures(I say that in quotes because I strongly dislike Lebanese culture and don't consider it to be mine) were very similar, and a lot of my friends have been to Syria in person. Let's not forget that the Syrian army still patrolled our streets until 2005...
So yeah, I'd call that first hand experience. Pro tip: Next time someone doesn't reply to a question like that, they are subtly telling you that is none of your damn business and they'd rather not share their personal information online for all to see, so take the hint.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that's a canned experience delivered to your home right there and it could or not be the accurate picture of Syria, but close enough.
And if you didn't want to talk about it, you could've just said "I prefer not to talk about it in public" or even better, you could've just skipped the "I have quite the first hand experience with Syria" part.
Anyway, nice to meet you and give the Lebanese culture a second chance, nothing is perfect.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haven't heard that joke before and such timeless meme
Brilliant!
Comment has been collapsed.
Is this really your opinion or are you just trying to make a joke?
Comment has been collapsed.
If they pass all the necessary tests, why not. I mean, who cares what gender they are as long as they are qualified and skilled. I believe the same thing should apply no matter what profession.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, seriously? Israel has mandatory 1 year for both men and women and there are no issues about that but Murican women are worse? What kind of thinking is that? :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually it's almost 3 years for men, and 2 years for women.
Comment has been collapsed.
Menstruation? It would have a severe impact on the performance of a soldier/operative during the heat of battle or on a special operation.
Comment has been collapsed.
i'm a guy, and i know a bit (tiny bit) about those stuff cause i heard a lot of talk by experts on hormons and estrogen and likewise (health related).
this is not something most doctors advise to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
That totally required you to be insulting, bitter girl.
Comment has been collapsed.
where am I insulting? or bitter? lol. funny little boy. :))
learn something new every day. ;3
// it's actually funny how people feel offended bc of every shit. get some humour
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh look, it's this time of the day again.. the time when the friendly bandit arrives with some very insightful information and solid arguments to prove his point.
By the way, just to be clear since you probably won't realize: That was sarcasm.
Comment has been collapsed.
Too many times sarcasm is taken as serious commentary...generally by those that take everything too seriously. Let's all hope jokes can be left jokes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that's true, although I think most people would realize I was being sarcastic in that comment. The extra note was mostly meant for the OP so he doesn't think I'm on his side by mistake.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a reason why the military never let women join. If you knew why, you would think differently.
You obviously don't know shit about the military brcs, go jerk off on a pic.
For anyone thinking our friend Bandito bailed out of his own thread
Dont worry is just looking through google, so he can enlighten us, to why its not ok, later on
Comment has been collapsed.
oOFriendlyBanditOo might be googling...but I doubt it's for educational information...
Comment has been collapsed.
This guy just loves dropping bombs of flamebait threads. :P
The pattern: "No, you do not agree with me; therefore you're an idiot." logouts
Comment has been collapsed.
As a Navy Veteran myself, the continued discrimination against women really pisses me off. They can hold absolutely any position that they like if only they pass the required training. From recruit to the Chief of Naval Operations. Most women choose not to take the officer path or make attempts for the Navy Seals. That's generally a conscious choice on their part, which too many people fail to understand.
Comment has been collapsed.
CAN'T LET THEM MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES THOUGH! MUST FORCE THE EQUALITY IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ON IT'S OWN!
Yeah, if person X makes the cut, let them in regardless of genitals. Should be end of story.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thankfully that is the end of story now, as women are already being allowed into the program and given the opportunity. It came to light, the higher ups had an open discussion and they found no reason to say no. There is nothing gender specific about being a SEAL, so they're moving forward on that notion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Quite thankfully so. While I cannot speak from experience like you, I'd have to guess that if I was on a mission with a team I'd want the best soldier with me regardless of what sex they were. Very glad this is the case now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reminds me of a lighthearted joke about gays in the military before the repeal. "In a combat situation who would you prefer to have your back; The guy looking out for his own ass or the guy watching yours?" People are more capable than society tends to give credit, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, or religion. The battlefield seems the one place where equality actually does exist. We all live and die the same out there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Damn you love caps or you just think we all are blind and need big print so we can read what you say..
You need some anger management if something like this angers you that easily....or did you forget to take your meds?
Maybe i missing something here but i am not sure who is being forced..??
Good thing SEALS is mostly about mental to pass it,other wise people like you could easily get in,man your attitude stinks worse then my morning shit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, sarcasm and satire are again left behind. No you can't really think the portion in caps was serious.
Also, everything I've seen about seal training would indicate it's every bit as physically rigorous as it is mentally. It takes a person with a lot of dedication and drive, not a specific kind of genitalia.
Comment has been collapsed.
And yet you do not see my sarcasm then assume by what i said i did not take what you said as sarcasm.....so who left what behind...you call me out on me not getting your sarcasm,yet you fail to see mine....well played well played...you sir win...here is a cookie...get your own damn milk.
And yes it is physical and demanding never was trying to imply it was any less,but still does not change that most people fail because they do not have the mental endurance to get past things like saying awake for 24 hours in cold water,while trying to remember things,and last i checked that was more mental then physical as you can be as fit as you want,but your mind is what keep you alert and awake as you need your memory and other things to do that.
"Good thing SEALS is mostly about mental to pass it"
That is what i said,mostly mental to pass it,again because most people fail it when it comes the mental side of things,as your will to go on and fight and stay alert and so forth is better when your mentally prepared for it,vs being able to run a marathon and lift 300 pounds will do you no good if you have to say awake 24 or more hour waiting to get your target and still be alert enough to shoot/fight/rescue.
Comment has been collapsed.
So at this point I'm out because you apparently have the superpower to try to pick the most worthless argument ever. Carry on if you like. I was going to find a image of a trophy and put "Dumbest Thing Chosen to Argue about on the Internet" but it wouldn't be worth the time so you'll just have to settle for imagining it's grandeur in your trophy case.
Have a good rest of your day regardless.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was trying to have a discussion ...not argue with you,you started your reply with sarcasm i replied with some my own sarcasm then accuse me of not getting your sarcasm then i point out you missed mine..or was it because i failed to "USE CAPS" that you did not see i wasn't being serious with my whole post
Good thing SEALS is mostly about mental to pass it,other wise people like you could easily get in,man your attitude stinks worse then my morning shit....i will admit my dry humor does not always translate well on the internet,but i was far from trying to argue with you i have better things to do,and news flash just because you disagree with someone does not mean it is a "argument"The attitude stinks thing i did fail on that being sarcasm,but in the end i still said my point which was i think seals is more about mental to pass it then you have to point out the physical part of like i was implying it was only about being mental lol.
Now your turning into an argument when it was not,lol but okay then....
I agree with you on some of your points....but i do not agree on all of them.
I guess i am wrong for thinking it is more mental,but your right that it is just as physical....so i guess if i agreed 100% with you,you would be all smiles..but since i do not i am starting a argument lol Do not share your opinion on the internet with other people as if you do not agree with them most will say your just starting a argument, or your butt hurt......fucking internet is more insane then real life.
Comment has been collapsed.
i tend to say "yes" as i think its their choice.
but i also think they shouldn't want to do that for the sole reason of captivity, things that can happen on captivity is hard enough for men, not to mention for woman.
so can a woman be a good fighter? sure, some can probably be better then men.
is it worth the risk? i think it aint worth it.
should they be giving the option to join? yes as it is their choice and their lives on stake.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hope this wont become some kind of sexual harrashment training or "lets flirt with the girl, its part of her training".
Comment has been collapsed.
Highly unlikely. There already are women in the military. If anything I'd expect the navy seals to be more professional about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I hope nothing happens. In germany a "school ship" for the military became a "sex boat" with the female sailors. In spain a female soldier has been expelled because she said no to the sexual aproachments of her superior (Is a long story, but is that esentially). I think we are far far away in true equality in the military.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can you please go away and bother another forum?
You have not done a single thing to contribute into a healthy discussion or made one thread worth a damn. Just constant shitposting rolling from your fingers, then hating on people who give their opinion when it doesn't match yours.
Are you Donald Trump??
Comment has been collapsed.
in fact, what you wrote is much more offensive what op decently posted.
Comment has been collapsed.
wait, by "you" I mean MysticAarrgg. :}
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, but I mean OP hasn't made more than 3 posts in this thread none of which were longer than 1 line and one of which was
You obviously don't know shit about the military brcs, go jerk off on a pic.
That's not really good argument ethics.
Comment has been collapsed.
I called attention to the words used on reply because if you keep classy (and with minimal but solid argumentation) in a discussion, the person who get angry will be much more angry in the conversation BUT in the end they tend to feel ashamed to get angry... psycology at its best!
Comment has been collapsed.
In a discussion you are correct, however I would suggest you go back and look at this new users posting history. This is not a discussion, this is yet another flamebait thread started by someone who does not want to open the doors of discussion but rather just pick hot topics that they an troll with.
If this was someone looking for an actual debate or discussion on the topic, the reply would have been completely different. However, when the OP is showing himself to be a complete and total jackass that is how I will reply to them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Will they have to pass the same tests as males?
If they make it, they'll deserve it.
Comment has been collapsed.
6 months underwater demo/SEALS. It's already being offered to women. There were too few cases in the past where any actually expressed interest, so this is something that was rethought with a rise of interest, with no real reason to say no. That simple.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now the question is; will they allow gays to attend?
Comment has been collapsed.
"Don't ask don't tell" was repealed on all levels.
Comment has been collapsed.
What does that have to do with anything? Why would someone care if they are gay or not has to do with SEALS or anything for that matter
Comment has been collapsed.
I've heard that the US government is somewhat sensitive when it comes to homosexuals.
Comment has been collapsed.
It more less a view then it is a Government,as now your including everyone in the Government and not everyone is like that.This is what is wrong with things today,one bad apple in the bunch and they all must be bad.
The Government is just a term for a body of people who are in control, though the bigger issue at hand is something i will not get into.
I was merely trying to ask why you brought that up,i know why you said it,but i am curious to what that had to do with what was being discussed,this was about women being a SEAL ....not about being gay.
That is like saying i hear people in the Middle-East love strapping bombs to themselves for a cause,so they all must have the same mentality.
also they already have gays in the SEAL i mean you do not think all these years that not a single one was not?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well i can not speak on that,but i can say you are partial right,some do have an issue with it,but i am just saying that does not reflect on everyone on a whole.
This is just an example,not trying reflect your views....
But think of this,what if all your family but you hated gays and made it clear they did,but you where the sole one that did not and where for them...
Despite that,since the way a lot people think they tend to judge the whole group based on what a few due,so chances are even if you tried to deny you did not hate gay's,since your whole family did most would assume you did and would just lump you in with them.
I hope this makes better sense
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no interest in this but I voted for the highest voted option just to fit into the crowd. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
There's this thing going all over the news for a while now that if women pass the rangers training, they will get a chance to accept females in the Navy seals s.o, I don't think that would be the right move for the elite special operations, what are your opinions?
And why not,are you saying they are not as capable?
You do know that SEAL training is not all about being fit and strong....you do know that most fail the mental end it?
I am for females being a SEAL if they can pass the test just like everyone else,the point of the SEAL is to be quiet and quick so i see how that could maybe play into a females side anyhow...they are more limber and smaller so they could fit into places not all men could.
I must assume you just do not think a women can do the job just as good so your against it for that reason as that is the only logical reason...and do not give me this shit about smaller size and all that crap it is BS...
After all i would not want to piss off Ronda Rousey .....with the proper training a female can be just as good as a male.....and seeing how the SEALS is more mental then size and power and muscle...i would say women over all on that level have the upper hand.
Comment has been collapsed.
"quiet and quick so i see how that could maybe play into a females side anyhow"....you've seen too many movies or played too much CoD.
But now in the real - world we are talking about harsh physical training, including exposure to extreme temperatures and carrying heavy load for more info "check The U.S. Navy Seal Guide to Fitness and Nutrition"
every army training for combat roles include those and the strain on the body is really big to the point of permanent damage
Comment has been collapsed.
more solid gold from steamgifts' new resident uniformed, angsty teen
Comment has been collapsed.
If you have the training, brains and conditions to go up there, i dont think being male, female or even gay would matter, now i know one thing for sure, if a male is take down on war he have a few destinies, if a womam is taken, i can think at least 2 really bad things to add to that list and i do think it would be worse than death.
Comment has been collapsed.
Obviously that if they pass the tests and training, it means they're qualified. I don't see the problem at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot of negativity in this thread, come on guys, we're all friends here <3
Comment has been collapsed.
Shit, I forgot to bet whether this thread will go bette or worse than the sexuality and gay marriage threads, is it too late?
I bet $10 it won't be as bad, I think everyone's getting tired of this shit.
Comment has been collapsed.
nah... they never will get tired. they just like it (express hate and shit everywhere to relieve their personal frustrations - both sides).
feminism is spreading and stuff, there will be future complaints about what they conquered. mostly I think it will be because they will assume double responsabilities (as man and woman) and they will try to go back sooner or later.
It's like everyone forget how to live their lives by themselves with other person helping with what they are good to do.
I'll love to see the result of all this "I want to be you and have what you have even if I can't for some reason" shit. (this applies to political believes too)...
but honestly, I'm deleting everyone (mostly girls) that spread those shit on my facebook timeline... I'm beyond tired of this shit. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would you need a soldier that bleeds even without being shot? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Nah but in all seriousness, no, I don't think it's such a great idea.
I don't follow the whole equality thing, and not because I think women are inferior but rather because I think both men and women have their strenghts and weaknesses. Women (generally) won't make good soldiers, just as men (generally) won't make good babysitters.
However, since they passed the training (2 did, right?) they should be allowed, sure. If they proved they can and want to then, woman or man, let them be whoever they want to.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's like saying men can't be good fathers because they can't look after a baby properly.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a difference between "not being albe to be a good father" and "not really being suited to being a babysitter"
No... Men CAN be good fathers. Men CAN be good babysitters BUT it's harder for them than for women.
It's nature, not "social standards", that women are better suited to caring for a child, even if its not hers. They are gifted in that aspect so to speak, whereas men aren't gifted and they have to "learn" to care fo a child, it doesn't come that easy, especially if it's not their child. On the other side, men are good at punching other people in the face or fixing something in the house, thus they are better suited to "protect" the woman and the child.
All in all I'm saying everyone can by anything they want, but genders aren't the same, and so some are better suited to do certain things, and other things are harder for them than for the other!
Comment has been collapsed.
I am more amazed the amount of people who took the bait and don't know that there are all female special forces divisions already that have put US Navy Seals to shame.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's this thing going all over the news for a while now that if women pass the rangers training, they will get a chance to accept females in the Navy seals s.o, I don't think that would be the right move for the elite special operations, what are your opinions?
Comment has been collapsed.