This message has been deleted.
-
jmix66 — 15 years ago(November 21, 2010 07:03 PM)
There are numerous roles on SF team that a woman could fulfill.
Not being able to see because of outdated ideas of masculinity is actually a weakness, not a strength.
Woman can:- Plan operations
- Infiltrate targets
- Act as snipers
- Gather intel
- Mark targets
- Attack and kill male combatants.
Every team member can fulfill every task perfectly, so why hold women to a non-existent standard?
Bad films are a crime against humanity.
-
jmix66 — 15 years ago(November 29, 2010 02:54 PM)
- Women can do all of the above outside of SF.
- The standards do in fact exist for SF.
- Good faith attempts have been made worldwide to integrate females into SF - they failed.
- The weakest physical link can get a unit killed.
- Outmoded? I doubt you know anything about combat arms; so how would you know what is outmoded? Almost every corp in the military has at some time been called outmoded by people who do not know squat about the military - the USMC, ARMOR, infantry, SF, manned aircraft were called outmoded until the next war showed that an 'outmoded force' is exactly what you need.
Not to change the subject , but are you ex-military?
I have dealt w/ SF operators and they are far more impressive in the movies than they are in real life. They mainly exist to perform the "dirty jobs" that require specialized skills and a uniform to be worn in case they are caught.
That way they won't be executed (usually) when things go wrong, unlike spies.
- Really? What your source of information on this?
- I'm aware of the standards used by the SF.
- Which "good faith attempts" have these been?
- Really? The weakest link in the chain command has killed far more SF's than team members. Hardly a valid argument.
- No, I don't. Do you? Does anybody? Who knows what the future will hold
In 25 years, most things that people think will seem "quaint." In 50 years, they'll likely be proven wrong.
Bad films are a crime against humanity.
-
wolf_blaze-1 — 14 years ago(May 04, 2011 02:30 PM)
"Most people on this thread, and many commenting on the film in general, seem to be missing the point that this film, and associated feminist arguments, are trying to make. People should be judged on their qualities and traits alone rather than simply their gender, or whatever qualities and traits their gender implies. It is NOT logical to say that most women cannot compete with most men on a physical level therefore women should not be aloud to partake in physical activities such as the armed forces or SOF. It IS logical to say that if a woman (OR MAN) cannot demonstrate the physical qualities and traits necessary for such things then they should not be aloud to partake in them, for reasons of political correctness or otherwise. The problem that male characters in the film have with Demi Moore's character is based on the former, flawed, categorical, backward logic: Women are generally not capable of joining the SOF, O'Neil is a woman, therefore she is not capable. If no woman has ever done such a thing, it does not mean that no woman can or ever will. The category of sex is simply too vast to base such assumptions on. It is similar as saying 'no man will ever connect with his child as well as its mother': there is biological basis for it, but it no categorical link involved such as in a true statement like 'no man can give birth'.
Therefore it is not unrealistic for O'Neil to cope with the training seen on-screen, for its is presented as being very unlikely, as it is in reality: that is why the premise is intriguing. Most films are based on unlikelihoods; a film presenting the likely events of general reality as exactly experienced in real life would be completely uninteresting. This is part of the reason the term and concept 'realism' is redundant.
O'Neil does not 'win' against the Master Chief in terms of a physical contest. She gets in a few good hits, but only has any real advantage at all once she has the morale backing of the rest of the trainess and demonstrates her adequacy by retaining her physical and mental strength: thus meaning Master Chief has no further reaosn to master her physically (which clearly he could, easily, if he really wanted to)."
This is the most intelligent post I've seen on this entire thread. -
sugar22 — 14 years ago(June 04, 2011 10:49 PM)
more and more women are fighting in combat, one way or another. some are doing convoy security, some as MPs, fighter pilots, chopper pilots, etc. the front lines and rear areas are getting less and less clear and more women are being engaged in ambushes and such. i agree with the OP that special operations should be only men, however, women have been shown in history to fight. Carlos Hathcock, who's one of the most famous Marine Snipers, described a time when he had to fight against this female Vietnamese sniper. the Soviets and Vietnamese have had female soldiers/partisans/guerillas that were able to fight well. some air force security females have been trained as snipers and having female snipers can help deal with other female snipers. one marine instructor who trained some of those women said that the women students were able to show great patience and skill. perhaps it might be beneficial to try out some women in some all female small combat teams.
-
Chainsaw-wrecks — 10 years ago(December 11, 2015 03:59 PM)
Not as good.
http://guncite.com/