This message has been deleted.
-
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/ -
CCRider01 — 14 years ago(August 14, 2011 03:13 AM)
On a planet of 6 Billion people, there is probably a VERY small handful of elite women that could pass the SOF requirements. BUT they would be fools for even trying. Why would any women that had such a HUGE genetic and physical advanatge over 99.999% of other females join the military? The demands of training only to risk their life for $50,000-100,000 per year when they could make far more in sports or some other civilian endevour.
-
Warge — 14 years ago(August 20, 2011 06:41 AM)
Why would any MAN do the same? The demands are just as high even if the prime males are more numerous, they will be training just to risk their lives for $50,000-100,000 per year when they could earn so much more in sports or some other civilian endeavour [/devil's advocate]
I think that, no matter what gender boils down to interest - if you can and want to risk your life in SOF, by all means do so. The problem with the military is the general attitude that women has no place there - women can become great pilots (and women actually have better physical charecteristics than men to be pilots), and there aren't any great physical demands on many fighting positions, like tank crews (except loaders, which is the same as modern slavery).
There are of course positions I would not like to see females in either, most notably infantry for the simple reason that infantry (no matter what kind of) place too great demands on fire and movement in too heavy equipment. Vietnamese females fought during the Vietnam war, with the VC, but they were so lightly equipped it didn't matter. Infantry also holds generally the greatest risk for casualties, and any infantry man needs to be ably to pull a wounded mate to cover. Needless to say, a woman can pull an injured man to safety - but when both she and the wounded are weighed down by modern day equipment, then it might become a problem.
My vote list: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21936262