Hegseth ordered hundreds of generals to meet on short notice in Virginia

ZenMode said:
If you were in a burning house and unable to get yourself out due to injury, would you want a female firefighter coming to carry you out or would you want a male firefighter coming to get you and why?
Click to expand...
I can answer this one as someone who has spent 10 days in the Jaycee burn unit at Chapel Hill and seen their neighbor's house burn down - and watched female fire fighters fight the flames - I could give a shit whether the person carrying me out was male or female. With that in mind, in the vast majority of fires, nobody is being carried out - they are either already escaped, or have already perished (or received life threatening burns/smoke inhalation) by the time that the fire department can show up. In my case, I was already out of the house. In my neighbor's case (the second fire), she had already inhaled enough smoke that she died a week later. In that case, a female fire fighter was directly responsible for saving my house from also burning down, and all we had to deal with was a new paint job, melted windows, and a burned plastic tub on our porch.

In the military, moving forward, infantry is going to play a fraction of a role even compared to the War with Iraq, which is a fraction of the role it played in Vietnam, which was a fraction of a role that it played in the World Wars.
 
rodoheel said:
I would want the most qualified and capable person to come carry me out and I would not care if that was a male or a female. Obviously strength is a big factor in being qualified in that situation so if person physically couldn't lift me I would not want them to be the one to carry me.

But in any event, this the same stupid logic you're applying to the military. Fire departments do other things besides haul people out of burning buildings. Who do you want driving the fire truck - the strongest person or the best driver? Who do you want directing the flow of water onto a burning building - the strongest person or the smartest and most experienced? Who do you want making the decision about whether it's safe for firefighters to enter a burning building - the strongest person or the one with the most experience and understanding of structural engineering?
Click to expand...
This.
 
superrific said:
The irony, of course, is that there aren't enough men to go around. If we didn't have female firefighters or soldiers, then those roles would either go unfilled (the worst option!) or be filled by men who are otherwise doing other things.

The choice between a male and female firefighter is such a bad faith hypothetical.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was going to add, the choice is between a woman holding a gun and firing at the enemy or nobody, I’ll take the woman every time.
 
Here is a comprehensive article that explains in detail how Hegseth's supposed drive for high physical standards is a solution in search of a problem:

www.theatlantic.com

The Backdoor Way That Pete Hegseth Could Keep Women Out of Combat

Donald Trump’s Pentagon chief moderated his stance to get the job but is now pushing for change in the name of high standards.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

But candidly all this data probably doesn't matter very much next to zen's concern that one day women in the military could make it not work anymore, because women are, on average, not as strong as men.
 
rodoheel said:
But your choice in these situations - just like in the military scenario - is not "generic female versus generic male." The military is not forced to put a random female in combat with no ability to determine their readiness and aptitude. Literally no one is suggesting that the army not have qualification standards, which would include physical qualification standards. There is a ton of evidence that women are capable of meeting such standards for many different military roles and are fully capable of serving in those roles. JCDing for Trump and Hegseth's brand of faux machismo as if it's just some simple recognition of biology is foolish.
Click to expand...
My theory applies even if we assume that some females can meeting minimum requirements.

Knowing that a female and male firefighter have met minimum requirements, I'd bet my life that you'd still pick a male firefighter because it is 100% the safe bet. The female may meet minimums, while the male is likely to exceed the minimums and when your life is on the line, you're going to play the odds, which is picking a male.

The military is the same. If you're talking about carrying a pack, moving an injured person, hand to hand combat, etc, the safe bet is to have an all male military.

If you want a police force that is best equipped to handle a physical struggle with a suspect, you're going to have all males.
 
ZenMode said:
My theory applies even if we assume that some females can meeting minimum requirements.

Knowing that a female and male firefighter have met minimum requirements, I'd bet my life that you'd still pick a male firefighter because it is 100% the safe bet. The female may meet minimums, while the male is likely to exceed the minimums and when your life is on the line, you're going to play the odds, which is picking a male.

The military is the same. If you're talking about carrying a pack, moving an injured person, hand to hand combat, etc, the safe bet is to have an all male military.

If you want a police force that is best equipped to handle a physical struggle with a suspect, you're going to have all males.
Click to expand...
You do realize the military doesn't form its combat units from random samples of Americans, right?
 
ZenMode said:
The military is the same. If you're talking about carrying a pack, moving an injured person, hand to hand combat, etc, the safe bet is to have an all male military.

If you want a police force that is best equipped to handle a physical struggle with a suspect, you're going to have all males.
Click to expand...
Just because you assert things like this confidently doesn't make them true. I think it's pretty self-evident that banning half the population from even applying to fill these jobs is not going to make the resulting pool of applicants better. It just means that you will replace qualified women with less-qualified men.
 
rodoheel said:
Here is a comprehensive article that explains in detail how Hegseth's supposed drive for high physical standards is a solution in search of a problem:

www.theatlantic.com

The Backdoor Way That Pete Hegseth Could Keep Women Out of Combat

Donald Trump’s Pentagon chief moderated his stance to get the job but is now pushing for change in the name of high standards.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

But candidly all this data probably doesn't matter very much next to zen's concern that one day women in the military could make it not work anymore, because women are, on average, not as strong as men.
Click to expand...
The problem is that real American women aren't breeding enough.
 
sringwal said:
I can answer this one as someone who has spent 10 days in the Jaycee burn unit at Chapel Hill and seen their neighbor's house burn down - and watched female fire fighters fight the flames - I could give a shit whether the person carrying me out was male or female. With that in mind, in the vast majority of fires, nobody is being carried out - they are either already escaped, or have already perished (or received life threatening burns/smoke inhalation) by the time that the fire department can show up. In my case, I was already out of the house. In my neighbor's case (the second fire), she had already inhaled enough smoke that she died a week later. In that case, a female fire fighter was directly responsible for saving my house from also burning down, and all we had to deal with was a new paint job, melted windows, and a burned plastic tub on our porch.

In the military, moving forward, infantry is going to play a fraction of a role even compared to the War with Iraq, which is a fraction of the role it played in Vietnam, which was a fraction of a role that it played in the World Wars.
Click to expand...
When was that? That sounds like a horrifying experience. Did you get burned after you left the house? did you run out of the house while you were on fire? If you don't want to dig up bad memories, that's fine. I understand.
 
ZenMode said:
If you want a police force that is best equipped to handle a physical struggle with a suspect, you're going to have all males.
Click to expand...
Again, this is the entire point, You want a police force that is best equipped to do all of its job functions; physical struggles with suspects are a tiny part of the job and arguably not a very important part. In fact I would argue that it's much more important to have a police department that ensures, through its operations, that physical struggles with suspects happen as infrequently as possible.

You (like Hegseth) are suggesting that the armed forces make all other job requirements subservient to physical strength. There may be a handful of combat roles where physical strength is rightly one of the most important traits. There are numerous other roles where that obviously isn't the case. No one is suggesting lowering the physical standards of combat roles for women; we are simply suggesting that (1) women who meet those standards should obviously be welcomed, and will make our armed forces stronger, and (2) attempting to impose unnecessary physical standards across all military disciplines, even those where physical strength has little or no importance, is foolish.
 
rodoheel said:
Again, this is the entire point, You want a police force that is best equipped to do all of its job functions; physical struggles with suspects are a tiny part of the job and arguably not a very important part. In fact I would argue that it's much more important to have a police department that ensures, through its operations, that physical struggles with suspects happen as infrequently as possible.

You (like Hegseth) are suggesting that the armed forces make all other job requirements subservient to physical strength. There may be a handful of combat roles where physical strength is rightly one of the most important traits. There are numerous other roles where that obviously isn't the case. No one is suggesting lowering the physical standards of combat roles for women; we are simply suggesting that (1) women who meet those standards should obviously be welcomed, and will make our armed forces stronger, and (2) attempting to impose unnecessary physical standards across all military disciplines, even those where physical strength has little or no importance, is foolish.
Click to expand...
Very early on, I said that there are some roles (probably many) where females would work.

What I find simply baffling is that I can't get ONE person to say "Yes, if given a choice of a male or female firefighter to carry me out, I'd absolutely pick the male". There's an unwillingness to acknowledge biological differences that we all knew exist and make males better suited for specific roles.
 
ZenMode said:
Very early on, I said that there are some roles (probably many) where females would work.

What I find simply baffling is that I can't get ONE person to say "Yes, if given a choice of a male or female firefighter to carry me out, I'd absolutely pick the male". There's an unwillingness to acknowledge biological differences that we all knew exist and make males better suited for specific roles.
Click to expand...
Sorry you haven't found any fellow misogynists here. Must be lonely.
 
rodoheel said:
. There may be a handful of combat roles where physical strength is rightly one of the most important traits.
Click to expand...
Well, I remember a story about David and Goliath . . .

but we shouldn't discount the effect of sex on hand to hand combat.
 
ZenMode said:
What I find simply baffling is that I can't get ONE person to say "Yes, if given a choice of a male or female firefighter to carry me out, I'd absolutely pick the male".
Click to expand...
This would usually be interpreted as a concession that your claim is incorrect. Nobody agreeing with you is not a sign of being Cassandra. It's a sign of being a dumbass motherfucker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top