Talk:Women in the military

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I am not against women in the military or in direct combat roles, but the question related to physiology need to be addressed. --LobPo (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can't come up with better sources for your manufactroversy than a sketchy "educational" organization brought to you via WaybackMachine or similar, you might not find it in this namespace for long. PacWalker 13:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Fun fact: The CMR was created in response to Clinton's DADT policy. It's a crank organisation, probably worthy of its own article on RW. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You are right, CMR is a crank orgnization, but even then their view should be mentioned and refuted. Why delete it? For example in homeopathy article, we mention the claims made by homeopaths and then refute it. --LobPo (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The greatest form of concern trolling is that which is only even concerned ex post facto. PacWalker 13:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Well, for one thing, homeopaths are a large and diverse group that make those claims, not some no-account pressure group with a fancy-pants name. Even in the question of women in the military, they barely register as relevant. A broader rebuttal of nonsense claims would be nice, but that relies on someone caring enough to scare out the references and other details. In the absence of that, presenting crank claims largely uncritically should be avoided. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The source is also given in the Wikipedia article. I am ready to address your concern. If we don't address the issues, people going through wikipedia will get a wrong picture of the whole issue. I too got a wrong picture from wikipedia. --LobPo (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
What is this? The Dark Ages? We have guns and fighter jets now. If you want to whine about soldiers needing to have a strong buff body type go find yourself a time machine. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
90 some pounds that needs to be carried on your back through potentially god awful terrain isn't exactly "soldiers don't need to have strength". --Miekal 13:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
So give the heavy backpacks to the people who can carry a lot of weight (or use a robot!). But really, do most jobs in the military require you to wear 90 pounds these days? Especially since nations seem increasingly less willing to 'put boots on the ground', i.e. deploy foot soldiers. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Most active combat roles for non specials are going to be carrying a 90 pound backpack. It's the fight for women to be allowed to do that that that is all about. Acting like somebody doesn't need any strength whatsoever is as bullshit as saying women can't carry 90 pounds of equipment.--Miekal 13:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not refute the claim[edit]

I do understand some fringe group which clearly has an agenda of opposing women in military has made the claim, then we in other articles also mention the claim made by fringes, but we need a refutal. I think it is much stronger that straightforward deletion. --LobPo (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Because what you were doing wasn't a rebuttal, you were just posting up a bunch of sexist bullshit and then demanded that people answer the important question of body type. --Miekal 13:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then unlock the article, I will write a refutation. --LobPo (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
For some reason i don't trust you to do that, but sure, get a chance. --Miekal 13:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Give me few minutes, I'm working on it. --LobPo (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I have expanded the section with counter-arguments. A lot of work is still needed. Other editors, please help me. --LobPo (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an article we need to have[edit]

but, should it be under this title, or "Sexism in the Military" or other?--Miekal 13:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

^Hey, this. Should the treatment of women (or, where applicable (i.e. not the US) transgendered/othergendered individuals) within whatever units/assignments be here, with this but moved, or separate? Personally, I might support together at Sexism in the Military or ...and the... PacWalker 14:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe have one big page, "Bigotry in the military", since it could cover race, gender, orientation, religious, and all other issues. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm perhaps... PacWalker 15:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please improve[edit]

I have made a basic structure. Please improve the article by making copy-edit and expand the counter-arguments in the Legitimacy section. --LobPo (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Translation: "please clean up my mess".--ZooGuard (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat[edit]

Could anyone buy this book to see the arguments made in it? --LobPo (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Or at least get it from the library? BicyclewheelModerator 08:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
ISBN 978-1621571902 has a few library links...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll check for it over in my local library if I get the chance, though I don't expect to find it. PacWalker 17:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, they have their catalog online, and they do not have it; WorldCat puts the closest copy fifty miles away and on a military installation, so I'll not be of help here. PacWalker 17:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Side by side template[edit]

I don't understand why is was removed. It did dissect arguments verbatim. See also Men's_rights_movement#Various_claims. --LobPo (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it's poorly used or misused elsewhere doesn't justify its use here. See The Annotated Citizen's Rule Book for an example of how it's intended to be used.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
But it looks good. --LobPo (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The template itself, or what was said inside of it here?--Miekal 03:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The template makes reading the arguments a lot easier. --LobPo (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It really doesn't. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

for what it's worth, what a former Toronto Sun editor said[edit]

here
EPLF “fighters” comprised roughly 30% women. The Eritreans were adamant: Fewer women than the 30% level resulted in problems — jealousies, rivalries, excessive concern for their safety, awkward relations.

At 30% life became normal. At the time some women were platoon and company commanders with acceptance by men. In such a small country fighting a Goliath, there was no choice but to recruit women, despite the apparent cultural heresy of such mixing of sexes.

In 1988, Canada and other countries were debating the wisdom of women in military combat roles. In our army today, roughly 15% are women, with maybe 2% in combat roles.

In those days — and in 1998 when I returned when Ethiopia attacked and seized unimportant land while suffering huge casualties — I felt Eritrea was a role model for Africa.
Peter Worthington (Korean War vet)
Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 18:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to tradition[edit]

What about the Amazons? Anna Livia (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)