Talk:Women in the military/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 30 October 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

I am not

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. Queex_{chthonic 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. Queex_{chthonic 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

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

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)