NATION

PASSWORD

Kill the women first.

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
The Rifle Brigade
Diplomat
 
Posts: 893
Founded: Sep 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Kill the women first.

Postby The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:30 pm

Right then. So me and the lads were attending a counter-terrorism seminar here in the Colonies. One of the speakers was discussing target priority protocols for a room breach, and one rule he mentioned was "Kill the women first."

Apparently, for a woman to join, train, and survive in a paramilitary organization like a terrorist cell and endure all the flak and shite from the men means she is likely the smartest, toughest, and most dedicated operator in the lot. Hence, she is the most dangerous, and you're best to slot her right out.

The lads and I got to thinking. While here, we stopped by a place where you can rent a machine gun for use on a private range, and we saw one of your fine American hens firing a variety of full auto gear. Her groups were tight, precise, well placed, and she consistently showed judicious use of her ammo. One of our squadies went over to ask her for a bag of crisps, but she told him she doesn't date "African Americans". (Carlyle is from Brixton, London).

So, we've decided to write a letter to Parliament (the legislative body, not the band) and to ranking Staff Officers suggesting that we stop all this discriminatory twaddle and start allowing women to volunteer for front line duty. We hope you Yanks will do the same.

EDIT: Also, this topic is to talk about spelling, allegations of hubris, and whether somebody who "notices things" should be able to find the single spelling error in the following sentence: "Journalism is nest semester."

MORE EDIT: Also also, this topic is to talk about Starship Troopers, Warhammer 40k, and whether menstrual blood on a battlefield is ickier than non-menstrual blood on the battlefield.

YET MORE EDIT: Also also as well, this topic is to talk about why Katganistan won't have my baby. Our baby. Her name is Imogen.
Last edited by The Rifle Brigade on Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I'll trade a woman's sense of equality for safety. -Bladeslayer

I'm just saying if the only change you can point to is the change that was made, then it would appear it didn't really change all that much, did it? -Hiddenrun

I rarely, if ever, argue on a factual basis; my arguments are based on logic, or should be ignored. -Kashindahar

User avatar
BladeSlayer Land
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Oct 04, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby BladeSlayer Land » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:45 pm

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.
Last edited by BladeSlayer Land on Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greater Holy Germania
Envoy
 
Posts: 217
Founded: Oct 04, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Greater Holy Germania » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:50 pm

We can not afford to discriminate in Greater Holy Germania's armies. All of military age are conscripted, men, and women alike.
DEFCON Level: 1
5-Peacetime readiness, 4-Normal readiness, 3-Alert status two, 2-Alert status one, 1-Maximum military readiness

User avatar
Rolling squid
Minister
 
Posts: 2416
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Rolling squid » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm

The problem with women on the front lines isn't the women, it's the men. IIRC, when Israel first started deploying mixed gender combat units, the causality rates went up a significant amount because the males in the unit would do all sorts of stupid things trying to protect their female counterparts. So the real solution is to take men of the front lines.
Hammurab wrote:An athiest doesn't attend mass, go to confession, or know a lot about catholicism. So basically, an athiest is the same as a catholic.


Post-Unity Terra wrote:Golly gosh, one group of out-of-touch rich white guys is apparently more in touch with the average man than the other group of out-of-touch rich white guys.

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43029
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Grave_n_idle » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.


Wow.

Statistics. You MUST be right.

Then again, 83.2% of all statistics are bullshit...
WASSER IST LEBEN

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

I assume those are statistical averages? So would you be opposed to a woman who could pass the standards for men's strength being in the armed forces?
Besides, how important is strength in the modern soldier? Endurance and athletic ability are important, but since we use guns killing power is not based on strength. I know there's a lot of gear to carry, but how about women armour crewmen?

User avatar
Carziel
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Carziel » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm

Greater Holy Germania wrote:We can not afford to discriminate in Greater Holy Germania's armies. All of military age are conscripted, men, and women alike.


i dont think this is RP

User avatar
Lacadaemon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5322
Founded: Aug 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Lacadaemon » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:53 pm

It's fine for the pongos I suppose. But nobody has yet refuted the results of a Royal Navy inquiry in 1872 that scientifically proved what people had long suspected: women are bad luck at sea.

So I would object to their presence in Her Majesty's Senior Service.
The kind of middle-class mentality which actuates both those responsible for strategy and government has little knowledge of the new psychology and organizing ability of the totalitarian States. The forces we are fighting are governed neither by the old strategy nor follow the old tactics.

User avatar
The Rifle Brigade
Diplomat
 
Posts: 893
Founded: Sep 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:53 pm

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.


If were having at one another with broadswords, the strength argument would be compelling. But I've seen women carry adult men, I've seen them move masses comparable to an ammo box or a tank shell, and a given woman could train herself over time to exert something comparable to a man.

As for "leave no man behind", my lot already do that for one another, for cock or hen. We wouldn't want to "overpass" that. In terms of prioritizing the mission, that is a mentality that can be trained. If circumstances call for it, I could let a lass die as quickly as I could Lt. Milk (almost the same thing, anyway). If we can condition ourselves to sacrifice our brothers, we can (and some armies have) conditioned themselves to let their women die if that's what it takes.

And "small amount of help"? Access to fifty percent of your countries best, kept out of the fray because they squat to piss? That's more than a "small amount of help".
I'll trade a woman's sense of equality for safety. -Bladeslayer

I'm just saying if the only change you can point to is the change that was made, then it would appear it didn't really change all that much, did it? -Hiddenrun

I rarely, if ever, argue on a factual basis; my arguments are based on logic, or should be ignored. -Kashindahar

User avatar
Greater Holy Germania
Envoy
 
Posts: 217
Founded: Oct 04, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Greater Holy Germania » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:55 pm

Ain't no rp? Seemed like it. Oh well. Gonna have to agree with the other people on the whole female "lack of upper body strength"
DEFCON Level: 1
5-Peacetime readiness, 4-Normal readiness, 3-Alert status two, 2-Alert status one, 1-Maximum military readiness

User avatar
The Rifle Brigade
Diplomat
 
Posts: 893
Founded: Sep 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:55 pm

Rolling squid wrote:The problem with women on the front lines isn't the women, it's the men. IIRC, when Israel first started deploying mixed gender combat units, the causality rates went up a significant amount because the males in the unit would do all sorts of stupid things trying to protect their female counterparts. So the real solution is to take men of the front lines.


Heh, that, or we could train troops to how we want them to behave under fire.
I'll trade a woman's sense of equality for safety. -Bladeslayer

I'm just saying if the only change you can point to is the change that was made, then it would appear it didn't really change all that much, did it? -Hiddenrun

I rarely, if ever, argue on a factual basis; my arguments are based on logic, or should be ignored. -Kashindahar

User avatar
Draconikus
Envoy
 
Posts: 333
Founded: May 29, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Draconikus » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:56 pm

So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such? After all, the training would be no less relentless, as the women want to outdo the men, and the men will not let themselves be beaten by a bunch of girls. Therefore, both male and female military units would be in operation, although they may have to be banned from working in the same theatre as one another. Also, the only problem I can see with this method would be the prisoner of war aspect. Civilised countries won't be any problem, but seeing as how we fight terrorist groups with questionable moral standing..... There may be a few 'mal-treatment' incidents. Apart from this, I reckon female fighting units should do fairly well.
La Verus Draconii Nunquam Mortis

User avatar
Rigbyland
Envoy
 
Posts: 279
Founded: Aug 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rigbyland » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:57 pm

Wait... this is OOC, right?
Anyway, if so, I support your idea. Us, er, "fine American hens", as you called us, should be able to serve just like men, provided me can make it through the various training programs.
Rigbyland Factbook (Work In Progress)

Territories:
Lennon McCartney

User avatar
The Rifle Brigade
Diplomat
 
Posts: 893
Founded: Sep 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:58 pm

Lacadaemon wrote:It's fine for the pongos I suppose. But nobody has yet refuted the results of a Royal Navy inquiry in 1872 that scientifically proved what people had long suspected: women are bad luck at sea.

So I would object to their presence in Her Majesty's Senior Service.


We've since developed non-buggery based methods of navigation and propulsion.

We don't always use them...
I'll trade a woman's sense of equality for safety. -Bladeslayer

I'm just saying if the only change you can point to is the change that was made, then it would appear it didn't really change all that much, did it? -Hiddenrun

I rarely, if ever, argue on a factual basis; my arguments are based on logic, or should be ignored. -Kashindahar

User avatar
Gimmadonis
Diplomat
 
Posts: 604
Founded: Dec 05, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gimmadonis » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:59 pm

Wome do not lack THAT much in body stength. It's probably about 5 - 10% at most on average.

Even then, a well trained woman is MORE than capable of carying out the tasks needed in a military operation.
Muravyets wrote:Your argument is like the Eiffel Tower sculpted out of bullshit.

User avatar
Flameswroth
Senator
 
Posts: 4773
Founded: Sep 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Flameswroth » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:59 pm

Draconikus wrote:So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such?

Fairly certain that an entire battalion of hormone-infused women on the rag doing battle is inflicting some sort of war-time cruelty on the enemy that is prohibited in the Geneva convention.
Czardas wrote:Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion?

Reagan Clone wrote:What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.

That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.



User avatar
Rigbyland
Envoy
 
Posts: 279
Founded: Aug 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rigbyland » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:01 pm

The Rifle Brigade wrote:And "small amount of help"? Access to fifty percent of your countries best, kept out of the fray because they squat to piss? That's more than a "small amount of help".

So small amount at all. I get why the US currently bars them from certain stationings (<that seems very grammatically incorrect) such as submarines, but all front lines? If I remember correctly, females currently account for more than half of the of age American population.
Barring us from front lines combat lacks sense for another reason: studies prove that women are typically safer and more obedient to rules, guidelines, orders, etc. Isn't the military big on that sort of thing?
Rigbyland Factbook (Work In Progress)

Territories:
Lennon McCartney

User avatar
The Rifle Brigade
Diplomat
 
Posts: 893
Founded: Sep 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:01 pm

Rigbyland wrote:Wait... this is OOC, right?
Anyway, if so, I support your idea. Us, er, "fine American hens", as you called us, should be able to serve just like men, provided me can make it through the various training programs.


Madame, I have no idea what an OOC is, but your willingness to be held to the same standard of rigor in training is exactly the spirit we need.
I'll trade a woman's sense of equality for safety. -Bladeslayer

I'm just saying if the only change you can point to is the change that was made, then it would appear it didn't really change all that much, did it? -Hiddenrun

I rarely, if ever, argue on a factual basis; my arguments are based on logic, or should be ignored. -Kashindahar

User avatar
BladeSlayer Land
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Oct 04, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby BladeSlayer Land » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:02 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.


Wow.

Statistics. You MUST be right.

Then again, 83.2% of all statistics are bullshit...

http://www.columbusweightlifting.org/20 ... _FINAL.pdf
Read it.
And "small amount of help"? Access to fifty percent of your countries best, kept out of the fray because they squat to piss? That's more than a "small amount of help".

Women are physically weaker and have a significantly lower pain tolerance than men, it's a much bigger problem than "squatting to piss".
Last edited by BladeSlayer Land on Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rigbyland
Envoy
 
Posts: 279
Founded: Aug 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rigbyland » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:02 pm

Flameswroth wrote:
Draconikus wrote:So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such?

Fairly certain that an entire battalion of hormone-infused women on the rag doing battle is inflicting some sort of war-time cruelty on the enemy that is prohibited in the Geneva convention.

Thou hath felt no scorn like a woman's fury.
Rigbyland Factbook (Work In Progress)

Territories:
Lennon McCartney

User avatar
Mackedamia
Attaché
 
Posts: 70
Founded: Aug 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Mackedamia » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm

Unchecked Expansion wrote:
BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

I assume those are statistical averages? So would you be opposed to a woman who could pass the standards for men's strength being in the armed forces?
Besides, how important is strength in the modern soldier? Endurance and athletic ability are important, but since we use guns killing power is not based on strength. I know there's a lot of gear to carry, but how about women armour crewmen?


You can tell these(those who question this statistic) are either women them selfs or really love women. The truth is that in the army, statistics are life and if a country attacks the U.S. women would get in the way, I say let the men fight and women hold the home front, why not military police?
For The Good Of The Fellow Human!

User avatar
The Infinite Dunes
Envoy
 
Posts: 279
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby The Infinite Dunes » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.
I'm fairly sure guns don't require that much strength to fire. In fact I'd believe the primary attribute required might be how dexterous you are.

And this chivalry crap, it's not like solider is going to leave a fellow solider to die just because he happens to be male. What ever happened to the camaraderie and comradeship that exists between male soldiers?

User avatar
Lacadaemon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5322
Founded: Aug 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Lacadaemon » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm

The Rifle Brigade wrote:We've since developed non-buggery based methods of navigation and propulsion.

We don't always use them...


I'm sorry. I can't support reckless experiments with buggery free propulsion. Imagine had Nelson abandoned buggery on the eve of Trafalgar, everyone would be speaking German now.

The historical record speaks for itself.
The kind of middle-class mentality which actuates both those responsible for strategy and government has little knowledge of the new psychology and organizing ability of the totalitarian States. The forces we are fighting are governed neither by the old strategy nor follow the old tactics.

User avatar
Flameswroth
Senator
 
Posts: 4773
Founded: Sep 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Flameswroth » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm

Rigbyland wrote:
Flameswroth wrote:
Draconikus wrote:So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such?

Fairly certain that an entire battalion of hormone-infused women on the rag doing battle is inflicting some sort of war-time cruelty on the enemy that is prohibited in the Geneva convention.

Thou hath felt no scorn like a woman's fury.

I think it's "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but I get what you're driving at ;)
Czardas wrote:Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion?

Reagan Clone wrote:What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.

That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.



User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43029
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Grave_n_idle » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm

BladeSlayer Land wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.


Wow.

Statistics. You MUST be right.

Then again, 83.2% of all statistics are bullshit...

http://www.columbusweightlifting.org/20 ... _FINAL.pdf
Read it.


I don't open pdf files on a work computer.

Quote the relevent parts, please.

(Judging by the name, this looks like it's going to be nonsense, anyway, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).
WASSER IST LEBEN

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Ameriganastan, Antityranicals, Aureumterra, Barfleur, Bienenhalde, Cappuccina, Chernoslavia, Dazchan, Demirestad, Ethel mermania, Fahran, Genivaria, Ghost Land, Google Adsense [Bot], Greater Miami Shores, Grinning Dragon, Hediacrana, Impaled Nazarene, Nakena, Northern Davincia, Novus America, Philjia, Rojava Free State, Saiwania, Samadhi, Tekeristan, The American Free States, The Black Forrest, The Campbell Nation, The Emerald Legion, Xuloqoia

Advertisement

Remove ads