This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is political correctness going too far?

Jump to new

Well, some people in the military argue that women can do the job as well as men.

He may be along in a while.
 
As far as the Grid girls go, when are people going to lean that some women enjoy exhibiting their sexuality, in the same way as some men enjoy showing off their muscles.

As long as they are not being exploited or assaulted, just standing on the grid is harmless, and if they want to do it I don't see a problem.
 

Which is why burkas are the rage..... they let a woman know who's the boss when it comes to what they can and can't do, which must be a good thing, right...especially when it's other misandrist women doing the telling?
 
SirRumpole said:
Well, some people in the military argue that women can do the job as well as men.

He may be along in a while.
Click to expand...

Pretty delusional to think a woman can best a man in say carrying equipment or dragging a wounded soldier. Biology must be a social construct to those "people".
 
TikoMike said:
Pretty delusional to think a woman can best a man in say carrying equipment or dragging a wounded soldier.
Click to expand...

You are delusional if you think women can't be good soldiers.

I think you are especially delusional if you think every man can beat every woman.

I certain percentage of women will fit the role and a certain percentage of men won't, so why base the decision on gender? rather than just having qualification and fitness tests.

If you are going to rule out women, you are ruling out a lot of talent.

 
We also have a feminist defence minister who subsidises sex change surgery for soldiers wasting tax payers money. It's a ******* joke what our country is becoming.
Click to expand...

How is that a waste of tax payers money?
 
Stupid video, you could put midgets in the military and make a video about their travels. Also it's funny in your video it was the woman who caused the death of herself and two other soldiers.

Fact is a fully trained man will always be stronger than a fully trained woman. It's biology. You've probably been watching too many Wonder Woman movies thinking women can compete with men in pure strength.

Here is your delusion at work:

 
TikoMike said:
Fact is a fully trained man will always be stronger than a fully trained woman.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? you think every Male soldier in the army is a better soldier than every woman? I can tell you from experience there is a lot of male bags of crap in the army, and there is some great female soldiers, I wouldn't use gender as a deciding factor, but rather take each person on merit.
Because a sex change operation is a personal choice and should not be funded by the tax payer.
Click to expand...

What if it saves tax payer money?

By the time I left the Army, the Australian Tax payer had spent at least $1 Million dollars training me, and the day I left that investment was lost to them, and they have to go and spend another $1Million to bring a recruit up to the level I was when I left.

Now if they could have spent $20,000 to ensure I stayed around for another 5 years, extending the life of the $1 Million investment, thats a good deal for the tax payer.

Any money that the military spends to improve the mental heath and extend the careers of its soldiers is a good deal for the taxpayer.
 
SirRumpole said:
So why weren't they weeded out in training ?
Click to expand...

What was a motivated 19 year old recruit can become a disgruntled, lazy 29 year old with a drinking problem.

But also its a numbers game, lower quality people can get through if they need the numbers badly enough, being super strict is no good if it results in not enough people getting in.

Thats also part of the reason that I would much prefer filling positions with the highest quality women, rather than banning women and there fore having to reach down lower into the dregs of male recruits.

I mean if you took all the women out of the army, you would have to fill those spots with men who otherwise would have been "weeded out"

By simply allowing women in, you can pick an A grade women rather than a D grade man, because there aren't enough A ,B and C grade men to fill the spots, so we are already reaching down into the D grade just to fill spots, so an A grade woman will be a big improvement.
 

Which is what I originally said, they should recruit based on merit. I agree with you that if women can get into through the same standards then I have no issue. What I have issue with is that they are lowering the standards so that more women can get in. They obviously know that women can't compete with men biologically which is why they socially engineer the standards, which is very dangerous. It's common sense. Sorry to use a strawman here but it is important: In the last year, firefighters for example, women only have to carry a 30Kg dumbbell after they kept failing the old standard of a recruit carrying 90Kg dummy. That type of stuff will endanger the public.

Also with the sex change you really think these transgender people will want to stick around? I see it more as virtue signalling from Ms Payne
 

I suppose that makes sense. There would certainly be a lot of jobs in the Army women could do well. I believe that there hasn't been a big take up for combat jobs by women though.
 

If the standards are so high that people that would be good soldiers are not getting in then the standards should be altered.

But saying that, standards should be (and largely are) role specific, eg a medic or nurse working in a field hospital should have different standards to meet than an army diver or SAS trooper.

Also with the sex change you really think these transgender people will want to stick around?
Click to expand...

yeah, and I am happy for the army to try all sorts of things to get the best longevity out of their soldiers, whether that be providing Marriage counselling, fixing a footy injury, financial counselling or help with alcoholism or depression etc
 
Value Collector said:
If the standards are so high that people that would be good soldiers are not getting in then the standards should be altered.
Click to expand...

There must have been good reasons for the standards in the first place ?

It seems like it's just trying to achieve a social objective not an operational one.

The same thing is happening in universities, people can't pass the standards so the standards are lowered instead of asking how teaching could be improved so people can pass them.
 
SirRumpole said:
I believe that there hasn't been a big take up for combat jobs by women though.
Click to expand...

and there probably won't be for a long time.

But that doesn't mean women aren't operating in combat zones, the "combat roles" are pretty specific, and plenty of non combat roles operate in combat zones.

eg. a Truck driver is not considered a "combat role", but convoys obviously operate in combat zones, and are armed, so a female transport crew can end up in battle fighting the enemy, without actually being "combat troops" every soldier male or female is trained to fight, even if their job is not specifically classified as a combat role.
 
SirRumpole said:
The same thing is happening in universities, people can't pass the standards so the standards are lowered instead of asking how teaching could be improved so people can pass them.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as lowering standards, but as changing the tests to better suit the needs, over time the tests have changed, some things have been taken away while others added.

If anything the tests are now better than when I first joined. As a whole I think the Army is much stronger now than when I joined 18 years ago, in 2000.

the 90's and 80's were not good for the army, a lot of decay happened, even if the entry tests were higher, the army over all was weaker.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...