In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 878
Online now 597 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I think you make a lot of assumptions in your statements - that dropout rates are going to be higher, that the military wil lbe forced to deal with higher costs (it's not like they've done a great job when it comes to costs throughout their history), that you have to have "a horse in the race" outside of people having liberty to pursue careers that they wish to pursue. Except for terps99 being a woman, which has been proven. :boa
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by multiple awards 15 months ago
cathal fights like one but other than that no.
Like I said, I have no empirical evidence of women having higher dropout rates, but if you want to take the other side of the bet, then I will leave that offer on the table.
What are your thoughts on integrating men's and women's college basketball teams? Have the best athletes male or female on the court.
You're asking me if I want Alyssa Thomas at PG over Pe'Shon Howard, which makes the hypothetical more challenging.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
I have already stated I have no personal stake in this matter. Among other things, at its core, my position is simply that an entire gender (or race or sexual orientation) should not be prohibited from serving its country in combat on a universal basis that has no exceptions whatsoever and is not based on any analysis of individual abilities.
And I don't fully agree with your last point and I think most businesses would disagree as well. What you are arguing for at a comparative level is a universal, unqualified ban on all people from certain schools. That would make little sense because businesses would risk losing out on qualified people (albeit people who are qualified at a much lower rate than counterparts from better schools). For example, when recruiting lawyers, I interview and recommend plenty of people from Harvard Law (who probably constitute the largest percentage of our incoming class). On the rare occasion, I also interview someone from a place like Maryland Law. Maybe I'd hire 75% of people from Harvard and only 5% of people from Maryland. OK, so what? That doesn't mean it would make business sense to ban any and all people ever from Maryland.
Holy straw man batman.
You may need to look up what that word means given that you don't appear to be able to identify strawman arguments in either your own posts or those of others. When someone talks about hiring at businesses and interviewing people from inferior schools, and someone else uses an example of hiring at businesses and interviewing people from inferior schools, that's not a strawman. HTH.
This post was edited by terps99 15 months ago
You're probably right. I knew one guy that called a similar post a straw man so I assumed it was correct based off of that one account.
Sorry about that.
I agree that you shouldn't ban all people from Maryland. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement because I was discriminated against for being a Terp (unthinkable, I know) to get my first job and even thereafter. It sucked that I did (though now I'm better for it), but I understood the reasons why. The firms only had limited resources in terms of time and money, and only focused on a target list of schools. Of course I personally believe in exceptions.
But how big is your law firm? The military isn't a private company with thousands of employees, it's an organization of millions and infantrymen in the hundreds of thousands. Take the extra time and money spent to interview someone from Maryland Law and multiply that by hundreds of thousands (over time). The success rate differential would add up to be in the hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars. Is that worth it? My opinion is no. If you add in the personal reasons I wouldn't want to serve with women, then the answer is hell fucking no.
If any of you are still doubting my assumption that the dropout rate would be higher for females, then think about the ratio of men/women in a merger of the NBA and WNBA.
I am not saying that your point here has no merit whatsoever, but this particular argument* would be a lot more compelling if this was a discussion about integrating the military. It's not. It's about integrating women into certain roles in the military. It's not like we don't already have 100,000 women serving in our Armed Forces. The military spends millions upon millions already recruiting women, so I'm not really sure your whole "recruitment cost" argument is terribly compelling.
* I think there is substantial merit to some of the other points you made above. Further, I don't think transitions like this will be easy, cheap, or seamless. But I think it's a transition we probably need to make sooner or later, and it's one that I think we are capable of making over time.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by terps99 15 months ago
I would think that a burkha is not ideal apparel for a rapidly moving person engaging in military activity...
You know how you solve the "18-20 year old numbnuts can't keep his hands off a woman" problem? Tell him not to do it, and if he does throw his ass in the brig for 5 years. The problem will solve itself pretty quick then.
Besides, these 18-20 year olds have the "maturity" to serve with women in transport companies, air units, support and maintenance units, etc. Hell, they're able to serve on submarines and warships at sea in confined spaces. How is serving on a tank crew any different? Are infantry soldiers just that much dumber/less mature? Isn't that then a bigger problem than letting a few women in to a combat unit?
Plus, there's no such thing as "the front line" anymore. Pretty much everyone that gets deployed is serving in the combat zone regardless of their unit designation.
PS, the Daily Show had a pretty funny bit on this Monday night. One of the guys they talked to that was HOF dense. One of his quotes was "girls become women by getting older, boys become men by accomplishments" and I'm not sure how that tied into his argument, but it was hiliariously tone def.
Yeah, I have a buddy Marine officer and some his biggest headaches were stuff like getting the dopey 19 year olds to not blow their entire paychecks on 60-inch TVs, X-box games, and buying a car that's 3 times more expensive than they can afford. Or trying to get some kid from East Bumfuck, Idaho to adapt to life in a town that's 2000 miles from anywhere he's ever been and has more than 100 people in it.
The overriding point for me is that discipline is part of the job, a pretty big part, and keeping it in your pants isn't that freaking hard to do, even if you're a moron 18 year old.
Making combat units integrated so that everyone can feel good about themselves is a colossal waste of time and money. The fact that the proverbial book needs to be rewritten so that the 1 (or fewer) in 100,000 women can participate on the front lines is ridiculous and puts our combat forces at risk. Another thing to consider is enemy treatment of women POWs. My opinion is based on the psychological and physiological barriers to succeeding in maintaining the level of effectiveness without sacrificing safety or dramatically increasing costs. For those who cry about the over-allocation of money to the Defense budget, isn't lifting the ban contrary to your beliefs, since surely new protocols (training, medical, living accomodations) will need to be put in place at every military facility, regardless of the number (or lack thereof) of female enlistees.
The vast majority, if not all, military bases already have protocols and facilities in place to accomodate female personnel. Because female personnel are assigned to virtually every military facility already in non-combat missions.
If you're worried about enemy treatment of POWs, well, that ship has already sailed. You can't be IN places like Iraq or Afghanistan with any women if that's your concern. Those places don't have battlefields, there is no "non-combat zone" and female personnel routinely come under fire. Plus you can't have female pilots as those missions could possibly encounter hostile fire and personnel in downed aircraft definitely run the risk of being captured.
I personally haven't seen a specific argument on how this ruling "puts combat forces at risk". I'd love to hear it, but so far the arguments I hear are long on rhetoric and short on detail. So long as any person, male or female, is physically capable of performing the duties required of them in training and combat, how can you deny them the opportunity to serve as they choose?
I want to bang kate upton and I'm physically able. Why deny me the opportunity?
Whats good for the individual isnt always good for the cause. Why should I be able to poison her perfectly good gene pool?
This post was edited by ledterrapin 15 months ago
Yeah, we saw what happened with Jessica whats-her-name in Iraq, so it's not like it's a foreign concept to the public. It's just a matter of potential frequency...we don't even have many male pilots shot down or captured, so Afghanistan & Iraq may be poor examples of future possibilities.
I'm not arguing against the whole idea of females in combat, of course...just pointing out the potential. Male POWs have been treated poorly enough in the past, so females will have that added dimension of possible bad treatment.
No one is denying you the opportunity.
Definitely, but I have to imagine that any female soldier volunteering for combat duty is going to weigh and ultimately accept those possibilities. I simply think they should have the freedom to make the choice for themselves.
My point is that you're proposing to delegate decisions in the staffing needs of the military to the staff themselves based on their own selfish preferences. That's just not how the military works. This notion that you can "be whatever you want to be" doesn't even hold true in the real world, let alone the closed universe of the military. Lives and nations are at stake, and what you're proposing is to water down the effectiveness of the military so that we don't hurt any feelings.
Um. Are you trolling or making the most ironic post ever given the recruiting mantra of the army?
Be all that you can be =/= Be whatever you want to be
Let's not pretend those mean the same thing.
For example, I could not pilot certain combat helicopters because I don't fit the threshold requirement of 6'2. I really really want to fly that helicopter. Should the military retrofit the helicopter so that I can pilot it? If, say, the pinnacle of military service was the ability to fly that helicopter, "be all that you can be" for me means "anything up to, but not including, flying that helicopter" because the military has a valid justification for excluding me based on my height. I would be unable to operate the foot pedals.
So if a woman can't meet the physical requirements of serving in a particular unit, that woman won't get put in that unit. Is anyone disputing that? But for instance women had been excluded from serving as army engineers because that fell under the "combat" umbrella. That was reassessed a few years ago and women joined the unit. But it wasn't a "any woman who wants to be an engineer gets to be one" thing, so I don't know why you'd think that would be the case now.
I don't believe this, and more importantly I haven't seen an actual quality argument that allowing physically fit and capable women into combat units is going to hurt or destroy effectiveness.
Some talking head that wrote a book going on cable news and saying "this will hurt fighting effectiveness because women are not men" is not an argument.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports