DDM: Chicks not in chainmail

[joethelawyer]

That's just brilliant!

I hate the way people use "old-fashioned" or "traditional" to justify the weirdest things. Ironically, considering this thread, I was discussing just yesterday with my students how people will call themselves "old-fashioned" when being sexist and assume that somehow justifies it, but nobody (well, much fewer people) will be, say, racist and try justifying it because they're "old-fashioned."

For the record, just to make myself even more lovable, I am anti-political correctness in every way as well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have a lot of friends and family in the military, and among the ones I know, how open they are to women (and gays, for that matter) in the service- especially in the front lines- depends on what they do:

By and large, infantry is still pretty anti- both.

OTOH, snipers and tank crews just care that you can do your job.

Submariners? They tend to split- no women allowed but gays might be given the benefit of the doubt- again, dependent upon whether they can do the job.

Younger officers are more open to both than older officers.

 

[shilsen]

For what it's worth, I agree with Jack7's point of view. I got into an argument with a professor in lawschool on this very topic, like 15 yrs ago. My position was that women should not be in the front lines of combat---not because they couldn't do the job, but because it would prevent many male soldiers from doing their job effectively. Most men of a certain age tend to be more protective of women, sharing Jack7's and my point of view. So with the majority of combat troops being men, and a good number of those men looking out for a minority of their companions, instead of focusing on getting the job done, it makes the troops overal less effective with women in the ranks. It's not about fairness, equality or justice. Just cold hard practicality that I base the decision on.

Besides the fact that practicality (at least for me) seems a strange thing to actually rank above fairness, equality or justice, that's a pretty short-sighted type of "cold hard practicality". A similar argument was used when blacks were being introduced into the US military, with many claiming that it would make the military less effective, since it would supposedly lower morale among white soldiers, who would also be less likely to work cohesively with blacks. And now that's not seen as a problem any more because people are used to it and have been educated to be less racist. What was supposedly impractical no longer is, but it would still be impractical if certain changes hadn't been introduced. Not to mention that a military which cannot include 52% of the population (I think that's the percentage of women in the US now) is a less effective and practical military, certainly in the long term and arguably in the short term too.

 

[joethelawyer]

Besides the fact that practicality (at least for me) seems a strange thing to actually rank above fairness, equality or justice, that's a pretty short-sighted type of "cold hard practicality". A similar argument was used when blacks were being introduced into the US military, with many claiming that it would make the military less effective, since it would supposedly lower morale among white soldiers, who would also be less likely to work cohesively with blacks. And now that's not seen as a problem any more because people are used to it and have been educated to be less racist. What was supposedly impractical no longer is, but it would still be impractical if certain changes hadn't been introduced. Not to mention that a military which cannot include 52% of the population (I think that's the percentage of women in the US now) is a less effective and practical military, certainly in the long term and arguably in the short term too.

Not worth arguing about.

 

[pawsplay]

Oh, I know. Just pointing out the irony.

Yeah, I know, right? The way I see it, if the Greeks can make a female human warlord figure...

 

[Mark]

Yeah, I know, right? The way I see it, if the Greeks can make a female human warlord figure...

. . . and since we can put a man on the moon . . . or a person, anyway . . .

But, yeah, you'd think with as many sets of DDM out there'd be something for all of the PC classes by now, except for the totally new classes or races from 4E. I'm still thinking that if I can get 100 unpainted zombies for $10.00, someone should be able to make a pack of twenty or at least a dozen pre-painted orcs/goblins/skeletons/etc for $20.00, but maybe that's still just me.

 

[billd91]

For what it's worth, I agree with Jack7's point of view. I got into an argument with a professor in lawschool on this very topic, like 15 yrs ago. My position was that women should not be in the front lines of combat---not because they couldn't do the job, but because it would prevent many male soldiers from doing their job effectively. Most men of a certain age tend to be more protective of women, sharing Jack7's and my point of view. So with the majority of combat troops being men, and a good number of those men looking out for a minority of their companions, instead of focusing on getting the job done, it makes the troops overal less effective with women in the ranks. It's not about fairness, equality or justice. Just cold hard practicality that I base the decision on.

There are cold, hard practicality issues, but attitude should not be one of them, in part, because the attitude won't change as long as you protect it from being changed. And in the case of designing miniatures, in the absence of any real person being involved, there's no practical justification for such an attitude at all.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Are you trying to steel my thunder?

He certainly stole your XP.

 

[Cadfan]

Not worth arguing about.

Its actually a really good point. There are modern military scholars who continue to believe that forced racial integration was one of the factors in the US's poor performance in Vietnam, and the dispute over whether this integration was wise is one that is still debated today in military and military policy circles.

Editted to be less aggressive.

I stand by my general annoyance here. But I should rephrase it. I believe that your dismissiveness here demonstrates a lack of understanding of modern military thinking on the topic that ought to preclude you from having strong opinions.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Its actually a really good point. There are modern military scholars who continue to believe that forced racial integration was one of the factors in the US's poor performance in Vietnam, and the dispute over whether this integration was wise is one that is still debated today in military and military policy circles.

Editted to be less aggressive.

I stand by my general annoyance here. But I should rephrase it. I believe that your dismissiveness here demonstrates a lack of understanding of modern military thinking on the topic that ought to preclude you from having strong opinions.

And yet many other modern military scholars disagree with them and, in fact, see it as hilarious justification for their own personal racism and need to excuse the loss in Vietnam.

Every field has it's crazies who cling to stupid, outdated, and illogical beliefs. Hell, my field has evolutionary psychology note how I refuse to capitalize it, which is just as valid as Phrenology, note how I choose to capitalize even that.