Women in combat policy to change

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And stop brainwashing kids.

So then you advocate banning all subsims, tanksims and any other violent computer games for anyone under 21? That is what you're talking about.

[MH]

Women can be very serious at what they do in army.
They may lack the attitude of "this is my rifle this is my gun" but do excellent professional jobs.

The army's job is to screen candidates for any given profession
Arguing that women simply cant do job because army can't do the job is pointless.
Go complain about your army recruiting system.
I should also point out that basic and advanced training should filter the candidates even further.

Another question is weather we want to see women in combat and so on.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by MH

Women can be very serious at what they do in army.
They may lack the attitude of "this is my rifle this is my gun" but do excellent professional jobs.

The army's job is to screen candidates for any given profession
Arguing that women simply cant do job because army can't do the job is pointless.
Go complain about your army recruiting system.
I should also point out that basic and advanced training should filter the candidates even further.

Another question is weather we want to see women in combat and so on.

I am not quite sure what the "this is my rifle" attitude women have been in Militarily Police units since the mid 70's in these units in several branches they are the armed defense of things like nuclear missile silos if you in one of those units you have the the "this is my rifle attitude" if by that you mean I will use my weapon to engage a threat.

Try as they may basic training does not screen out everyone it only screens out the ones with the most trouble one can easily scrape by in basic and not get noticed.In advanced training (tech training) again people can slip through in advanced training they are teaching you the basics of your job primarily.Only people that have notable poor behavior or obvious mental issues are going to get noticed or the ones that simply fail to pass the academic aspect and most times these will get sent to another "easier" career field.

Furthermore women have already been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of various non Infantry ground units some have been killed or seriously wounded a female member of USAF security forces willed killed in action in Iraq and women have been flying in combat aircraft as well in every branch.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

So then you advocate banning all subsims, tanksims and any other violent computer games for anyone under 21? That is what you're talking about.

It would not mean a loss for human race if war games would not find so much acceptance amongst gaming people, yes. But even more it would help if the business of the military would not be simplified and glossed so much in general media, the proverbial obsession for weapons in some countries would no longer be tolerated and 12 year old would not be allowed to fire assault rifles at a gunnery range under their parent's supervison.

If we would never have heared of Sub Command, Battlefield and Call of Duty, we would not miss it. So indeed their non-existence from all beginning on wouldn't be a loss for anyone indeed. Craving to play these titles is an artifical creation. And in some cases it even is military interest behind it - it is wellknown that the game America's Army was planned and created as a promotion tool for service in the armed forces. That'S why they gave it away for free.

I for myself, I lose interest in military content in sims the more the older I get (I become 45 next week). I don't play military sims much anymore, not even SBP or Falcon. The DCS sims I got last year rest on my shelf, almost untouched. I still like to play, but not as much as in the past, and the military sim genre simply cannot attract me as much as before anymore.

I consider 21 to be a more appropriate age barrier than 18 in many instances, however. And regarding car driving I think young men should be allowed to drive alone some years later than girls indeed. Accident and traffic risk statistics of police and insurrance companies speak a very clear language here. The reason for the difference is evolutional biology, there is no cure against it (except genetic therapy, maybe).

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

So then you advocate banning all subsims, tanksims and any other violent computer games for anyone under 21? That is what you're talking about.

If SubSims, TankSims and violent game dev teams are going to schools and advocating joining the military by the promise of getting a leg up on college education and future employment then yes, I would say that this is what he is talking about. Since I am not aware of any such occurance, I would be inclinded to disagree.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

If SubSims, TankSims and violent game dev teams are going to schools and advocating joining the military by the promise of getting a leg up on college education and future employment then yes, I would say that this is what he is talking about. Since I am not aware of any such occurance, I would be inclinded to disagree.

That's one side of the story...
On another hand if you want to have good professional army and not just bunch of blood thirsty morons in it, you need some way to attract as many people as possible.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by MH

That's one side of the story...
On another hand if you want to have good professional army and not just bunch of blood thirsty morons in it, you need some way to attract as many people as possible.

Again, that is fine. However, if you want to advertise your military as a vehicle for social mobility, you should not complain when it is used as such. You simply cannot have it both ways.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

If SubSims, TankSims and violent game dev teams are going to schools and advocating joining the military by the promise of getting a leg up on college education and future employment then yes, I would say that this is what he is talking about. Since I am not aware of any such occurance, I would be inclinded to disagree.

I see, you're ok with glamorizing war and military life as long as it's not the military itself that's doing the glamorizing.

The way I see it the military is a vehicle for future employment and helping pay for college unless you advocate eliminating those benefits.

Like it or not advertizing goes hand in hand with having an all-volunteer military. If you want to eliminate military marketing then you're going to have to find another way to meet manpower requirements, and the only realistic alternative that I see is the draft.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

I see, you're ok with glamorizing war and military life as long as it's not the military itself that's doing the glamorizing.

The way I see it the military is a vehicle for future employment and helping pay for college unless you advocate eliminating those benefits.

Like it or not advertizing goes hand in hand with having an all-volunteer military. If you want to eliminate military marketing then you're going to have to find another way to meet manpower requirements, and the only realistic alternative that I see is the draft.

You're missing the point. Once again, if you do not like people using the military as a platform for social mobility, then perhaps the military should stop advertising itself as a platform for social mobility.

In regards to your specific point, you placed words in Skybird's mouth using a false premise. I simply indicated to you that it was a false premise. The message of the video game is that blowing stuff up is fun. The message of the recruiter is that you can make something out of yourself and have a great future through military service. These two messages are clearly not the same thing.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

You're missing the point. Once again, if you do not like people using the military as a platform for social mobility, then perhaps the military should stop advertising itself as a platform for social mobility.

In regards to your specific point, you placed words in Skybird's mouth using a false premise. I simply indicated to you that it was a false premise. The message of the video game is that blowing stuff up is fun. The message of the recruiter is that you can make something out of yourself and have a great future through military service. These two messages are clearly not the same thing.

The message of a recruiter is that not only can you make something out of yourself and have a great future (both being arguably true) but also that blowing up stuff is fun. That certainly is the main message of games like America's Army. What is more important? The message or the messenger?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

The message of a recruiter is that not only can you make something out of yourself and have a great future (both being arguably true) but also that blowing up stuff is fun. That certainly is the main message of games like America's Army. What is more important? The message or the messenger?

Neither. From this thread we can clearly see that it is the potential 'customer', if you will, that is important. The military markets itself with clips of cool looking infantrymen shooting cool guns and crawling or running through picturesque terrain with exciting music playing in the background. And all of this with the promise of a better future. Of course, after decades of seeing this sort of thing, the women want it too. It would appear that military advertising is more effective than even the Pentagon would have liked.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Neither. From this thread we can clearly see that it is the potential 'customer', if you will, that is important. The military markets itself with clips of cool looking infantrymen shooting cool guns and crawling or running through picturesque terrain with exciting music playing in the background. And all of this with the promise of a better future. Of course, after decades of seeing this sort of thing, the women want it too. It would appear that military advertising is more effective than even the Pentagon would have liked.

The military markets itself with a lot of things, from cool looking Infantrymen to soldiers of both sexes sitting at computer consoles, or engaged in medical tasks, or any number of other military support jobs that are just as vital to the missions success as the combat arms.

To claim one single type of Army commercial is what is making women want to be on the front line then I'd say that is a rather large oversimplification and insulting to the intelligence of the fine young men and women who volunteer to serve our country.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

What is more important? The message or the messenger?

When the messenger is not only the deliverer but the author of the message, he is responsible for it then.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

When the messenger is not only the deliverer but the author of the message, he is responsible for it then.

So I have to wonder, are the authors of Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty to be held responsible for their message too, or is that standard only to be applied to the Pentagon?

In any case of the two groups, the military's message is far more accurate. People have made something of themselves through the military. Very few veterans would say that military service didn't benefit them in some way.