Women in combat policy to change

[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.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

The important thing to remember:

There are women who dont want to serve in the military and couldnt care less about having similar rights as men. There are women out there that dont want to be submarine commanders, who dont want to fly fighter jets. There are women out there who are perfectly happy to contribute to a household by cleaning the house, taking care of the kids, making sure a good meal is prepared and managing the home. I happen to have one such woman and she is just as vital and important a part of this household as I am.

These are the women who know their place, then?

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

These are the women who know their place, then?

I do not think he was being mysogynistic as you are painting it out to be.

I like homecooked meals from my wife, and she has no problem making them. I do not beat her or drag her by her hair to force her to make them, she does it because she likes me enough to demean herself enough to cook her old man a meal.

Am I oppressive?

I am also from a military family, and see where male/female integration can self destruct.

I am sure someone will call me a woman hater, but it is more a common sense, and human nature thing with me.

Boys and girls in war do not mix. I can just see too many 18-20 year old soldiers trying harder to get laid in the foxhole, than fighting the enemy.

I knew how I was at 18-20... Use your brains, seriously.

[MH]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I do not think he was being mysogynistic as you are painting it out to be.

I like homecooked meals from my wife, and she has no problem making them. I do not beat her or drag her by her hair to force her to make them, she does it because she likes me enough to demean herself enough to cook her old man a meal.

Am I oppressive?

I am also from a military family, and see where male/female integration can self destruct.

I am sure someone will call me a woman hater, but it is more a common sense, and human nature thing with me.

Boys and girls in war do not mix. I can just see too many 18-20 year old soldiers trying harder to get laid in the foxhole, than fighting the enemy.

I knew how I was at 18-20... Use your brains, seriously.

You are dramatising here
Look at the bright side...may be much more fun to look over somebody else's uhm...behaind.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

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.

By that rationale, I shouldn't want to drink a Coke because it is a woman is drinking one on a commercial.

[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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

By that rationale, I shouldn't want to drink a Coke because it is a woman is drinking one on a commercial.

Yeah right, because after all people give the same amount of thought to joining the Army as they do to drinking a Coke.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

By that rationale, I shouldn't want to drink a Coke because it is a woman is drinking one on a commercial.

So what would be the rational/pragmatic approach of your liking?