MovieChat Forums > G.I. Jane (1997) Discussion > Confused... (Plot premise)

Confused... (Plot premise)


I haven't seen this film yet, but I've heard about it often enough, and I've seen snippets of it on T.V. I'm a little confused about the premise. Does this movie even begin to pretend that a woman is half-way capable of lasting more than, say, an hour in Navy SEAL training? Because, I mean, I've seen a lot of films with some far-fetched plots, but I'm pretty sure this one takes the cake for being totally ludicrous. It's an affront to the Navy SEALs if that's really what this movie protrays.

There's a reason women aren't allowed to sign up for the SEALs (or any Special Ops force). Ready for it? Here it is: THEY CAN'T DO WHAT THE JOB REQUIRES. They can't. They aren't physically able. SImple as that. This has nothing to do with whether men are "better" than women, they're just different. That difference should be celebrated, not scorned. The difference extends beyond physical limitations, but that's the most glaringly obvious one. To ignore that is blatant ignorance. We can have a nice debate about other differences between men and women, but to stand here and actually consider a woman capable of passing the rigorous hardships of the Navy SEAL training program is downright offensive.

reply

I resisted watching this movie for years because of the same reason: that it would show that a woman could pass SEAL training, which of course is total nonsense. However, I did finally get up the courage to watch some of it about a year ago. Apparently, it's not full-blown SEAL training, but some kind of half-assed training for support personnel, or some BS like that. From what I remember of it, it still sucked, which is a shame because I like Ridley Scott as a director.

reply

Maybe your confusion comes from neither of you having seen the film.

But that's good, you both know what you don't like and what you don't want to see. So watch some other film.


"Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" Will Rogers

reply

Are you people completely out of your minds???????

Yes, women and men are different physiologically, but NOT so drastically as to say that a woman CAN NOT complete SEAL training. Maybe you need to look up "woman" in an encyclopedia or something. It is ludacris to say that a woman can't go through the same training as a man simply because of gender. I don't know what women you've known, but I've known plenty of women that could beat most people (including men) at endurance trials. I bet that you men who wrote the above posts don't know the meaning of the word perseverance.

However, from an analytic, rather than physical perspective, I think that men are genetically more stubborn than women, so they are more likely to put up with training and complete it than are women. Also, women have higher superegos than do men, so they experience emotions like guilt and shame more freely than do men, which could contribute to an decrease in their ability to complete intense training like SEAL training due to the added stress.

Anyway, my point is that while women have a few physical disatvantages than men in strength, it is an ENORMOUS stretch to say that a woman is physically unable to complete SEAL training as well as a man.

Good grief.

reply

[deleted]

it is an ENORMOUS stretch to say that a woman is physically unable to complete SEAL training as well as a man.


Ugh, it's hardly an enormous stretch. Try disregarding your PC, TV brainwashing/Women's Studies indoctrination and maybe opening your eyes up to things such as 'reality' and 'logic'. It'd help you in looking less like a cliche, idealistic ignoramus who can't think for themself.

reply

ROTFLMAO

reply

Given the obvious physical differences between men and women, I'd say that it's highly unlikely that a woman could finish SEAL training - but it certainly ISN'T impossible.

Most MEN couldn't finish SEAL training.

But geez - get over yourselves. It's just a freakin' movie.

reply

You know someday, I'd like to see them put a bunch of tough women through the training with equal standards just to disprove the premise that NO woman can do it.

Just because there are standards for fitness tests that lower the bar for women or races that have categories for both men and women doesn't mean that a small percentage of women don't do far better than a lot of the men.

reply

You know someday, I'd like to see them put a bunch of tough women through the training with equal standards just to disprove the premise that NO woman can do it.


As if one could be so sure that that would be the case. I'd say that standards are typically lowered for women for A REASON.
This simplistic thinking 3rd grade fantasy of "anything you can do I can do better" is just that(despite how many ill-tempered bulldykes we might know). And there's nothing wrong with it. Men and women were set up to be biologically different.
Yes there are women whom are much stronger than other women and some men. But no woman should feel the need to be a man. That's not empowerment, outside of maybe a deluded form of it.

reply

I just have to wonder why MeiLing_1989 seems so threatened by some frail women.
Why does this gender thing matter so much?
And what is is his problem anyway?

reply

It is the generalization that kills your arguement. Maybe most women would not be able to handle the course seen in the movie or in SEAL training. I'll agree with that. Does that mean, then, that NO woman should be able to join? There are women out there that can break your spine with the flick of a pinky. There are men out there who can't lift a newborn baby. Generally speaking, men are stronger physically than women, but no army can afford to simply go by the general facts. "An army of one" -- one person can make a difference; that one woman who can actually complete the training should be allowed to because, like O'Neill, she might be the one to save an important man. And then her presence is a good thing.

In the area of emotional stability, men are stronger in war. Women have get those crippling emotions ten times more quickly than men do. While men can blow up a building despite soldiers (enemy, of course) being in there, a women might hesitate for a fraction of a second and cause utter destruction. Then again, you have the women who would burn you as soon as look at you.

Lastly, (this was not in your argument, but is relevant) I agree that O'Neill would be brutally used should her troop be captured. At one point or another, the enemy would get the brilliant idea to abuse the woman to make the men talk. Then you have to fear about whether the woman will tell the men not to talk (like O'Neill did), won't say anything at all, or will actually ask that the men talk so she could be rescued. Of course, that is a problem that can be [not easily] overcome. It needs to come from a deep-seated trust between teammates. Just like the Master Chief said about drowning, the teammates need to keep their presence of mind when seeing their friend beaten. It will go against everything they have ever learned, but they will have to allow her to be beaten. It all depends on the person; there is no saying that a man would not talk to stop another man from being beaten. I rather like the idea of the Master Chief to expose the recruits to these kinds of situations so that they can keep their heads when the situation actually occurs. They distrusted him enough that they were wary of him and actually believed that he would hurt O'Neill just as an enemy would; it was almost exactly like the real situation.

The point of this whole post is that women are capable of what men are capable of doing. Some women can do what some men can do; some men cannot do what other men can, so on, so forth. It is absurd and, yes, ignorant to think that there is not a woman in the world who can compete against a man in any sport (or anything else) and not win. The beauty of the human race is that we are all different and no stereotype can hold up against that.

reply

I agree with everything you say Tinorial.
Also, surely a lot of SEAL training is about coping with the pain, right? And that, my friends, is not dependent on whether you are a man or a woman, but on the individual you are. There are women in this world who have put up with extroadinary amounts of pain, and yet not broken. I read a book about a man interned in a concentration camp during WW2, and he recounts the story of a woman suspected of being a secret agent by the Nazis, who did not talk even after having all her fingernails RIPPED out. If a woman has the right level of fitness, and the strength of mind, then I truly believe she w2ould have a chance of completing SEAL training. Besides, where is the harm in letting someone try?
In fact, I've a good mind to join the Navy or whatever just so I can have a go myself. Sure, you'd doubt me completely, and probably think I'd have no chance. But really, I'm physically fit and strong; stubborn as hell; incredibly determined; and pretty good at coping with pain (hey, I had 500 kilos of horse fall on top of me when I was 15, but still got up and carried on). My point is, although the chances of me actually completing SEAL training are probably quite low (as the apparently are even among the men), why shouldn't I be allowed to try? Just because I'm a woman?

Gene Hunt: She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot

reply

Besides, women have to go through childbirth. Enough said.

--
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
--Oscar Wilde

reply

The beauty of the human race is that we are all different and no stereotype can hold up against that.


Except black people being good at sports, white men being unable to jump, and Asians being good at math...

I may assume that Jane Doe is a WWF/WWE fan and has seen too many Divas.

"The horror is not in the bang, but in the anticipation of it." -Alfred Hitchcock

reply

I'm sure the idea of a women who is able to beat you up offends your masculine sensibilities, but believe me, they do exist. As a general rule, women are tough, or not tough. And a tough woman is generally tougher than a tough man, because she has more to prove. I don't just mean physical strength, also the mental strength not to give in. There are plenty of women in the world who would be capable of surviving SEAL training, and your calm assumption that we are all weaklings is downright offensive. I know one girl myself who I am certain could handle any physical training inflicted upon her. She's planning to become a PT instructor in the Army, which is a tough as you can get without being in any of the special forces (SAS, SBS, etc). You are exactly the kind of person I hope never has kids, because any sons you will teach to become as sexist and obnoxious as yourself, and any daughters will be brought up believing themselves incapable of doing anything other than marry a rich man to be successful in life.


I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...

reply

Since most men are sure that a woman couldn't complete the training, why not let them try? Your point will either be proven, or we will finally see that some women might be able to do it. I don't see the harm in trying and it will end this argument. I have no problem with women doing what has been considered a male job, such as SEAL or firefigher if, and this is a big if, they can pass the phyiscal part without special assistance! I don't care if I'm in a burning building if it's a guy or girl saving me, as long as they have the muscle to do it! I've seen women who can out benchpress guys, so if they physically can do it, who cares. And yes sometimes women might be more emotional, but so are some guys. I've also met emotionally cold women and over emotional guys (straight ones too). So instead of all this supposition lets just do it and if they wash out, they're out, if they make it, give them a chance.

What the *beep* is the internet??

reply


Since most men are sure that a woman couldn't complete the training, why not let them try?

Agreed. I think the premise of this movie (which is getting lost in various rants on various threads) is not that women can, so much as women should be allowed to Try. Which I agree with, unless someone with military experience/knowledge has a compelling reason to the contrary. Anyone? Would it be a waste of resources, or somehow dangerous, or bad, for women to be allowed to Try?

I'm asking honestly. I know there are a lot of folks out there w/specialized knowledge. . .some of the posts on here have been fascinating.


I've seen women who can out benchpress guys, so if they physically can do it, who cares.

This, however, is just silly, and part of the reason these discussions are getting bogged down. Women are not, and have never been, and never will be, as strong as men. SO: you haven't seen women who can outbenchpress guys. You've seen a couple of women who could lift more than a couple of men. Which is so meaningless that it doesn't belong in this discussion.

"Personally I hope they make all the gods black and change it from Valhalla to Valholla!"

reply

The job of the SEALs is to kill people and break things. They have no time to be a proving ground for social themes. Certainly we all know a female who can do things the average man cannot do, but there is no room in the SEALs for even the "average" man.

I'm aware that it's just a movie. There's no need to remind me.

reply

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not you can complete the course. Just like O'Neill says in the film, she wants to have the choice. The men who sign up are allowed to try, and quit if they can't cut it, why shouldn't a woman be allowed. I believe there ARE women who could cut it. Of course they should be given the choice.

reply