EPTOn August 23 2009 12:29 EsX_Raptor wrote:
![[image loading]](http://i31.tinypic.com/2094pdd.jpg)
9:20 in 1 1/2 miles to get an 8?? Shit I know so many people who can do that
Why can't men be men and women be women? - Page 5
| Blogs > 2b-Rigtheous |
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
9:20 in 1 1/2 miles to get an 8?? Shit I know so many people who can do that | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
|
alphafuzard
United States1610 Posts
On August 23 2009 13:30 ArvickHero wrote: 9:20 in 1 1/2 miles to get an 8?? Shit I know so many people who can do that really? thats pretty fast its about equivalent to running a mile in 6 minutes, as the longer distance means its more difficult to maintain a pace (keeping a mile/6min pace would put you in at 9 minutes of course) that speed would put you on my schools jv track team  edit on topic: In my opinion, standards should be universal, especially when considering jobs where lives may (and probably will) be on the line. Gender should not be considered when making these decisions. If a woman is even slightly less qualified than a man, the man should be hired, regardless of upholding "political correctness". The whole concept of the feminist movement is kind of backwards. Equality until it becomes burdensome... That semi rant makes me seem sexist, so for the record: I SUPPORT WOMEN'S RIGHTS!!! | ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
| ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
On August 23 2009 10:18 ghostWriter wrote: Womens' sports are also boring to watch. Some are actually entertaining if you know where to look. | ||
NeverGG
United Kingdom5399 Posts
On August 23 2009 13:45 omninmo wrote: im posting from bangkok right now... where men can be men or women. Hahahaha best reply. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On August 23 2009 13:38 alphafuzard wrote: really? thats pretty fast its about equivalent to running a mile in 6 minutes, as the longer distance means its more difficult to maintain a pace (keeping a mile/6min pace would put you in at 9 minutes of course) In high school, after not working out at all for a year, I ran a mile in 6 minutes. It is not very hard if you are young, healthy, male, and not fat. 1.5 miles in 9:20 should be about the same difficulty. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 23 2009 14:25 Severedevil wrote: In high school, after not working out at all for a year, I ran a mile in 6 minutes. It is not very hard if you are young, healthy, male, and not fat. 1.5 miles in 9:20 should be about the same difficulty. well as a 25 year old who is very healthy and does work out and is very lean, 1.5 miles in 9:20 would be pretty hard for me. I might be able to pull it off but probably not actually. | ||
|
Toxic
Canada233 Posts
On August 23 2009 10:18 ghostWriter wrote: Womens' sports are also boring to watch. Have you ever watched female beach volleyball ? | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On August 23 2009 14:45 travis wrote: well as a 25 year old who is very healthy and does work out and is very lean, 1.5 miles in 9:20 would be pretty hard for me. I might be able to pull it off but probably not actually. I think you underestimate yourself. Remember you can warm up first, and you're allowed to feel like crap afterwards. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
Purind
Canada3562 Posts
On August 23 2009 12:28 iamho wrote: so what? men have a high sit-up req, a lower sprint req. seems fair enough The number in the sprint column is the amount of time it takes to do a 300m sprint. In other words, a lower number indicates a higher requirement, not a lower one | ||
|
benutbutter
United States66 Posts
| ||
|
Arnic
81 Posts
I think the majority of people understand the truth so I don't agree that men are seriously being mocked or ridiculed for having sensible reasons as to why women aren't suited to or shouldn't have the rights to hold any position a man can. And by sensible reasons, I mean being able to understand and explain why human nature and instinct are factors as well as physical strength and ability. If you say things like "women are only suited to deskjobs in the police force" or "they're completely incompetent in war" then I can't honestly say that I'd be surprised if someone gave you shit for doing so. The example of a policewoman unable to break up a fight doesn't really hold up for me. There are other ways to break up a fight than to wade in and physically seperate people and also police aren't usually trained to use physical force as their first response to a situation like that. If the incident had occurred and there had only been one male police officer there, it still would have been correct procedure to call for back up. Imagine the situation if it had only been a male officer there. What would have happened if he got involved in physically seperating the two guys fighting, then they both turned on him or some of their friends showed up? Or he seperated them with no problems and later on, one of the guys decides to sue the police for his injuries by claiming the officer caused them when he broke up the fight? He could easily find himself in serious trouble so although I'm aware that every situation is different and personal judgement may be exercised by the police to an extent, I think the female officer's actions were correct in that particular situation as it was described by the OP. I also think it's pretty damn stupid to describe women as incompetent where Military careers are concerned. Not every position within the Army, Navy or Airforce requires someone to be able to carry a tank full of guys to safety across a minefield under enemy fire whilst carrying equipment equivalent in weight to a small elephant. If you're deciding something based purely on physical ability, that's fine. I completely agree that the majority of women will not perform as well as men in that area and that there should be no arguing about gender inequality as it's outright dangerous to lower testing standards for work or a career which is based solely upon that. But there are plenty of other positions that do not require physical prowess in which women can perform perfectly well. Unless you want to start debating differences in intelligence between genders or if women are guaranteed to react emotionally to a situation which calls for logical reasoning? Apart from the physical/strength differences, the main concern voiced by the Military about women in purely offensive roles is that the men may place a higher value on a woman's life than on their own or the task at hand. It is considered more likely, should a unit get attacked, that the men in the unit would be tempted to place priority on protecting the woman or going to her aid. It would be more traumatic to hear a woman scream, to see a woman in pain and harder to cope emotionally with seeing a woman blown to pieces than another man. It is also considered more likely that, if taken hostage, the male instinct to protect could be deliberately abused if there was a female soldier in the group who could be exploited for that purpose. That's generally why you can find women in many Military positions but not ones that are primarily offensive with definite or higher chances of being in close range combat situations. I think this is where the debate over women in offensive roles in the Military gets interesting as it's more about human nature in relation to gender than it is about gender inequality itself. From the male point of view, they don't want to see women getting hurt, blown up or tortured and that's a good thing. It's also an instinctive thing. When war happens and it's not for profit or greed, it's usually to protect something, something that cannot fight for itself and that's how women are perceived on the fighting scale. From the female point of view women are asking to be considered as equal in a way that allows them to protect as well. Not just their children or homes but their rights, ideals and hopes. Their countries and their countrymen. Men can go to war, can join the police, can battle fire to protect what they care for and about. To make sure that the things they love stay safe and women ask to be able to do exactly the same on an equal basis. It's not necessarily a stupid right to ask for as the reasoning behind it is understandable, it's the same for both genders but it would be a difficult thing to achieve as human nature would have to be surpressed for it to happen. With police work and Firefighting I don't have an issue with women working in the same capacity as men if they're equal on a physical level. I can think of many situations where a female police officer could be more suited to a task than a male one. Maybe not as many for firefighting but definitely some. And to be fair and correct, there are always the exceptions so I'm pretty sure that for every situation I could come up with for a female performing well, a counter argument for a male could be made also. But that'd be rather circular and somewhat self proving that both could do just as well. Police work and Firefighting aren't just about having authority, although that topic does interest me when it comes down to cultural differences and on an individual level, parental influence. Also, police work requires a somewhat different mentality as I see it. Firefighting as well, to an extent. You don't sign up to either of those with the possiblity of having to kill another person in mind, fighting other people or actually being killed by another person. Although it's a possibility, it's a little less likely than if you join the Military. When it comes to the Military and women wanting the exact same offensive combat positions as men, I can understand why women want that, why it's frustrating not to have the opportunity to have it and I can also see why gender discrimination can turn into an argument about feminism. No matter how logical or sensible the reasoning, it comes down to women not being able to have the right to those positions because they are women and even if they could perform physically as well as the men, they would be a risk to their colleagues or treated differently because they are women. There will always be really stubborn people who see a label as nothing more. If something says "handle with care", it usually does it for a reason. If someone deliberately handles it with not care just to demonstrate the supposed oppression of objects that need care, they are an idiot. The problem as some may call it, is that although there are women who could perform just as well as men, they're not allowed to because a) it's nearly always been men who have fought and b) the women who are able to perform as well as men physically are in the minority. Because of a) the Military has always been a male establishment. So if a woman were to join up now and earn her way to a regular frontline position, she'd be an unsettling and potentially risky novelty. People could argue that if women had been as involved as men in any kind of fighting from the very start of all fighting, then it'd currently be acceptable as the precedent would already have been set, everyone would be used to it and if someone gets blown up, it wouldn't matter what kind of underwear they had on. Therefore, the solution would be to let lots of women in right now so that men can get start getting used to it. Which wouldn't work because of b). There just aren't enough women who can match men when it comes to strength and stamina and also not that many women who would want to have an offensive combat based Military career. The underwear thing brings up another arguing point and again, it's human nature not something that's deliberately discriminatory. Warfare is not only terrible and horrific, it's also adrenalin fuelled action and excitement. It's the big fucking rush of staring death in the face, giving him the finger and getting away with it. That's one great big primal turn on and if you're a guy out in the middle of nowhere with only a few women around, women who are equally as good as you at kicking ass there might be issues. So, even if the woman feels exactly the same and is just as turned on... Oh dear, there's another problem. Armies tend to frown upon their soldiers going at it with each other. And of course, only a few women? And what if they don't feel the same? You've either got a whole load of testerone crazy guys who are frustrated and tempted or worse possibilities still. Not just that, which is probably a minor point but relationships in general would more likely be formed if there were a plethora of women fighting alongside men all the time. Some might be OK and fine with it but the last thing you'd need when you're embroiled in a close range shootout is to be worrying if that girl next to you, the one you secretly fancy, is going to get shot in the eye. Being honest, who here would be more likely to look out for a girl fighting alongside them than another guy? Even if the girl had proven that she was able to take care of herself. To play devil's advocate and also in the hope that the OP is considering the rationale of both sides, think about this from the point of view of an exception as not all feminists want gender equality purely for the sake of it. Say you have an intelligent and physically capable woman who wants an offensive position within the Marines. She wants to help others and she wants to protect her country. A lot of men want to do the same thing and she'd make just as good a soldier as any of them. That woman would be denied her chance to do so as those men would either care too much about her, would find her a distraction or would want to bang her. She'd be a risk to their unit so it's a no. Sure, she could take another position, she could go into logistics, signals, the MP... But it's not quite the same. Technically, she would be prevented from achieving what she wants because the men she'd work with might treat her differently. That's not her fault, she can't help being female and it's not as if she would want that or would ask those men to do so. But also, it's not the fault of the men that they want to protect and look out for someone they think might need them to. For all people to have perfect equality in war, they'd have to stop being human. Or not go to war. So although I think it would be fair for those women who are capable to be allowed the opportunity to prove themselves in purely offensive Military positions, I don't think it'd work at the present time. Sometimes situations of unfairness or injustice exist and those who deserve equality are denied it for reasons that are logical and because it works as it is at the present time. But if everyone accepted something that worked at the time without ever questioning it or considering the possiblity of change, we'd be living in a really fucked up world right now. Personally, I think a viable solution to all of this, one that would make everything equal is to replace all police, firefighters and the military with androgynous robots. Then humanity could band together and find something else to bitch about until we invented cyborgs. Then they could complain about inequality, robo-discrimination and not having the right to bear childborgs that could become president. | ||
|
food
United States1951 Posts
On August 23 2009 14:25 Severedevil wrote: In high school, after not working out at all for a year, I ran a mile in 6 minutes. It is not very hard if you are young, healthy, male, and not fat. 1.5 miles in 9:20 should be about the same difficulty. lol full of shit | ||
|
food
United States1951 Posts
ofc results are not as good as males produce, but its still the same sport i enjoy watching tennis, gymnastics, swimming, fencing, running, winter sports etc etc | ||
|
nayumi
Australia6499 Posts
| ||
|
starflash
190 Posts
personally, i dont trust females in the same way that i trust men, and this would affect what occupation i would prefer each to be involved in EXAMPLE: i know a lot of women who agree, or claim, that "working with women is very different and much [harder] than working with men" for me its not just about obvious physical differences, but the fact that men and women THINK differently to one another. a group of women are FAR less efficient than a group of male workers, from what i can gather, in certain jobs and at a certain standard of work (eg lower/middle-class salary jobs) these arent really my words, but the words of (m)any honest women. personally i would not want an all-female crowd to be doing something important because in my experience half the time they will be bitching at each other and occupying their mind/time with retarded things that men seldom seem to have issue with NOTE my "authority" in saying this is experience working with large groups of women for last 2 years. in every case, compared to the men, they are on a different level of retardedness. (also like i said many women will confirm this) | ||
|
PokePill
United States1048 Posts
On August 23 2009 14:25 Severedevil wrote: It is not very hard if you are young, healthy, male, and not fat. 1.5 miles in 9:20 should be about the same difficulty. I think you mean: It is not very hard if you are young, have little muscle mass, male, and skinny? | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
On August 23 2009 10:43 iamho wrote: so i guess your logic applies to race too? should we exclude all black people from intellectual jobs just because most black americans are less educated than white americans? i bet most women in the military can kick your ass I always thought we should use affirmative action to let more Asians into the NBA. It's only fair. On August 23 2009 12:33 il0seonpurpose wrote: Except sports like volleyball, tennis and gymnastics. Oh right tennis. Women's tennis is so awesome! They really came far from those ugly long knee length skirts. On August 23 2009 12:28 iamho wrote: so what? men have a high sit-up req, a lower sprint req. seems fair enough Lol wtf? Higher sit-up req means more situps in a minute and lower sprint req means they have to run faster and farther in a shorter period of time. Also, just because women can shoot guns doesn't mean much. You aren't just dropped into a battlefield where you can shoot your weapons until you run out of bullets and then get airlifted out. You have to walk or maybe even run, carrying all your equipment (which can be over 20 pounds that you have to carry for thousands of feet) as well as your firearms and other miscellaneous items. Fighting a battle isn't just shooting lol. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i31.tinypic.com/9lcpd0.jpg)
