Why can't men be men and women be women? - Page 6

On August 23 2009 10:42 lilsusie wrote:
I agree that men and women are meant for different roles, and yes I agree on the physical capabilities. Things like that SHOULD be measured on an equal standard. However, the tone of your post sounds like there's a definitive "women are weaker lol we need to protect them". It's a bit condescending. Are you saying then, that men shouldn't be homemakers? Or cooks? Is this a "we should be considered equal in all aspects" thread? or a "women are weak, boo feminism" thread?

On August 23 2009 15:20 Arnic wrote:
Question: Who's doing the mocking and ridiculing of men?

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 would either care too much about her, would find her distracting or would want to bang her. That's not her fault, she can't help being female and it's not as if she would want or ask those men to do any of those things.
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.

On August 24 2009 00:57 Zona wrote:
The things you think of as policework - chasing down criminals, etc - is probably a lesser part of their job. More importantly, they investigate, they interact with the community, and so on. For a lot of these tasks, women are as good, if not better. Generally, although not universally, their higher average level of empathy leads them to be more effective in this respect. The violent good-for-tv part of policework only occurs in the minority of arrests, and in any case, the investigative legwork needs to be done before they make their move.

On August 24 2009 04:00 Chef wrote:

I really don't know why so many people think that. I've never noticed women being more empathetic than men in my entire life. Have there at least been some studies that suggest this? I have a lifetime of worthless anecdotal evidence that lead me to believe otherwise. Maybe I'm just attracted to very insensitive women.

On August 24 2009 00:30 Foucault wrote:
Discussing this on a gaming forum will only result in people (nerds) discussing hot women and guys putting down women and loling about it

It's retarded, but I guess people are sheep and do whatever everyone else does. That's what you should really lol about

On August 24 2009 04:11 Chef wrote:
Nah, the guys aren't beating the girls in this regard, Hawk.

On August 23 2009 15:58 food wrote:
theres plenty of interesting "female" sports to watch
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

On August 24 2009 05:18 Clasic wrote:


Thats like watching children who are very fat around the chest/ass area and skinny everywhere else play basket ball which they can only make like 2 shots a game.

On August 24 2009 04:07 Foucault wrote:


Agreed.

The majority of the qualities regarded as "male" and "female" are just social constructs, and the sooner people realize this, the better.

On August 24 2009 04:07 Foucault wrote:


Agreed.

The majority of the qualities regarded as "male" and "female" are just social constructs, and the sooner people realize this, the better.

Itelina: So, are girls as good as guys at SC, since there aren't really that many biological disadvantages?

Me (thinking of Tossgirl): Uhh...no, actually. No.

Itelina: ...Oh. You'd think that females could click and type as fast as males.

Me: Nope.

silence

So, what are women good for? I can't think of anything anymore.

Itelina: Making babies?

letting people know that it's not entirely social suicide to play computer games.