|
It would seem these days that with the aid of feminism that to acknowledge the fundamental differences between men and women is a crime. Western TV and movies teaches us that women and men are one and the same and are capable of doing the same duties. I don't believe this is this case.
I don't believe women can perform as well as men in certain jobs. A prime example of this would be the police force or military. Women are not fit for work in these fields unless it's behind a desk. I think it's ridiculous that a 5'4 woman police officer is supposed to protect the community. I witnessed a female police officer just watch as a fight broke out between two drunken men. She couldn't do anything and I don't blame her. She just stood there and watched and called for backup. When reinforcements finally came and the male officer broke up the fight, one of the men was quite injured. The female police officer just didn't have the ability to break up the fight. She didn't have the authority and the guys simply were not intimidated by her in the least. Of course the male officer handled the situation by physically going in and breaking up the fight.
If for some reason I needed aid from the police and they sent a couple of female officers to help me, I would feel less than safe. The military is even worse, women in war is just an absolutely horrible idea for obvious reasons. We should be protecting our women, not sending them into war, where they are completely incompetent. Some of you will point to the .0001% of women who can perform as well as men in these roles. I don't deny that there are a select few women who are capable, but there are exceptions to every rule.
The simple fact is, men are better at certain jobs and women are better at certain jobs. There can be no denying this. Yet men who speak out on such issues are ridiculed and mocked as a way to mask the truth.
 
|
Womens' sports are also boring to watch.
|
There should be the same physical requirements for both men and women for the same job, the task doesn't change based on gender. But if they can do that I really don't care if they have a penis or a vagina
|
Apparently when they put women through exercises to see if they are fit to be firemen, they have to lessen the standards to let them in. So even if they don't have the strength to haul out an unconscious person or lift a ladder, the law says that they have to employ them irrc.
|
On August 23 2009 10:18 ghostWriter wrote:
Womens' sports are also boring to watch.
womens golf isnt bad.
Beach Volleyball and gymnastics has some hot ones too.
|
On August 23 2009 10:19 floor exercise wrote:
There should be the same physical requirements for both men and women for the same job, the task doesn't change based on gender. But if they can do that I really don't care if they have a penis or a vagina
I agree, for example if a military exercise requires carrying a 90lb pack for 3-5 days at a time with 3-4 hours of sleep a night, i don't know (m)any women who could stand up to that, however most of the men i know who are in any kind of shape could.
|
Yeah I completely agree that both men and women should be subject to the same kind of tests when applying for a job. There should be no favors. Imagine a female firefighter getting the job over a stronger more capable man because she was given an easier test. This kinda of thing is dangerous when lives are at stake.
|
in addition, the current rates of depression and suicide are higher for men than they are for women. they also die earlier. men today lack proper role models and are often not allowed to be "men." this starts from a young age in school, and is bred into us throughout our teenage years.
|
I was agreeing with you until the "lol we must protect our wimminz" nonsense.
|
On August 23 2009 10:33 armed_ wrote:
I was agreeing with you until the "lol we must protect our wimminz" nonsense.
|
Nonsense? Don't you protect your girlfriend? I know I do. I'll take a beating or bullet for her if I have to. The world is a dangerous place and women need protection, don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
|
|
|
On August 23 2009 10:37 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Nonsense? Don't you protect your girlfriend? I know I do. I'll take a beating or bullet for her if I have to. The world is a dangerous place and women need protection, don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
Srsly. Women are weak, naive creatures who don't stand a chance in today's world on their own without support from a strong, reliable working man.
|
You are all obviously sexist pigs.
|
doesnt the military/police require physical testing b4 you can join? it seems like only stronger women should be able to get in
|
Feminists should just shut the hell up. Not that men are better than women, but it's simply retarded to deny that there are differences between the two genders, both physically and mentally. Everything has to be gender balanced right now, from sports teams to employment, thanks to gender equality lawyers. And if you don't have this balance, you get sued. Great job.
|
When did I say women were naive? Can you claim that walking the streets at night is 100% safe? I wouldn't want my girl walking the streets at night by herself, would you?
|
3861 Posts
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 10:39 armed_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:37 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Nonsense? Don't you protect your girlfriend? I know I do. I'll take a beating or bullet for her if I have to. The world is a dangerous place and women need protection, don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise. Srsly. Women are weak, naive creatures who don't stand a chance in today's world on their own without support from a strong, reliable working man.
Haha. Sig worthy.
|
So what world are you guys living in where all the jobs with high physical requirements are dominated by women who unrightfully forced their way in by citing gender equality? Because it's clearly different from the one where I am.
|
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
|
Personally my stance is "we should acknowledge that women and men are different and have different strengths in different areas with some exceptions i.e really buff girl who can kick your ass or awesome male cook"
Sorry if I came across up there are as "women are bad"
|
Absolutely, if the black person is less qualified than the white person, give the white person the job. However, if the black person is more qualified than the white person, give him the job. Sound logical?
|
On August 23 2009 10:45 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Absolutely, if the black person is less qualified than the white person, give the white person the job. However, if the black person is more qualified than the white person, give him the job. Sound logical?
yep, and it also sounds perfectly logical that women who were able to get through police/military training should be able to get those jobs, so I have no idea what you're complaining about.
|
i agree with your points about women's physical limitations, there is no denying that they're simply unfit for jobs like policing or combat roles in the military. i really think we sohuld stop deluding ourselves about this as well (militant feminists im looking at you)
|
The complaint is that women are subject to easier tests and requirements. Hence they beat out more qualified men on the basis that their test is significantly easier.
|
On August 23 2009 10:45 Loanshark wrote:
Personally my stance is "we should acknowledge that women and men are different and have different strengths in different areas with some exceptions i.e really buff girl who can kick your ass or awesome male cook"
Are you trying to imply that there is some difference between the two genders that makes women naturally better at cooking?
|
On August 23 2009 10:47 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:45 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Absolutely, if the black person is less qualified than the white person, give the white person the job. However, if the black person is more qualified than the white person, give him the job. Sound logical? yep, and it also sounds perfectly logical that women who were able to get through police/military training should be able to get those jobs, so I have no idea what you're complaining about.
Read the last page?
|
On August 23 2009 10:48 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
The complaint is that women are subject to easier tests and requirements. Hence they beat out more qualified men on the basis that their test is significantly easier.
proof? one random anecdote doesn't count
|
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?
You see, you've misunderstood his point. Men are PHYSICALLY superior to women in most regards. They are stronger, faster, and often have more stamina. This can't be changed by any feasible means. However cooking/homemaking is a purely intellectual art. He described physically protecting his girlfriend, which although rather chivalrous, isn't theoretically flawed because he (most likely) is bigger/stronger than her.
|
I think women are just like every other group of people - some are good at some things, some are bad at some things. 
|
On August 23 2009 10:54 ghermination wrote:
He described physically protecting his girlfriend, which although rather chivalrous, isn't theoretically flawed because he (most likely) is bigger/stronger than her.
His examples may be of physical cases, but the manner in which he presents them clearly implies an attitude that goes beyond that.
|
|
|
I think OP was just trying to say that sex shouldn't be relevant in certain areas of employment - if a man and a woman are applying for a job requiring strength, and the woman is weaker than the man, then she would be disfavored, ceterus paribus.
Though OP has demonstrated why feminism is such a tricky issue to address - one misstep and you are immediately labelled a 'sexist pig' even for your 'chivalrous views'.
|
On August 23 2009 10:54 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:48 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
The complaint is that women are subject to easier tests and requirements. Hence they beat out more qualified men on the basis that their test is significantly easier. proof? one random anecdote doesn't count
Proof?
What do you mean Proof?
It's common knowledge that PT tests for Military/Police are easier for women than they are men. I mean take uh... the SAPD PT exam to even allow yourself to apply
Men is uh.. 26 pushups 35 situps, 13:30 1.5mile.
Women its 9 pushups, 33 situps, and a 16:00 1.5mile.
Now there are definitely women out there that can do either of these high strain physical jobs... they are just more difficult to find.
|
I'm pretty sure women can be trained to hold a gun. I also don't think western movies and society are portraying women as equal at all either.
For the police force, absolutely it's ideal to have 6 foot tall behemoths patrolling the rough parts of town. But that's not the entirety of a police officer's job in many countries. A lot of roles are more community centric and focused on just community service and preventing non-violent crime. If a woman pulls you over for driving drunk, she's totally capable of bringing you in even without being Arnold Swatszanagger.
Honestly, there's very few jobs women can't do that men can, and the jobs they can't, most men can't either. The difference in upper body strength is only critical in a few situations.
|
On August 23 2009 10:37 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Nonsense? Don't you protect your girlfriend? I know I do. I'll take a beating or bullet for her if I have to. The world is a dangerous place and women need protection, don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
My woman could kick your ass.
And mine, too.
|
How are women not qualified to be in the military?
How much physical strength does it take to pull a fucking trigger? This isn't the middle ages, they aren't wielding broadswords. This isn't 1800's japan. They use machine guns in the military. What if a woman happens to be an amazingly good sniper? Or an excellent pilot? Maybe she aced the machine gun accuracy test? According to you none of these hypothetical women should be in the military and that's bullshit. And hell if someone is willing to die for you(ok more realistically, for the federal governments agenda ) who the fuck are you to tell them they can't. Get over yourself.
Your points are valid when it comes to SOME police work to some extent or firefighting ...but if they can meet the physical requirements women should be allowed. Keep in mind that some women are extremely strong. Certainly stronger than you or me. There was this chick at my high school that could beat almost all of the guys at shotput(she was one of the top female shot putters in the nation). She could also bench close to 300 pounds(she was a freaking beast but that's not the point).
There should be basic physical requirements regardless of gender for physically demanding jobs. If you pass them your in..whether or not you have a vagina. Problem solved. Yes having different physical tests is unfair. But for most police forces(maybe all?) and as far as I know all firefighting forces(at least in california) the tests are already the same.
|
On August 23 2009 10:48 lazz wrote:
i agree with your points about women's physical limitations, there is no denying that they're simply unfit for jobs like policing or combat roles in the military. i really think we sohuld stop deluding ourselves about this as well (militant feminists im looking at you)
How are they unfit for combat roles?
|
while I agree with many of the points you make,
it's because many people do not want to be categorically limited
screw men being men and women being women. let's just let people be people. and I agree, let's be realistic and fair.
|
On August 23 2009 11:00 intruding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:54 ghermination wrote: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? You see, you've misunderstood his point. Men are PHYSICALLY superior to women in most regards. They are stronger, faster, and often have more stamina. This can't be changed by any feasible means. However cooking/homemaking is a purely intellectual art. He described physically protecting his girlfriend, which although rather chivalrous, isn't theoretically flawed because he (most likely) is bigger/stronger than her. you sound really nice for a former felon 
I've never been convicted with anything? Although that may change in 9 days
|
NeverGG
United Kingdom5399 Posts
I think we all need to protect *each other* regardless of our gender to some degree - more so if you're friends, married etc. I think it's nice to feel as though someone has your back, but some men take it too far when it comes to protecting women and it makes them feel confined or belittled (I hate it when men try to walk me home with the excuses of 'it's not safe!' (which is rubbish in Korea because it's way more safe than the UK.) for example because I'm perfectly capable of going on my own.
|
I agree with the idea that there should be a standard test for both men and women. However, what seems to be happening now is that they are making the tests standard, but... and it's a big but... they are looking at making the tests easier so that women can compete... I'm not sure if this has happened yet, I hope not. These tests should be very demanding so that the best possible candidates are hired.
edit: I agree Korea is really safe at night and women should have no issue here. Unfortunately that's not the case in many other areas of the world.
|
Please respond as to why women aren't qualified to wield firearms.
|
On August 23 2009 10:47 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:45 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Absolutely, if the black person is less qualified than the white person, give the white person the job. However, if the black person is more qualified than the white person, give him the job. Sound logical? yep, and it also sounds perfectly logical that women who were able to get through police/military training should be able to get those jobs, so I have no idea what you're complaining about.
because the testing isnt exactly as equal
there are obviously women who do qualify and are aware of these risks. its just that with feminism they say you MUST hire women which leads to the problem of some not being well qualified and only hired to avoid being branded as sexist
|
look up in the sky its a bird its a plane.
whats that fools name
captain save a hoe maaaaaaanee
Around campus here at MSU women really shouldnt walk alone in some parts though. There have been quite a few rapes so I can understand someone who will walk with a woman somewhere. However this protecting girlfriends and women need to be protected shit is nonsense. That sounds like the type of creep who gets pissed when their girlfriend even talks to other guys.
|
On August 23 2009 10:23 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:18 ghostWriter wrote:
Womens' sports are also boring to watch. womens golf isnt bad. Beach Volleyball and gymnastics has some hot ones too.
Forgot about those two.
I was actually going to say women's golf as well, but seriously, golf is just boring to watch in general unless someone's about to beat tiger. It's alright to play though.
|
I never said women can't handle firearms. And if that's all policing and the military was about then that would be fine. However, as you know, such fields are a lot more demanding than merely being able to use a gun. They require physical tasks like carrying injured soldiers or apprehending a fleeing criminal. You need the physical ability to complete these tasks, good aim with a firearm just won't cut it.
|
On August 23 2009 11:22 Sadist wrote:
look up in the sky its a bird its a plane.
whats that fools name
captain save a hoe maaaaaaanee
Around campus here at MSU women really shouldnt walk alone in some parts though. There have been quite a few rapes so I can understand someone who will walk with a woman somewhere. However this protecting girlfriends and women need to be protected shit is nonsense. That sounds like the type of creep who gets pissed when their girlfriend even talks to other guys.
Yeah, I would say it's much less likely for a man or a man and a woman to be the prey of a rape crime than a woman alone. I remember walking late at night with a friend in a strange area and I told him "oh man, I hope we don't get raped," and he said "Yeah, I'm sure someones just looking to rape a couple of 6foot tall guys," and it dawned on me how absurd the idea really is.
|
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?
This.
Now my reply:
When I was younger and took physical health, the girls' class had to achieve lower scores for the same mark. For example, the boys had to run 45 laps in 12 minutes inorder to achieve a 90% mark. the girls needed only 40.
Society wants to be TOTALLY equal and what not, but in schools physical requirements are different.Does it make sense to you? I know it doesnt make sense to me.
|
i am a fan of women's basketball
LOL
|
United States4796 Posts
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?
Agreed. While men and women have different roles you can't be condescending to women. Just because they're not as good at StarCraft as men are doesn't mean you have to attack them for anything.
|
On August 23 2009 11:29 FragKrag wrote:
i am a fan of women's basketball
LOL
lol, cheap shot
|
You guys are debating only one side of the argument, let's take a look at the other:
Something I hate more than women being in the army shooting bullets through skulls and lifting men up in the air by the neck while sticking a 6" blade in their chests, is the fact that many men pursue some girly careers, such as ballet or make up.
I once had a really good friend whom I used to hang out with all the time. We used to do bodyweight exercises, running, flirting with chicks, climbing up trees, etc you get the picture, until one day he started liking this emo trend shit.
He would dress with really tight pants, those converse shoes, would paint his nails black, put on pink shit on his hair or whatever, pierce his nose, lip, ears, etc.
I literally screamed at the ground.
He became more scrawny, delicate, feminine, his way of walking changed, hell even his voice became so gay.
=(
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
If women want to be fucking equal then I should have the right to brutally beat them, but they don't whine about that, little bitches.
|
On August 23 2009 10:27 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Yeah I completely agree that both men and women should be subject to the same kind of tests when applying for a job. There should be no favors. Imagine a female firefighter getting the job over a stronger more capable man because she was given an easier test. This kinda of thing is dangerous when lives are at stake.
This, I can totally agree with
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On August 23 2009 11:41 AzureEye wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:27 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Yeah I completely agree that both men and women should be subject to the same kind of tests when applying for a job. There should be no favors. Imagine a female firefighter getting the job over a stronger more capable man because she was given an easier test. This kinda of thing is dangerous when lives are at stake. This, I can totally agree with
You agree with me yes?
|
On August 23 2009 10:18 ghostWriter wrote:
Womens' sports are also boring to watch.
Disagree. Have you ever seen the Canadian Women's Olympic Team? Holy fuck, they're amazing. Namely Meghan Agosta, she's incredible. Hat trick on her 19th birthday against Russia in the olympics?
I do agree that men are better for some jobs, while women are better at others, though.
Edit: Hockey Team. This is just assumed out here.
|
United States22883 Posts
The US Army is the weakest in the world because we allow women in it, and they stand no chance when we go to battle in fisticuffs against the Russians and China.
|
Wow...Did you really think this post was a good idea when there's going to be pages of sexist jokes?
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 23 2009 11:22 Stratos.FEAR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:47 iamho wrote:On August 23 2009 10:45 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Absolutely, if the black person is less qualified than the white person, give the white person the job. However, if the black person is more qualified than the white person, give him the job. Sound logical? yep, and it also sounds perfectly logical that women who were able to get through police/military training should be able to get those jobs, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. because the testing isnt exactly as equal there are obviously women who do qualify and are aware of these risks. its just that with feminism they say you MUST hire women which leads to the problem of some not being well qualified and only hired to avoid being branded as sexist
Who says what? What's your understanding of feminism? You don't know the first thing about feminism.
|
Yes, I agree that it is unfair that women undergo easier physical testing in the police force and the military. And to the people that are trying to make the military seem physically undemanding just because of guns, seriously? Combat is physically demanding, carrying all that equipment and moving about, regardless of whether or not a gun is in your hands. They should still receive the same standards of testing.
|
|
|
On August 23 2009 12:26 EsX_Raptor wrote:W T F
so what? men have a high sit-up req, a lower sprint req. seems fair enough
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
The issue is not the role of equal testing. The issue is that the OP is an idiot and he's got something wrong in nearly all of his paragraphs.
I don't know what to tell you if you think physical strength is the most important attribute of being a police officer.
And lines like this are downright sexist, and the OP clearly has no understanding of how the military actually works, because most infantries are not integrated atm.
The military is even worse, women in war is just an absolutely horrible idea for obvious reasons. We should be protecting our women, not sending them into war, where they are completely incompetent
The primary reason women get sent into the battlefield is because they're often better at reading people and interviewing them, and because you can't get away with men searching female subjects. Women are still not put into heavy combat groups or most of SF, as far as I know. If anyone, regardless of being male or female, is putting their company at risk in battle, then their commanders are at fault.
|
On August 23 2009 10:18 ghostWriter wrote:
Womens' sports are also boring to watch.
Except sports like volleyball, tennis and gymnastics.
|
United States22883 Posts
The purpose of those FBI tests is to get the top % of physical ability from each sex, not because running and lifting is an important part of the job.
|
^ I think those are only good because you get to see their bodies/asses
|
On August 23 2009 12:06 Jibba wrote:
The US Army is the weakest in the world because we allow women in it, and they stand no chance when we go to battle in fisticuffs against the Russians and China.
Nice straw man you have there.
|
On August 23 2009 12:08 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 11:22 Stratos.FEAR wrote:On August 23 2009 10:47 iamho wrote:On August 23 2009 10:45 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Absolutely, if the black person is less qualified than the white person, give the white person the job. However, if the black person is more qualified than the white person, give him the job. Sound logical? yep, and it also sounds perfectly logical that women who were able to get through police/military training should be able to get those jobs, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. because the testing isnt exactly as equal there are obviously women who do qualify and are aware of these risks. its just that with feminism they say you MUST hire women which leads to the problem of some not being well qualified and only hired to avoid being branded as sexist Who says what? What's your understanding of feminism? You don't know the first thing about feminism.
This. It's a bit frustrating to see one of the most important social movements in the last century to be reduced to 'durr feminism means they think everything's the same.' I'll be the first to admit that certain extreme feminists are idiotic, but I'd rather have to put up with a few wackos than live in a society where a woman's only role is to raise children and keep house.
Aside from the distortion of what feminism is about, the difference in physical ability or strength between your average citizen and a well-trained officer is considerably more than the difference between similarly well-trained officers of different genders. If the fact that there's a difference is a valid reason for excluding women, then only black people should be soldiers, because they're statically quicker and more athletic than white people.
Perhaps there was a time when women needed to be 'protected' by men, but considering the easy availability of pepper spray, stun guns, they can feel pretty safe without any chivalry on the part of men. Women may be more at risk for violent crime than men, but to assume that they need protection simply because they're female and you're male is pretty arrogant, imo.
|
On August 23 2009 12:36 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 12:06 Jibba wrote:
The US Army is the weakest in the world because we allow women in it, and they stand no chance when we go to battle in fisticuffs against the Russians and China. Nice straw man you have there.
re-read his post and ask yourself "could he be making a joke?"
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 23 2009 12:57 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 12:36 Draconizard wrote:On August 23 2009 12:06 Jibba wrote:
The US Army is the weakest in the world because we allow women in it, and they stand no chance when we go to battle in fisticuffs against the Russians and China. Nice straw man you have there. re-read his post and ask yourself "could he be making a joke?"
He's right, it was a strawman but I don't find myself really caring. There are other attributes that are far more important, and denying someone who wants to serve is stupid.
|
I agree with op not so much on gender differences, but rather on his opposition to affirmative action of any sort. Reverse discrimination is discrimination.
But I love black people AND women.
|
It's just well formed rhetoric. People are really going overboard with these "nice strawman argument" bullshit comments, imo.
It's called "making other people actually think about the topic".
|
read this and tell me it doesn't make you question the meaning of gender:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/21runner.html
(NYTimes is being a bitch lately and wants you to log in... if this is the case, go to : http://www.google.com/search?q=gold awarded amid dispute and click on the link there, because they smartly allow Google to view their site, otherwise no one of consequence would be able to find them lolz)
BERLIN — As an 18-year-old runner from a village in South Africa received her gold medal in Olympic Stadium on Thursday night, activity away from the track had put her at the center of an international dispute: doctors here and in her home country were examining test results to determine whether she has too many male characteristics to compete as a woman.
I personally have a close friend from college who was born indeterminate-sex. As such, I think the OP of this thread is bogus and judgmental as hell.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is fine to recognize the difference. but people don't randomly ponder the difference between men and women. they do so in contexts, when they want to make some points about the proper way of doing things in various walks of life. it is here that problems arise.
|
On August 23 2009 13:13 Delerium wrote:read this and tell me it doesn't make you question the meaning of gender: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/21runner.html(NYTimes is being a bitch lately and wants you to log in... if this is the case, go to : http://www.google.com/search?q=gold awarded amid dispute and click on the link there, because they smartly allow Google to view their site, otherwise no one of consequence would be able to find them lolz) Show nested quote +BERLIN — As an 18-year-old runner from a village in South Africa received her gold medal in Olympic Stadium on Thursday night, activity away from the track had put her at the center of an international dispute: doctors here and in her home country were examining test results to determine whether she has too many male characteristics to compete as a woman. I personally have a close friend from college who was born indeterminate-sex. As such, I think the OP of this thread is bogus and judgmental as hell.
there's like a million page thread about this in the general forum, i think
|
I don't see why you're complaining about there being differences in the physical fitness tests EsX_Raptor. If you think that the abilities of a man in good shape compare to those of a woman in good shape you are simply wrong. And if you think that is basis for that there shouldn't be women in the FBI or Police Force or Military or whatnot that is also simply wrong. There is a reason why police forces send a man and a women to domestic dispute calls.
For things like SWAT Teams and Special Forces there are no women in them for the obvious reasons too. I don't understand the point of this post.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 23 2009 13:16 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 13:13 Delerium wrote:read this and tell me it doesn't make you question the meaning of gender: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/21runner.html(NYTimes is being a bitch lately and wants you to log in... if this is the case, go to : http://www.google.com/search?q=gold awarded amid dispute and click on the link there, because they smartly allow Google to view their site, otherwise no one of consequence would be able to find them lolz) BERLIN — As an 18-year-old runner from a village in South Africa received her gold medal in Olympic Stadium on Thursday night, activity away from the track had put her at the center of an international dispute: doctors here and in her home country were examining test results to determine whether she has too many male characteristics to compete as a woman. I personally have a close friend from college who was born indeterminate-sex. As such, I think the OP of this thread is bogus and judgmental as hell. there's like a million page thread about this in the general forum, i think
Yeah, but it basically degenerated into calling her ugly, which everyone could see coming a mile away. :/
|
10387 Posts
On August 23 2009 12:29 EsX_Raptor wrote:
9:20 in 1 1/2 miles to get an 8?? Shit I know so many people who can do that
|
men aren't men and women aren't women, they're humans.
|
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!!!
|
im posting from bangkok right now... where men can be men or women.
|
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.
|
On August 23 2009 13:38 alphafuzard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 13:30 ArvickHero wrote:On August 23 2009 12:29 EsX_Raptor 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)
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.
|
On August 23 2009 14:25 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 13:38 alphafuzard wrote:On August 23 2009 13:30 ArvickHero wrote:On August 23 2009 12:29 EsX_Raptor 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) 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.
|
On August 23 2009 10:18 ghostWriter wrote:
Womens' sports are also boring to watch.
Have you ever watched female beach volleyball ?
|
On August 23 2009 14:45 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 14:25 Severedevil wrote:On August 23 2009 13:38 alphafuzard wrote:On August 23 2009 13:30 ArvickHero wrote:On August 23 2009 12:29 EsX_Raptor 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) 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.
I think you underestimate yourself. Remember you can warm up first, and you're allowed to feel like crap afterwards.
|
Yeah, men and women should not have the same jobs, she could have used her taser/gun to scare them though. Or some pepper spray if she had it on her.
|
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
|
Technically, since feminists are all for equality of genders, they should agree to be subject to the same physical requirements for the military and the police force.
|
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 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.
|
On August 23 2009 14:25 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 13:38 alphafuzard wrote:On August 23 2009 13:30 ArvickHero wrote:On August 23 2009 12:29 EsX_Raptor 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) 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
|
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
|
Female sports are boring? Come on, don't any of you recall oil-wrestling? ... Fuck, that's #2 sport in my book ...
|
i dont really want to get involved but ill throw someone else out there:
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)
|
On August 23 2009 14:25 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 13:38 alphafuzard wrote:On August 23 2009 13:30 ArvickHero wrote:On August 23 2009 12:29 EsX_Raptor 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) 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?
|
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:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:18 ghostWriter wrote:
Womens' sports are also boring to watch. 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.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
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?
Of course he is. Cooking and cleaning are the roles of women. All throughout history. Look at lions for example. Those maned niggas know whatsup.
|
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
|
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 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.
/GolfClap since it didn't received love <3
Read the whole thing about women in the military and does bring up a good point.
|
I don't see why women would be offended by having a guy offer to walk them home at night. That's just ridiculous. If she turned down the offer then got mugged, or worse it would be looked back as the guys fault for not "doing what he should have". It's not condescending or being belittled when it's simple fact, for the most part, that men are stronger then women. Too much feminism bull that makes women now hate for guys to protect them, open doors for them, and pay for their meals.
|
OP, no one on the internet will be able to change your opinion, which is in many ways flawed. Someday you will be older and wiser, and will realize this for yourself.
|
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.
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 04:00 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
Agreed.
The majority of the qualities regarded as "male" and "female" are just social constructs, and the sooner people realize this, the better.
|
United States22883 Posts
Or you're only attracted to really sensitive men.
|
Nah, the guys aren't beating the girls in this regard, Hawk.
I don't know about it being purely 'social constructs' or physical differences. We ARE different, I'm just saying I don't think empathy is one of those things. Different levels of estrogen and testosterone do make our personalities different in some ways though.
|
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
Not to mention the people that take a high moralistic ground who feel good that they are not part of any stereotype.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 24 2009 04:11 Chef wrote:
Nah, the guys aren't beating the girls in this regard, Hawk.
Such a compliment.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
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
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.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 24 2009 05:18 Clasic wrote:Show nested quote +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
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:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 04:00 Chef wrote: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. 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. Agreed. The majority of the qualities regarded as "male" and "female" are just social constructs, and the sooner people realize this, the better.
I'm quite curious now - what qualities would you regard are NOT social constructs? Obviously there's the biological "men have a penis, women have a vagina" bit, of course.
|
Boxer > Tossgirl => Men > Women.
End of the discussion.
|
On August 24 2009 04:07 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 04:00 Chef wrote: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. 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. Agreed. The majority of the qualities regarded as "male" and "female" are just social constructs, and the sooner people realize this, the better.
I watch men's and women's tennis and there is a big disparity. A lot can be explained to Henin leaving, but one big difference is the serve. The top women players double fault a lot. It's ridiculous.
|
I once had a depressing conversation with my dining shift manager (also a female). She heard about my exploits in SC and CSL and asked me a few questions. The conversation went along the lines of...
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?
EDIT: Yeah, suddenly that made me very sad, and in the midst of being  , I forgot to mention my other less depressing point. Even though females seem to be less equipped, biologically, to do certain things, they're also simultaneously very powerful in their ability to bring people and abstract feelings together. Virginia Woolf mentions a really interesting conception of male and female social roles that I'll try to briefly explain.
Woolf describes this scene at a dinner table in To the Lighthouse, where the whole family is gathered and eating. Something's broken in the conversation, but the mother refuses to fix it. She knows she can, by inserting one of those common questions - how are you, today, Mr. Tansley? - and essentially jump-starting the conversation through the creative emotional power that women do hold. Another character of hers - another female - asks an inane question knowing it's inane, sacrificing herself and being insincere to create flow and continuity.
I know I've done it something like that. I usually don't like people who flout their genders, but I'm female, I know it, and there are benefits. By playing SC in Princeton, I can break stereotypes instead of reinforcing them, making SC seem like a more acceptable social activity. People have actually changed their minds about what competitive gaming means, and I know part of it is simply having a girl tell them about it. I'm not sure if a male could do the same. So even though I'm a D newbie, I can end up having a far larger influence in terms of removing social biases and letting people know that it's not entirely social suicide to play computer games.
Having said that, I'm sure there are also parallels to other areas - such as the police force - that people have already mentioned a few times. Female officers can settle disputes, do social work, cool heads, so on so forth. I find that females have a much better grasp of subtle, indirect mind games than males, after all.
|
United States22883 Posts
^Waiting tables, obviously.
EDIT: Now my post makes no sense. :/
|
letting people know that it's not entirely social suicide to play computer games.
actually, it is.
|
On August 23 2009 20:40 starflash wrote:
i dont really want to get involved but ill throw someone else out there:
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)
from the content of your post, i think that the problem is with you
|
United States33152 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
There's a few, yes, but most (enlisted) women in the military just sit on their ass and get fat until their four years is up. This is coming from my five years of personal experience. Even in the Marines, the percentage that can go toe to toe with guys their own size is seriously less than 10%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i31.tinypic.com/9lcpd0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i31.tinypic.com/2094pdd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sportable.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/antoine-walker.jpg)
