|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Well you probably could have stated that Trump's tweet was sexist against men initially (I don't see it being sexist against women in any way), but the fact that so many sexual assaults are apparently occurring today...doesn't that mean that there really is a problem with men in the military and that it shouldn't be dismissed as sexism anymore?
In some sense using one of the '-ism' words ignores the problem by portraying it as some kind of morally backwards delusion of a select group of people, but the fact that it really is occurring shows that there is some truth to it and its not a delusion.
I'm sure other countries have found ways to deal with it, maybe they have better military courts or a more enlightened chain of command...but there is clearly some problem that needs to be dealt with; American males are not somehow genetically different from European males etc.. For the record the Canadian military is also going through a sexual assault crisis.
I don't think that this can be generalized to all occupations (but to be honest, I'm not sure how good any of our 'unreported' statistics are), but at least within the military, I think the isolated environment and chain of command structure makes it more difficult to achieve justice and equality.
|
On December 25 2015 02:59 Danglars wrote:All that third-wave feminist conditioning 
Second-wave.
|
On December 25 2015 04:50 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 02:59 Danglars wrote:All that third-wave feminist conditioning Second-wave.
Just a joke. If sexist ever comes up in casual conversation it is invariably something that is allegedly sexist against women ... consent laws, pay gap, job advancement, harassment, rape culture. After hearing this for how many years, I generally know what's the understood context for sexism.
|
On December 24 2015 20:04 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 12:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
lmao Rand Paul isn't even a real doctor What would you call an Ophthalmologist? Rand graduated from Duke Medical School...so...yah.
dude got in without an undergrad degree and because duke is his dad's alma mater (compared to how competitive med school is now, yes, it's kind of a joke)
he decided to break off from the licensing board and form him own (which isn't recognized and has "certified" under 100 ophthalmologists) and didn't do his paperwork with the state of kentucky... twice.
he's only able to practice because kentucky doesn't require board licensing.
|
On December 25 2015 05:14 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 20:04 Wegandi wrote:On December 24 2015 12:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
lmao Rand Paul isn't even a real doctor What would you call an Ophthalmologist? Rand graduated from Duke Medical School...so...yah. dude got in without an undergrad degree and because duke is his dad's alma mater (compared to how competitive med school is now, yes, it's kind of a joke) he decided to break off from the licensing board and form him own (which isn't recognized and has "certified" under 100 ophthalmologists) and didn't do his paperwork with the state of kentucky... twice. he's only able to practice because kentucky doesn't require board licensing.
Uninformed partisan and appeals to authority! Yay!
You do realize Duke had no bachelor requirements at that time, right? Similarly, what that does have to do with anything when Rand GRADUATED? Who cares if graduates of the medical school had a bachelors before they were accepted? That's not proof of anything. In fact, since Rand has been practicing he's only had (1) malpractice suit that was settled, which over 20+ years is a pretty good track record.
Also, since you're so uninformed, it would help to know that Rand passed the ABO, but disagreed about the Boards conduct and new policies that exempted (read: grandfathered) prior practicing ophthalmologists.
Licensing is a racket anyways as a way to artificially inflate practitioner salaries via controlling supply, and is quite profitable for these "boards" and the State.
He's able to practice because he is a proficient practitioner of his discipline. You're the type of stupid who views a license as a certificate of competency, when anyone in the medical field can tell you it's a joke (especially for me as a COTA...license exams are 800$+ and aren't that difficult!).
So, yeah, rehashing partisan attacks that have zero basis in reality is not surprising for such an enterprising apparatchik as you are :p
PS: If you want a comparison....since my profession is quite close with PTA's, you can ask most patients in this part of the medical profession if they had better service with OTA's/PTA's who hold Bachelors, or those with Masters/Doctorates, and a vast majority will tell you they have better service with the more experienced Bachelors holders (and I can attest to this). In other words, a title/increased years of schooling means diddly. Who cares if someone had a Liberal Arts degree before they were accepted into medical school lmao.
|
On December 25 2015 05:30 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 05:14 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 24 2015 20:04 Wegandi wrote:On December 24 2015 12:41 ticklishmusic wrote:
lmao Rand Paul isn't even a real doctor What would you call an Ophthalmologist? Rand graduated from Duke Medical School...so...yah. dude got in without an undergrad degree and because duke is his dad's alma mater (compared to how competitive med school is now, yes, it's kind of a joke) he decided to break off from the licensing board and form him own (which isn't recognized and has "certified" under 100 ophthalmologists) and didn't do his paperwork with the state of kentucky... twice. he's only able to practice because kentucky doesn't require board licensing. Uninformed partisan and appeals to authority! Yay! You do realize Duke had no bachelor requirements at that time, right? Similarly, what that does have to do with anything when Rand GRADUATED? Who cares if graduates of the medical school had a bachelors before they were accepted? That's not proof of anything. In fact, since Rand has been practicing he's only had (1) malpractice suit that was settled, which over 20+ years is a pretty good track record. Also, since you're so uninformed, it would help to know that Rand passed the ABO, but disagreed about the Boards conduct and new policies that exempted (read: grandfathered) prior practicing ophthalmologists. Licensing is a racket anyways as a way to artificially inflate practitioner salaries via controlling supply, and is quite profitable for these "boards" and the State. He's able to practice because he is a proficient practitioner of his discipline. You're the type of stupid who views a license as a certificate of competency, when anyone in the medical field can tell you it's a joke (especially for me as a COTA...license exams are 800$+ and aren't that difficult!). So, yeah, rehashing partisan attacks that have zero basis in reality is not surprising for such an enterprising apparatchik as you are :p PS: If you want a comparison....since my profession is quite close with PTA's, you can ask most patients in this part of the medical profession if they had better service with OTA's/PTA's who hold Bachelors, or those with Masters/Doctorates, and a vast majority will tell you they have better service with the more experienced Bachelors holders (and I can attest to this). In other words, a title/increased years of schooling means diddly. Who cares if someone had a Liberal Arts degree before they were accepted into medical school lmao.
your arguments would be less shitty if they weren't chock full of personal attacks. merry christmas!
i'm a little confused why he'd bother starting his own certification body if he felt certification was unreasonable... and i'm more commenting on his business practices. i made no mention of his actual competency as an ophthalmologist (i have no real problem with it, but comparing himself to ben carson is really apples and oranges), but i believe there's a pretty good reason for licensing and certification boards. yes there is a monopoly element to it, but i'd rather be treated by a licensed MD than some random guy who got his degree in the Caribbean.
|
On December 25 2015 02:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 02:22 Cowboy64 wrote:
Is that tweet supposed to be sexist against men, or women? I'm not seeing either, rather what I'm seeing is yet again, Trump is stating a truth of life in an politically incorrect way. No one disagrees with the fact that sexual assault/rape in the military is a huge issue, one that not only hurts the morale and cohesiveness of the units, but also morally indicts the kind of culture that turns a blind eye to uncomfortable truths.
If you want women in the military (I can't see why you would, but that's another issue entirely) than you have to accept the consequences of your preference. One of my biggest problems with politics these days is the idea that any policy, no matter how well-intentioned, will somehow not have unintended consequences. Putting women in the military sounds is very inclusive and nice, but it has an ugly side and we should be willing to address that ugly side without positing a candy-land world where bad things will magically stop happening. That men and women cannot serve together in the military without consequences of sexual violence is not a "truth of life," and in stating that it is, you've made it clear that you're unable to perceive the sexism in Trump's statement because you, like Trump, maintain sexist notions as to how the genders interact. Sexism needn't be against a single sex for it to count as sexism afterall. All it takes in this case is for one to assume that, because of perceived gender essential traits relative to men and women, the sexes ought not be mixed. After entertaining this vulgar notion for a brief moment, one ought then realize that there are militaries throughout the world that commingle the sexes and yet are without our problems of sexual violence. Are folks like you and Trump really going to suggest that our military is somehow inferior to that of Israel for lack of discipline? If we can train men to sit still for 2 days in order to take a shot, we can train them to not rape the women serving next to them. To believe otherwise is sexist and anti-American (how's that for some Trump language) Edit: Blitzkrieg added a valid point, but I'd argue that male-on-male sexual assault in the military is also quite bound up with a discussion of what exactly being a "man in uniform" entails.
Israeli military:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/20/opening-up-about-sexual-assault-in-israel.html
The idea that there are no inherent differences between the sexes has been so thoroughly disproven so many times that it's now more of a bad joke than anything else. That's really the only possible response to your post; if you refuse to address reality as it is instead of how you wish it were than we can't really move forward because we're working under completely different fundamentals, with no common ground there can be no discussion.
On December 25 2015 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:
It's the obligation of people individuals not to rape other people, not for the potential victims to avoid certain places.
we should be willing to address that ugly side without positing a candy-land world where bad things will magically stop happening.
|
yeah but tweeting "What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" doesn't really sound like he wants to address that issue either.
In fact that's the only problem I have with that tweet. It sounds really defeatist. As if people should just give up on that.
|
On December 25 2015 06:17 Toadesstern wrote:
yeah but tweeting "What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" doesn't really sound like he wants to address that issue either.
In fact that's the only problem I have with that tweet. It sounds really defeatist. As if people should just give up on that.
Well, as much as some people might hate it:
If there weren't women in the military than women in the military would not get raped or sexually assaulted.
It might not be your preferred solution, but it is a solution.
|
On December 25 2015 06:31 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 06:17 Toadesstern wrote:
yeah but tweeting "What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" doesn't really sound like he wants to address that issue either.
In fact that's the only problem I have with that tweet. It sounds really defeatist. As if people should just give up on that. Well, as much as some people might hate it: If there weren't women in the military than women in the military would not get raped or sexually assaulted. It might not be your preferred solution, but it is a solution.
if what was said above is true and the majority of unreported sexual assualt happen to be male-on-male then the absence of women might have some kind of influence on it but it's probably minor.
|
On December 25 2015 06:31 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 06:17 Toadesstern wrote:
yeah but tweeting "What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" doesn't really sound like he wants to address that issue either.
In fact that's the only problem I have with that tweet. It sounds really defeatist. As if people should just give up on that. Well, as much as some people might hate it: If there weren't women in the military than women in the military would not get raped or sexually assaulted. It might not be your preferred solution, but it is a solution.
But when men get raped in the military, it's not a problem?
Clearly removing women from the military solves all rape problems.
Anyway, merry Christmas, TL Politics!
|
United States43800 Posts
Firstly, the vast majority of military roles are not front line roles in which the gender differences are going to make an impact. Denying women those roles will make the military weaker, not stronger, due to being forced to take weaker candidates than they would otherwise be able to accept. Open recruitment gives stronger candidates than a limited pool.
Secondly, the gender differences which may impact front line roles ignore the fact that people exist on a bell curve. The most that you could argue is that if strength was the X axis and percentage of the population the Y axis the curve for women would be to the left of the one to men. That doesn't change the fact that some women will be strong enough to take those front line roles. They may be outliers but there is no physical difference based reason to deny people based on sex.
Thirdly, the problem with Trump's tweet is that he assumes that this is the inevitable result of gender mixing. That rids the rapists of any responsibility for raping and puts it on the "geniuses who let women out of the kitchen and into the army where they didn't belong". If you can't see how incredibly backwards the view that we need to deny women opportunities available to men to protect them is then I can't help with that. As a man I object to the idea that the only thing stopping me from raping a woman is that she's kept out of reach. If I were a woman I'd object to the idea that I needed to be denied things to keep me safe. Maybe we should put the responsibility for rape on the rapists and put systems in place to properly report and investigate complaints and act on the conclusions of those investigations. But people like Trump are of the "asking for it" school that doesn't want to do anything to rapists but would happily punish the raped.
Fuck Trump.
|
United States43800 Posts
On December 25 2015 06:31 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 06:17 Toadesstern wrote:
yeah but tweeting "What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" doesn't really sound like he wants to address that issue either.
In fact that's the only problem I have with that tweet. It sounds really defeatist. As if people should just give up on that. Well, as much as some people might hate it: If there weren't women in the military than women in the military would not get raped or sexually assaulted. It might not be your preferred solution, but it is a solution.
I have a similar solution to theft. Why don't we just make it legal to rob rich people whenever they leave the house? If they don't want to be robbed they can stay home, right?
If your solution to sexual violence is to deny rights to the victims and absolve the rapists then you have a problem with basic morality. Trump's tweet is morally objectionable on a great many levels.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
Scrolled down to post pretty much the exact same thing. Merry Christmas Kwark!
|
The differences between the sexes will have an impact on every interaction. Further if we're gonna go down the rabbit hole of women in the military we have to set a basis for what our military is supposed to be doing, how it is supposed to look, etc. Not sure I'm ready for that discussion.
Donald Trump's heir and primary advisor is his daughter. Who is a woman. So I highly doubt he expects her to "go back to the kitchen". No one has ever suggested that, so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion in any way. Second, I don't get why people think the military should be about "opportunity" instead of "service".
Finally, I think it is incredibly wrong and mean-spirited to accuse either Trump of wanting to punish rape victims, or of wanting to "do nothing to rapists". There is no evidence of that and I think that kind of accusation is just horrible.
Also, no one ever suggested that rape should be legalized, so basically your response was just a jumble of red-herrings, ad hominem, baseless accusation, and strawmanning.
|
On December 25 2015 07:00 zatic wrote:
Scrolled down to post pretty much the exact same thing. Merry Christmas Kwark!
Pretty much the same thing I was going to do lol. I dunno how people can be so ignorant of human and population biology and make arguments like Cowboy.
Cheers to Kwark.
|
On December 25 2015 07:13 Cowboy64 wrote:
The differences between the sexes will have an impact on every interaction. Further if we're gonna go down the rabbit hole of women in the military we have to set a basis for what our military is supposed to be doing, how it is supposed to look, etc. Not sure I'm ready for that discussion.
Donald Trump's heir and primary advisor is his daughter. Who is a woman. So I highly doubt he expects her to "go back to the kitchen". No one has ever suggested that, so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion in any way. Second, I don't get why people think the military should be about "opportunity" instead of "service".
Finally, I think it is incredibly wrong and mean-spirited to accuse either Trump of wanting to punish rape victims, or of wanting to "do nothing to rapists". There is no evidence of that and I think that kind of accusation is just horrible.
Also, no one ever suggested that rape should be legalized, so basically your response was just a jumble of red-herrings, ad hominem, baseless accusation, and strawmanning.
His point isn't that hard to understand really. By suggesting that segregation is a solution to rape you are absolving men of their responsibility and you are denying women opportunities. This is the classical blame the victim attitude that has always existed when it comes to rape.
|
On December 25 2015 07:13 Cowboy64 wrote:
The differences between the sexes will have an impact on every interaction. Further if we're gonna go down the rabbit hole of women in the military we have to set a basis for what our military is supposed to be doing, how it is supposed to look, etc. Not sure I'm ready for that discussion.
Donald Trump's heir and primary advisor is his daughter. Who is a woman. So I highly doubt he expects her to "go back to the kitchen". No one has ever suggested that, so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion in any way. Second, I don't get why people think the military should be about "opportunity" instead of "service".
Finally, I think it is incredibly wrong and mean-spirited to accuse either Trump of wanting to punish rape victims, or of wanting to "do nothing to rapists". There is no evidence of that and I think that kind of accusation is just horrible.
Also, no one ever suggested that rape should be legalized, so basically your response was just a jumble of red-herrings, ad hominem, baseless accusation, and strawmanning.
first one: You don't have a set of (physical) tests in place already? oO
second one: the kitchen was Kwark being Kwark, the second part is self explanatory. If a woman passes the same tests as any other man does, including physical exercise for the given position she wants to apply for... who are we to deny her? So it's opportunity in that sense and there's nothing wrong with that. If you're qualified to do the job you're qualified to do the job.
third: It kinda shows when, again assuming what was said is correct, the majority of assaults are male on male and he doesn't want to address that. Probably because talking about men assaulting men is not what a lot of people want to hear about on the conservative side of things
|
The biggest issue with our military is accountability. This goes beyond the issue of sexual assault (but is a major issue within it).
|
As 2015 comes to a close, many people are still wondering how reality television mogul and rejected Guy Fieri appetizer Donald Trump continues to lead the race for the Republican presidential nomination -- and why a nominally able coterie of experienced establishment politicians has proven unable to break his stride.
So what's holding the rest of the field back? Analysts have focused on Trump's rhetoric -- the way he loudly, freely enunciates an impolite version of the conservative id -- and how well it's resonating.
But there's another way in which Trump has broken with the rest of the field: He's not relying on the Citizens United-spawned campaign finance regime, with its welter of nonprofits and super PACs. In October, he told the nine super PACs that appeared to be supporting him to "stop using his name, likeness, and slogans and to return any donations they have already received," The Washington Post's Jenna Johnson reported at the time.
Rather than losing out as a result of this approach, Trump is thriving while his rivals stumble around inside the dark-money Tomorrowland their party continues to build. Even if the business mogul is no normal person's idea of a standard-bearer for a better, more citizen-focused politics, his opponents have more than ably made the case that this massive injection of money into the political system has -- at least at the presidential heights -- "weirded" it out of proportion.
From elaborate and clunky apparatuses for skirting Federal Election Commission laws to a failure to recognize the need for retail politics, Trump's rivals make it seem like it was smarter to simply reject the Citizens United era's promise of unlimited campaign funds. Instead of innovation, there is confusion. Instead of freedom, there seems to be a dead weight around the necks of campaigns that might otherwise have been competent.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
