Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
As far as I am aware, the distinctions to which I am sentimentally attached are Victorian, with a touch of Austenian liberality and Edwardian reflectivity. The distinctions I am complaining against are the non-existent ones of post-modernism, precisely the kind of relativism you espouse which focuses on mutability, without stopping to think what is being mutated from what.
Thus I would argue that my perspective is the more historical one, whereas yours is one more questionably mired in contemporary dogma.
Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
I see declining birth rates and increasing divorce rates, broken homes and the evaporation of bourgeois family life, increasing emotional desperation and disenchantment, the abandonment of parental breeding to the state, the alienation of urban neighbours, the declining quality of domestic meals, etc. Not all of these are attributable to the two-income family alone. Not all of these are unmitigated flaws, but yes, the phenomenon you have described does exist in my view.
You ended on a line that kind of denies any rebuttal by saying "not all of these are unmitigated flaws and not all are atrributable to the two-income family" but I feel the need to respond because I do think very differently from your views. Not only is a two-income family not necessarily at fault, but some of these aren't even flaws at all!
Also, the historical trends you see, in regards to the rot of society, are limited only to the very short window of time that demographic records were even being kept. The actual historical trend may be something much more up and down than what we're seeing now. I'm sure the percentage of broken homes is much lower now than during the fall of the Roman empire for instance. Or during the colonial ages of W. Europe. Or during the civil war in China during WW2.
Also, it's debatable whether decreasing birth rates is a negative. The evidence is very inconclusive on whether children improve a couple's happiness. And I've seen numerous studies that show childless couples have higher rates of satisfaction and happiness. Not saying I believe one way or the other but it's difficult to label that as inherently bad.
Same with divorce rates. You could argue that divorce is more a product of secularization of society and behavioral habits caused by consumerist culture rather than women getting jobs.
Also, who's to say all divorces are bad? Many many divorces should have occurred in the past, but didn't because women weren't even regarded as legal entities. I'd say it's progress that women can choose to divorce now. Why would it be beneficial to anyone for an unhappy couple to stay married? Maybe for the children, but again that's debatable. A house with two unhappy adults raging and fighting all the time is not a proper environment for a child. A broken home isn't great, but sometimes it's better than a strife-filled home.
And in terms of emotional desperation and disenchantment, I'd say that's a product of consumerist culture. Anybody would feel hollow if they thought all the hours in their day was dedicated solely to the accumulation of wealth. While women getting jobs does entail earning a salary, accumulation of wealth is only a very small component in that. Much more importance is the economic freedom it gives women, the societal respect it gains them, and the internal confidence they gain by realizing they can be independent and put food on their own table.
The decline in quality of domestic meals probably has more to do with the increasing abundance of processed and prepackaged foods rather than because mom's don't have enough time to cook at home.
The alienation of urban neighbors could be blamed just as easily on the television and the increasingly insular lifestyle that people have due to powerful advances in communications technology that allows people to seek out more tightly focused interest groups rather than rely on the sole filter of proximity like in the past. And it's debatable whether this is even a bad thing or rather just a normative change that people are resisting.
And altogether, I think a situation in which women were not allowed to get jobs outside the home, were not allowed to vote, and were seen as child-makers was a terrible time for women and it is NOT their natural state of being.
How can you say it was better for society when women had all avenues of life shut off from them except for making kids, cooking, cleaning, and entertaining her husband? That sounds like a nice society to you? Where half the population is constantly servicing the other half and is seen as a family appendage rather than a fully-realized human being?
Yes, of course when women are given the choice they will have less babies, NOT stay married to assholes, not gossip with the neighbors all day, and not cook all the time! How is this a bad thing?
On November 12 2009 08:58 baal wrote: I think everyone has the right to die protecting the economical interests of their corrupt politicians, regardless of gender and sex.
Who are we to say to women "no, you cannot throw your life away raping a sovereign country so EXXON can pump oil out of it".
Cultures in Asia had no Victorian crap and still function well.
I will excuse this silliness by assuming that you are completely ignorant of the conditions of family life, both for children and for women, both in the past and in the present. There is simply no other way to comprehend such a remarkable statement.
Declining birth rates are actually a good thing for our society. The birth rate to prevent more population should be 2.1 per couple.
I'm certain that we have now arrived at such a stage in civilization, where the most intelligent among us has become capable of exorcising himself from his humanity, and look at reality in its statistical brutality. Never mind that the birth rate of the White race is far below 2.1 in the world. Never mind that the races which are now in demographic explosion are the inhabitants of the third world, whose explosion poses direct problems for civilized nations. Never mind that the causes of declining birth rates belong to neither Malthusian prevention nor positive controls, but to a social sickness within Western civilization. This lack of regard for progeny occurs from the same hedonism which has produced our lack of regard for our ancestors. It is symptomatic of a kind of society which has long ceased to contribute, build or invest, but is leeching away both past and future for what only be called instant gratification. It would be nice, but 1.4 children per mother does not build a sustainable way of life.
The current generation of parents are helicopter parents whose flaws are that they are actually too involved and overbearing.
Yes. If only children can be allowed to extract their virtues from their innate goodness, the fallacious notion of breeding can be done away with once and for all. I believe Schiller was referring to this kind of self-satisfied nihilism when he wrote:
The child of Nature, when he breaks loose, becomes a maniac, the creature of civilization a knave...we disown nature in her rightful sphere only to submit to her tyranny in the sphere of morality, while resisting her impact on our senses, we take from her our principles.
On November 12 2009 08:21 benjammin wrote: it takes so much upper body strength to fire a gun amirite
anyone arguing the distraction angle is woefully misinformed about the professionalism of soldiers
plus it's not like male soldiers are robot killing machines, every soldier has flaws
lock and load, ladies
This makes all these arguments obsolete. Men want to talk about carrying 75 lb packs and all this other gear? PFFFT.
Robots don't need food. They don't need water. They don't sleep. They don't get angry. They don't get horny. They don't get scared. They don't need pay. They don't need 18 years of upraising. They don't need medical care. They don't need veteran's services.
This is the only thing that should be enlisted in any military.
And wars should only be fought in domed arenas for the viewing pleasure of civilization.
And the people who should be controlling these armies?
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on?
Her?
Or one of them?
This
Are you being metaphorical here :D?
haha not really. However i think it is kinda funny that people are so worried about the physical abilities of the average grunt whereas technology is the most important thing nowadays if you want to be the predominant power. A kid with a gun can kill an highly trained and competent soldier with ease. The bravery and the physical fitness of the Pole cavalry didn't save them from the German tanks either... You guys are talking like if war was the same than in Middle Ages.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on?
Her?
Or one of them?
This
Are you being metaphorical here :D?
haha not really. However i think it is kinda funny that people are so worried about the physical abilities of the average grunt whereas technology is the most important thing nowadays if you want to be the predominant power. A kid with a gun can kill an highly trained and competent soldier with ease. The bravery and the physical fitness of the Pole cavalry didn't save them from the German tanks... You guys are talking like if war was the same than in Middle Ages.
I disagree with your sentiments good sir. I demand that we duel with pistols at dawn, followed by arm wrestling.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on?
Her?
Or one of them?
This
Are you being metaphorical here :D?
haha not really. However i think it is kinda funny that people are so worried about the physical abilities of the average grunt whereas technology is the most important thing nowadays if you want to be the predominant power. A kid with a gun can kill an highly trained and competent soldier with ease. The bravery and the physical fitness of the Pole cavalry didn't save them from the German tanks either... You guys are talking like if war was the same than in Middle Ages.
Yeah but you need to be able to carry a lot of shit. Do you know how heavy all that equipment is plus all the other stuff you need? You have to be able to travel large distances at speed while carrying a ridiculous amount of stuff.
Some of the most bad ass infanteers i know are women. Some of the biggest sack of shit infanteers i know are men. Once Obama gets rid of don't ask don't tell, women in front line army roles will probably be next.
Maybe we should get rid of our women and replace them with Mongol women.
Oh my god. This entire discussion is ridiculous. The real question is: When it comes to it, who would you prefer your life depended on?
Her?
Or one of them?
This
Are you being metaphorical here :D?
haha not really. However i think it is kinda funny that people are so worried about the physical abilities of the average grunt whereas technology is the most important thing nowadays if you want to be the predominant power. A kid with a gun can kill an highly trained and competent soldier with ease. The bravery and the physical fitness of the Pole cavalry didn't save them from the German tanks either... You guys are talking like if war was the same than in Middle Ages.
Yeah but you need to be able to carry a lot of shit. Do you know how heavy all that equipment is plus all the other stuff you need? You have to be able to travel large distances at speed while carrying a ridiculous amount of stuff.
On November 12 2009 09:27 Kennigit wrote: Some of the most bad ass infanteers i know are women. Some of the biggest sack of shit infanteers i know are men. Once Obama gets rid of "don't ask don't tell", women in front line army roles will probably be next.
On November 12 2009 09:27 Kennigit wrote: Some of the most bad ass infanteers i know are women. Some of the biggest sack of shit infanteers i know are men. Once Obama gets rid of don't ask don't tell, women in front line army roles will probably be next.
It should be case-by-case since it's a physically and emotionally demanding job. Can't just say "all men yes, all women no"
I'm worried there would be male/female quotas if this were enacted though, which I'm against.
Why are people talking about physical ability in the first place? Would your army send someone to the frontlines if he couldnt carry his 40kg anyway? Or if he couldn't throw his grenade far enough? What kind of discussion is that?
Anyone who can handle it and live up to the needed standard of a soldier should be allowed to fight. Sometimes it reads like no matter how strong a women is, the requirement is allways a notch higher. Proper trained combat soldiers are way more than donkeys. Plus history showed us some badass women soldiers. It's not like the infantry would get flooded by women. Not in the states anyway...
On November 12 2009 09:39 Jayson X wrote: Anyone who can handle it and live up to the needed standard of a soldier should be allowed to fight. Sometimes it reads like no matter how strong a women is, the requirement is allways a notch higher.
If even one woman can meet the physical requirements she should be allowed to serve.
Im gonna look into starcraft for reference, there Woman can serve in the frontline in medic battlesuits, and theoretically the medic uses a granade launcher.
So give the girls some RPGs and Granade Launchers and put them in the front line and it should be good.
If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
On November 12 2009 10:05 McCrank wrote: If the point of war is winning with minor casualties then an all men frontline would be best. I mean why do we have women sports and men sports? Because men are just faster and stronger. Now are we gonna send in the slower and weaker if we want to win a war?
Infantry are slower and weaker than planes and tanks. Why do we send them in?
EPT![[image loading]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2257642591_9d06a78f5a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/lumberjack-commandos.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/04/missile.jpeg)
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/02/16/technology/16cnd-robot.184.jpg)
