Gender equality

[Sovereignty]

I think the sexism debate is just like the racism one.

It's a bunch of people on one side shouting, "We're not equals" while the other side yells, "We should be 100% equal!"

People love to forget that differences in humans isn't a mistake or some sort of racial prejudice. It's GENETICS and EVOLUTION.

Considering women are, and will continue to be the only humans capable of childbirth in our civilization... They're not equal with men.

And shame on all of you who think "Not equal" means "Beneath".

That's what makes it so wrong. Just because we're all different doesn't mean diddly. It's when the people advocating for and against 100% equality start claiming it's because one human is better then another that so much weight is added to this.

It's going to be far FAR easier for me to build muscle mass on my body then at least 80% of women. Does that mean they can't? Does it mean I am superior? Hell no. It means that from a genetic stand point I am better suited to building muscle.

All this equality bullshit gets us, is a bunch of people doing jobs they don't belong in.

Because as soon as you let a strong willed, built woman become a police officer, you have to let them all do it. Otherwise you're not promoting equality.

In short: We're not damn equals. None of us are. Stop pretending we are so you can further your bullshit agenda's of "Look how righteous I am."

When these feminist groups, and racial organizations start saying things like, "People should be judged solely on their own merit." instead of, "People shouldn't be judged based on skin color or gender."

Then I'll support them.

 

[Devil's Due]

Well then that "screening feature" is rather inefficient if you ask me, due to the extremely large number of male ex-soldiers who curse the day when they got the "stupid" idea of joining up, due to their experiences of actual war.

Ask any veteran who isn't just trying to blow of hot air and inflate the "importance" of their duty (when they basically didn't see any fighting at all), but someone whose been through the really ugly parts if they thought that the mock combat conditions in bootcamp truly prepared them and instructed them in what real war would be like.

All I'm reading here is military bashing, so your point is moot since you cannot tell what our sort of life is nor our mentality is. Women captured during war get put into situations that no man would even get closed to enduring. We're not just talking about rape, we're talking about intense torture that they couldn't even do to a man, humiliation as well, and many other things all at once. But I don't know why I'm bothering with this post, you're just stuck in the "military is evil! EVIL!!!!!!"

As for the thread: There's just too many situations and variables that fall into play here that I cannot truly answer what roles are for whom. There's very few areas that neither sex should probably not enter, but it's not completely out of the question if some of the variables are met or other things.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

There are people of both genders adept to any role that isn't gender specific. Women just have a higher frequency of skills in some areas than men, and vice versa.

 

[Sarge034]

That is what basic does actually. It puts the recruit into place by teaching what a soldier does and then puts them in mock combat conditions. If they can't make the cut they don't get in. Pretty cool they have a built in screening feature right?

Well then that "screening feature" is rather inefficient if you ask me, due to the extremely large number of male ex-soldiers who curse the day when they got the "stupid" idea of joining up, due to their experiences of actual war.

I will simply reply with...."Any soldier worth his salt should be anti-war. And still, there are things worth fighting for." -General Norman Schwarzkopf

Ask any veteran who isn't just trying to blow of hot air and inflate the "importance" of their duty (when they basically didn't see any fighting at all), but someone whose been through the really ugly parts if they thought that the mock combat conditions in bootcamp truly prepared them and instructed them in what real war would be like.

My guess is that they would respond to your question with a resounding "No!"

Might have something to do with the fact they can't shoot you in basic. They do their best to prepare you for hell, but untill you go to hell you will never know.

The "screening feature" today might be efficient when it comes to testing physical fitness and skill at a firing range, as well as determine whose got most determination to pass through the grueling trials.

But as an educational tool to show what real war is like, and what you or your buddies might suffer through once you're there, it's pretty fucking useless, realistically speaking.

Yes they have prefected the art of measuring your physical fitness and your marksmanship. They have also become very adapt at testing your mental stability and drive. They give you too many things to do in not enough time to see how you will respond to stress. They constantly tell you what you are doing wrong and that you are not good enough to test your drive. As for what your buddies might go through, they do teach buddy aid. How many times do you hear, "I was in the shit and I didn't know what to do."? As opposed to, "I was in the shit and my training took over, it was like instinct."?

I'm just curious because your profile does not say and I don't want to assume anything. Are you a man or woman?

Does it really matter?

I could tell you that Im a man, when im really a woman and vice versa. Heck even my profile could be a lie if I bothered to add any kind of information to it.

So why not enjoy the perks of genderless discussion without preconceptions and gender-based predjudice shall we?

Yes actually it does matter. If you are a woman you could tell me how you think you would react to being in this situation. If you are a man, which I suspect you are, you know just as little about this as I do.

I love how you want to side track my original point. Which was if a woman is captured she will be tortured, raped, might get pregnate, might not abort the pregnancy, and could die. While a man will be tortured and might die. This list is a lot smaller. That was my point.

If women are reading this could you please comment to get some different perspectives?

 

[Ace of Spades]

I don't make a habit of being misogynistic, but what bothers me is the inconsistent ramblings of "feminists". Stop complaining that holding a door for a woman is sexist. It's called being polite, so stop acting like I'm insulting you.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

All I'm reading here is military bashing, so your point is moot since you cannot tell what our sort of life is nor our mentality is. Women captured during war get put into situations that no man would even get closed to enduring. We're not just talking about rape, we're talking about intense torture that they couldn't even do to a man, humiliation as well, and many other things all at once. But I don't know why I'm bothering with this post, you're just stuck in the "military is evil! EVIL!!!!!!"

Wow, you really suck at properly interprating any views I might have of the military that it's not even funny.

Hence, I do believe that it's YOUR point that it's moot, since all the things you've said so far about ME isn't applicable or realistic at all, but more something that you simply made up all on your own about what I am like and what kind of opinions I might have.

I could waste time in correcting you and elaborate on my true views of many things, but im going to opt not to. It's just not worth the effort, since you so clearly display that you have no interest in discussing anything with me, you're more interested in discussing matters with some fictional fantasy person with views and a personality that differs grossly from mine.

And with that, I sincerely hope that you enjoy your stay in your own personal fantasyland. It must be fun to decide for yourself what opinions and thoughts other people have (irrespective of their own true opinions and thoughts that is)...

 

[FinalHeart95]

Well, some jobs simply ARE better suited for certain genders. Males have a tendency to have one thing while females may have a tendency to have another. This isn't sexism, it's a basic understanding of the human body.
Most of the gender roles come from this sort of basic instinct humans have. Why can women be sluts while men can't? Well, the job of the woman is to make sure she picks the best mate possible, so to continue on the best genes. She can't go and get pregnant from everyone, there's a chance she may pass on genes that are detrimental to humans. As for the male, it's his job to, for lack of a better way to say it, "spread his seed". He's SUPPOSED to be a sex machine, that's just what the male was made for. This is just one example of gender roles, but if you look at a lot of them most come from this basic instinct we have to do what's best for the species as a whole.
Job inequality stems from a number of places, one being gender roles. Also, around the industrial revolution was when men started going away from home for jobs, leaving the wife to stay home to care for the house and kids. This was probably a major setback as far as jobs for women goes. To be honest, there's probably more there to talk about, I'm just kind of drawing a blank right now.
How sexist am I? Probably like a 3. I despise gender roles horribly, but I understand why some of them are there and that there's simply no way they're ever going to go away. They will evolve over time, but there will ALWAYS be gender roles. Also, I'm quite the fan of sexist jokes, which is what makes me the three if you ask me. (Kitchen... lol)

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I will simply reply with...."Any soldier worth his salt should be anti-war. And still, there are things worth fighting for." -General Norman Schwarzkopf

Yeah, there are things worth fighting for. The thing is, what crooked politicians and bored generals try to convince us to be worth fighting for doesn't always really go in synch with what the recruits (or anyone else for that matter) consider to be worth fighting for.

It also doesn't change the fact that a lot of recruits DO join up based on the notion that they will get some sort of job and an income and then later get put through a kind of hell that they didn't quite expect on the front lines (and which makes bootcamp seem like a pleasant picnic, perhaps not physically but EMOTIONALLY for all of them). Far from all recruits fight because of idealism and far from all recruits consider what they are ordered to do by superior officers and politicians to be in synch with their ideals and reasons for joining up in the first place.

But when your own chain of command even threaten you with execution for desertion if you refuse to follow orders (as many armies across the world still do today), it's not like you have much of a choice. But if a lot of these people who foolishly put themselves in that position could go back in time and change their past chocies that lead them there, many of them certainly would.

And no amount of war-glorifying platitudes or esprit de corps is going to change that fact.

Might have something to do with the fact they can't shoot you in basic. They do their best to prepare you for hell, but untill you go to hell you will never know.

Exactly.

Which solidifies my point that if you ask the really war-scarred veterans if basic really prepared them for what war would be like they would probably chuckle a little.

Basic is training you to do a job properly, regardless if your job is about pulling a trigger or driving a tank. It isn't training you at all how to handle all the emotional stress you face. And no amount of screaming drill sergeants and hectic training schedules is going to prepare you for seeing living, breathing people getting ripped to pieces by explosives or children accidently getting shot to death a few feet away from you.

Yes they have prefected the art of measuring your physical fitness and your marksmanship. They have also become very adapt at testing your mental stability and drive. They give you too many things to do in not enough time to see how you will respond to stress. They constantly tell you what you are doing wrong and that you are not good enough to test your drive. As for what your buddies might go through, they do teach buddy aid. How many times do you hear, "I was in the shit and I didn't know what to do."? As opposed to, "I was in the shit and my training took over, it was like instinct."?

That's not the issue im pointing out here. Being trained to execute specific tasks during certain conditions is not the same thing as being trained to emotionally handle seeing and hearing things that most people normally try to avoid or run away from.

Heck, some physical fitness jocks with excellent multitasking skills even become psychologically traumatized by an artillery shell exploding to close for comfort (even if they aren't being physically hurt by it).

The fact of the matter is that no military institution have actually discovered a way to properly train troopers how to handle battlefield conditions emotionally. Most of them just hope that enough recruits will just cope with it on their own so they can get the job done. And then when the war is over, you have hundreds if not thousands of tramatized people who can never, truly go back to a normal life because their experiences have wound them so tight that they can't even handle normal human interaction anymore.

If you have some knowledge of the status quo, then I shouldn't have to tell you of the large groups of human "wrecks" that have been spawned from experience with war.

Yes actually it does matter. If you are a woman you could tell me how you think you would react to being in this situation. If you are a man, which I suspect you are, you know just as little about this as I do.

I love how you want to side track my original point. Which was if a woman is captured she will be tortured, raped, might get pregnate, might not abort the pregnancy, and could die. While a man will be tortured and might die. This list is a lot smaller. That was my point.

If women are reading this could you please comment to get some different perspectives?

Experience is subjective, you do know that right?

I've actually spoken to some rape victims and I have to say that the responses towards it varied quite a lot. Some women got traumatized by it (i.e they couldn't really be intimate with a man anymore), others got desensitized (you could barely tell that they've been through what they tell you they've been trhoguh because they seem so unaffected by it), and some just admitted that it was a horrible experience, but they simply moved on from it.

So you can't really argue that what a woman might be put through is going to be inherently "worse" than antyhing a man might be put through. That notion is frankly a sexist and pretty outdated idea, filled with subjective and unscientific rethoric.

I mean, if some people can pet and play with a giant spider, while others scream in horror just by seeing a spider scurry across the floor, then how can you really, truly judge that a woman getting raped will ALWAYS experience it as "something worse" according to her, than a man who gets tortured?

 

[Sarge034]

I will simply reply with...."Any soldier worth his salt should be anti-war. And still, there are things worth fighting for." -General Norman Schwarzkopf

Yeah, there are things worth fighting for. The thing is, what crooked politicians and bored generals try to convince us to be worth fighting for doesn't always really go in synch with what the recruits (or anyone else for that matter) consider to be worth fighting for.

It also doesn't change the fact that a lot of recruits DO join up based on the notion that they will get some sort of job and an income and then later get put through a kind of hell that they didn't quite expect on the front lines (and which makes bootcamp seem like a pleasant picnic, perhaps not physically but EMOTIONALLY for all of them). Far from all recruits fight because of idealism and far from all recruits consider what they are ordered to do by superior officers and politicians to be in synch with their ideals and reasons for joining up in the first place.

But when your own chain of command even threaten you with execution for desertion if you refuse to follow orders (as many armies across the world still do today), it's not like you have much of a choice. But if a lot of these people who foolishly put themselves in that position could go back in time and change their past chocies that lead them there, many of them certainly would.

And no amount of war-glorifying platitudes or esprit de corps is going to change that fact.

Might have something to do with the fact they can't shoot you in basic. They do their best to prepare you for hell, but untill you go to hell you will never know.

Exactly.

Which solidifies my point that if you ask the really war-scarred veterans if basic really prepared them for what war would be like they would probably chuckle a little.

Basic is training you to do a job properly, regardless if your job is about pulling a trigger or driving a tank. It isn't training you at all how to handle all the emotional stress you face. And no amount of screaming drill sergeants and hectic training schedules is going to prepare you for seeing living, breathing people getting ripped to pieces by explosives or children accidently getting shot to death a few feet away from you.

Yes they have prefected the art of measuring your physical fitness and your marksmanship. They have also become very adapt at testing your mental stability and drive. They give you too many things to do in not enough time to see how you will respond to stress. They constantly tell you what you are doing wrong and that you are not good enough to test your drive. As for what your buddies might go through, they do teach buddy aid. How many times do you hear, "I was in the shit and I didn't know what to do."? As opposed to, "I was in the shit and my training took over, it was like instinct."?

That's not the issue im pointing out here. Being trained to execute specific tasks during certain conditions is not the same thing as being trained to emotionally handle seeing and hearing things that most people normally try to avoid or run away from.

Heck, some physical fitness jocks with excellent multitasking skills even become psychologically traumatized by an artillery shell exploding to close for comfort (even if they aren't being physically hurt by it).

The fact of the matter is that no military institution have actually discovered a way to properly train troopers how to handle battlefield conditions emotionally. Most of them just hope that enough recruits will just cope with it on their own so they can get the job done. And then when the war is over, you have hundreds if not thousands of tramatized people who can never, truly go back to a normal life because their experiences have wound them so tight that they can't even handle normal human interaction anymore.

If you have some knowledge of the status quo, then I shouldn't have to tell you of the large groups of human "wrecks" that have been spawned from experience with war.

Yes actually it does matter. If you are a woman you could tell me how you think you would react to being in this situation. If you are a man, which I suspect you are, you know just as little about this as I do.

I love how you want to side track my original point. Which was if a woman is captured she will be tortured, raped, might get pregnate, might not abort the pregnancy, and could die. While a man will be tortured and might die. This list is a lot smaller. That was my point.

If women are reading this could you please comment to get some different perspectives?

Experience is subjective, you do know that right?

I've actually spoken to some rape victims and I have to say that the responses towards it varied quite a lot. Some women got traumatized by it (i.e they couldn't really be intimate with a man anymore), others got desensitized (you could barely tell that they've been through what they tell you they've been trhoguh because they seem so unaffected by it), and some just admitted that it was a horrible experience, but they simply moved on from it.

So you can't really argue that what a woman might be put through is going to be inherently "worse" than antyhing a man might be put through. That notion is frankly a sexist and pretty outdated idea, filled with subjective and unscientific rethoric.

I mean, if some people can pet and play with a giant spider, while others scream in horror just by seeing a spider scurry across the floor, then how can you really, truly judge that a woman getting raped will ALWAYS experience it as "something worse" according to her, than a man who gets tortured?

You refuse to talk about the topic of this thread. You want to turn this into a my political ideas are better then yours thread. I will no longer respond to you.

Have a nice day.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

You refuse to talk about the topic of this thread. You want to turn this into a my political ideas are better then yours thread. I will no lohnger respond to you.

Have a nice day.

OKay, where have I mentioned anything about politics?

Do I hit some kind of nerve telling the truths of pretty much every military institution across the world (regardless of political backers) or something?

My point remains, trying to prohibit women from active combat roles is both sexist and hypocritical, and I've argued my case adequately.

Politics doesn't have anything to do with it, and I really can't see why you would bring it up...

 

[jawakiller]

There are psychological and emotional differences not just anatomical ones. And even though I may be slightly sexist... Men and women are very different. Get over it.

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

For total gender equality to exist, you would need to make it so that if a male and a female would fight, it would be treated as a normal assualt.

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

Also in the military women would have to be set for the same standerds physicaly as men.

 

[Carlston]

I'm fairly equal on all fronts.

But soon as I here a non-qualified person for a job cry they aren't given a fair shake because of what's between their legs. My cynicism alarm goes off and I start asking for the key information.

Take the military. They flat out have different physical requirements for women on the PRT which is basically your 6 month check to see if your in shape.

Women tend to have around 1/3rd to 1/4th the push up and sit up requirement. Ok physical difference in muscle mass...but then have even long times to run a mile and a half, so same time killing their fast more agile claim.

And when in bootcamp women on long runs with their 60-80 pound packs, its not uncommon for all of them to finish with a man now hauling two full packs on his back...

So it's not equal. But same time does this stop a woman from being a paper pusher or say Tank gunner? Paper pusher she's fine. Tank gunner, well if you can't lift the 60 pound shell and load the main gun if the loader/autoloader is taken out...no. Yet that example can cover a man as well. Nothing to do with equality but your ability.

It's a hairy situation, but at times I notice many female have no problem to demand to be equal then throw right back up they are female and can't do the same things...

So how equal am I? Round a 9.

How tolerant am I of people who just fall back on the sexist BS to make excuses for their inability to be equal? A 1.

^THIS if what i'm getting out of it is what this person ment to say.
(if this quote doesn't work i'm sorry)
for things like the military or the police force or something that requires some form of military strength, i find it a little sexist that the women have lower qualifications than men, if a firefighter has to run into a building to pull out someone who weighs say 190 pounds, and that is lower than the amount the men have to be able to carry, and higher than that of the women... well if a female firefighter finds said person, said person is not going to make it out of that house. Just to clarify, i think this is sexist to men, because they could potentially be beat out of a job because they are unable, and sexist to women because they are lowering the bar for them "there's no way you could EVER be as good as us men, here i'll take i bit of that weight for you".

wow... i got beat to this point by a whole lot more people than i thought.

Have to admit the old mind isn't what it used to be but yes that is what i was getting at.

I have known a good chunk of female marines who can and very well often meet and exceed strength requirements. They are a amazingly small group... and not because there are few women marines, but because these women did what was needed to change and meet the requirements. Many guess what? Want standards lower not more done by the individual to meet said standard.

Hard work.

It mirrors in the corp world as well. But it is easier to make a excuse someone is out to get your than study up, sell yourself and demand recognition.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

You refuse to talk about the topic of this thread. You want to turn this into a my political ideas are better then yours thread. I will no lohnger respond to you.

Have a nice day.

OKay, where have I mentioned anything about politics?

Do I hit some kind of nerve telling the truths of pretty much every military institution across the world (regardless of political backers) or something?

My point remains, trying to prohibit women from active combat roles is both sexist and hypocritical, and I've argued my case adequately.

Politics doesn't have anything to do with it, and I really can't see why you would bring it up...

I would also like to add that I wonder why the possibility of being raped (and becoming pregnant, 'cause lets face it, they can rape guys too) if captured is enough to bar women from front line service yet being turned into a fine red paste is not a problem. I think it's just a case of old fashioned "we must protect the women" attitude. Nothing wrong with that if the woman in question wants protecting but if she's willing to be turned into a charred corpse then denying her the opportunity because she might get raped if captured is very condescending if you ask me.

 

[Carlston]

You refuse to talk about the topic of this thread. You want to turn this into a my political ideas are better then yours thread. I will no lohnger respond to you.

Have a nice day.

OKay, where have I mentioned anything about politics?

Do I hit some kind of nerve telling the truths of pretty much every military institution across the world (regardless of political backers) or something?

My point remains, trying to prohibit women from active combat roles is both sexist and hypocritical, and I've argued my case adequately.

Politics doesn't have anything to do with it, and I really can't see why you would bring it up...

No it's the way of the world, animals and society.

Men go to die, women stay behind.

If all the women die who would rebuild the populace. This is more dark age thinking but it clings to all mens mind we would rather take the brunt of death than say a mother figure.

 

[hightide]

"In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data released Wednesday by Reach Advisors, a consumer-research firm in Slingerlands, N.Y."

Quote: Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html


Honestly, I think we do a good job in the US with Gender Equality, of course the Government could be more proactive but that often leads to a more harden resistance.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

I'm a dude who is artistic and enjoys tattoos, I am considered odd in my family of ditch diggers, farmers, and construction workers. Meanwhile my mother is the same way, so I think my views of gender bias are limited towards people who are infact visual sterotypes of their own genders. Example: Girl walking around town flaunting expensive clothing, hair style, and make-up, while acting snobbish or like a *****. (That kind of a person who looks/acts like a sterotype does nothing but make their whole gender look bad).

 

[Torrasque]

Technically speaking, we're all a little bit sexist, just in varying degrees.
Think of a scientist. Did you think of a guy in a lab coat? SEXIST!
Think of a construction worker. Did you think of a burly guy in a hard hat? SEXIST!

... Ah okay, then I guess I'm not sexist lol. What immediately came to my mind was a group of scientists/construction workers of mixed sex

Sarcasm aside, I personally think I'd rather have a lady babysit my kids, have a guy move my furniture, or have a girl handle my subway.

Really? I guess I never thought about that ... yeah I'm not getting it, sorry. If I ever get subway it's usually a guy making it, but I never put a lot of thought into that. Also, I've met a lot of chicks that I really wouldn't trust my kids with, and a lot of guys I would. I guess the furniture thing makes a little sense but it's also true that some women are up to that task, and that more than a lot of guys aren't

So this is the part where I ask what you think.

Do you think there is a reason you see mostly X gender in Y roles?
I haven't really noticed this. I see both genders in every role, and I can't really think of an area of the workforce that's predominantly one sex or another off the top of my head. Some sports I guess, but I don't really get why anyone would want to play sports so ...

Why do you think there is job inequality?
Is there? Again, I haven't really notice this.

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) how sexist would you say you are?
1 or 2 I guess. I don't delude myself into thinking guys and chicks are exactly the same, but why shouldn't they be equal?

Have you ever seen any construction going on? Its 99% guys, lol.
Most janitorial services are womens at my school. Most politicians are guys.
You sure you havn't seen it?