Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 4, 2011 16:04:40 GMT -5
Dark, sometimes I wonder if women will ever truly be equal to men - especially when women have to worry about their 'safety': leaving a party late at night alone for instance, Walking to her car in a darkish nearly empty lot after work or after shopping late, Being alone in a somewhat deserted public area and being approached by a man she doesn't know and who looks a little threatening... Ask your wife/girlfriend about when they don't feel 'safe'... Then put yourself in the same situation and think about how you feel...
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Mar 4, 2011 16:48:55 GMT -5
Isn't our 'army' all volunteer-ish - meaning someone willing signed up for it? Yeah, but lets look at the reality of it. I'm a dude. When I enlisted I was guaranteed training and assignment in the specialty of my choice (in my case Computer Operator) provided I passed the training. If I failed the training for my specialty the military gets to decide where to reassign me, and let me tell you the tech school washouts never seem to end up with the cushy gigs. If I'd had a vagina instead of a penis, then I would know going in that if I can't hack tech school my reassignment can't be in any combat specialty. I might not get to be a computer operator, but I'd still get a desk job like supply clerk or something. In some specialties you're either primarily in a combat role or not depending on the unit you're assigned too. We'll take my specialty again, Computer Operators are predominately assigned to totally support roles in safe locations, but there are combat com units. They go in early with army and marine troops and establish battlefield communications. In some specialties like that, women can't be assigned to the combat type units within the specialty. This means that the men in those career fields spend a larger percentage of their time in those units, because there are fewer eligible people in the overall career field. The women take spots in the career field, but are only eligible to get the better assignments. The women in those career fields still want the same rate of promotion and whatnot though. I mean if you promoted the men more heavily that would be discrimination, right? It's blatantly unfair to the men who have to spend a larger percentage of their careers in crappy assignments without getting rewarded for it.
|
|
|
Post by illinicheme on Mar 4, 2011 17:25:14 GMT -5
There are biological differences between men and women. Only women can bear children. The strongest members of the species are generally men.
Ideally, we'd reach a point where most things are gender-blind in terms of entrance requirements. I don't think "women are not assigned to combat roles" is a particularly good rule. Ideally, the rule should be "in order to establish battlefield communications, the individual must be able to carry a 20 lb load of equipment for 8 hrs" (or whatever). The difficulty is challenging the gender assumptions, as most people have an extremely difficult time seeing an individual for just their skills, without bringing all sorts of gender assumptions to the table.
As for the taking time off from a career to have kids thing, it's quite likely that it will always skew towards women sacrificing career for family and men sacrificing family for career. However, there's a lot of good that can come out of examining and challenging the status quo. With increased choices and flexibility, everybody wins and has more ability to craft a life for themselves that matches their desires.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 8:59:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2011 18:56:39 GMT -5
now now now, I didn't say it was okay to discriminate. Discrimination is wrong, but that is not to say that everyone is really equal. And I think most people realize that. But it's OK when the military does it? That's your argument? I don't recall saying that at all. I DO believe that there are some types of jobs that require certain physical standards. In those cases, only the people who can best do the job should be hired for them. If my house is on fire, I want to know that the people helping to put it out/rescue me will be physically capable of doing so. If a woman can be a capable firefighter, that's great - she should definitely be hired as one! But don't go dumbing down the test to fill quotas. In fields like fire, police, and military, IMO everyone needs to be able to pass the same test and go through the same training. I agree, as long as the test for those physical standards is fair.
|
|
LlamaLlamaDuck
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 18:53:50 GMT -5
Posts: 169
|
Post by LlamaLlamaDuck on Mar 4, 2011 20:39:17 GMT -5
Isn't modern waeponry an equalizer? Are we still going hand-to-hand? My niecej oined the Marines and turned out to be a crack shot. She could be a sniper and not require much more brawn than it takes to set up and use her weapon.
Also, there seems to be some blurring between the meanings of the words "equal" and "identical."
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,974
|
Post by cronewitch on Mar 5, 2011 5:18:25 GMT -5
Woman will never be equal because we prefer being superior
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Mar 5, 2011 22:57:14 GMT -5
dark since there hasn't been a draft in our lifetime (mine and yours) why do you even care?? The problem with women in the draft was already stated, it also immediately gets you out of combat duty and even oversees duty at all since it is now considered "bad" to fly pregnant, esp long distances. Several military commanders wanted preg active duty combat ready women to be declared "derelict" in fairness they wanted to charge the men that got them that way too (since obviously these women weren't sleeping with the arabs) but they had a hard time getting the women to admit the guilty men.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Mar 6, 2011 12:22:33 GMT -5
Quite frankly, the idea that men and women are equal is laughable. Now, before I get jumped on, consider that men and women are VERY different physically, mentally, and emotionally. 1. Men on average are much stronger than women. 2. Men, even today, are the ones who take more risks to create companies and create advancements: look at google, youtube, facebook, and many others. Men dominate STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) even as women outnumber men on campus at almost 2:1. 3. Men vote more republican (less government, less taxes, less services) while women tend to vote more Democrate (more government, more social spending, etc...) 4. From a reproduction POV, women are more valuable. A group of 10 men and 100 women will populate an area far faster than a group of 100 men and 10 women. It's one reason (as well as physical strength) why men performed the most dangerous jobs of hunter, soldier, miner, etc... 4a. linked to above: most women in the past reproduced (about 80%) while men did not (about 40%). Here is a great article on it: www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htmWhat truly is equality, anyway? Is it that we would find an equal number of women in the top posistions (as we are told that women must shatter the glass ceiling)? What of the glass floor as well, below which men toil as sewer workers and miners? Must we have as many women down there as well, even if they do not want to be there? Will we mandate that women must register for selective service and fight on the ground, even if they do not wish to be there and would likely be a hindrance? Will we also mandate that women serve the same amount of time in prison as men rather than allow travesties like Mary Winkler who shot he husband and got only 30 days in a mental institute and praised on Oprah as some sort of hero? Should not Rhianna who initated the violent confrontation with Chris Brown while he was driving his car and therefore endangered herself, him, and other motorists, have been brought up on charges instead of Chris? Should not Chris Brown have been welcomed on Oprah as the victim who was attacked rather than Rhianna? I'm sorry but the idea of equality between men and women is a farce. We are not equal but different and indeed women are given a far higher status. She can attack a man and he can do nothing to defend himself unless he is willing to be arrested. We have many programs for women yet very few for men, including VAWA (Violence Against Women Amendment) rather than Violence Against Person's Amendment even though studies show that women often initiate violence and much domestic abuse is mutual. Women are even granted custody of their children in divorce cases, even if she has committed infidelity and initiated the divorce for no reason than she was bored. Despite this evident contempt of familial bonds, she is considered more fit as a parent and thus will be given custody "in the best interest of the child" even though studies show that a child is more in danger of abuse in a mother's custody with a new male mate than a child would be in the father's custody with his new female mate. I could go on and on: how males are more apt to be victims of violence, suicide, etc...
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 6, 2011 13:36:29 GMT -5
now now now, I didn't say it was okay to discriminate. Discrimination is wrong, but that is not to say that everyone is really equal. And I think most people realize that. But it's OK when the military does it? That's your argument? I don't recall saying that at all. I DO believe that there are some types of jobs that require certain physical standards. In those cases, only the people who can best do the job should be hired for them. If my house is on fire, I want to know that the people helping to put it out/rescue me will be physically capable of doing so. If a woman can be a capable firefighter, that's great - she should definitely be hired as one! But don't go dumbing down the test to fill quotas. In fields like fire, police, and military, IMO everyone needs to be able to pass the same test and go through the same training. I've said that all along...I can't believe that they have lower standards for women...WTF happens in an emergency situation when mere strength is required? Yes, some women might be up to it but if they aren't subject to the same standards how can you really be sure??
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Mar 6, 2011 15:33:45 GMT -5
You guys keep saying men are stronger like it matters. You know the physical requirement to be Army infantry? Nothing. There isn't one. If you can pass the normal annual service physical you can be in the infantry. There are hundreds of thousands of women who pass their service physical every year by the way. It's not a job that requires a muscle bound meat head that can bench 400 pounds. You have to be able to carry your gear and shoulder a rifle. Granted, the full gear isn't exactly light, but thousands of skinny 18 year old guys that have spent the last five years playing Xbox somehow manage to get through the training every year.
The military is not like it is in war movies. Not every new recruit is a 30-40 something actor who's spent the last year in a gym every day to get a Hollywood body. They're mostly 18-20 year old people that aren't in the greatest shape. How many 18 year olds do you know that are swole up like a pro wrestler? Even special forces guys aren't big muscle bound meat heads. They usually look more like distance runners. They're strong, but it's endurance strength more than raw power. They train by running five miles a day, doing ruck marches, a ton of body weight exercises. These aren't the kinds of things that will leave you looking like Hulk Hogan. The women by the way, would go through the same training. It's not like they'd need to be in tip top shape the day they enlist.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 6, 2011 15:42:27 GMT -5
You guys keep saying men are stronger like it matters. You know the physical requirement to be Army infantry? Nothing. There isn't one. If you can pass the normal annual service physical you can be in the infantry. There are hundreds of thousands of women who pass their service physical every year by the way. It's not a job that requires a muscle bound meat head that can bench 400 pounds. You have to be able to carry your gear and shoulder a rifle. Granted, the full gear isn't exactly light, but thousands of skinny 18 year old guys that have spent the last five years playing Xbox somehow manage to get through the training every year. The military is not like it is in war movies. Not every new recruit is a 30-40 something actor who's spent the last year in a gym every day to get a Hollywood body. They're mostly 18-20 year old people that aren't in the greatest shape. How many 18 year olds do you know that are swole up like a pro wrestler? Even special forces guys aren't big muscle bound meat heads. They usually look more like distance runners. They're strong, but it's endurance strength more than raw power. They train by running five miles a day, doing ruck marches, a ton of body weight exercises. These aren't the kinds of things that will leave you looking like Hulk Hogan. The women by the way, would go through the same training. It's not like they'd need to be in tip top shape the day they enlist. I wasn't speaking specifically about the military. I disagree with any standards being lower for one group of people, whether they are lower physical standards for women on a Firefighter's exam or colleges accepting lower SAT scores from minorities for affirmative action. If we want equality, then we should have equal testing for all.
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Mar 6, 2011 15:59:43 GMT -5
so I was curious who got killed more. And white females are far and away the least likely group to be murdered, followed very closely by white males and predominately black (and whatever might get lumped in there) males are the most likely group to be murdered. Guess there is no equal. This chart shows it best but i found several saying the same thing. www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/murderrates.htmlTo listen to the news you wouldn't think it was this way
|
|
|
Post by jarhead1976 on Mar 8, 2011 15:27:02 GMT -5
Any woman willing to take on a career in the military, serving her country and all of us, you have to respect that. Combat or not it isn't easy.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,268
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Mar 8, 2011 15:33:18 GMT -5
I thought of this thread this morning. The little ticker on GMA said that the military is thinking about lifting the ban on women in combat situations because there aren't enough men to fill those spots.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Mar 8, 2011 16:18:47 GMT -5
The little ticker on GMA said that the military is thinking about lifting the ban on women in combat situations because there aren't enough men to fill those spots. In the current conflicts plenty of women have found themselves in combat anyway, so it was something the services were going to have to look at. When you fight insurgents in wars with no front lines you can't easily differentiate between combat and non combat positions. Combat breaks out wherever we get attacked, and the enemy has no problems shooting at females driving supplies from point A to point B. We've been fighting for almost ten years now, with our female service members finding themselves in combat somewhat frequently that whole time, and the sky didn't fall, unit cohesion didn't deteriorate, and the men didn't turn into ineffectual wieners. We're finally starting to see the thinking at the higher levels of the military start to change.
|
|