Pentagon opens up combat roles for women.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Crono1973:

TheIronRuler:
Bad news. Not what you think-
Poor gals already have it bad as it is, now some will be stuck in nowhere with a group of guys on patrol. Sexual harassment and rape will go through the roof.
I'm not personally against women in fighting roles, but the prospects are frightening.

No matter what happens, women are victims. Ever notice that?

Considering how disturbing rape statistics are in the armed forces, I'd say a lot of people would consider women the ones having a hard time at least where rape is concerned.

Gorfias:

cobra_ky:

The Supreme Court would require a specific case in order to rule on that, which in turn would require an actual draft to have occurred. So unless you have reason to believe there's a going to be a draft in the foreseeable future, i don't see the Supreme Court paying any attention to draft law anytime soon.

Why? What SJC case required that women be in combat roles at all? EDIT: I ask rhetorically. See below. If a man refuses to register, even in non-draft peace time, there are sanctions. It would be easy to find one disgruntled person to file suit about registration. And there are plenty of people in power that want women registering. I'm not confident that the selective service law will stay as it is.

Hmm. Fair enough. As it turns out the binding Supreme Court precedent upholding gender discrimination in the draft was made at least partially on the grounds that women were excluded from combat, so in theory that ruling would change.

In reality, however, the draft is wildly unpopular, and were it to become a political issue i think there would be overwhelming popular support for abolishing it entirely. That's why so few in Washington are actually willing to talk about it.

cobra_ky:

Gorfias:
If a man refuses to register, even in non-draft peace time, there are sanctions. It would be easy to find one disgruntled person to file suit about registration.

the draft is wildly unpopular.

I am grateful that the popular majority still appears to have a say in the matter. It will be intellectually interesting what would happen if the USJC were to hear a challenge to the current Selective Service law, but as a Dad, I'd be horrified. I can live with women in combat a lot easier knowing the move has popular support. And it is more fair than forbidding such service while putting women, for all intents and purposes, into combat and calling it something else.

Gold:

Crono1973:

TheIronRuler:
Bad news. Not what you think-
Poor gals already have it bad as it is, now some will be stuck in nowhere with a group of guys on patrol. Sexual harassment and rape will go through the roof.
I'm not personally against women in fighting roles, but the prospects are frightening.

No matter what happens, women are victims. Ever notice that?

Considering how disturbing rape statistics are in the armed forces, I'd say a lot of people would consider women the ones having a hard time at least where rape is concerned.

Oh there's always a reason for the victim status of women. In the armed forces death stats are no doubt high for men too but it just doesn't get the same attention. See my point? So I ask again, ever notice that women are ALWAYS victims, no matter what happens?

Women can't serve in combat roles = women are the victim of discrimination
Women can now serve in combat roles = rape stats will go through the roof, women are victims
Men are the overwhelming deaths in war = women are victims because they lose their loved ones

Women are a minority in the game industry = women are victims of discrimination
Men are the minority in the teaching/nursing/college enrollment fields = No one talks about it

@Crono1973

Men are the overwhelming deaths in war = women are victims because they lose their loved ones

What? Sure, women (mothers, sisters and daughters) are victims in that, as are men (fathers, brothers and sons). But nobody would actually say that this factoid makes women the main victims and be serious about it, surely. The main victims are the dead. The women who lost loved ones are secondary victims, like the men who lost loved ones.

This particular one sounds like overexaggeration or outright misrepresentation to me.

Crono1973:

Gold:

Crono1973:

No matter what happens, women are victims. Ever notice that?

Considering how disturbing rape statistics are in the armed forces, I'd say a lot of people would consider women the ones having a hard time at least where rape is concerned.

Oh there's always a reason for the victim status of women.

In this case though, and what we were talking about, it's because they're frequently raped in the armed forces.

Skeleon:
@Crono1973

Men are the overwhelming deaths in war = women are victims because they lose their loved ones

What? Sure, women (mothers, sisters and daughters) are victims in that, as are men (fathers, brothers and sons). But nobody would actually say that this factoid makes women the main victims and be serious about it, surely. The main victims are the dead. The women who lost loved ones are secondary victims, like the men who lost loved ones.

This particular one sounds like overexaggeration or outright misrepresentation to me.

Yes, someone did say that and I already quoted it in this thread.

Hillary Clinton:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have every known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.

Blablahb:
As for that silly blog... different standards: not true.

Actually, the US military is much more open about the fact that it holds men and women to different standards than most organizations. That's what "gender normed" PE testing means -- like any kind of "gender normed" testing, it means lesser standards being applied to women (I've never seen a reference to testing in any organization being "gender normed" where women are ever held to a higher standard at any task -- if someone has an example of that, I'd love a reference).

cobra_ky:

The Supreme Court would require a specific case in order to rule on that, which in turn would require an actual draft to have occurred. So unless you have reason to believe there's a going to be a draft in the foreseeable future, i don't see the Supreme Court paying any attention to draft law anytime soon.

No, it wouldn't. It would be as simple as trying to push a Title IX case. While we haven't actually enforced the law against failing to register for Selective Service, having registered is a requirement for many things for men, including federal student aid, federal government employment, and the same things at the state level in many states. I'd expect a case where a man fails to register, is denied student aid on that basis, and argues it's a Title IX violation to deny him an educational opportunity on the basis of his being male by having a requirement that only applies to males. He then also likely becomes the first case to actually be charged with failing to register for Selective Service in decades.

Blablahb:
No, conservatives who wanted to reserve the chance to discriminate against women, because they believe women are inferior, made a big fuss about ERA not including draft for women, and tried to include an amendment, which was defeated in a vote that pretty much reflected ERA's advocates + sane people vs the bigots.

You see, the vast majority of people will reason that you don't need to achieve absolute and total equality before you can start combating discrimination (now there's a combat role in which women see plenty of action in the conservative US) and how that notion is self-defeating because it would keep you from fixing any problem.

I must be missing something here, but "ERA advocates + sane people" were the ones against an amendment specifically stating that the ERA applies to Selective Service too? Is there a reason why the ERA (should it ever pass and then be ratified, and personally I don't subscribe to the three state strategy because it has terrible potential ramifications) *shouldn't* apply to Selective Service?

Continuing with the ERA, what I find amusing is that despite the characterization of them as misogynists who want nothing more than to stick women back in the kitchen, many of the MRA types are very much pro-ERA. Something about it being the shortest route to hold women to the same standards and obligations, possible reforms to family courts and VAWA (a law whose text literally says that it's OK to discriminate with respect to gender for purposes of this law, but you are also required to serve women to receive funding from it), etc.

cobra_ky:
In reality, however, the draft is wildly unpopular, and were it to become a political issue i think there would be overwhelming popular support for abolishing it entirely. That's why so few in Washington are actually willing to talk about it.

Oddly enough I suspect that "in order to have gender equality, we have to make women literally agree to sign away their lives if Congress wills it just like the men do" is about the only thing that might actually bring an end to the draft.

Gorfias:

What you are writing does not jibe at all with my understanding of the radical egalitarian mindset of people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg (though, she is hardly unique, just vocal enough to make a good example).

http://www.conservapedia.com/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

And people with this mindset are very powerful.

You are getting your information from a biased conservative wiki. I don't really care, since it's not currently relevant, though. Just a heads up. What I've said is true, women are now simply able to choose to take the same tests as men which is important for advancement to certain positions if a woman would like to take on a military career. What you are saying is not even on the board.

I'll write I am grateful to a point:

1) ERA was defeated because people do not want courts making some of the most important decisions regarding sex for them. They'll decide themselves.
2) To date, a majority want women in combat roles but, from what I'm even reading in this thread, want choice, not obligations. I think it fair to think a majority (including me on this one) do not want women to have to register for the draft.

There is no ERA, without court imposition a majority want something and it is happening for good or ill and they oppose something else and so far, it is NOT being imposed.

That's something I guess. ITMT:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat, American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.

If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20130124_13_A9_ULNSat274453

I'm against the draft for both sexes but if men have to sign up then so should women. It should be noted that women would be given more exemptions than men due to certain physical realities.

Schadrach:
I must be missing something here, but "ERA advocates + sane people" were the ones against an amendment specifically stating that the ERA applies to Selective Service too? Is there a reason why the ERA *shouldn't* apply to Selective Service?

No, because the US can already raise armies under its current constitution (obviously), so legislation raising armies from women separately makes no sense. Not just that, it would undermine a very simple constitutional amendment with unnecessary additions.

Also, it was a sabotage tactic by conservatives who want to discriminate against women; stuff in something controversial to erode the number of yes voters. Should never go along in that.

I predict an outbreak of "rape pregnancies" anytime deployments are near. Just like before this change.

This... (continue reading please)

Notsomuch:

I'm against the draft for both sexes but if men have to sign up then so should women. It should be noted that women would be given more exemptions than men due to certain physical realities.

makes this not relevant.

women are now simply able to choose to take the same tests as men which is important for advancement to certain positions if a woman would like to take on a military career. What you are saying is not even on the board.

When I was in the service, women had fewer requirements than men already. The argument then was that the requirements were to show the person was healthy. Typically, a healthy woman could do less than a healthy man, so, the tests, if less rigorous for women, would still show the same thing. I wonder if our enemies will be as sophomoric?

ITMT: Do you have a link? Are current combat requirements identical now? (Though others will still argue that the tests have been "dumbed down" so women can pass, I would still take your link as something of a win and progress from my personal experiences. Thanks if you can find one.

Crono1973:
Yes, someone did say that and I already quoted it in this thread.

Hillary Clinton:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have every known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.

"Someone" saying that, particularly a politician with a specific and obvious agenda, does not make it the popular opinion of everyone. You aren't just claiming "someone" has said this, you're trying to say it's the popular opinion of all. If you can't prove that, then you haven't proven your claim.

Lilani:

Crono1973:
Yes, someone did say that and I already quoted it in this thread.

Hillary Clinton:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have every known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.

"Someone" saying that, particularly a politician with a specific and obvious agenda, does not make it the popular opinion of everyone. You aren't just claiming "someone" has said this, you're trying to say it's the popular opinion of all. If you can't prove that, then you haven't proven your claim.

I am not claiming that it's a popular opinion, just that someone said it. That someone was an important, public figure BTW. I don't need to prove that it's a popular opinion, that's just something YOU threw out after I made my point.

However, it is worth noting that she didn't catch major flak for such a statement. Now, a male politician claiming that men are the primary victims of rape would catch loads of flak in my opinion and it probably would have cost him his career.

Crono1973:
I am not claiming that it's a popular opinion, just that someone said and that someone was an important someone. I don't need to prove that it's a popular opinion, that's just something YOU threw out after I made my point.

However, it is worth noting that she didn't catch major flak for such a statement. Now, a male politician claiming that men are the primary victims of rape would catch loads of flak in my opinion and it probably would have cost him his career.

Well yes, it's no secret that around addressing females and minorities there is a level of care required that doesn't exist when addressing white males, and because of that some things go uncriticized that should. And I'm not saying that's right, because it's not. It's wrong. But until we've gotten far enough away from those still recent times where sexism and racism were actually problems, it's still going to be uncomfortable to address. It's a sign we as a society really aren't over it just yet. There's still a lot of distrust on both sides, and as people like Todd Akin have recently demonstrated not all of that distrust is completely unjustified.

It still doesn't justify things like what Clinton said, but until we as a society are rest assured there is nobody around who wants to plunge us back to the 1950s, it's not going to be an easy subject to address. I don't agree with what Clinton said in any way, but I can see why it went uncriticized.

Lilani:

Crono1973:
I am not claiming that it's a popular opinion, just that someone said and that someone was an important someone. I don't need to prove that it's a popular opinion, that's just something YOU threw out after I made my point.

However, it is worth noting that she didn't catch major flak for such a statement. Now, a male politician claiming that men are the primary victims of rape would catch loads of flak in my opinion and it probably would have cost him his career.

Well yes, it's no secret that around addressing females and minorities there is a level of care required that doesn't exist when addressing white males, and because of that some things go uncriticized that should. And I'm not saying that's right, because it's not. It's wrong. But until we've gotten far enough away from those still recent times where sexism and racism were actually problems, it's still going to be uncomfortable to address. It's a sign we as a society really aren't over it just yet. There's still a lot of distrust on both sides, and as people like Todd Akin have recently demonstrated not all of that distrust is completely unjustified.

It still doesn't justify things like what Clinton said, but until we as a society are rest assured there is nobody around who wants to plunge us back to the 1950s, it's not going to be an easy subject to address. I don't agree with what Clinton said in any way, but I can see why it went uncriticized.

Someone screaming "discrimination against women" and "women are the real victims" every opportunity they get will never end sexism. It only creates discouragement with people who WANT equality but are beginning to believe that it will never happen.

You ever watch Star Trek? Ever wonder if that kind of equality is really possible or if that's just Hollywood fiction?

Crono1973:
Someone screaming "discrimination against women" and "women are the real victims" every opportunity they get will never end sexism. It only creates discouragement with people who WANT equality but are beginning to believe that it will never happen.

Well yes of course they aren't being helpful, and they should stop, but

You ever watch Star Trek? Ever wonder if that kind of equality is really possible or if that's just Hollywood fiction?

You know, it's funny you should mention that, because I just made a post in another thread that addressed this sort of thing.

Isn't it funny how we're willing to look at something like Star Trek where you've got a few women and minorities peppered into the otherwise white and male cast of characters and call it the epitome of gender and racial equality? Never mind the fact that most captains of the past and current generations of Star Trek have been white and male. Never mind the fact that it's hard to find a movie with a non-white or female lead without the movie being in some way about the character being female or not being white. We look at movies like Remember the Titans and the Blind Side and are willing to say we are totally over racism, when about the only flavors Hollywood will take black people in outside of movies about racism are badass and comic relief. We look at the Kill Bill and say "Hey! Look! One strong female character! We are totally caught up with gender equality!"

I think we can truly say we are over racial and gender discrimination when you can have female and non-white leads in movies and other media that don't have to explain their existence. When you can have an action movie with a female lead that isn't screaming at its audience "Hey, she's female, and she's strong! Isn't that so modern!" When you can have a movie with female and non-white leads that are as uninvolved in gender and racial politics as movies with plain white guys as the lead, and when the fact that the lead is a minority or a female no longer has to be showcased as unusual or unique, then you can say we've gotten over it.

That's not to say things like Star Trek haven't been significant in leading up to gender and racial equality in media and in reality. However, we shouldn't just take the bare minimum and call it acceptable.

Crono1973:
However, it is worth noting that she didn't catch major flak for such a statement. Now, a male politician claiming that men are the primary victims of rape would catch loads of flak in my opinion and it probably would have cost him his career.

But Clinton was talking about civilian deaths and the general practise of warfare, and not so much a tally of the number of deaths. And for those circumstances the statements holds true. It's ussually women who are victimised most, have to keep things running while everybody's trying to kill eachother and get to clean up the mess caused by warfare. To name an example, it's very popular in most (read: patriarchal) countries to marry war victims (handicapped, insane or otherwise traumatised etc) off to some woman. 'Phfew, finally, we're rid of that dead weight in the family. Now that woman gets to take care of him for the rest of her life while taking beatings from his ptss disorder'.

Obviously however, munitions flying around aimed at combatants, are very gender-neutral things. Anyone who signed up to risk it and catches one has a problem no matter if they're male or female. So it's not really an argument for anything.

Lilani:

Crono1973:
Someone screaming "discrimination against women" and "women are the real victims" every opportunity they get will never end sexism. It only creates discouragement with people who WANT equality but are beginning to believe that it will never happen.

Well yes of course they aren't being helpful, and they should stop, but

You ever watch Star Trek? Ever wonder if that kind of equality is really possible or if that's just Hollywood fiction?

You know, it's funny you should mention that, because I just made a post in another thread that addressed this sort of thing.

Isn't it funny how we're willing to look at something like Star Trek where you've got a few women and minorities peppered into the otherwise white and male cast of characters and call it the epitome of gender and racial equality? Never mind the fact that most captains of the past and current generations of Star Trek have been white and male. Never mind the fact that it's hard to find a movie with a non-white or female lead without the movie being in some way about the character being female or not being white. We look at movies like Remember the Titans and the Blind Side and are willing to say we are totally over racism, when about the only flavors Hollywood will take black people in outside of movies about racism are badass and comic relief. We look at the Kill Bill and say "Hey! Look! One strong female character! We are totally caught up with gender equality!"

I think we can truly say we are over racial and gender discrimination when you can have female and non-white leads in movies and other media that don't have to explain their existence. When you can have an action movie with a female lead that isn't screaming at its audience "Hey, she's female, and she's strong! Isn't that so modern!" When you can have a movie with female and non-white leads that are as uninvolved in gender and racial politics as movies with plain white guys as the lead, and when the fact that the lead is a minority or a female no longer has to be showcased as unusual or unique, then you can say we've gotten over it.

That's not to say things like Star Trek haven't been significant in leading up to gender and racial equality in media and in reality. However, we shouldn't just take the bare minimum and call it acceptable.

Go to a school and do a gender count, tell me who dominates teaching jobs? Those are the most important jobs out there as they teach the next generation of adults. There are other fields where women dominate too but we don't get topics about it and women don't speak about discrimination then.

Whatever, go on being a victim. Even Star Trek is sexist in your mind, there is nowhere to go from here.

Blablahb:

Crono1973:
However, it is worth noting that she didn't catch major flak for such a statement. Now, a male politician claiming that men are the primary victims of rape would catch loads of flak in my opinion and it probably would have cost him his career.

But Clinton was talking about civilian deaths and the general practise of warfare, and not so much a tally of the number of deaths. And for those circumstances the statements holds true. It's ussually women who are victimised most, have to keep things running while everybody's trying to kill eachother and get to clean up the mess caused by warfare. To name an example, it's very popular in most (read: patriarchal) countries to marry war victims (handicapped, insane or otherwise traumatised etc) off to some woman. 'Phfew, finally, we're rid of that dead weight in the family. Now that woman gets to take care of him for the rest of her life while taking beatings from his ptss disorder'.

Obviously however, munitions flying around aimed at combatants, are very gender-neutral things. Anyone who signed up to risk it and catches one has a problem no matter if they're male or female. So it's not really an argument for anything.

Nothing I read suggests Clinton was talking ONLY about civilian deaths but even if she were, why is she ignoring the combat deaths?

Crono1973:
Go to a school and do a gender count, tell me who dominates teaching jobs? Those are the most important jobs out there as they teach the next generation of adults. There are other fields where women dominate too but we don't get topics about it and women don't speak about discrimination then.

Whatever, go on being a victim.

I'm not saying that isn't a problem. Hell, I agree with you. There is a significant amount of distrust when it comes to men in child care positions, and too much of it is unwarranted and allowed to interfere in the hiring process. I have friends who are in college to be teachers and facing these problems right now.

All I'm saying is peppering in a few women and minorities in the secondary roles of a film is about as close to "gender equality" as peppering in a few men into schools as janitors or P.E. teachers.

Lilani:

Crono1973:
Go to a school and do a gender count, tell me who dominates teaching jobs? Those are the most important jobs out there as they teach the next generation of adults. There are other fields where women dominate too but we don't get topics about it and women don't speak about discrimination then.

Whatever, go on being a victim.

I'm not saying that isn't a problem. Hell, I agree with you. There is a significant amount of distrust when it comes to men in child care positions, and too much of it is unwarranted and allowed to interfere in the hiring process. I have friends who are in college to be teachers and facing these problems right now.

All I'm saying is peppering in a few women and minorities in the secondary roles of a film is about as close to "gender equality" as peppering in a few men into schools as janitors or P.E. teachers.

Well, with Star Trek it was more about the idea that men and women have the same opportunities and no one would look down on a male nurse or a female captain and less about a gender count per scene. In Star Trek no one says "you aren't giving me this job because I am a woman".

Crono1973:
Well, with Star Trek it was more about the idea that men and women have the same opportunities and no one would look down on a male nurse or a female captain and less about a gender count per scene. In Star Trek no one says "you aren't giving me this job because I am a woman".

I realize that, and again I'm not saying Star Trek didn't do a lot for breaking down barriers in media. But again, if everything in the Star Trek universe is so equal, then why in 50 years have we not seen a female or non-white person be captain of the Enterprise (to the extent of my knowledge--I'm no trekkie and I know little beyond the original, TNG, and the 2009 reboot)? The original Star Trek set a new standard in gender and racial equality in media, but that's not to say they are perfect can't fall into new, even more subtle traps.

I'm not trying to say that it's the values of the universe that are flawed. It's the values of the media industry itself. We don't say it as loudly or revel in it as much now, but it's still a plain fact in the media industry that the majority of lead roles you see in the big Hollywood movies white males. Sure they're careful to pepper in plenty of minorities and women in the background, but the lead character is always the most handsome white guy in the room.

And it's not even that they're doing it maliciously, like they universally have something against women and minorities as the lead roles in movies that aren't about women's or civil rights. It's just that formula has consistently earned them money in the past, and if there's one thing big studios don't like to mess with especially during a recession it's formulas that work. So until they try the new formula and see it succeed enough, we're still going to be stuck with pasty white protagonists for a while. And the creators themselves tend to be white, so they just sort of fill the main parts in with white people by default, which gels perfectly with the studio's desires.

So, yeah. It's a simple problem that exists for some of the most complicated and impossible to approach reasons imaginable. It'll get sorted out eventually I think, as that older generation from the 50s and 60s that still have a chokehold on the studios finally dies off and the new blood slowly seeps in. You see all these young people like Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams making our big blockbusters, but it's the older guys in suits at the top of the food chain that give them the money to do what they want, and it's those older guys that are having the most trouble accepting that you can have women and minorities in movies for reasons other than making a diverse spectrum of skin colors and private parts.

Lilani:

Crono1973:
Well, with Star Trek it was more about the idea that men and women have the same opportunities and no one would look down on a male nurse or a female captain and less about a gender count per scene. In Star Trek no one says "you aren't giving me this job because I am a woman".

I realize that, and again I'm not saying Star Trek didn't do a lot for breaking down barriers in media. But again, if everything in the Star Trek universe is so equal, then why in 50 years have we not seen a female or non-white person be captain of the Enterprise (to the extent of my knowledge--I'm no trekkie and I know little beyond the original, TNG, and the 2009 reboot)? The original Star Trek set a new standard in gender and racial equality in media, but that's not to say they are perfect can't fall into new, even more subtle traps.

I'm not trying to say that it's the values of the universe that are flawed. It's the values of the media industry itself. We don't say it as loudly or revel in it as much now, but it's still a plain fact in the media industry that the majority of lead roles you see in the big Hollywood movies white males. Sure they're careful to pepper in plenty of minorities and women in the background, but the lead character is always the most handsome white guy in the room.

And it's not even that they're doing it maliciously, like they universally have something against women and minorities as the lead roles in movies that aren't about women's or civil rights. It's just that formula has consistently earned them money in the past, and if there's one thing big studios don't like to mess with especially during a recession it's formulas that work. So until they try the new formula and see it succeed enough, we're still going to be stuck with pasty white protagonists for a while. And the creators themselves tend to be white, so they just sort of fill the main parts in with white people by default, which gels perfectly with the studio's desires.

So, yeah. It's a simple problem that exists for some of the most complicated and impossible to approach reasons imaginable. It'll get sorted out eventually I think, as that older generation from the 50s and 60s that still have a chokehold on the studios finally dies off and the new blood slowly seeps in. You see all these young people like Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams making our big blockbusters, but it's the older guys in suits at the top of the food chain that give them the money to do what they want, and it's those older guys that are having the most trouble accepting that you can have women and minorities in movies for reasons other than making a diverse spectrum of skin colors and private parts.

Enterprise C has a female captain:

The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) was a Federation Ambassador-class heavy cruiser that was in service with Starfleet in the mid-24th century. This was the fourth Federation starship to be commissioned to bear the name Enterprise. In 2344, the Enterprise-C was under the command of Captain Rachel Garrett.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Rachel_Garrett

Then there's Voyager with a female captain as well.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kathryn_Janeway

Also, there is Captain Sisko:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Benjamin_Sisko

Not every important ship in Star Trek is named Enterprise.

Crono1973:
*snip*

To add to that: Off the top of my head, I can also think of the Excelsior which is captained by Sulu and plays a major role in several episodes and at least one feature film.

That said, there was an incredible streak of sexism in TOS which some people seem to attribute to Roddenberry himself.

Skeleon:

Crono1973:
*snip*

To add to that: Off the top of my head, I can also think of the Excelsior which is captained by Sulu and plays a major role in several episodes and at least one feature film.

That said, there was an incredible streak of sexism in TOS which some people seem to attribute to Roddenberry himself.

Roddenberry wanted a female First Officer (Majel Barrett) but NBC would have none of it so she became Nurse Chapel.

She first appeared in Star Trek's initial pilot, "The Cage" (1964), as the USS Enterprise's unnamed first officer, "Number One". Barrett was romantically involved with Roddenberry, whose marriage was on the verge of failing at the time, and the idea of having an otherwise unknown woman in a leading role because she was the producer's girlfriend is said to have infuriated NBC network executives who insisted that Roddenberry give the role to a man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majel_Barrett

Crono1973:
*snip*

Maybe, but where did all that "suffer the indignity of being a woman"-stuff come from? Or was that not Roddenberry but someone external as well? And what about the ridiculous skimpy outfits for women? The stupid "woman betrays crew for charismatic evil guy"-trope they repeated so often? I guess I can't ascertain that it's Roddenberry, but I definitely think TOS had massive issues there, wherever they may have originated.
To be fair, some issues remained far longer, like Troy's/Seven's outfits and the like. Hell, I remember that one episode where Seven actually wears a science officer uniform and it looks quite good. Wish they'd gone for that instead of pathetic fan-wankery.

Crono1973:
Go to a school and do a gender count, tell me who dominates teaching jobs? Those are the most important jobs out there as they teach the next generation of adults. There are other fields where women dominate too but we don't get topics about it and women don't speak about discrimination then.

You might think teaching are the most important jobs (and I don't necessarily disagree), but they are crap low paid jobs for the most part. This is true for most female dominated professions.

And it's absolutely not true that women don't speak out about discrimination in regards to that.

Skeleon:

Crono1973:
*snip*

Maybe, but where did all that "suffer the indignity of being a woman"-stuff come from? Or was that not Roddenberry but someone external as well? And what about the ridiculous skimpy outfits for women? The stupid "woman betrays crew for charismatic evil guy"-trope they repeated so often? I guess I can't ascertain that it's Roddenberry, but I definitely think TOS had massive issues there, wherever they may have originated.

Well, TOS was always on the verge of cancellation. Roddenberry didn't have as much control on TOS as he did TNG. I think if you want to see Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, look at TNG...or don't. I don't really care what you think about Roddenberry in the end. A television show has many hands.

thaluikhain:

Crono1973:
Go to a school and do a gender count, tell me who dominates teaching jobs? Those are the most important jobs out there as they teach the next generation of adults. There are other fields where women dominate too but we don't get topics about it and women don't speak about discrimination then.

You might think teaching are the most important jobs (and I don't necessarily disagree), but they are crap low paid jobs for the most part. This is true for most female dominated professions.

And it's absolutely not true that women don't speak out about discrimination in regards to that.

Men are not trusted around children and that is the worst form of discrimination and it's why women dominate the teaching field and any field dealing with children. If you want to talk about crap low paid jobs, men do plenty of those as well as men dominating hazardous jobs.

thaluikhain:

You might think teaching are the most important jobs (and I don't necessarily disagree), but they are crap low paid jobs for the most part. This is true for most female dominated professions.

Ever hear someone reference the "muddy floor" regarding employment? Usually it's MRAs that use the phrase, but it refers to the idea that the worst, most hazardous, dirtiest jobs are heavily male dominated. They are also crap low paid jobs.

At least you'll be hard pressed to find a case where a woman gets surrounded by police and questioned roughly for walking his granddaughter home, or a mob forming because a man tried to change his daughter in a public restroom. Men aren't trusted with children (and it's mostly women - especially mothers - doing the complaining here), and that has a lot to do with why you don't see men in those jobs. I didn't see any male teachers aside from two junior high coaches until high school, and not too many of them then.

Only if the woman can pass the same PT standards required by us men. The problem is, some politicians may see that not very many women are passing the male requirements, and therefor, to make it fair, they lower the standards. Which hurts us more and will cost more lives in the end. Remember, women are not as physically strong as men, its a fact of nature.

There are women here in the Army that have held there own in combat, but I don't think I will ever see a women with an SF (special forces) or Ranger Tab walking around base, ever. If a women does perhaps make it into the Infantry soldiers may be more concerned with keeping her safe rather than letting her perform her duty as an Infantryman,(or would that be infantrywomen?). They might give her special treatment because of the fact she's a lady.

Another problem, the Infantry is DIFFICULT, even for the most fit men. Infantry spend months in the field, living out of rucksacks and tracking the time between showers in months. I couldn't imagine a women with an infantry company hiking around the Hindu Kush mountains for weeks with 120+ pounds of gear and nothing to eat but MRE's and getting air drops once a week.

Armor, sure. Air defense artillery? Why not? Field Artillery? Go ahead.

But Infantry?

That would be one strong women, no doubt.

I have nothing against women, some make great officers and are some are even better shots than most men. Just I hope the military doesn't lower the standards to allow more females into combat roles, just to be "fair".

P.S. Just encase you people don't know what or how the Army works let me explain.

The Army is divided into 2 Armies. The Combat Arms, and the Support Arm.

Before this passed, women were allowed into support MOS's such as:

31 Series (An example would be a 31 Bravo - MP or Military Police)

38 series (Civil Affairs)

92Y (Unit Supply Specialist)

And probably a hundred more

What they now allowed women to enter are these, the Combat Arms, which does almost all of the fighting. (I say almost all because this war is different, there are no frontlines, where support guys usually aren't, but our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have lead to support soldiers getting caught in combat.)

11 Series (Which includes 11Bravo (Infantryman) 11Charlie (Indirect fire Infantryman, or guys who hump mortars around)

19 Series ( 19Delta and 19Kilo, the Cav and Armor guys. Armor as in Tanks)

And 3 others (Special Forces, Field Artillery, and Air Defense Artillery) You get the point.

Fisher321:
Remember, women are not as physically strong as men, its a fact of nature.

On average. It also depends on training.

Fisher321:
But Infantry?

That would be one strong women, no doubt.

Some women can lift 300 lbs. over their heads with full extension of the arms. Is that good enough?

Fisher321:
I wish they could've asked us, the combat arms soldiers, what we think.

An army isn't a democracy (as I'm sure you well know). However, I'm betting that they did ask around.

Seanchaidh:

Fisher321:
Remember, women are not as physically strong as men, its a fact of nature.

On average. It also depends on training.

Fisher321:
But Infantry?

That would be one strong women, no doubt.

Some women can lift 300 lbs. over their heads with full extension of the arms. Is that good enough?

Fisher321:
I wish they could've asked us, the combat arms soldiers, what we think.

An army isn't a democracy (as I'm sure you well know). However, I'm betting that they did ask around.

As I said, as long as they pass the same physical requirements, but physical requirements aren't/isn't the only thing to consider.

Crono1973:

thaluikhain:

Crono1973:
Go to a school and do a gender count, tell me who dominates teaching jobs? Those are the most important jobs out there as they teach the next generation of adults. There are other fields where women dominate too but we don't get topics about it and women don't speak about discrimination then.

You might think teaching are the most important jobs (and I don't necessarily disagree), but they are crap low paid jobs for the most part. This is true for most female dominated professions.

And it's absolutely not true that women don't speak out about discrimination in regards to that.

Men are not trusted around children and that is the worst form of discrimination and it's why women dominate the teaching field and any field dealing with children. If you want to talk about crap low paid jobs, men do plenty of those as well as men dominating hazardous jobs.

Speaking as the OP, if you want to talk about MRA stuff, please, make your own thread and do that there. This thread is not about that, and I do not want it to be derailed into an MRA slug-fest.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked