Pentagon opens up combat roles for women.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

BreakfastMan:

Crono1973:

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.

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.

You don't OWN the thread buddy. You start it and let it go and here we are on page 4.

Crono1973:

BreakfastMan:

Crono1973:

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.

You don't OWN the thread buddy. You start it and let it go and here we are on page 4.

I can message the mods to lock it. And they will. I would really rather not do that, because I would like to let people have a spot to talk about the topic of the thread.

BreakfastMan:

Crono1973:

BreakfastMan:

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.

You don't OWN the thread buddy. You start it and let it go and here we are on page 4.

I can message the mods to lock it. And they will. I would really rather not do that, because I would like to let people have a spot to talk about the topic of the thread.

Message them then. You don't get to control how threads evolve.

Gorfias:

makes this not relevant.

Go ahead and elaborate on that.

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?

Proper citation required.

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.

http://www.nebraska.tv/story/20665453/military-has-to-decide-which-combat-jobs-for-women

Combat requirements are only now starting to be reviewed, taking into account modern military advancements. Certain positions that are less demanding have always been normalized where as demanding front-line positions will continue to have a set requirements. It's worth noting that the Normalized tests are generally for the positions that women have been effectively serving in for over a decade.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/leon-panetta-women-combat_n_2541847.html

Notsomuch:

Gorfias:

makes this not relevant.

Go ahead and elaborate on that.

You're already conceding that radical egalitarianism requires that if men have to register for the draft, so do women and physical requirements will have to be adjusted accordingly. I can't see why that would make me feel better being advised today women have to meet the same standards as males for combat. Women weren't supposed to be in combat to begin with.

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?

Proper citation required.

Personal experience. 30 years ago man. Sorry if you think I'm mistaken or worse.

http://www.nebraska.tv/story/20665453/military-has-to-decide-which-combat-jobs-for-women

Sketchy. I'll have to to more research. I didn't find that women would have to perform as well as men but that they had to meet certain standards. They give an example of one where it is irrelevant the gender: you have to be able to lift a shell and load it in tight quarters for the job. Interesting reading none the less. Thanks.

Gorfias:

You're already conceding that radical egalitarianism requires that if men have to register for the draft, so do women and physical requirements will have to be adjusted accordingly. I can't see why that would make me feel better being advised today women have to meet the same standards as males for combat. Women weren't supposed to be in combat to begin with.

The requirements wont have to be adjusted, women will have to meet them to be eligible for the draft. There will be more women exempt from joining the draft due to physical requirements and things like pregnancy. If they're meeting the same standards as men I don't see why you'd be uncomfortable seeing a capable woman in combat. If a woman who is just as capable in combat as a man doesn't belong there, where does she belong?

Notsomuch:

The requirements wont have to be adjusted, women will have to meet them to be eligible for the draft.

My prediction: women will have to register for selective service, as men do. This will be done in the name of egalitarianism. Physical requirements will likely reflect something similar to this:

" All the services have lower physical standards for women than for men. Two decades ago, the U.S. Military Academy identified 120 physical differences between men and women, not to mention psychological ones, that resulted in a less rigorous overall program of physical training at West Point in order to accommodate female cadets."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/29/women-in-combat-a-debate-that-deserves-more-than-giggles.html

I could be wrong, but, I doubt it.

I don't see why you'd be uncomfortable seeing a capable woman in combat. If a woman who is just as capable in combat as a man doesn't belong there, where does she belong?

This is really the meat of this whole question. Women weaker than men? I might have to serve with a man that is not nearly as strong as me. You deal with it. Women might get pregnant to avoid service? I have to deal with male malingerers too. You deal with it.

But, it's been addressed better than I can here, but it includes concepts like:
1) Fraternization. Eros is a tough thing to stifle on the battlefield.
2) The sensitivities of men. They will be attracted to the females, do inappropriate things and be sanctioned for it. Their fault, but we must not ignore that society put them in that situation. They are also going to be much more malleable to the enemy if they witness the sexual mistreatment of a woman colleague unless we desensitize them. Desensitizing men to the needs of women doesn't sound like a good idea for society.
3) When does a right become an obligation? I don't think it will be long. Too many people want women to have to register for selective service just like men. It is going to happen, and it is going to be unjust.

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation. They have enough on their plate. Unfortunate that we're adding this now.

And it is all going to happen. It isn't a good thing, but I don't think my opinions matter in the USA anymore. ITMT: Our military is not going to fail at missions because of this, and that will be cited as why this was never an important matter. I'm writing it here: you can do something destructive that doesn't cause total losses. The action was still destructive and wrong headed.

EDIT: Interesting line from Jonah Goldberg:

"Obama's decision hasn't stifled the debate, it's merely postponed it until the day Americans see large numbers of women coming home in body bags, alongside the men."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339157/soldier-girl-blues-jonah-goldberg

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.

Well, if you insist on derailing the thread... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/05/21/a-new-obstacle-for-professional-women-the-glass-escalator/

Teachers get paid surprisingly little considering it's "the most important job out there". Men entering the field tend to be fast-tracked for administrative or management positions because those jobs are perceived as more suitable for a man to hold.

cobra_ky:

Crono1973:

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.

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.

Well, if you insist on derailing the thread... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/05/21/a-new-obstacle-for-professional-women-the-glass-escalator/

Teachers get paid surprisingly little considering it's "the most important job out there". Men entering the field tend to be fast-tracked for administrative or management positions because those jobs are perceived as more suitable for a man to hold.

...more suitable because men aren't trusted around children? Your article (while providing no proof) does say that men face discrimination where nursing is concerned.

So why aren't more men racing to become nurses? Goldberg says despite the advancement potential in female-dominated professions, men still face negative cultural feedback for taking such jobs. Like Ben Stiller's character as a male nurse in Meet The Parents, friends and family may question their masculinity and even openly mock their career choice.

Careers involving children like teaching and day care are dominated by women because men are not trusted with children and they know that.

I read a story once about a man who saw a young child walking alone. He did not stop to help her and just kept driving. That child drowned in a nearby pond or something and when asked why he didn't help the child, he said that he didn't want to be accused of anything. It's sad but men are well aware of how dangerous it is to be alone with a child that isn't their own.

Here's a link to a story about this case: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html

It really isn't surprising though:

The poll of 500 men found that 75 per cent feared assisting a lost or upset child in case others thought they were trying to harm them. Nearly half - 45 per cent - said they would try to find a female passer-by, while 23 per cent would ignore the child completely.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=246_1279232024

Back to your article, here's this little gem:

Goldberg attributes the glass escalator, in part, to women's increased likelihood of experiencing "career interruptions," like taking time off to care for children or aging parents.

The courts overwhelmingly favor women in custody hearings but that only matters when women WANT custody (which is most of the time). You can't fight for custody, win and than complain when you have to take care of the kids. If women want to be free to work longer hours, they need to let fathers have custody and make no mistake, custody is up to the mother. Oh and just in case you were wondering, women file most divorces.

Gorfias:

My prediction: women will have to register for selective service, as men do. This will be done in the name of egalitarianism. Physical requirements will likely reflect something similar to this:

" All the services have lower physical standards for women than for men. Two decades ago, the U.S. Military Academy identified 120 physical differences between men and women, not to mention psychological ones, that resulted in a less rigorous overall program of physical training at West Point in order to accommodate female cadets."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/29/women-in-combat-a-debate-that-deserves-more-than-giggles.html

I could be wrong, but, I doubt it.

The requirements and tests are only gender normed for positions that women have been serving actively in for a while already. Them being capable if they meet these requirements isn't an issue, unless you get into the argument that women shouldn't be in the army at all. Positions that require it still hold rigorous physical tests that aren't normed, which the majority of female service members may not meet might not be able to meet, which is fine, since males who can't meet those standards aren't able to take those positions either.

This is really the meat of this whole question. Women weaker than men? I might have to serve with a man that is not nearly as strong as me. You deal with it. Women might get pregnant to avoid service? I have to deal with male malingerers too. You deal with it.

But, it's been addressed better than I can here, but it includes concepts like:
1) Fraternization. Eros is a tough thing to stifle on the battlefield.

Don't settle it. If you can't get rid of it, regulate it. If it's not going to stop then embrace it and make it work.

2) The sensitivities of men. They will be attracted to the females, do inappropriate things and be sanctioned for it. Their fault, but we must not ignore that society put them in that situation. They are also going to be much more malleable to the enemy if they witness the sexual mistreatment of a woman colleague unless we desensitize them. Desensitizing men to the needs of women doesn't sound like a good idea for society.

Rules can be adjusted. Seeing any sort of mistreatment of a colleague by the enemy will bring about a similar reaction, female or male. Desensitizing men to the needs of women is not the same as desensitizing them to violence on the battlefield, also.

3) When does a right become an obligation? I don't think it will be long. Too many people want women to have to register for selective service just like men. It is going to happen, and it is going to be unjust.

Yeah, it'll be a real bummer, just like when men have to do it. Maybe if enough people are offended by the very idea of it we can begin to do away with draft registration across the board, for both sexes.

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation. They have enough on their plate. Unfortunate that we're adding this now.

That way of thinking is a bit medieval. Not every woman wants to be an oven-hovering baby-factory. I'm pretty sure women can sort out what they do and don't want on their plate.

And it is all going to happen. It isn't a good thing, but I don't think my opinions matter in the USA anymore. ITMT: Our military is not going to fail at missions because of this, and that will be cited as why this was never an important matter. I'm writing it here: you can do something destructive that doesn't cause total losses. The action was still destructive and wrong headed.

It's good to have self-awareness. It also depends on what you call destructive because sometimes destruction is positive.

EDIT: Interesting line from Jonah Goldberg:

"Obama's decision hasn't stifled the debate, it's merely postponed it until the day Americans see large numbers of women coming home in body bags, alongside the men."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339157/soldier-girl-blues-jonah-goldberg

I think Ms. Goldberg should have the optimism to believe that when people are coming home in body bags -male or female- the debate will be more heavily centered on why Obama, or any other president, is sending so many people to die. Not around the gender of the people he is sending.

Gorfias:

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation.

In other words, stay at home, be good little baby making machines and maids, while the men go off and do the important things like defending the country and making money. And when a number of us want more out of life for being baby making machines and maids, we'll get told that we do isn't as important or dangerous as what men do, and therefore doesn't deserve as many rewards.

Yea, no. Not doing that again.

Gorfias:

Notsomuch:

The requirements wont have to be adjusted, women will have to meet them to be eligible for the draft.

My prediction: women will have to register for selective service, as men do. This will be done in the name of egalitarianism. Physical requirements will likely reflect something similar to this:

" All the services have lower physical standards for women than for men. Two decades ago, the U.S. Military Academy identified 120 physical differences between men and women, not to mention psychological ones, that resulted in a less rigorous overall program of physical training at West Point in order to accommodate female cadets."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/29/women-in-combat-a-debate-that-deserves-more-than-giggles.html

I could be wrong, but, I doubt it.

Considering that you're proclaimed that the liberal "side" winning the 2012 election was a disaster for America...I highly doubt you're right.

1) Fraternization. Eros is a tough thing to stifle on the battlefield.

Well women are already on the battlefield so clearly Eros is being stifled well enough, just like in any other occupation. Male and Female cops don't have to fight their urges to avoid fucking in the middle of the streets, firefighters don't have a problem with Fraternization in the middle of a burning building, there are plenty of female fighter pilots yet Fraternization isn't some massive problem in the Air Force, so honestly what the blue hell are you going off about now?

I'm suprised you haven't tied the homosexuals into this now that DADT is gone and now there can be two homosexual men together out on the battlefield.

2) The sensitivities of men. They will be attracted to the females, do inappropriate things and be sanctioned for it. Their fault, but we must not ignore that society put them in that situation. They are also going to be much more malleable to the enemy if they witness the sexual mistreatment of a woman colleague unless we desensitize them. Desensitizing men to the needs of women doesn't sound like a good idea for society.

Jesus fucking christ you're honestly blaming the victim here. You're one step away from saying "it's her fault for dressing like a slut" with this, and the fact that you can't even see it is disturbing to say the least.

News flash; women do exist in the battlefield. They are already there; soldiers see them around bases, they see women civilians on the streets, so they can already control their urges. Yet you're not decreeing the fact that society put them in that situation already. So your argument is wrong because women are already present on the battlefield; they were present in Iraq and they are still present in Afghanistan. So, zero change; if they can't control their "sensitivities" then they would have already targeted the many other roles that women are in currently, and women soldiers (who will be rarer) aren't going to be treated any different if you're right so...what exactly is your argument?

And sure, women could be raped by the enemy...first off, in the last two wars the US female US military personel were much more likely (like, 1 in 3 likely) to be raped or sexually abused by their male counterparts than the enemy), secondly, not a lot of US military personel have been kidnapped by the enemy, and third they can already just torture a hypothetical second soldier as it is, or rape them, so really there is no change beyond the genders involved.

3) When does a right become an obligation? I don't think it will be long. Too many people want women to have to register for selective service just like men. It is going to happen, and it is going to be unjust.

Yeah...I call bullshit. You say that women will have to register for selective service like men....okay, when was the last time that actually made a difference? Vietnam? The draft is gone and it's political suicide to even suggest bringing it back. So an obligation (the draft) has now been downgraded to a right (the draft being abolished), so it's more likely that they'll make men equal to women and abolish the register since nobody is going to suggest bringing the draft back (on account of it being both unpopular, volunteers historically being better soldiers than draftees, and the way war has changed in the past few decades), so your argument is really just bunk. When was the last time in the United States that a right became an obligation?

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation. They have enough on their plate. Unfortunate that we're adding this now.

Jesus fucking Christ you honestly just said "stay in the kitchen and make babies." I...there are no fucking words that wouldn't get anyone banned straight out for this.

And it is all going to happen. It isn't a good thing, but I don't think my opinions matter in the USA anymore. ITMT: Our military is not going to fail at missions because of this, and that will be cited as why this was never an important matter. I'm writing it here: you can do something destructive that doesn't cause total losses. The action was still destructive and wrong headed.

You know I could find people who said that letting homosexuals in the army peroid was the same back when DADT was first passed, or when women were allowed to join the military in non-combat positions, or when units were desegregated, or when they allowed minorities to join to begin with, etc. etc. etc. etc.

[quote]"Obama's decision hasn't stifled the debate, it's merely postponed it until the day Americans see large numbers of women coming home in body bags, alongside the men."

1) Pentagon did this, not Obama.
2) Women are not going to be passing the requirements and training for soldier positions in enough numbers to see large numbers of women coming back in coffins anytime soon. It would take several years for a woman to enlish, pass the medical, go through basic training then everything else, get sorted into a unit, and deployed.
3) A-fucking-gain women are already on the battlefield and have been killed. Remember that US woman who was captured in the early days of the war in Iraq who was brought up in this topic? In the same ambush that saw her captured, it also saw the death of another woman, who happened to be the first Female Native American casualty in US history, yet most Americans would have no clue that she ever existed because she wasn't the white, blond American girl the media loves. So really, so long as it's not white, blue-eyed blond American women who come home in large numbers of body bags, I doubt the media will even raise an eyebrow.

Crono1973:

cobra_ky:

Crono1973:

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.

Well, if you insist on derailing the thread... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/05/21/a-new-obstacle-for-professional-women-the-glass-escalator/

Teachers get paid surprisingly little considering it's "the most important job out there". Men entering the field tend to be fast-tracked for administrative or management positions because those jobs are perceived as more suitable for a man to hold.

...more suitable because men aren't trusted around children? Your article (while providing no proof) does say that men face discrimination where nursing is concerned.

So why aren't more men racing to become nurses? Goldberg says despite the advancement potential in female-dominated professions, men still face negative cultural feedback for taking such jobs. Like Ben Stiller's character as a male nurse in Meet The Parents, friends and family may question their masculinity and even openly mock their career choice.

Careers involving children like teaching and day care are dominated by women because men are not trusted with children and they know that.

More suitable because men are perceived to be more capable at leadership.

My article linked to a New York Times piece, which in turn linked to this study: http://gas.sagepub.com/content/23/1/5.abstract

And here's the original paper on the Glass Elevator, which is a bit more relevant to the matter at hand: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/hdh9/e-reserves/Williams_-_The_glass_escalator_PDF-1.pdf

Men absolutely do face discrimination in traditionally feminine jobs, it's just that a lot of the time, that discrimination ends up being to their benefit (particularly if they're white).

Crono1973:
I read a story once about a man who saw a young child walking alone. He did not stop to help her and just kept driving. That child drowned in a nearby pond or something and when asked why he didn't help the child, he said that he didn't want to be accused of anything. It's sad but men are well aware of how dangerous it is to be alone with a child that isn't their own.

Here's a link to a story about this case: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html

It really isn't surprising though:

The poll of 500 men found that 75 per cent feared assisting a lost or upset child in case others thought they were trying to harm them. Nearly half - 45 per cent - said they would try to find a female passer-by, while 23 per cent would ignore the child completely.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=246_1279232024

That is evidence of men's fears, and not of any actual prejudice against men.

Crono1973:
Back to your article, here's this little gem:

Goldberg attributes the glass escalator, in part, to women's increased likelihood of experiencing "career interruptions," like taking time off to care for children or aging parents.

The courts overwhelmingly favor women in custody hearings but that only matters when women WANT custody (which is most of the time). You can't fight for custody, win and than complain when you have to take care of the kids. If women want to be free to work longer hours, they need to let fathers have custody and make no mistake, custody is up to the mother. Oh and just in case you were wondering, women file most divorces.

You say that as if divorced women are the only ones who have to take time off for their families. What about the happily married women who have to take time off for their families? What do aging parents have to do with custody battles?

Notsomuch:

1) Fraternization. Eros is a tough thing to stifle on the battlefield.

Don't settle it. If you can't get rid of it, regulate it. If it's not going to stop then embrace it and make it work.

Why do you think Fraternization was ever illicit in the first place. Was it ever harmful?

GunsmithKitten:

Gorfias:

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation.

In other words, stay at home, be good little baby making machines and maids, while the men go off and do the important things like defending the country and making money. And when a number of us want more out of life for being baby making machines and maids, we'll get told that we do isn't as important or dangerous as what men do, and therefore doesn't deserve as many rewards.

Yea, no. Not doing that again.

Sarah Palin was a sitting governor as she raised a family. Mom's should not be belittled, and I don't think, in this society, they are. I think it is considered one of the finest things, subsidized in many ways, lionized by "Mother's Day" and revered.

EDIT: Wasn't hard to find this:

http://articles-and-essays.blogspot.com/2011/02/motherhood-most-esteemed-role.html

Shaoken:

1) Pentagon did this, not Obama.
2) Women are not going to be passing the requirements and training for soldier positions in enough numbers to see large numbers of women coming back in coffins anytime soon. It would take several years for a woman to enlish, pass the medical, go through basic training then everything else, get sorted into a unit, and deployed.
3) A-fucking-gain women are already on the battlefield and have been killed. Remember that US woman who was captured in the early days of the war in Iraq who was brought up in this topic? In the same ambush that saw her captured, it also saw the death of another woman, who happened to be the first Female Native American casualty in US history, yet most Americans would have no clue that she ever existed because she wasn't the white, blond American girl the media loves. So really, so long as it's not white, blue-eyed blond American women who come home in large numbers of body bags, I doubt the media will even raise an eyebrow.

1) Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did this. He does what the Commander in Chief, at this time, Obama, tells him to do.
2) This will not satisfy the radical egalitarians. I don't know how they're doing politically, if they're powerful enough or not to force this particular issue. Hopefully not.
3) This won't satisfy the rads either. Not till we have equal numbers in body bags. Hard to tell what happens then, if it ever happens.

EDIT: From today's NRO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339178/awol-republicans-editors

"This policy barely even pretends to serve the goal of military effectiveness, which means it is not in the best interests of men or women, inside the Armed Forces or out."

cobra_ky:

Men absolutely do face discrimination in traditionally feminine jobs, it's just that a lot of the time, that discrimination ends up being to their benefit (particularly if they're white).

I agree with most of your post, but I really do feel the need to correct you here. As a nurse I've had several male colleagues and they can all relate stories about how people they've met have questioned their sexuality and masculinity. All of them can also relate to several situations in their line of work in which they are impeded from doing their job because of their gender, such as doing an ECG or putting a urinary catheter on women who aren't seniors. They have their competence questioned simply because they are men and society has taught many patients to be wary of any man who wants to get close to a woman's breasts or genitals, even if the reason he is doing it is because it is a part of his job.

The same goes for men who want to work in kindergarten or other lines of work with close contact with children. These men are often heavily distrusted because "they might be pedophiles".

You've got a point in that a lot of the "discrimination" men face in female professions is to their advantage, but we shouldn't downplay how harmful the negative discrimination of men in female professions actually is. Having your ability questioned simply because of your gender is equally inexcusable no matter if it is a male nurse or a female rifleman being questioned.

Gethsemani:

cobra_ky:

Men absolutely do face discrimination in traditionally feminine jobs, it's just that a lot of the time, that discrimination ends up being to their benefit (particularly if they're white).

I agree with most of your post, but I really do feel the need to correct you here. As a nurse I've had several male colleagues and they can all relate stories about how people they've met have questioned their sexuality and masculinity. All of them can also relate to several situations in their line of work in which they are impeded from doing their job because of their gender, such as doing an ECG or putting a urinary catheter on women who aren't seniors. They have their competence questioned simply because they are men and society has taught many patients to be wary of any man who wants to get close to a woman's breasts or genitals, even if the reason he is doing it is because it is a part of his job.

The same goes for men who want to work in kindergarten or other lines of work with close contact with children. These men are often heavily distrusted because "they might be pedophiles".

You've got a point in that a lot of the "discrimination" men face in female professions is to their advantage, but we shouldn't downplay how harmful the negative discrimination of men in female professions actually is. Having your ability questioned simply because of your gender is equally inexcusable no matter if it is a male nurse or a female rifleman being questioned.

And the studies i linked to make that exact point, i'm sorry if my post wasn't as clear. In fact the second paper i linked to argues that black men in feminine professions don't really experience the benefits at all. I don't mean to imply that men always benefit from their discrimination or that it isn't terrible when then do. But i do take exception to Crono1973's claim that men being distrusted around children is "the worst form of discrimination", when there are many forms that never benefit the victims in any way.

Gorfias:

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation.

I'm a woman.

No.

I am not some incubator.

My sole purpose in life is not to have men's children and raise them while they're out doing whatever.

My genitalia has nothing to do with if I can do the job or not.

If I can do the job better than a man, I should get the job. My vagina has nothing to do with that.

bleys2487:

Gorfias:

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation.

I'm a woman.

No.

I am not some incubator.

My sole purpose in life is not to have men's children and raise them while they're out doing whatever.

My genitalia has nothing to do with if I can do the job or not.

If I can do the job better than a man, I should get the job. My vagina has nothing to do with that.

And men are not canon fodder. Many (most?) men choose not to be in the military. People don't always follow their highest calling.

There are many good reasons to state your vagina may make you bad, expensive, unreliable, and disruptive for the military even if you are an Olympian quality athlete. I don't think you are asking what is best for the military, but for what you want and think you are entitled to for reasons of egalitarianism, to hell with the costs.

It is a good and interesting debate. I'm saddened that we didn't have it during the last election cycle.

@Gorfias

It is a good and interesting debate. I'm saddened that we didn't have it during the last election cycle.

There were far too many Republicans stepping in it with regards to rape, abortion, minorities, low- and middle-income earners etc. for discussions like these to even come up. The more outrageous issues were at the forefront due to these people's own fault.

Perhaps if the Republicans stop fighting that part of the culture war and admit defeat for their own survival's sake (we hear a lot about demographics shifts that some Republicans themselves admit they'll have to finally bow to if they want to win elections), maybe then the discussion will shift to other aspects of that same culture war. But with extremists like these around, no sensible discourse can be held on other issues. Their theocratic extremism will always be of the highest priority. Until they stop.

Gorfias:

bleys2487:

Gorfias:

I think society is better off protecting women, helping young men have a sense of social purpose in doing so, and having those women typically primary on having and raising the future generation.

I'm a woman.

No.

I am not some incubator.

My sole purpose in life is not to have men's children and raise them while they're out doing whatever.

My genitalia has nothing to do with if I can do the job or not.

If I can do the job better than a man, I should get the job. My vagina has nothing to do with that.

And men are not canon fodder. Many (most?) men choose not to be in the military. People don't always follow their highest calling.

There are many good reasons to state your vagina may make you bad, expensive, unreliable, and disruptive for the military even if you are an Olympian quality athlete. I don't think you are asking what is best for the military, but for what you want and think you are entitled to for reasons of egalitarianism, to hell with the costs.

It is a good and interesting debate. I'm saddened that we didn't have it during the last election cycle.

I just stated, IF I can do the job better than a man, I should get the job. If he does a better job than me, I hold no issue with that. He's more qualified. That has nothing to do with me feeling entitled to the job. I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

What qualifies my vagina as "bad"? I'm curious and I'd rather you elaborate than myself jump to conclusions. Because, I'm already assuming I'm not going to like this answer.

"Unreliable" though? Seriously? If I better qualify for the job, why does my vagina suddenly make me unreliable? Because I'm a woman? I'm suddenly unreliable?

"Disruptive"? What would I be disrupting because of my genitalia? If male soldiers can't do their jobs properly just because of my genitalia, I don't think I'm the one with the problem here, sir. I'll leave it at that. To the men with that excuse, my words of advice: Man the f*ck up. You can act all war-like, demi-god soliders, but when a woman comes around with he same skill set, don't you dare blame her for being 'disruptive'. The fact that you can't accept her for having the same skill set and being hired for the job, based on her genitalia is DISRUPTIVE.

@ Skeleon: I pretty much give up and am registering Libertarian on my next day off from work. Someone was trying to buck up the Republicans and noted that in 2004, it was the Democrat party that looked like it was routed and that situations can reverse very quickly.

What, I would ask, has the Republican party really done that I want? We did all that winning and you know what? The very rich got tax breaks. Whoop de freaking doo. That isn't worth fighting for. The elite Democrats will protect the very rich too.

There are things the Republicans fight for that I don't like, when they appear bigoted and want to outlaw abortion. Good for them. That's not my fight.

But to your point, did the loons keep us from debating this change in 2012? I'd write, no. The elite of the Republican party want this. More mid and lower class bodies to throw into their wars that having nothing to do with the USA.

Not with my kids they won't.

bleys2487:

I just stated, IF I can do the job better than a man, I should get the job. If he does a better job than me, I hold no issue with that. He's more qualified. That has nothing to do with me feeling entitled to the job. I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

What qualifies my vagina as "bad"? I'm curious and I'd rather you elaborate than myself jump to conclusions. Because, I'm already assuming I'm not going to like this answer.

"Unreliable" though? Seriously? If I better qualify for the job, why does my vagina suddenly make me unreliable? Because I'm a woman? I'm suddenly unreliable?

"Disruptive"? What would I be disrupting because of my genitalia? If male soldiers can't do their jobs properly just because of my genitalia, I don't think I'm the one with the problem here, sir. I'll leave it at that. To the men with that excuse, my words of advice: Man the f*ck up. You can act all war-like, demi-god soliders, but when a woman comes around with he same skill set, don't you dare blame her for being 'disruptive'. The fact that you can't accept her for having the same skill set and being hired for the job, based on her genitalia is DISRUPTIVE.

I've asked another poster to tell me what they know about fraternization. Was it ever bad, harmful? I think so but before I get into it, I'd like that person's answer.

The simple existence of your vagina in what, to avoid fraternization (if a matter at all)should be an asexual environment would be a problem.

There are many links you can find on this matters in the meantime. My concern is not that you disagree with these other arguments, but do you even know what they are?

EDIT: Interesting article: http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-transfers-expectant-mothers-from-ship-to-shore-to-finish-tour-1.93246

@Gorfias

Someone was trying to buck up the Republicans and noted that in 2004, it was the Democratic party that looked like it was routed and that situations can reverse very quickly.

Fixed that.

Yeah, I would agree. In fact, I'm pretty sure it will revert very quickly, the moment they stop going after Hispanics, for instance (as the talk about Rubio and others may indicate they will). The Republicans aren't going to "die out" (like that other thread asked) because they're not anti-opportunistic idiots. They realize that demographics are changing and they will adapt, I'm sure of it, no matter the ideological hang-ups they undoubtedly have.

What, I would ask, has the Republican party really done that I want? We did all that winning and you know what? The very rich got tax breaks. Whoop de freaking doo. That isn't worth fighting for. The elite Democrats will protect the very rich too.

Yeah, Obama and his "fucking retarded Liberals"-administration have a pattern of coddling corporatism and rich donors. It has a lot to do with the system itself in my view, as it rewards bowing to those external pressures in terms of campaign donations (essential for running), lobbying and consulting positions (personal profit of politicians) and the like; basically, legalized and formalized bribery. That's a systemic flaw that needs to be adressed if anything is to substantially change.

But to your point, did the loons keep us from debating this change in 2012? I'd write, no. The elite of the Republican party want this. More mid and lower class bodies to throw into their wars that having nothing to do with the USA.

No, what I mean is that the loons kept most of the media and public busy. It wasn't that they actually kept people from being able to debate such changes, it's that such changes simply weren't that important in light of the other things going on. Now, I'm in favour of that change, so I don't mind too much. But to me, observing from the outside, that change simply wasn't in the spotlight, so now it may seem sudden and unexpected.

@ Skeleon:

No, what I mean is that the loons kept most of the media and public busy. ..such changes simply weren't that important in light of the other things going on...

If it was important to Romney, he could have made some major hay with the issue. It isn't important to him, so he didn't. In fact, his whole campaign was, very much like Dukakis', about how competent he is (and I think he is). Like Dukakis, he lost.

It will be interesting on what comes from Rubion. This week's Ann Coulter addresses it:

www.anncoulter.com

If it was important to Romney, he could have made some major hay with the issue. It isn't important to him, so he didn't. In fact, his whole campaign was, very much like Dukakis', about how competent he is (and I think he is). Like Dukakis, he lost.

Don't forget the large number of times Romney himself stepped into it, especially in regards to low- and middle-income earners. He has been far from competent in running his campaign, that much is obvious. Not to mention his laughable plans for fixing the deficit while removing governmental income and increasing military spending. Fiscal responsibility is non-existent with him and I'm glad he lost as I'm certain he would've caused another recession, also damaging to my country. Not that Obama's weak policies do much to prevent one (again, he is in on the whole Corporatism thing, he's part of the problem), but while he is driving the economy into ruin slowly by not adressing the underlying issues, Romney would've pushed it over the edge all the more quickly.

That said, yes, Romney was rather quiet about the social issues, which was a boon for him I think. Which means, though, that the things the theocratic extremists did were all the more damaging to Romney by association (at least, again, on social issues) than what Romney himself ever did. It has a significant cost when your party features people like Akin and Mourdock, among far too many other examples. That's why the Republicans need to change on the whole Social Conservative, Culture War thing if they want to win.

As for Ann Coulter, sorry. Like NRO, she is absolutely not a legitimate source, journalist or analyst of any sort. I have seen her explanations for various Republican losses over the years. No thanks. That sort of fundamentalist partisanship serves nobody and certainly doesn't present any sort of objective view of the goings-on. If the people in charge of the party listen to her and other blind ideologues like her, I don't really see the Republicans recovering.

cobra_ky:

That is evidence of men's fears, and not of any actual prejudice against men.

It's not like men have actually been detained and questioned over finding a lost child and trying to help her/him.
Or been reseated in a plane because the airline put an unaccompanied child in the next seat, and it's policy for the airline not to seat an unrelated adult man next to an unaccompanied child (though they will seat an unrelated adult woman next to said child without issue)[1].
Or questioned by police for walking their granddaughter home (the white man in question blamed this on race, though you'd be hard-pressed to find a case where this happens to a woman in similar circumstance).
Or had a flash mob form and threaten him for taking his daughter to a restroom to change (again, hard-pressed to hear about this happening to a woman).
Or had an angry mom threaten a preschool because "parents" being directly involved in tending the kids sometimes meant fathers and not just mothers [2].
Or a woman loudly and publicly suggesting that a man might be a pedophile to staff in a coffee shop because he was talking to a child in the store, then using the fact that he left the store shortly thereafter as proof she was correct (and not proof that publicly calling someone a pedophile might make them too embarrassed to hang around either way).

And so on. It just takes a bit of Google work to find tons of examples that might have something to do with where those fears might root from (and I only bothered to footnote a couple -- all of them except the coffee shop one are trivial to find if you look, and I misplaced its link, it was on a "mommyblog" site).

cobra_ky:

Gethsemani:

cobra_ky:

Men absolutely do face discrimination in traditionally feminine jobs, it's just that a lot of the time, that discrimination ends up being to their benefit (particularly if they're white).

I agree with most of your post, but I really do feel the need to correct you here. As a nurse I've had several male colleagues and they can all relate stories about how people they've met have questioned their sexuality and masculinity. All of them can also relate to several situations in their line of work in which they are impeded from doing their job because of their gender, such as doing an ECG or putting a urinary catheter on women who aren't seniors. They have their competence questioned simply because they are men and society has taught many patients to be wary of any man who wants to get close to a woman's breasts or genitals, even if the reason he is doing it is because it is a part of his job.

The same goes for men who want to work in kindergarten or other lines of work with close contact with children. These men are often heavily distrusted because "they might be pedophiles".

You've got a point in that a lot of the "discrimination" men face in female professions is to their advantage, but we shouldn't downplay how harmful the negative discrimination of men in female professions actually is. Having your ability questioned simply because of your gender is equally inexcusable no matter if it is a male nurse or a female rifleman being questioned.

And the studies i linked to make that exact point, i'm sorry if my post wasn't as clear. In fact the second paper i linked to argues that black men in feminine professions don't really experience the benefits at all. I don't mean to imply that men always benefit from their discrimination or that it isn't terrible when then do. But i do take exception to Crono1973's claim that men being distrusted around children is "the worst form of discrimination", when there are many forms that never benefit the victims in any way.

So you think that men benefit from pedophile hysteria?

Gorfias:
@ Skeleon: I pretty much give up and am registering Libertarian on my next day off from work. Someone was trying to buck up the Republicans and noted that in 2004, it was the Democrat party that looked like it was routed and that situations can reverse very quickly.

What, I would ask, has the Republican party really done that I want? We did all that winning and you know what? The very rich got tax breaks. Whoop de freaking doo. That isn't worth fighting for. The elite Democrats will protect the very rich too.

There are things the Republicans fight for that I don't like, when they appear bigoted and want to outlaw abortion. Good for them. That's not my fight.

But to your point, did the loons keep us from debating this change in 2012? I'd write, no. The elite of the Republican party want this. More mid and lower class bodies to throw into their wars that having nothing to do with the USA.

Not with my kids they won't.

bleys2487:

I just stated, IF I can do the job better than a man, I should get the job. If he does a better job than me, I hold no issue with that. He's more qualified. That has nothing to do with me feeling entitled to the job. I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

What qualifies my vagina as "bad"? I'm curious and I'd rather you elaborate than myself jump to conclusions. Because, I'm already assuming I'm not going to like this answer.

"Unreliable" though? Seriously? If I better qualify for the job, why does my vagina suddenly make me unreliable? Because I'm a woman? I'm suddenly unreliable?

"Disruptive"? What would I be disrupting because of my genitalia? If male soldiers can't do their jobs properly just because of my genitalia, I don't think I'm the one with the problem here, sir. I'll leave it at that. To the men with that excuse, my words of advice: Man the f*ck up. You can act all war-like, demi-god soliders, but when a woman comes around with he same skill set, don't you dare blame her for being 'disruptive'. The fact that you can't accept her for having the same skill set and being hired for the job, based on her genitalia is DISRUPTIVE.

I've asked another poster to tell me what they know about fraternization. Was it ever bad, harmful? I think so but before I get into it, I'd like that person's answer.

The simple existence of your vagina in what, to avoid fraternization (if a matter at all)should be an asexual environment would be a problem.

There are many links you can find on this matters in the meantime. My concern is not that you disagree with these other arguments, but do you even know what they are?

EDIT: Interesting article: http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-transfers-expectant-mothers-from-ship-to-shore-to-finish-tour-1.93246

Wow I can't even believe the stuff you have posted about women in this thread. As Bleys said why would it matter if a woman can do the same tests, the same training, and the same duties, and pass, why then must she still not be allowed to be equal to her male counterparts? Think if you were a soldier, you were wounded, you would really have a problem being helped by a woman operative? And before you try to say anything about her not being able to perform that duty. I said she must be able to perform just as well as the men. So if she can't pull a man to safety in training, she shouldn't be in the field.

In regards to why the women's genitals would cause a problem in the field. That doesn't sound like a problem that she is having. That sounds like those men need to keep it in their pants. And don't even act like they can't, if in the line of duty rape sounds like the more important thing to do than protect your country, I feel like a psych evaluation would be in order. And also on that note, you are aware that gays are in the military, right? Not an asexual environment what so ever, I don't see them raping their comrades, or that causing a problem. Yes some men might not like gays, but bullets and explosions cause you not to care who is protecting you. But they are in the military in the same units.

You know this same argument also came up in the 1940's. I would link you something, but if you are writing equality and protected class separation in the military, you know that blacks went through the same things. How can I trust a black man with bad night vision? How can I trust a man that isn't smart enough to operate what I operate. etc. And you should also know that black units in the military and singular black soldiers were given some of the highest commendations for valor, as well as excellence in the field. Look at the landscape of the military now. You tell a black man he isn't good enough to watch your back. You can shovel shit and stay home. Its a family no matter if you're white, black, latino, asian, they all are there watching each other. And they all went through the same thing to be equal. In thirty years, you are going to be that guy, in the book or movie that is made fun of that say "Women can't fight in a war." And everyone is going to laugh, because how could anyone be that naive.

Finally your last point about being expensive, and that link about women giving birth, and being sent home. If you are pregnant or looking to become pregnant you are not going to be on the front line, nor would I think any women wanting children would want to be on the front line. And if you are worried about the cost of sending them home and them not completing their tours. I have a link for you: https://www.google.com/ got to that website right there type in fathers coming home. Father's, brother's, sons, come home to see their families, to surprise their wives, and yes even to see the birth of their children. A good portion of them do so while on duty, and guess what they finish their tours after this. Just like those women, will complete their tours on another ship after they have had their child, and had ample time to make sure they are okay. And those babies will be left with who? THEIR FATHERS!

Welcome to progress, it hasn't stopped in 100,000 years, and it's going to change because you don't want someone with a vagina defending your freedom.

US Republican White Male

Gorfias:

Sarah Palin was a sitting governor as she raised a family. Mom's should not be belittled, and I don't think, in this society, they are. I think it is considered one of the finest things, subsidized in many ways, lionized by "Mother's Day" and revered.

What's their salary then? Something that esteemed is surely MASSIVELY compensated!

Oh, and Mothers get one day, how many do soldiers get?

By the way, the article says that the exploitation of women even at their worst in the name of gender roles, you know the things like throwing acid in the faces of girls who want to get an education and things such as that, is still not worse than women NOT being relegated to a life as an unpaid maid and gestation machine, so screw that article and whoever wrote it.

GunsmithKitten:

Gorfias:

Sarah Palin was a sitting governor as she raised a family. Mom's should not be belittled, and I don't think, in this society, they are. I think it is considered one of the finest things, subsidized in many ways, lionized by "Mother's Day" and revered.

What's their salary then? Something that esteemed is surely MASSIVELY compensated!

Hm. No pay to be a mom. I guess it is a worthless thing (being sarcastic.) I mean, is that really your point? Motherhood is worthless?

Gorfias:

GunsmithKitten:

Gorfias:

Sarah Palin was a sitting governor as she raised a family. Mom's should not be belittled, and I don't think, in this society, they are. I think it is considered one of the finest things, subsidized in many ways, lionized by "Mother's Day" and revered.

What's their salary then? Something that esteemed is surely MASSIVELY compensated!

Hm. No pay to be a mom. I guess it is a worthless thing (being sarcastic.) I mean, is that really your point? Motherhood is worthless?

If it were truly such an honored, necessary, and esteemed position, why is not high salaried? Tells me that society doesn't value it nearly as much as most other male oriented professions.

ANd indeed, when people yell about how nurses, day care, ect....the professions that are viewed as female oriented...aren't paid as much as CEO's or other skilled labor, they get told, "well, they get more money because they take more risk/it's more important."

GunsmithKitten:

If it were truly such an honored, necessary, and esteemed position, why is not high salaried?

My children are the most important particular matters in my entire life. Nothing anyone could ever write would change that in my esteem. Ever. And they're a drain on my resources, not a net plus. The most important things in life have little to do with money.

PS: I just re-read that link

http://articles-and-essays.blogspot.com/2011/02/motherhood-most-esteemed-role.html

I'm not finding part that says women should be chained into their homes, barefoot and pregnant.

Houston_texan9:

why would it matter if a woman can do the same tests, the same training, and the same duties, and pass, why then must she still not be allowed to be equal to her male counterparts?

A number of reasons. We've written about this before. More as I read on...

That [fraternization] sounds like those men need to keep it in their pants.

1) Sometimes it is a woman using her sexuality to get things from higher ranking males, to the extreme resentment of her peers;
2) If this were only a male problem, it is still a problem. How to best solve it? Keep women out of combat situations. That is what will work best for society as a whole.

you are aware that gays are in the military, right? Not an asexual environment what so ever, I don't see them raping their comrades, or that causing a problem.

I've written that I think our military will still be able to perform with gays and women in it: I just think it a bad idea having them in combat as stated. I do wonder what kind of stats are available about problems arising over this that would not exist in an asexual environment.

Blacks went through the same things.

I experienced fraternization based on gender and race. But Race is not sexuality or gender. It is something different and explicitly refrenced in the US constitution.

Finally your last point about being expensive, and that link about women giving birth, and being sent home. If you are pregnant or looking to become pregnant you are not going to be on the front line,

To look into the abyss is to be seen by the abyss. What makes you think women in combat will remain a voluntary thing? My son will have to register with the Selective Service. At this rate, expect his sister to have to do the same.

[quote="Gorfias" post="528.399240.1641173] The most important things in life have little to do with money.
[/quote]

Well, well, well, what's this left wing hippie talk I hear? That's not very capitalist of you, brother. Rush Limbaugh even agrees with me.

Quoring directly from his first book.
[quote]Hillary, like liberals, are stuck at that young and stupid phase where you think that money doesn't mean everything...[/quote]

GunsmithKitten:

[quote="Gorfias" post="528.399240.1641173] The most important things in life have little to do with money.
[/quote]

Well, well, well, what's this left wing hippie talk I hear? That's not very capitalist of you, brother. Rush Limbaugh even agrees with me.

Quoring directly from his first book.
[quote]Hillary, like liberals, are stuck at that young and stupid phase where you think that money doesn't mean everything...[/quote]

Well, evaluating the value of things by payment is not very idealistic. Maybe I'm more idealistic than capitalist. You?

Gorfias:

bleys2487:

I just stated, IF I can do the job better than a man, I should get the job. If he does a better job than me, I hold no issue with that. He's more qualified. That has nothing to do with me feeling entitled to the job. I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

What qualifies my vagina as "bad"? I'm curious and I'd rather you elaborate than myself jump to conclusions. Because, I'm already assuming I'm not going to like this answer.

"Unreliable" though? Seriously? If I better qualify for the job, why does my vagina suddenly make me unreliable? Because I'm a woman? I'm suddenly unreliable?

"Disruptive"? What would I be disrupting because of my genitalia? If male soldiers can't do their jobs properly just because of my genitalia, I don't think I'm the one with the problem here, sir. I'll leave it at that. To the men with that excuse, my words of advice: Man the f*ck up. You can act all war-like, demi-god soliders, but when a woman comes around with he same skill set, don't you dare blame her for being 'disruptive'. The fact that you can't accept her for having the same skill set and being hired for the job, based on her genitalia is DISRUPTIVE.

I've asked another poster to tell me what they know about fraternization. Was it ever bad, harmful? I think so but before I get into it, I'd like that person's answer.

The simple existence of your vagina in what, to avoid fraternization (if a matter at all)should be an asexual environment would be a problem.

There are many links you can find on this matters in the meantime. My concern is not that you disagree with these other arguments, but do you even know what they are?

EDIT: Interesting article: http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-transfers-expectant-mothers-from-ship-to-shore-to-finish-tour-1.93246

You didn't even respond to anything I said.

You think the military is asexual? Get a clue. Are you aware there are gays enlisted? Are you aware that there are women already within the military?

I think the issue you're struggling with is sexism, and yes, I will gladly pull that card on you. As a woman, I am disgusted that you would refer to my vagina as 'bad, unreliable, disruptive and expensive.' And that simply because I have one, even if I cal do the job and am approved, I still should not get the job, because I'm a woman.

Your belief that women's 'highest purpose' is to be a brood mare for men is pathetic. I suppose you tell your daughter that too? Bet not. Maybe you should let her read what you're spewing to me on here. Or is it the 'Daddy knows best.' deal I'm thinking it is? Take a hint. Women are people too and our highest purpose in life is not to lie down and listen to men like you and make babies for you.

I'm glad you classified all women in a post addressed to 'Houston Texan' in the light you did. I'm glad you're so familiar with everything and just know so much about women that you know what is best for all us. You don't even have to be a woman. You're just so wise. We should just roll over and listen to you, make babies and get back in the kitchen.

People like you disgust me . People like you are the ones who stand in the way of progress and equal rights.

bleys2487:

You think the military is asexual?

No. I think there would be fewer problems if it were asexual. I agree, it is not.

I think the issue you're struggling with is sexism, and yes, I will gladly pull that card on you.

If by sexist you mean that I think there tends to be material differences between men and women, you are correct. Are you a sexist?

even if I cal do the job and am approved, I still should not get the job, because I'm a woman.

That is what I am writing.

Your belief that women's 'highest purpose' is to be a brood mare for men is pathetic.

Now it sounds like you hate nature. I hope you do not. I think humanity has to work with nature, which can be rewarding but frustrating at times as well.

Women are people too and our highest purpose in life is not to lie down and listen to men like you and make babies for you.

How about making babies for themselves and society? How about also helping men be socialized and have a sense of purpose? That isn't a bad thing. It may be the best thing a woman can do. I concede it isn't the only thing a woman can do, but it is something another MAN CANNOT do. And we shouldn't look to government to try to fix that (by, say, drafting women to have kids to distribute to men so they might have a family but pretend they don't need a woman for one). A woman can lead a rewarding life without marrying a man, socializing him, giving him purpose, binding him to society and bearing the future of our society. But pretending that isn't important is suicidal.

People like you disgust me . People like you are the ones who stand in the way of progress and equal rights.

I worry there are those that want to ignore nature, ignore what is best for men, society, and by extension, women and children. I worry that there are people that are pathologically self serving and nearly sociopathically self serving, more concerned about a sort of one way radical egalitarianism that turns men further into a 2nd class gender thrall while doing any sort of destruction they desire as long as it serves their purpose.

Finally, even in the name of gender equity, I don't want to draft women to have babies for distribution to men so they don't feel the need to have a woman in their lives. I'm looking for a more perfect justice that recognizes gender differences and acts accordingly.

And, watch the personal insults. They can get you banned around here which would be a shame. We should be able to reason together without moderation.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked