Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

10 (76.9%)

No

3 (23.1%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Ogdibus]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

No, I didn't say those things.

Then when you have said 'oppression, acceptance, understanding, doubt,' and being 'receptive,' they have not meant what you think they mean.

Your putting words in my mouth, then telling me that I don't know what understand what I am saying.

No you said that right here:

Genetics can be the result of oppression.

Acceptance is the beginning of understanding.  Doubt is the next step, and only works if you are receptive to the possibility of new ideas.

Then I'm telling you those words; they are not what you think they mean, if what I described was not what you intended.

If you see any ad hominems, point 'em out to me.

Eh, this forum doesn't do much of that. Least of not you! It's just people still do authority appeals and all that.

And a list of "female health problems" that aren't exactly female health problems.

Pregnancy and different living conditions under health.
Current issue I've been trying to address is that the standards are lowered for female rates. The worst rates they are sending are not on an equal performance with the worst male rates sent.

Submarines probably will be one of the first parts of the military to be semi or fully automated, because they are indeed pretty horrible (and all that life support is a waste of space if you can just have computers do the work).

Taking the human out of war is always a bad decision in my opinion.

It should look like this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Genetics can be the result of oppression.
Acceptance is the beginning of understanding.  Doubt is the next step, and only works if you are receptive to the possibility of new ideas.

Yes. And Eugenics is dead in the modern world.

Also I'm afraid that's not how to garner understanding.
You're telling me that genetics are [can?] be the result of prolonged cruelty, and to understand I must need only accept it.
And by accepting it I can doubt it.
And by doubting it I understand it.
Image here
'Doubt being the beginning of understanding,' is paraphrased from this guy. He has nice hair and good logic.
When people doubt, they are showing that they are not totally convicted on their views. When there is no firm conviction, that's where you can come in and present facts, to establish a new or already existing view.
I could just accept that now as fact, and reaffirm it as so, but now I still wouldn't understand for the life of me why.

No, I didn't say those things.

Then when you have said 'oppression, acceptance, understanding, doubt,' and being 'receptive,' they have not meant what you think they mean.

Your putting words in my mouth, then telling me that I don't know what understand what I am saying.

No you said that right here:

Genetics can be the result of oppression.

Acceptance is the beginning of understanding.  Doubt is the next step, and only works if you are receptive to the possibility of new ideas.

Then I'm telling you those words; they are not what you think they mean, if what I described was not what you intended.

Stop twisting my words, and removing them from context.  What purpose does it serve?

[Loud Whispers]

The other things quoted were said by other people >_>

[Ogdibus]

The other things quoted were said by other people >_>

Irrelevant

[penguinofhonor]

That particular baseline being lower than the male baseline.

Is there a single person in this thread that thinks women should be held to lower standards to enter the military?

I don't think anyone's actually arguing for that point (or anyone was in the first place), but there are quite a few people still arguing against it. And it seems that due to the lack of people arguing for it, people are just assuming that whoever they're responding to at the time supports it.

[Willfor]

That particular baseline being lower than the male baseline.

Is there a single person in this thread that thinks women should be held to lower standards to enter the military?

It has not been a supported position by a single person in any post within this thread.

[Loud Whispers]

The other things quoted were said by other people >_>

Irrelevant

Are you talking about me deleting the quotes attached?

Because I do that as a matter of etiquette. It stops quote pyramids that explode the forum. In regards to your quotes specifically, I quoted the full quote each time and the links were still up so anyone could follow the conversation that led to the points being made.

All I did was question oppression ingrained in our genetics, and asked for evidence in the contrary.

Is there a single person in this thread that thinks women should be held to lower standards to enter the military?

I don't think anyone's actually arguing for that point (or anyone was in the first place), but there are quite a few people still arguing against it. And it seems that due to the lack of people arguing for it, people are just assuming that whoever they're responding to at the time supports it.

Vector made a good point in favour of different standards for men and women, that I feel would be better for jobs that do not carry the gravity of a military career.

What you say about the worst women being worse than the worst men does not matter as long as they all surpass a particular baseline.

[Reasons for this view given in post]

[penguinofhonor]

Oh, I reread that and your reaction makes more sense. My mistake.

[DJ]

For most jobs physical strength is irrelevant anyway. For the ones where it does matter, you really don't want to implement lower standards because you'd be sacrificing efficiency and safety.

[Leafsnail]

That isn't what Vector was saying with that post.  She was saying that women should only have to be as good as the other men who get in, not as good as the very best men who get in.

[Knight of Fools]

I think we're working towards beating out the misunderstandings and slight differences in opinion, right now. No one's come out and said directly that women are inferior; in fact, most of the counter arguments are just, "What about this problem?"

Oh, and for everyone so worried about menstruation: we already solved that problem.

Given the paucity of information on menstrual cycle effects, this paper will review studies that evaluated differences between men and women regardless of whether the menstrual cycle was controlled, and will make note of menstrual cycle effects when known.

I hope they're also controlling for this.

I suppose that solves that, but I don't imagine hordes of women would be excited about having medical instruments placed inside of them to prevent pregnancy and menstruation just so they can perform a particular job. I know I wouldn't be thrilled at the prospect.


Here's what I think: Same tests, same everything for both genders. Can't pass the PT test? Sorry, no Army for you. Tend to go crazy during weeks underwater? No submarines for you.

I know for a fact that I wouldn't be able to do either of those, but that doesn't mean there aren't women who are willing and able to. If they can and want to, I don't have a problem with that. I don't care about genetic differences that may or may not mean women are as able to do those things as men: If they want that chance, give it to them.

[DJ]

That isn't what Vector was saying with that post.  She was saying that women should only have to be as good as the other men who get in, not as good as the very best men who get in.

I thought we all agreed on that.

[Neonivek]

I remember for Firefighters who basically fight forest fires (I forget their name) had a problem with very low amounts of women who can pass the physical exam.

So what they did is they looked at the list of Bonafide occupational requirements and found that some of them were based around preferences but weren't required for the job at all (such as sprint speed). Which the Women set of requirements are simply based upon a more logical set.

I will also say that indeed there have been times when the Bonafide occupational requirements that DID make sense were ignored and had to be readjusted (for example there was an ambulance worker, female, who couldn't lift the patient... but that has since been adjusted). Yet for this it just means that there will have to be specific women positions.

Since the military to my knowledge has more of an issue with not enough soldiers rather then too many. So making platoons based on a adjusted physical requirement shouldn't be too big of an issue.

Though if I had to guess where women have been failing, I am going to guess it is just gear load.

As in the issue isn't that a woman can't shoot, cannot run, and cannot do her job... but mostly that she cannot carry the 40kg on her back without being particularly exceptional. (Or even more "not an issue" she cannot do her pushups, which has more to do with where a woman keeps her body weight then her being weak. It is why often readjusted physical exams put more weight in sit ups for women and less in push ups)

[Vector]

That isn't what Vector was saying with that post.  She was saying that women should only have to be as good as the other men who get in, not as good as the very best men who get in.

This one.

I suppose that solves that, but I don't imagine hordes of women would be excited about having medical instruments placed inside of them to prevent pregnancy and menstruation just so they can perform a particular job. I know I wouldn't be thrilled at the prospect.

Uh. . . you should probably actually read about what that is.  It's about as invasive as a tampon, you insert it yourself, and it doesn't prevent pregnancy.  Also, it's not a "medical instrument," and it's actually very popular.  You only have to have one, and the only waste you deal with is entirely liquid.

[DJ]

Gear load is critically important, though. Infantry does a lot of walking through rough terrain, and they need a fair bit of supplies with them. There's women who can do that, and there's no reason to stop them from serving in infantry, but the bar shouldn't be lowered for the ones that can't because you really don't want to get pinned down with insufficient ammo.

[Neonivek]

Gear load is critically important, though. Infantry does a lot of walking through rough terrain, and they need a fair bit of supplies with them. There's women who can do that, and there's no reason to stop them from serving in infantry, but the bar shouldn't be lowered for the ones that can't because you really don't want to get pinned down with insufficient ammo.

Most of the gear isn't ammo to my knowledge. The bar for men is a general fitness test, that tries to make sure that all the men are very fit, and the gear load is based upon that test.

Women have trouble passing a general male fitness test. A general female fitness test, even a strict one, with some awareness that there are some aspects they cannot go around would increase female membership.

As I said a woman who can only carry 30kg isn't a liability on the battlefield. Especially if the military is aware of it.

As well since the military is looking for more recruits and isn't trying to keep people out of the military. I don't see anything quite wrong with making the bar so very fit female soldiers can pass instead of just extremely fit female soldiers especially when there isn't a liability.