Fucking hate intellectual bigots.

[littha]

Ensuring women are able contribute to their full capability in the military...  Is ... also something we should do.

This one is rather a complex subject, it has something to do with having to carry fallen allies to safety. The issue with changing the legislation on  this is that if a man fails to do it its unfortunate, if a woman fails to do it then maybe a man could have. Queue PR nightmare. It ties in with one of the (Very) few things that men are actually better at than women, average upper body strength.

That said, that is only one of several reasons but it generally has less to do with womens rights and more to do with optimal battlefield effectiveness.

[darqueseid]

Ensuring women are able contribute to their full capability in the military...  Is ... also something we should do.

This one is rather a complex subject, it has something to do with having to carry fallen allies to safety. The issue with changing the legislation on  this is that if a man fails to do it its unfortunate, if a woman fails to do it then maybe a man could have. Queue PR nightmare. It ties in with one of the (Very) few things that men are actually better at than women, average upper body strength.

That said, that is only one of several reasons but it generally has less to do with womens rights and more to do with optimal battlefield effectiveness.

Men being better at upper body strength doesn't have much to do with battlefield effectiveness-not anymore.  I'd rather have a weak soldier that could shoot next to me than a strong one.

Speaking as somone who has served in the military, with women, it is important that we allow women to succeed or fail on the battlefield for sake of equality.  in a combat situation, a woman may not be able to carry somone back to safety, but niether would a man who is not as strong.  If we are allowing the man who is weaker than others into combat situations then women should be allowed into the same positions. 

And your argument is pretty weak anyway, since the people who are most likely to be in combat situations(the rangers/green beret's etc) have a certain military physical fitness test above and beyond what the regular Military troops have to do.  If a woman can meet that minimum required fitness test then there should be no problem. 
I'll admit, not all women can meet that standard, but I've known a few that could, and they were denied the right to serve for no other reason than that they were women, and that is wrong.

[Kuroimaken]

Ensuring women are able contribute to their full capability in the military...  Is ... also something we should do.

This one is rather a complex subject, it has something to do with having to carry fallen allies to safety. The issue with changing the legislation on  this is that if a man fails to do it its unfortunate, if a woman fails to do it then maybe a man could have. Queue PR nightmare. It ties in with one of the (Very) few things that men are actually better at than women, average upper body strength.

That said, that is only one of several reasons but it generally has less to do with womens rights and more to do with optimal battlefield effectiveness.

Men being better at upper body strength doesn't have much to do with battlefield effectiveness-not anymore.  I'd rather have a weak soldier that could shoot next to me than a strong one.

Speaking as somone who has served in the military, with women, it is important that we allow women to succeed or fail on the battlefield for sake of equality.  in a combat situation, a woman may not be able to carry somone back to safety, but niether would a man who is not as strong.  If we are allowing the man who is weaker than others into combat situations then women should be allowed into the same positions. 

And your argument is pretty weak anyway, since the people who are most likely to be in combat situations(the rangers/green beret's etc) have a certain military physical fitness test above and beyond what the regular Military troops have to do.  If a woman can meet that minimum required fitness test then there should be no problem. 
I'll admit, not all women can meet that standard, but I've known a few that could, and they were denied the right to serve for no other reason than that they were women, and that is wrong.

Speaking in general fitness terms, a soldier is a soldier. He or she is expected to be able to perform a number of tasks above a certain threshold; it's why they receive military training. Conventional warfare notwithstanding, gender has actually less impact on battlefield performance than it does on camp morale and interpersonal relationships (solitude and isolation are bigger mental threats to a soldier in an outpost, I would think. If you don't have people you can trust your back to by your side, paranoia may also settle in. In other words, teamwork should bypass gender.) So yes, while women generally have less upper body strength than men, once they've proven they can hold up to the standards expected of a soldier, they should be allowed to serve regardless of which set of chromosomes they were born with. I know at least one female soldier who can kick more ass than a lot of men I've met, and you wouldn't believe it just from looking at her.

Pay disparities for the same jobs (same work, same time) reasonably aren't something that needs to be resolved by time... though time might help by changing the guard as it generally does, it's not necessary.

For getting into positions of power, yeah that takes time, and the number of women in them isn't a very good indicator of progress (try, rate of change as it relates to normal rate of change). You'd best bet young women won't settle for less than their due though, and *that* indicates yes we've accomplished what we set out to do.

Gender issues today are more complicated than just feminism definitely. I'm speaking from a US perspective, of course, but here at least we're dropping the ball for men and women in different ways. Attempts to seriously limit birth control and abortion are often worrisome to women, and particularly on birth control + comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence the feminist movement should certainly not cede ground. (There are reasonable things to cede on abortion to be honest, but really even if you were teaching abstinence until marriage, birth control is important after marriage too.)

The whole getting paid less for doing the same jobs is an issue, and one luckily not translating into new fields; doesn't mean we should not resolve it for old. Ensuring women are able contribute to their full capability in the military...  Is ... also something we should do.

In terms of men's rights! Our education system is seriously starting to fail you guys up here. More women are graduating from college, more men are dropping out. Men are nine times as likely to be locked up for a crime (and always have been) and rates of incarceration are increasing horrifically, more or less coinciding with a drop in actual crime through the 1990's. Ties into race issues here in a sickening way too, with black males suffering the worst brunt of both trends... Criminal records and a lack of education make job prospects rather dismal. We don't quite socially accept the idea a man can stay home and raise kids either, which is what my grandmother dropped out of college to do... so the issues don't have an easy resolution.

There are probably other things too but mostly pointing out how gender rights these days needs to go both ways. What would the term for that be, androgynist? 

This trend has been observed here as well. What's more, a worrisome new figure is developing: the shift in gender roles within the drug cartels. It turns out that the men who usually run the operations end up getting all the attention from law enforcement, but even though their lieutenants are ALSO men, they run their business "in the family". So what happens is: police comes in, takes the boss and the lieutenant away... and the boss and lieutenant's wives run the cartel while they're locked up. They know the ins and outs just as much as their companions, and no one is stupid enough to mess with the boss' wife, so they have no problem with a chain of command. Because they tend to the background operations and support rather than the deals themselves, they don't get as much attention, and yet they can keep the drugs rolling in. If arrested, they will often claim that their husbands/companions made them do it as their defense, which can't always be disproven (and the onus of proof lies on the accusation after all). To make things worse, you can't really blanket-ban that defense, because in some cases it IS true, and even when it isn't, the criminal defense rights activists raise a big stink about it (and yes, some of the feminists too).

EDIT: It's not just their wives/companions either. They will sometimes replace the chain of command with other female relatives such as aunts or even their own freakin' mothers.

[X-Codes]

RE: Equal pay: If the only difference between two workers is their gender, then yes they should get equal pay.  The thing is, though, is that I'm not sure this isn't the case in today's society; there are so many variables that it's really easy to skew any kind of statistics you put together on it.  If you take a generic male worker and generic female worker and look at the subtle difference between how long someone was working at a company vs. how many hours they've worked at a company, you can get very different results on whether or not their pay is equal if the woman had a pregnancy during that time and spent 3 months on maternity leave.  You really need to look at these issues on a case-by-case basis in order to get useful information.

RE: Military Service: Again, this is a biological thing.  If we assumed that the soldiers needed to be 5'6", then the military is going to be overwhelmingly male simply because most men are over 5'6" while most women are under 5'6".  I'm just using height here because it's easy to illustrate and representative of a number of other things, pretty much every other physical capability that soldiers need to have is possessed by a larger proportion of men than women.  It's not as simple as pointing and shooting a gun.  This is also why just about every single firefighter is male, because very few women can hack it at that job, physically.

[Kajhera]

Yeah... another issue is, sociologists, control your variables. My friend who is a sociologist is researching domestic sex trafficking, and part of why she's started working on that is owing to most research on it so far being done poorly or with a biased agenda (like, say, feminist purposes) and weirdly without interviews.

I don't object to physical strength changing gender balance in the military, I do agree that if a woman's capable anyway she should be able to undertake those activities. I read an article recently about women units in Afghanistan being used to reach out to women in Afghanistan because it's not culturally accepted to host a strange man in your house there (which isn't something I'd be entirely comfortable with either, albeit with a less restrictive definition of strange). We should definitely be employing our strengths as well as lifting arbitrary restrictions.

[darqueseid]

RE: Equal pay: If the only difference between two workers is their gender, then yes they should get equal pay.  The thing is, though, is that I'm not sure this isn't the case in today's society; there are so many variables that it's really easy to skew any kind of statistics you put together on it.  If you take a generic male worker and generic female worker and look at the subtle difference between how long someone was working at a company vs. how many hours they've worked at a company, you can get very different results on whether or not their pay is equal if the woman had a pregnancy during that time and spent 3 months on maternity leave.  You really need to look at these issues on a case-by-case basis in order to get useful information.

RE: Military Service: Again, this is a biological thing.  If we assumed that the soldiers needed to be 5'6", then the military is going to be overwhelmingly male simply because most men are over 5'6" while most women are under 5'6".  I'm just using height here because it's easy to illustrate and representative of a number of other things, pretty much every other physical capability that soldiers need to have is possessed by a larger proportion of men than women.  It's not as simple as pointing and shooting a gun.  This is also why just about every single firefighter is male, because very few women can hack it at that job, physically.

Regarding your first point, so we should penalize women for having children?  I don't think I can get behind that argument, considering that if a man were out for an illness or operation, (even one that could be related to fertility such as testicular cancer), I don't think his pay would or should be penalized.   
-To say nothing of the fact that the length of time working for a company may have little to do with the amount of work contributed to said company.  A Woman who invents a widget for the company would be more valuable than the man on the assembly line who just puts the widget together.  Even though the assembly worker puts in far more time, the womans work was more valuable.

-As to your second point I agree, if a woman can hack it physically, she should be able to serve in any capacity that a man should.  Just because there would be far less women in the military than men, doesn't change the fact that it would be a fair standard applied equally.   But thats not the case, we don't have one standard applied, in fact there is an arbitrary restriction saying(to women) that even if you can hack it as a soldier, you still can't be in combat. 

@ Kuro, The interpersonal relationships argument is dangerous territory.  Agreed, morale is important on the battlefield but you cannot make equality decisions based on the feelings of a group.  That argument has been used time and again to keep women out of the battlefield; "The male soldiers will be overprotective of women",or; "the male soldiers won't be able to handle themselves professionally when women are around". 
The argument has also been used to keep gays off the battlefield, or serving in silence... You can't make decisions based on the "percieved" future effect on morale, at the very least you would have to change it, study it, and then you can make a determination of wether it causes any damage to morale. 

[Libertad]

Ensuring women are able contribute to their full capability in the military...  Is ... also something we should do.

This one is rather a complex subject, it has something to do with having to carry fallen allies to safety. The issue with changing the legislation on  this is that if a man fails to do it its unfortunate, if a woman fails to do it then maybe a man could have. Queue PR nightmare. It ties in with one of the (Very) few things that men are actually better at than women, average upper body strength.

That said, that is only one of several reasons but it generally has less to do with womens rights and more to do with optimal battlefield effectiveness.

The problem is that many men act protective of women, and many male soldiers will go out of their way to "help" female soldiers to the detriment of the operation.

Another problem is that rape is depressingly common in warfare, especially in regards to female prisoners of war.  Knowing that a female comrade behind enemy lines is getting tortured and raped is much more distressing than knowing that a male comrade is being tortured.

I know that there's more to it than this, but these two factors are a big part of the reluctance of putting women on the front lines.  Our society's very hard-wired about preventing violence against women, and there's many people who are against women being involved in warfare for this reason.

I'm not saying that I'm against allowing women in the military (I think that any adult should have the opportunity to serve their country), but that there's a big resistance towards it in many parts of the world, US included.

[X-Codes]

Regarding your first point, so we should penalize women for having children?  I don't think I can get behind that argument, considering that if a man were out for an illness or operation, (even one that could be related to fertility such as testicular cancer), I don't think his pay would or should be penalized.

Even as much as you try to make it sound like these are similar circumstances, they're not.  Men don't get pregnant, ever, therefore you can't have some kind of gender-neutral pregnancy policy as a company.

-To say nothing of the fact that the length of time working for a company may have little to do with the amount of work contributed to said company.  A Woman who invents a widget for the company would be more valuable than the man on the assembly line who just puts the widget together.  Even though the assembly worker puts in far more time, the womans work was more valuable.

This is not holding other things equal, though.  If the woman invents the widget, then it's likely that she has a different job title than the assembly line worker.

[Kajhera]

Men's wives get pregnant. I'm going to say we could use a little help in those first three months.

[Kuroimaken]

Men's wives get pregnant. I'm going to say we could use a little help in those first three months.

And that's before we even consider the cases where the mother dies in childbirth, or (on a significantly simpler level) the adjustments ANYONE has to make on their routine with the arrival of a baby on the household. Or, heck, just having enough time to enjoy being with your newborn son. Yes, biologically the process for the two couldn't be more different (sympathetic pregnancies aside, the hormonal changes alone are pretty big), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support both parents instead of only the one with the most perceptible needs.

@ Kuro, The interpersonal relationships argument is dangerous territory.  Agreed, morale is important on the battlefield but you cannot make equality decisions based on the feelings of a group.  That argument has been used time and again to keep women out of the battlefield; "The male soldiers will be overprotective of women",or; "the male soldiers won't be able to handle themselves professionally when women are around".
The argument has also been used to keep gays off the battlefield, or serving in silence... You can't make decisions based on the "percieved" future effect on morale, at the very least you would have to change it, study it, and then you can make a determination of wether it causes any damage to morale.

You've summed up the point I was trying to make better than I did. To put it bluntly, you can't use "a woman can't do this job because of physical differences in performance" as an excuse to keep someone out of the military. Hence the interpersonal relationships argument. With that said:

Ensuring women are able contribute to their full capability in the military...  Is ... also something we should do.

This one is rather a complex subject, it has something to do with having to carry fallen allies to safety. The issue with changing the legislation on  this is that if a man fails to do it its unfortunate, if a woman fails to do it then maybe a man could have. Queue PR nightmare. It ties in with one of the (Very) few things that men are actually better at than women, average upper body strength.

That said, that is only one of several reasons but it generally has less to do with womens rights and more to do with optimal battlefield effectiveness.

The problem is that many men act protective of women, and many male soldiers will go out of their way to "help" female soldiers to the detriment of the operation.

Another problem is that rape is depressingly common in warfare, especially in regards to female prisoners of war.  Knowing that a female comrade behind enemy lines getting tortured and raped is much more distressing than knowing that a male comrade is being tortured.

I know that there's more to it than this, but these two factors are a big part of the reluctance of putting women on the front lines.  Our society's very hard-wired about preventing violence against women, and there's many people who are against women being involved in warfare for this reason.

I'm not saying that I'm against allowing women in the military (I think that any adult should have the opportunity to serve their country), but that there's a big resistance towards it in many parts of the world, US included.

The sexual component alone would make a lot of people have second thoughts about allowing women on the front lines (or into a military operation at all, really). When you add to that the possibility (in some cases, sad fact; but I don't have the stats to say how frequent it is) that sometimes the very people you're supposed to be fighting with would sexually violate you (to say nothing of old, tried and true rank abuse)... yeah, it gets touchy.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Nevermind that here, if you're white and you call someone black, you can get arrested, but if you're black and you call someone white, you can laugh it off

I assume this is hyperbole.

Even though I find your larger attempts at philosophy very weak, you are spot on in this thread. Leave those below you in the dust Kuro!

Cue personal attacks on the basis that "I think I own the truth" (which begs the question, is she more afraid that I actually think that, or that what I say might actually hold truth contrary to her beliefs?) and whatnot.

I assume you are forgetting something here.

In respect to the support you guys have given me at times like this, I won't be complaining about how bitching to someone else makes me feel worse, so there's a little bit of personal advancement for ya.

We (well, I know I do) read your threads to help you feel better. I've have been in that situation before. All I can say is there is one Friend who won't forsake you.

@Kajhera since you opened the can of worms: the confusing correlation for causation I can let slide (call me a pessimist but I expect it) but not the wanting women to die in combat

[Kuroimaken]

Nevermind that here, if you're white and you call someone black, you can get arrested, but if you're black and you call someone white, you can laugh it off

I assume this is hyperbole.

Even though I find your larger attempts at philosophy very weak, you are spot on in this thread. Leave those below you in the dust Kuro!

Cue personal attacks on the basis that "I think I own the truth" (which begs the question, is she more afraid that I actually think that, or that what I say might actually hold truth contrary to her beliefs?) and whatnot.

I assume you are forgetting something here.

In respect to the support you guys have given me at times like this, I won't be complaining about how bitching to someone else makes me feel worse, so there's a little bit of personal advancement for ya.

We (well, I know I do) read your threads to help you feel better. I've have been in that situation before. All I can say is there is one Friend who won't forsake you.

@Kajhera since you opened the can of worms: the confusing correlation for causation I can let slide (call me a pessimist but I expect it) but not the wanting women to die in combat

I'm afraid it is not. This is literally the case. We have an anti-racism law, and it is enforced, but it has only ever been enforced in the sense of "protecting" one side of the equation. Calling someone whatever slur for white here doesn't get you arrested, regardless of how offensive you meant it to be.

And I can't claim to be a philosopher yet. For one thing, it's not a subject I've actually studied, not in-depth anyway (I only had a few philosophy classes back in high school). So it comes as no surprise that you find my attempts at it weak. All I can do in that regard is take the criticism and see how I can improve it.

I may be forgetting something there, but if I did notice it, I wouldn't be forgetting it now, would I? 

Yeah, I appreciate it. It's just that in the past, I have noted to the fine people here that I don't like to complain about my problems to others because it makes me feel like I'm not strong enough to face them. But I have to admit that no one is strong enough to face everything on their own; it's one of the reasons we form relationships. You guys, along with other people in my life, have helped me realize that, and I'm trying to gradually change that outlook so that I can rely on my friends without overburdening them. So the comment was geared towards that.

@ the wanting women to die in combat thing: military service, like many other kinds of service, is about what you want to do. If someone wants to fight, they should be able to. If someone wants to heal, they should be able to. No one is forcing women into the military - they WANT to join and they are being denied the opportunity either based on flimsy arguments or just plain falsehoods. That much I wouldn't let slide, either.

Suppose it wasn't military service, but humanitary aid in a war- or disease-ravaged zone. There's still risk of death, but you don't see people denying women the opportunity to help there.

EDIT: There's also the historical and cultural component to consider here. Since the time we had been hunters/gatherers, fighting had been the men's job. The idea that we would endanger potential mothers or sisters was just plain unacceptable. This has gone on for centuries and it has embedded itself in our collective cultural identity (obviously, there are exceptions). So, at a subconscious level, women are being denied in the military because men feel like they're stealing their thunder.

[Kajhera]

I don't want men to die in combat either.

[Kuroimaken]

I don't want men to die in combat either.

I don't think anyone does. As far as I know, that's why every step in the military is taken to ensure that casualties are kept to the absolute unavoidable minimum.

But when people fight, sometimes they die.

[X-Codes]

I don't want men to die in combat either.

That's not quite the point.  The number of men needed to have a tribe with enough genetic diversity/replacement rate/etc. to be capable of surviving is significantly smaller (less than half) the number of women needed.

[Kajhera]

Er, was responding to Plz. Might've lost track of something.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

If their engagement in combat is acceptable, so is their drafting. Therefore powerful men could be forcing women to go die in their stead. I find this unacceptable.

I also believe it could have more far reaching consequences in total war. Since the United States of America has been the world's policeman, this hasn't happened for a while now. But those with memory of it on a wide scale are dying off, liberalism is moving ahead as ever. There are indications (especially with a certain politician as of late) that US citizens might not be prepared for keeping powerful governments in check.

men feel like they're stealing their thunder.

rofl so barking up the wrong tree

[Kuroimaken]

If their engagement in combat is acceptable, so is their drafting. Therefore powerful men could be forcing women to go die in their stead. I find this unacceptable.

I also believe it could have more far reaching consequences in total war. Since the United States of America has been the world's policeman, this hasn't happened for a while now. But those with memory of it on a wide scale are dying off, liberalism is moving ahead as ever. There are indications (especially with a certain politician as of late) that US citizens might not be prepared for keeping powerful governments in check.

men feel like they're stealing their thunder.

rofl so barking up the wrong tree

I said this was on a subconscious level. Unless there's some kind of idiot running around, no one's actually complaining about it. But some may feel that way even without realizing it.

I don't really think we have to worry all that much about forced female drafting. I at least haven't heard of anything remotely similar to that happening... well, anywhere. (Heck, I don't think I've heard of forced male drafting happening anywhere either. In Brazil we have compulsory military enlistment at age 18, but women are exempt from the compulsory bit, as are the physically disabled - who may attempt to enlist, but will only serve if they pass certain tests. In practice, you tell them "I don't want to serve" and they let you go.)

[liquid150]

I'm not going to touch the feminist discussion, as most of my opinion has been expressed by X-Codes and others.

On the vegan issue, I hate militant vegans/PETA fucktards. I love animals, I have two dogs right now, and one of them I don't even really want to have. I am taking care of her and actively finding a suitable home, and keeping her out of the shelter so she doesn't get sick (making it difficult to be adopted). Nobody can tell me that I am not an animal-lover.

However, I eat meat, and that's never going to change. I have a vegan ex-girlfriend, and honestly her food beliefs were one of the issues that came between us. She became vegan in the middle of our relationship, and started going on saying things such as "meant won't be allowed in my house" and "my children will be raised vegan." I tried tackling this on multiple fronts, including 1. that I ought to have the right to have food I like in the house, and 2. that our children ought to have the right to decide if they want to be vegan. For somebody so emphatic about not forcing children to believe in a religion she was blind to the fact that doing this was no different.

Luckily, she wasn't/isn't militant, and doesn't do stupid stuff to people different than her. There was a while where she tried to convince me to change my diet, but after several times of me telling her that it will never happen and to drop it, she finally did.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Men's wives get pregnant. I'm going to say we could use a little help in those first three months.

What , during the trying to get pregnant part ?