![]() |
The Fight For Equlity - Printable Version +- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net) +-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43) +--- Thread: The Fight For Equlity (/showthread.php?tid=3876) |
The Fight For Equlity - etoven - 4th July 2006 Ok, so here's my beef.... Women have fought long and hard for equal rights in the workplace. GREAT! I'm all for that, but here's the problem... Requiring us to treat you like equals and then refusing to do any lifting, manual labor, ext. makes you a hypocrite of the worst and most horrible kind. Being a women doesn't necessarily exclude you from team lifts, unloading a truck, ext. Being female doesn't make you necessarily any weaker, sure having 2 XX chromosomes means less testosterone -> less muscles, but... Ok, here's the thing, women can work out, they can build their testosterone levels. And women certainly can move a 20 inch TV 3 feet, especially assisted by a team lift. But back to my original point, equality in the workplace is not what women won’t. What they won’t is to pick and chose their privileges, they want all the benefits of being a man, and none of the disadvantages. That is my beef.. The Fight For Equlity - Dark Jaguar - 4th July 2006 Spell checker man! The Fight For Equlity - Placio Areli - 3rd September 2006 I was the human burro at my work!!! Heaven forbid those fat obese burger munching elephant dykes !!! Ever had to do anything but flop around and be the *boss*, always cutting me and the others down while their too lazy to so much as lift a box of tissue papper. Safe to say that was not the least bit a pleasant working enviroment, I am damn well pleased I was laid off and the stupid shit shack went under. The Fight For Equlity - A Black Falcon - 3rd September 2006 As long as there are attitudes like these, we will have problems with achieving equality... :( (and yes, there are some for both sides, but the facts are that there is a long, long way to go before things are equal in this country, and not enough people seem to want to change that. And that's very sad. The feminist movement seems to be dying out without really achieving its goals...) Quote:What they won’t is to pick and chose their privileges, they want all the benefits of being a man, and none of the disadvantages. Sounds like an excuse someone would use to try to explain away why they don't really want to work towards equality to me... "It's all their fault!" All people are of course not equal in ability, but they should be equal in opportunity. If that means laws that tilt things towards one side (for race, gender, whatever) then so be it... but until things are actually more equal, doing things that make it more likely whether people want to or not are required. The Fight For Equlity - N-Man - 4th September 2006 That's life, etoven. We do the lifting. ABF's the only one that gets hard looking at beefy chicks anyway. The Fight For Equlity - Weltall - 4th September 2006 And Nancy Pelosi. Woof. To be fair, etoven weighs about 120 pounds soaking wet, and the woman that prompted this discussion outweighs him by at least fifty pounds and, accounting for the difference in body mass, likely possesses a good 150% of his muscle mass. The Fight For Equlity - Dark Lord Neo - 4th September 2006 My mother showed me an article in one of her magazines the other day talking about how since in the 70's they established a program to encourage women to enter university by letting some of them in even if they had lower grades than some men who didn't get in, I guess basically like all the other affermative action programs. What's funny about this is that now, women outnumber men in most universtiy programs and the same policy is allowing some men to get in with lower grades than some women who didn't get in. Of course this is considered bad now that it's putting women at a disadvantage. I support affermative action type programs in some forms, but I think that if they are going to institue something like this, they need to keep the policy in place even if the dynamics change. The Fight For Equlity - A Black Falcon - 5th September 2006 Quote:ut I think that if they are going to institue something like this, they need to keep the policy in place even if the dynamics change. Yes, I agree with that, the goal is equality, not reversing whatever situation you are trying to fix so that the currently disadvantaged group is ahead (race, gender, etc)... but determining when things are equal is not easy. Even so though, we have to try... having a society where the majority of the population (all people who are not males of the ruling group -- in our case, white rich men.) are considered lesser beings and not suited for roles of any importance is wrong and has to change... it has some over this last century, but certainly not to the point of equality. The Fight For Equlity - Weltall - 6th September 2006 Equality as a statistic is an impossible goal. And in all reality, the days where the Great White Oligarchy believes, en masse, that every person of a different skin color is a sub-human is long past. Most people are tolerant of one another. As time goes by, that will only get better. Every new generation gets a little more progressive. The problems come with lowering standards just to meet a statistical demographic. That's not only nonsense in the short-term, but the long-term consequences will be devastating... and probably ignored by the very people instigating them. We already see evidence of this with black people. As their benefits and subsidies grow, their situation grows worse. Unquestionably, affirmative action has proven to be a benefit to some people who really deserve it, but it has also thrust many people into places they aren't even close to qualifying for. If a failing student is passed through their education, then yes, they have successfully graduated. And the moment they go into the real world, they find out what their education has done for them when the land in a job for which, on paper, they meet qualifications, but realistically, they have not learned and mastered the necessary skills, and consequently, they fail when it counts most. It's why I'm in favor of a merit-based society. Find the best and the brightest and give them the incentives and extra help they might need in order to succeed. Let's face it; not everyone possesses the capacity to excel. A strong society is formed by the brightest and most able. We gain nothing by fooling the incapable and unintuitive into believing they are more than their achievements merit, regardless of their race. There is nothing at all wrong with minorities or women in positions of power. I have worked underneath all kinds. If they are able and competent, they deserve everything they work for. If they are placed there to fill quota and prove incompetent, then everyone has wasted their time. Such petty concerns over things that cannot be changed, such as race and gender, hold us back, and I believe in my heart of hearts that such things would be much less an issue if they we weren't constantly reminded of them by people who do much damage because they don't augment their good intentions with wisdom and foresight. The Fight For Equlity - lazyfatbum - 7th September 2006 It's ego. Whether you're a man, a woman, gay, straight, whatever, all it comes down to is ability. Some have it, some dont, not everyone can be good at everything all of the time. Female firefighters? women in the military? I dont think a woman should be excluded from anything, but unless you're a warrior princess with a 6 inch clitorus you are not going to do well in jobs specifically bred for men. I will give a cop the respect they deserve, I honor them in a way. Mostly, because they're the people who are going to save me from bad things. But if i'm a criminal, someone who hates cops, whatever. I'm going to feel alot more confident about disobeying a female officer, even using brute strength to push them down or even kill them if I need to. A cop should have the physical prowess to get me on the ground, no woman (on the average, not counting strength trainers here) has the ability to get a 270 pissed off criminal to the ground, especially if they're drunk or stoned and dont feel threatened by the pepper spray/tazer/gun. Without trying to sound egocentric, I can lift my wife with one arm, even throw her like a basketball. A 5'6" woman who weighs 140 is going to be a stain on my boot in no time. This also plays in military action. I man has a higher survivability rate, period. A man can take a wound easier simply because they have more body mass, a man can move faster in full gear because we actually have more muscle in our upper torsos and core than women. Of course it all comes down to can they carry a weapon and kill the badguy, if that's met then all is well. But there are situations that call for strength and women cannot help in that area. Like it or not, believe it or not. If i'm a general about to go on the offensive, I want as low a female population as possible in my effort because it will increase my success percent. Obviously, if I have a well built woman on my team i'll use her no questions asked, but this is common sense. I wouldn't want 140 pound men on my team either. So again, it all comes down to ability. But at no time should anyone be outright excluded. If you had to choose from a group of basketball players and one of them was an 8 foot tall asian woman, who are going to pick? Not everyone has ability in every specific regiment. The term of equality is a angry-child mentality. If Steve got the promotion after working 6 months when you've worked there for 5 years and weren't offered the promotion, it's because Steve is better than you at the job requirement. End of discussion, try harder next time. Now, if the company gave Steve the promotion because he's not white, or not a woman, and the company wants to cash in on the funding from the country/state/city wide policies of hiring outside of white males, then it's a bad company who makes bad choices. Quit and look for a better company to work for. Let's say you're black and a white guy got the promotion. Instead of being a child and pulling the race card - declaring your workplace is a racist institution even though you obviously got the job there, why dont you ask your superior why you weren't considered for the job. If he cant give you a reason, something's rotten. Quit. But odds are he will be able to explain why, and it may come down to that he was simply better suited for the job. It has nothing to do with hate for a race of people or the opposite sex. Unless you're in Alabama, or the middle east. I've been let go from jobs because of incredibly bizarre reasons. Reasons that stem from hushed politics or misunderstood actions - poor management. Sometimes I've seen people fired because the company simply has to cut down on the number of employees and are picking names from a hat on who goes (usually from any bulk portion of the company). Jumping up and down and yelling for equality will make you look stupid, take your good reference, a positive reason for being let go from your superior, and move on. Equality is a term that is not used in its proper meaning. When people use it, they actually mean special treatment. If common sense isn't the primary focus of the direction of process, you are demanding failure. The Fight For Equlity - TheBiggah - 15th September 2006 Affirmative action = reverse discrimination. The most discriminated against person in the world is the white christian male between the ages of 18-35. -TheBiggah- The Fight For Equlity - A Black Falcon - 15th September 2006 Quote:Affirmative action = reverse discrimination. So ridiculous that I laughed when reading it... I know lots of people believe that, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Affirmative action, as I said, exists to try to lessen the impact of ancient biases and prejudices. Until people realize that such thinking is wrong it is needed. ... not that I expect you to agree, given how our views on so many issues are nearly polar opposites... Quote:Without trying to sound egocentric, I can lift my wife with one arm, even throw her like a basketball. A 5'6" woman who weighs 140 is going to be a stain on my boot in no time. This also plays in military action. I man has a higher survivability rate, period. A man can take a wound easier simply because they have more body mass, a man can move faster in full gear because we actually have more muscle in our upper torsos and core than women. Of course it all comes down to can they carry a weapon and kill the badguy, if that's met then all is well. But there are situations that call for strength and women cannot help in that area. Like it or not, believe it or not. If i'm a general about to go on the offensive, I want as low a female population as possible in my effort because it will increase my success percent. Obviously, if I have a well built woman on my team i'll use her no questions asked, but this is common sense. I wouldn't want 140 pound men on my team either. Simply, if you are capable of doing something, you should be allowed to, regardless of any other factors... and in this modern world, the number of jobs where strength actually matters to such a degree that most women would not be able to really carry out the job is very, very small. Police officers? That's what guns (or tazers, or whatever) are for... military? What about vehicles? The air force is already integrated, and ship crews in the Navy (excepting submarines, which exclude women because of very limited space that would make separate quarters and stuff impossible)... why not things like helicopters or vehicle crews in the Army? Not to mention how in Iraq women who have been in combat (convoys under fire and stuff, happens fairly often) have done just fine... most combat is done with guns after all, which greatly lessens the impact of the physical differences. So no, I don't agree that just because of inherently lesser strength women should be excluded... no one should be forced to do a job they don't want to do, but if someone WANTS to join the infantry, they definitely should be allowed to... though physical standards and stuff shouldn't be lessened just to let people in. There would have to be some standard applicable to all, but I'm sure some women could meet such a standard... Quote:So again, it all comes down to ability. But at no time should anyone be outright excluded. If you had to choose from a group of basketball players and one of them was an 8 foot tall asian woman, who are going to pick? Not everyone has ability in every specific regiment. The term of equality is a angry-child mentality. The point is that in this world it doesn't just come down to ability. Women who potentially are good enough to be on sports teams aren't there because of their gender... that's just how it is, and it's too bad... yeah, in something like sports if it was purely based on ability the majority would certainly be male in most cases (there may be some specific jobs or positions or stuff where gender would matter less, but that'd vary from sport to sport), but it wouldn't be 100% to 0% like it is now. Quote:Equality is a term that is not used in its proper meaning. When people use it, they actually mean special treatment. If common sense isn't the primary focus of the direction of process, you are demanding failure. As long as things are still unequal though, there's always a very real possibility that it is a valid complaint... and in some ways things are always unequal in some way or another; that's never going to change... but anyway, sure, maybe sometimes people do abuse the concept of equality that way, but I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases it's accurate... The Fight For Equlity - A Black Falcon - 7th March 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070306/ts_alt_afp/womenusiraqmilitary_070306170626 The Fight For Equlity - Weltall - 7th March 2007 Quote:Police officers? That's what guns (or tazers, or whatever) are for... military? What about vehicles? Wow. I mean... wow. Seriously. Wow. ....wow... The Fight For Equlity - A Black Falcon - 7th March 2007 Quote:Wow. I mean... wow. Seriously. Wow. Would "Technology can make up for human shortcomings" be a better way to phrase it? The Fight For Equlity - Weltall - 7th March 2007 I guess, but it wouldn't make the application of concept any less ridiculous. There are many, many situations as a police officer where a gun or tazer is either improper, or impossible. There are times when they simply don't deter a suspect. Have you ever seen an episode of COPS? Each one features at least one instance of a suspect having to be wrestled to the ground and held there. A 130 pound woman is not going to be able to do this to a 200 pound man unless she's extremely lucky. There are many times when sheer physical prowess is necessary in active police duty, and that's why the profession should be restricted only to those who possess the proper physical makeup. Which, biologically, is going to be slanted in favor of males, because males are heavier and more muscular. Same thing with the military. It's not just shooting. Military training, at least in the Army and Marines, involves a lot of close-quarters-combat training, in which physical strength plays a major role (because not all combat happens within optimal firing range), and especially in the Marines, the physical training is brutal, marching with a hundred pounds of pack on your back, etc. This again is not something a woman of average build is going to be able to accomplish nearly as well as a man of average build. The Fight For Equlity - alien space marine - 7th March 2007 Don't forget equipment factor here , It kind of counts to have as much ammo and supplies as possible in long excursions if your expecting unfriendly company. Israel was importing Llama's to carry equipment last summer for the Lebanon thing , Some still use camels. The Fight For Equlity - A Black Falcon - 17th March 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=1 Read that article. Long, but worth it! In short, the real threat to female soldiers isn't their average weaker physical strength (which, I absolutely believe, is not significantly enough different to make any combat role impossible. Men aren't all the same strength either... why should women all be judged equally when they are just as different in ability? If any person is able to do the job in question, they should be allowed to do it. Gender shouldn't matter.). It's sexual assualt from their male colleagues. This article says in detail exactly how big a problem that is, and it's something that needs to be dealt with... but the answer is absolutely not to cut back women's roles and pretend that they can't do things that they can, that's for sure. While I'm not sure if it has ever been "completely normal", women have fought in combat at many times throughout history, and I've never heard a serious argument that a well-trained and committed female soldier is inherently unable to fight simply because of strength. The argument generally centers on expectations of gender roles, not physical qualities, and I don't think it's any different here... (and I don't just mean Ryan here, or just men; that conservative woman in the article I cited in my last post with a quote up there is another example of that thinking...) The Fight For Equlity - Weltall - 31st March 2007 Quote:Men aren't all the same strength either... why should women all be judged equally when they are just as different in ability? Because, typically, weak men don't make the cut, either. I'm not completely against having women in combat roles, but if, and only if, they possess a body size and strength that is directly comparable to that of an average man. Most women will not meet that standard. To lower that standard is to put women of lesser physical ability at great risk, as well as their unit comrades who will rely on them in life and death situations. Battles are not always fought from a distance and behind a gunsight. The 130-pound supermodel figure might kick a lot of ass in a Hollywood action movie, but the likes of Charlize Theron or Milla Jovovich would not last long against a bigger, stronger male who has a serious desire to overpower and kill them. It's not a matter of gender persecution or desire to disenfranchise, it's a matter of the fact that on average women do not possess the same physical strength that a man does, and despite what you seem to think, it can make a hell of a difference, especially when fighting in close-quarters and hand-to-hand. The Fight For Equlity - A Black Falcon - 11th April 2007 Good article for the most part... I have a few disagreements with it, but it's mostly good. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html Quote:Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes Quote:(Page 2 of 2) Obviously, a lot of things are still not known, but we'll eventually figure them out... the great question is, of course, first 'why the inequality' and then 'and what can we do about it'. Not that everybody should be exactly the same, but people should be able to have the opportunity to do the things they want to do, free of stereotypes. Ryan Wrote:Because, typically, weak men don't make the cut, either. Even if it's almost never the norm in recorded history, there are times throughout history when women fought... you act like it's impossible without guns. It's not impossible, just harder; there's an important difference there. But yes, of course the standards have to be high, anything less would be stupid... The Fight For Equlity - Sacred Jellybean - 11th April 2007 Although this topic has nothing to do with homosexuals, very interesting article. I've lately believed homosexuality to be a sexual deviation (i.e. a fetish), but perhaps I was wrong in that belief. I suppose I had forgotten that biologically, gay men have been found to have different neurological properties. This, in particular, I find to interesting and in line with my beliefs: Quote:Such experiments do not show the same clear divide with women. Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.” Anyway, back to the topic: Quote:Even if it's almost never the norm in recorded history, there are times throughout history when women fought... you act like it's impossible without guns. It's not impossible, just harder; there's an important difference there. I don't think anyone here is arguing against the ideal that the best person for the position ought to be selected, regardless of sex. I think we simply believe that an affirmative action type of policy should not be utilized by the military in the name of gender equality. Quote:But yes, of course the standards have to be high, anything less would be stupid... IIRC, the military WAS lowering standards for admission to allow in more women. For all I know, they still are. But yes, I agree with this sentiment (the quote). The Fight For Equlity - A Black Falcon - 11th April 2007 Quote:I don't think anyone here is arguing against the ideal that the best person for the position ought to be selected, regardless of sex. I think we simply believe that an affirmative action type of policy should not be utilized by the military in the name of gender equality. Well, currently women cannot go into "combat roles". I'd say that that is wrong and that instead they should set standards and allow people in that meet them, period. Quote:IIRC, the military WAS lowering standards for admission to allow in more women. For all I know, they still are. But yes, I agree with this sentiment (the quote). No, not really. They certainly are lowering the standards for everybody, but they aren't singling out women. All they're doing is sending them despite the fact that they know there are no real "back lines" in this war, so they will likely be in danger. That may be considered a breaking of the spirit of the law, but I don't have a problem with that... I do have to say one thing though, of course (that I'm sure I've said before) -- women DO have a much harder time in the military. Not because of the combat or strength, though... the biggest problem is sexual discrimination, sexual abuse, and related issues. They are a huge, huge problem, and the fact is that female military veterans have higher chances of getting PTSD and related illnesses because of the impact of the pervasive sexual abuse in the military. This is something we need to work hard to stop, now. Quote:Although this topic has nothing to do with homosexuals, very interesting article. I've lately believed homosexuality to be a sexual deviation (i.e. a fetish), but perhaps I was wrong in that belief. I suppose I had forgotten that biologically, gay men have been found to have different neurological properties. I've always thought it was mostly genetic, though the suggestion that it's not (as much?) for women would be very odd if it is for men... more study is definitely needed. While unrelated, part of that quote made me think of some things that make me disagree with the tone I got from the sentence... (that is, part of the referenced differences I have with parts of the article) Quote:Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them. "Men choose women, who decide to either accept or reject them"? While this makes sense when you look at other species, the does not necessarially mean that the result is a male-dominated society like we have now; in fact, the opposite is also possible -- a society where men may express interest to women, but the women have the right to decide, not the man (or the parents/fathers, as was the most common marriage system for a long time) -- for instance, this: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-22islandwomen,0,7058700.story Quote:Women, not men, choose spouses on this island I remembered reading this article when it was released (not at that site, as another one, but it's the same article)... took me a while to find it, though, but I did eventually. :) Interesting stuff. Wikipedia also says that the traditional priesthood of the island was/is female as well. |