First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
So what the point of feminism?
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Ohio
Offline
Posted 3/2/16 , edited 3/2/16
To promote professional victim-hood and to further the divide between the sexes. Oh, sorry, those aren't the points, they are just the results.

Soon we won't have "man" and "woman", who each have unique functions, expectations, and roles in society. We will have simply "male" or "female", and those born as "female" will have all the rights and privileges as those born "male", but without the same amount of responsibility. They advocate equality when it benefits them, but still want to be treated specially when that will benefit them.

I have zero respect for modern day college aged feminists. Even if they don't share the same views and beliefs as their figureheads, they are still extremely naive. They have no idea what real sexism is. An off handed joke here and there is not the same as real oppression. The wage gap is a MYTH. It's been shown to be extremely misleading, but these morons still quote it. Pretty much every argument they have made has been proven as either false, or misrepresented. They are blatant man-haters, not even trying to hide it with hash tags like #killallmen and all this other hatred towards straight white males.

But anyway, it's not good and I would never date anyone who claims to be apart of that movement.
13151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:
Moreover, contrary to relt95's argument that the feminist movement is entirely about promoting women, rather than all people, the feminist movement involves women of every single ethnicity, as well as their non-female allies, all of whom are working hard to promote equality, not superiority. If a feminist tells you otherwise, you might be dealing with a radical, and they are no more representative of feminists than the Ku Klux Klan is representative of White Christians, or ignorant, stereotypical rednecks are of Southerners or Americans in general.


When the radical portion of feminism becomes so prominent, how can you say that they aren't representative? This is a big problem with feminism. Feminists too often brush off huge problems with their movement by pretending that they aren't standing under the same umbrella as the radicals (but only when they get called out on these things). The current landscape of feminism is radical by most definitions and ludicrous by my own.

Further, so many of the fundamental building blocks of feminism are based on what are essentially outright lies. Statistics surrounding rape, equal pay, domestic violence etc, used by feminists to promote change are flawed to the core, yet they continue to hold onto them even after any footing they had has crumbled away. These statistics are used to put forth policies and change the way the world works but because they are so flawed, they tend to do more harm than good.

A good example of this is with domestic violence statistics. The current model of domestic violence which informs police policy is based on the idea that the majority of domestic violence is patriarchal (man asserting dominance over woman/family). This is not true. The vast majority of domestic violence is mutual and temporary (which should obviously be dealt with in a different way than patriarchal domestic violence). After that, matriarchal and patriarchal domestic violence are fairly even and victimization statistics show an alarming amount of female on male domestic violence which largely goes ignored by the law (and laughed at socially) through police policies which use gender profiling when dealing with domestic violence.

You can't simply ignore all of the ways in which feminism as a whole has gone astray, because when you stand behind feminism as a movement, you are standing behind all of the issues within it as well...
WeiB47 
16695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / That's classified!
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

eclair-lumiere wrote:

Feminism wouldn't need to exist if people would just grow the fuck up and stop living in the dark ages. Men and women should be equal. Too bad there are still plenty of assholes who see women as property.


This was my reaction to your post:



In other words, I couldn't agree with you more
24034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Panama City, Panama
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

Ranwolf wrote:


MarquisBlack wrote:



In China, there's the story of Sun Tzu (remember him?) training an entire harem of the Emperor's concubines into soldiers, as proof he could make anyone into an effective military unit. According to the Chinese's own histories (which are notoriously misogynistic), Sun Tzu managed to train them to be the equal of any man.



He trained them to understand parade drill not combat tactics lady. And most men would struggle under the weight of the full plate and heavy shields Chinese troops carried unless properly trained and strengthened from basically childhood. Not to mention the heavy crossbows the Chinese prefered over bows. Fighting, especially at melee range requires an endurance and a physicality most women simply lack. Even to this day the weight of a full combat load remains too much for some men. I have only seen a few women out of the thousands that apply to the CAF actually pass the male standard of physical training. Some even struggle with the lowered standard for women.


You are correct, it was parade drills, and they were not wearing full plate or anything. And yet, he treated them no worse than he did men.

In law, this is called precedent. It would certainly explain the odd appearance here and there in Chinese history (not legends, history) of Chinese women who rode to war with their husbands or for their own goals (several of which come up in San Guo Zhi [not the Dynasty Warriors games per se, but the actual text]), and later in Japanese history as well.

It means, in short, that he recognised the potential for soldiering in everyone.

Women in war are a staple of history, and whenever they show up, they are considered legends worth thousands of men. Of note are Matilda of Canossa, Caterina Sforza, Boudica (who by some accounts nearly collapsed Roman presence in Britain), Wang Yi, Inahime, and more. Of note: that website Badass (or something) which denotes incredible historical figures has a significant list of female warriors (though arguably, some are legendary).

Here's the thing: are Canadian Armed Forces standards for women lower? I don't know, but you would. If you say they are, I trust you, barring contradictory evidence. However, should you be bitter? Not really. Perhaps more adequately, you should try to understand why these women are failing to adapt to the rigorous standards of the Armed Forces, and instead of criticising them for even daring to set foot in this previously all-man's world, try to help them reach the standards you hold so dear. Also, "protecting women" isn't a natural instinct; it's taught manners. If as a soldier one is willing to discard duty for the sake of "manners," I think that says more about the idiot trying to do that than the woman trying to fight for her country, no?

Perhaps, as you insinuate, military life isn't for everyone -- that's certainly true of all genders, though. I certainly can't serve in any respectable armed forces in part due to being paralysed in one eye, and also because my country doesn't have an army.


sundin13 wrote:


Are they, though? Statistically representative, I mean. Are feminists statistically mostly radical at this point? If so, I politely request to see the numbers, because I haven't seen anything to suggest that. Certainly not where I'm at. Perhaps your experience has been different? I would suggest you are simply listening to the same people saying the same things over and over again (thereby creating the illusion of mass), but I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence (and I'm not being facetious when I say this). Again, I am willing to trust that your experience has been mostly negative because of the amount of radical feminists you have encountered.

Moreover, I must admit to feeling a bit hurt at the fact that you believe I'm sweeping issues away. I haven't -- in fact, I addressed radicalism in my original post, and then recognised that this is a universal problem for all ideologies. Am I wrong on that end? Should I judge modern capitalists by the same stick as the industrial barons of the Industrial Revolution, who used child labour and wage slavery? Should I judge a Republican by its most ignorant bigot? A democrat by its most ardent Communist? Should I judge all white people by the KKK? Atheists by Stalin? Catholics by pedophile priests?

I recognise I'm risking a logical fallacy at this point, so I'll move on.

Lies, you say? Lies where, exactly? In your corner of the world? Or in mine? Because I can assure you, the female experience in Panama is pretty much well aligned with rape, equal pay, and domestic violence statistics. In fact, that happens to be the case in virtually the entire Global South. I mentioned in my initial post about being a former journalist and currently a news translator, right? It so happens that among the most common news I've had to translate involve the rape of underage girls (whose governments then forbid them from getting abortions because God or whatever other reason), domestic violence (usually resulting in murder), abuse, etc...and the news we heard the most at the station are those involving targeted killings of women by their spouses, partners, boyfriends, etc...

I once remember (vividly) of a story I translated in which a man killed his ex-girlfriend's mother, sister, and daughter just because she refused to get back with him. That's not reality? That's a "lying statistic"? I wish I could say that's the only one of its kind I've seen, but that'd be a lie.

Are some feminists going to lie? Of course. Some feminists say they are so just for the tag and the rep; most others are for the cause.

Now, to forestall this line of argument, does domestic abuse happen to men? Does rape? YES, it does. Is it underreported? Absolutely. Does that diminish the validity of female claims? NO, it does not. All that means is that we men also need to reach out to women and together come to the understanding that there are jerks on both sides of the aisle, so to speak, and how best to protect ourselves from them.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:



Women in war are a staple of history, and whenever they show up, they are considered legends worth thousands of men. Of note are Matilda of Canossa, Caterina Sforza, Boudica (who by some accounts nearly collapsed Roman presence in Britain), Wang Yi, Inahime, and more. Of note: that website Badass (or something) which denotes incredible historical figures has a significant list of female warriors (though arguably, some are legendary).

Here's the thing: are Canadian Armed Forces standards for women lower? I don't know, but you would. If you say they are, I trust you, barring contradictory evidence. However, should you be bitter? Not really. Perhaps more adequately, you should try to understand why these women are failing to adapt to the rigorous standards of the Armed Forces, and instead of criticising them for even daring to set foot in this previously all-man's world, try to help them reach the standards you hold so dear. Also, "protecting women" isn't a natural instinct; it's taught manners. If as a soldier one is willing to discard duty for the sake of "manners," I think that says more about the idiot trying to do that than the woman trying to fight for her country, no?

Perhaps, as you insinuate, military life isn't for everyone -- that's certainly true of all genders, though. I certainly can't serve in any respectable armed forces in part due to being paralysed in one eye, and also because my country doesn't have an army.
.


Mate I could easily rewrite your paragraph about the worth of women in combat replacing all the examples with male counterparts. There will always be soldiers that rise above the rank and file and perform feats most would consider impossible. So that is a moot point on your part.

As for helping women reach the same physical standards of men, it can't be done. Barring extensive genetic rewrite of the human race women will always be physically inferior to men in nearly every regard. There are course exceptions to every rule but they are just that exceptions not the norm.
13151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:

Are they, though? Statistically representative, I mean. Are feminists statistically mostly radical at this point? If so, I politely request to see the numbers, because I haven't seen anything to suggest that. Certainly not where I'm at. Perhaps your experience has been different? I would suggest you are simply listening to the same people saying the same things over and over again (thereby creating the illusion of mass), but I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence (and I'm not being facetious when I say this). Again, I am willing to trust that your experience has been mostly negative because of the amount of radical feminists you have encountered.

Moreover, I must admit to feeling a bit hurt at the fact that you believe I'm sweeping issues away. I haven't -- in fact, I addressed radicalism in my original post, and then recognised that this is a universal problem for all ideologies. Am I wrong on that end? Should I judge modern capitalists by the same stick as the industrial barons of the Industrial Revolution, who used child labour and wage slavery? Should I judge a Republican by its most ignorant bigot? A democrat by its most ardent Communist? Should I judge all white people by the KKK? Atheists by Stalin? Catholics by pedophile priests?

I recognise I'm risking a logical fallacy at this point, so I'll move on.

Lies, you say? Lies where, exactly? In your corner of the world? Or in mine? Because I can assure you, the female experience in Panama is pretty much well aligned with rape, equal pay, and domestic violence statistics. In fact, that happens to be the case in virtually the entire Global South. I mentioned in my initial post about being a former journalist and currently a news translator, right? It so happens that among the most common news I've had to translate involve the rape of underage girls (whose governments then forbid them from getting abortions because God or whatever other reason), domestic violence (usually resulting in murder), abuse, etc...and the news we heard the most at the station are those involving targeted killings of women by their spouses, partners, boyfriends, etc...

I once remember (vividly) of a story I translated in which a man killed his ex-girlfriend's mother, sister, and daughter just because she refused to get back with him. That's not reality? That's a "lying statistic"? I wish I could say that's the only one of its kind I've seen, but that'd be a lie.

Are some feminists going to lie? Of course. Some feminists say they are so just for the tag and the rep; most others are for the cause.

Now, to forestall this line of argument, does domestic abuse happen to men? Does rape? YES, it does. Is it underreported? Absolutely. Does that diminish the validity of female claims? NO, it does not. All that means is that we men also need to reach out to women and together come to the understanding that there are jerks on both sides of the aisle, so to speak, and how best to protect ourselves from them.


1) I'd say that of the feminists who are actually doing something more than just saying "yeah, I'm a feminist" when someone asks, the majority are what I would call radical. Obviously there are no statistics on this to my knowledge, and you would be quite hard pressed to find an actual scientific study based around the "radical-ness" of feminists. However, look at the spheres of feminist influence and you will quite clearly see the radicals. Look at the activists like Anita Sarkeesian who is arguably the largest feminist in pop culture right now, look at organizations such as NOW, the largest feminist organization and look at the feminism seen prominently on college campuses and you will see radical ideas. The ones who are trying to change the world are the radicals...

My response covers your second paragraph as well, as its the sheer force of the radicals in the feminist movement which taints the water. Further, there is a clear line between white and white supremacist or between democrat and communist. When you say "I am white", there is no line to be drawn infering "oh, so they are a white supremacist". The same does not follow with feminism. While there are an infinite amount of divisions of feminism, first of all, the average person doesn't really know the different between academic feminism and intersectional feminism and second of all, there is a huge amount of overlap. The radicals stand in every bit of feminism in some number or another. You can't simply parse them out with a label, so when you say "I support feminism" with no clarification, you are standing behind feminism with all its good and bad parts.

2) I do say lies, however I am talking about in my corner of the world (USA, Canada, UK). The statistics that are frequently touted by feminists to cause change have been disproven and replaced time and time again, to the extent that continuing to hold onto these false claims, in my opinion, constitutes a lie, or at least an extreme amount of academic dishonesty. I do understand that there is a need for women's rights movements in some other parts of the world, but this third wave feminism is not that movement. There is a clear line between what is going on in those corners of the world and what is going on in this corner of the world and the need for a women's rights movement. I was arguing about my scope of the world and I know significantly less when it comes to your corner of the world, so I will move on from this point.

3) Yes, the fact that domestic violence happens to men does diminish the validity of feminist claims, because feminism bases itself around a social theory in a "patriarchy", which in my corner of the world, does not exist. The presence of domestic violence against men in near equal numbers to domestic violence against women (again, in my corner of the world) is a huge red flag that maybe domestic violence isn't caused by patriarchy. Far too often, feminism ignores the problems of men to pretend that certain issues are gender related when they are not and this is a pretty huge problem.
6674 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / You don't need to...
Offline
Posted 3/2/16
*Cracks knuckles* Ok, here we go...

The purpose of feminism is to make sure females are equal to men in human rights: jobs, money, politics, etc.
NOT:
To be violent towards men
To demean men
Or anything else negative towards men to get to their goals

For instance, women are not equal to men in sports and other job occupations yet, especially science, technology, and media. Granted, if a female person wants to be in one of these fields, there should be nothing stopping her. But in the portrayal of women, even in sports, you see women as just "sexy" rather than powerful or good at their sport compared to men. There are even studies saying how male college professors encourage men to pursue science/tech/etc. but if the person is a woman, then they are not as encouraged.

It's a movement to stop the portrayal of women as just sexual objects and as just a sex that gives birth and gets emotional. Women can be smart, in power, strong, etc. But there are still people (men and women) that are holding onto the old standards, and that's what feminism is all about. I hate the stupid internet for thinking feminism is "kill all males", because that's an extreme view of feminism. I don't even like calling that shit feminism, that's being abusive and hateful.
13626 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 3/2/16
Like all other isms; to dehumanise humans.
24034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Panama City, Panama
Offline
Posted 3/2/16
Please bear with me, here, as I'm desperately trying to write fast enough to keep up with my two wonderful debate partners!


Ranwolf wrote:


MarquisBlack wrote:



Women in war are a staple of history, and whenever they show up, they are considered legends worth thousands of men. Of note are Matilda of Canossa, Caterina Sforza, Boudica (who by some accounts nearly collapsed Roman presence in Britain), Wang Yi, Inahime, and more. Of note: that website Badass (or something) which denotes incredible historical figures has a significant list of female warriors (though arguably, some are legendary).

Here's the thing: are Canadian Armed Forces standards for women lower? I don't know, but you would. If you say they are, I trust you, barring contradictory evidence. However, should you be bitter? Not really. Perhaps more adequately, you should try to understand why these women are failing to adapt to the rigorous standards of the Armed Forces, and instead of criticising them for even daring to set foot in this previously all-man's world, try to help them reach the standards you hold so dear. Also, "protecting women" isn't a natural instinct; it's taught manners. If as a soldier one is willing to discard duty for the sake of "manners," I think that says more about the idiot trying to do that than the woman trying to fight for her country, no?

Perhaps, as you insinuate, military life isn't for everyone -- that's certainly true of all genders, though. I certainly can't serve in any respectable armed forces in part due to being paralysed in one eye, and also because my country doesn't have an army.
.


Mate I could easily rewrite your paragraph about the worth of women in combat replacing all the examples with male counterparts. There will always be soldiers that rise above the rank and file and perform feats most would consider impossible. So that is a moot point on your part.

As for helping women reach the same physical standards of men, it can't be done. Barring extensive genetic rewrite of the human race women will always be physically inferior to men in nearly every regard. There are course exceptions to every rule but they are just that exceptions not the norm.


Again, please note I never disregarded male achievements in warfare (I would have to burn my copies of On War, the Art of War, and all my military history books if so), merely noting that female warriors are -not- that rare, when given half the chance to do their thing. It hardly moots my point (in fact, it doesn't by any rule of logic that I can recall; someone correct me on this if I'm wrong?)

But you provide biology as the basis of your argument: very well, let's discuss biology (kudos to you, I actually had to do research!). You are correct: women generally have lower muscle strength than men, both upper and lower (at least, according to the very quick Googling I just did). Therefore, based on this evidence, I can conclude that women do have certain military tasks to which they are ill suited for, particularly those dealing with lifting heavy weights.

At the risk of sounding petty: so what?

A woman can be an effective soldier, even if perhaps she is not used the same way as a male soldier. It would fall onto the shoulders of the unit leaders and commissioned officers to understand this discrepancy and, instead of forcing the issue, simply utilise women to their strengths. If they can't haul enormous weights over long distances, perhaps that's the worst use for them there is -- why not switch them over to less physically demanding, but no less crucial combat tasks (I say, not having served; again, correct me if I'm wrong).

My tl;dr point being: there is more than enough room to compromise on the issue of women serving in the military (and in combat operations) that would not necessitate widespread discrimination against women serving in the armed forces.



sundin13 wrote:
1) I'd say that of the feminists who are actually doing something more than just saying "yeah, I'm a feminist" when someone asks, the majority are what I would call radical. Obviously there are no statistics on this to my knowledge, and you would be quite hard pressed to find an actual scientific study based around the "radical-ness" of feminists. However, look at the spheres of feminist influence and you will quite clearly see the radicals. Look at the activists like Anita Sarkeesian who is arguably the largest feminist in pop culture right now, look at organizations such as NOW, the largest feminist organization and look at the feminism seen prominently on college campuses and you will see radical ideas. The ones who are trying to change the world are the radicals...

My response covers your second paragraph as well, as its the sheer force of the radicals in the feminist movement which taints the water. Further, there is a clear line between white and white supremacist or between democrat and communist. When you say "I am white", there is no line to be drawn infering "oh, so they are a white supremacist". The same does not follow with feminism. While there are an infinite amount of divisions of feminism, first of all, the average person doesn't really know the different between academic feminism and intersectional feminism and second of all, there is a huge amount of overlap. The radicals stand in every bit of feminism in some number or another. You can't simply parse them out with a label, so when you say "I support feminism" with no clarification, you are standing behind feminism with all its good and bad parts.

2) I do say lies, however I am talking about in my corner of the world (USA, Canada, UK). The statistics that are frequently touted by feminists to cause change have been disproven and replaced time and time again, to the extent that continuing to hold onto these false claims, in my opinion, constitutes a lie, or at least an extreme amount of academic dishonesty. I do understand that there is a need for women's rights movements in some other parts of the world, but this third wave feminism is not that movement. There is a clear line between what is going on in those corners of the world and what is going on in this corner of the world and the need for a women's rights movement. I was arguing about my scope of the world and I know significantly less when it comes to your corner of the world, so I will move on from this point.

3) Yes, the fact that domestic violence happens to men does diminish the validity of feminist claims, because feminism bases itself around a social theory in a "patriarchy", which in my corner of the world, does not exist. The presence of domestic violence against men in near equal numbers to domestic violence against women (again, in my corner of the world) is a huge red flag that maybe domestic violence isn't caused by patriarchy. Far too often, feminism ignores the problems of men to pretend that certain issues are gender related when they are not and this is a pretty huge problem.


1. ....I'm a feminist, and I've heard of neither of Sarkeesian nor NOW. Most of the feminists I know of are regular women who fund small, local organisations that seek to raise awareness against rising violence against women, rape, etc...They are trying to change the world, too, and yet I don't hear them baying for my blood for being male.

You'd be surprised, though. At least where I live, the US is basically a walking stereotype. We hear Republicans, and many here think "bigots and rednecks," while others hear Democrats and they think "Socialists" and "Commies." We hear "gringo" (our slang for American) and we think "jerks" and "gullible." Are these fair? I don't believe so, but we're guided by the visible minority, not the true majority. Thus, I put forth that we are dealing with a similar situation.

2. I thank you for recognising your limitations, and I agree that several cases of misreporting of statistics in the northern hemisphere have been irritating for us down here who do fight for women's rights. Still, I do urge you to research the issue more in-depth in order to figure out which statistics -are- true, and when you do, consider whether even one instance of domestic abuse, rape, etc... is acceptable in what should be a civilised society (I recognise that zero such cases is basically fantasy, but just because that's the case doesn't mean it's not a cause worth fighting for if it's the right thing to do).

3. It really doesn't, though. Patriarchies are the basis of Global South societies -- for goodness' sake, we even have a word for it in Spanish: machismo! The patriarchy is a real thing, mate, even if it doesn't exist in your corner of the world anymore. When we decry the patriarchy, it's not a joke, it's not a lie -- it's institutionalised gender discrimination. The problem, I find, is that all the anti-feminist rhetoric is basically focused on the calls made by privileged women (women with means and/or substantial legal recourse), which are indeed the minority. You may be arguing on behalf of your corner of the world, but the US, UK, and Canada are...what? Less than a seventh of the global population? Even if you throw in Europe there, and even if you were right about the feminist movement in these places (which I'm still not convinced you are), it still doesn't hold a candle against all the women across the globe that do need feminism.
Posted 3/2/16 , edited 3/2/16

Madhatter8 wrote:

Yeah when you put it that way Ranwolf you are correct. You are going to see that soon in the US, as women fail to be special ops and such. Call me old fashion but i dont think women should be in the armed services to begin with, but that's just me. If i was in the military and a women and I were in a combat situation. I would obviously try to keep her out of harms way, but that is just the natural instinct of man.

Also love the pic Yuri the best tales hero yet. Have you played Zestiria yet.
Although Xillia is my favorite

Yeah is not. I protect those who I want. I have seen women get beat up and do nothing. My first instinct is not to protect a woman but protect who in the right.

, but that is just the natural instinct of man.


Yeah, I get that a lot of men feel the need to protect girls but a lot does not represent all men. Natural instinct my ass. More like socially constructed. And the only instinct I feel when a female is in trouble is to get the hell away from her. You can call me cold but I have not intention of getting hurt or kill over something stupid. And that combat thing you say. Just no. While you think is noble or instinct. I view that has being immoral and wrong. I will refuse to fight with anybody who thinks and act like that. I don't care if that get me court-martial.
I refuse to fight along side with somebody who will put one individual on the team as being more important because of their gender. If you can't watch your team back because you are too focus worrying about one individual. You have not placed in the battlefield. And if you think I being easily offended, that because I am. I have a family member who spends his entire life in the military service. And if he died
because somebody wasn't doing their job properly. I will raise hell toward that person.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/2/16 , edited 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:





But you provide biology as the basis of your argument: very well, let's discuss biology (kudos to you, I actually had to do research!). You are correct: women generally have lower muscle strength than men, both upper and lower (at least, according to the very quick Googling I just did). Therefore, based on this evidence, I can conclude that women do have certain military tasks to which they are ill suited for, particularly those dealing with lifting heavy weights.

At the risk of sounding petty: so what?

A woman can be an effective soldier, even if perhaps she is not used the same way as a male soldier. It would fall onto the shoulders of the unit leaders and commissioned officers to understand this discrepancy and, instead of forcing the issue, simply utilise women to their strengths. If they can't haul enormous weights over long distances, perhaps that's the worst use for them there is -- why not switch them over to less physically demanding, but no less crucial combat tasks (I say, not having served; again, correct me if I'm wrong).
.


The problem with that line of thought is any combat situation a soldier has at the very minimal has body armour, main weapon, secondary weapon, ammo for both weapons, a trauma kit, knife or bayonet, water canteen, grenades both smoke and frag and sometimes flash as well, a handheld radio, helmet , and usually a small amount of food usually in the form of MREs. All this can add up to nearly 28 kgs ( 60 pounds). Throw in the exhaustion of combat and some men have a problem dealing with that kind of weight. Most women simply fail the obstacle course let alone the live fire exercises.

And even barring that altering the service requirements for both genders could be perceived as favoritism. Soldiers do not deal well with anyone receiving preferential treatment .
24034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Panama City, Panama
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

Ranwolf wrote:


MarquisBlack wrote:





But you provide biology as the basis of your argument: very well, let's discuss biology (kudos to you, I actually had to do research!). You are correct: women generally have lower muscle strength than men, both upper and lower (at least, according to the very quick Googling I just did). Therefore, based on this evidence, I can conclude that women do have certain military tasks to which they are ill suited for, particularly those dealing with lifting heavy weights.

At the risk of sounding petty: so what?

A woman can be an effective soldier, even if perhaps she is not used the same way as a male soldier. It would fall onto the shoulders of the unit leaders and commissioned officers to understand this discrepancy and, instead of forcing the issue, simply utilise women to their strengths. If they can't haul enormous weights over long distances, perhaps that's the worst use for them there is -- why not switch them over to less physically demanding, but no less crucial combat tasks (I say, not having served; again, correct me if I'm wrong).
.


The problem with that line of thought is any combat situation a soldier has at the very minimal has body armour, main weapon, secondary weapon, ammo for both weapons, a trauma kit, knife or bayonet, water canteen, grenades both smoke and frag and sometimes flash as well, a handheld radio, helmet , and usually a small amount of food usually in the form of MREs. All this can add up to nearly 28 kgs ( 60 pounds). Throw in the exhaustion of combat and some men have a problem dealing with that kind of weight. Most women simply fail the obstacle course let alone the live fire exercises.

And even barring that altering the service requirements for both genders could be perceived as favoritism. Soldiers do not deal well with anyone receiving preferential treatment .


I see.

Two questions:

1. Why exactly are they failing? Is it really biology, or is it something else? (I would actually be interested in reading any official report on this, for intellectual purposes)

2. I can understand that perception, even if it does sound odd. After all, not every branch of the military requires the same of their troops -- hell, subdivisions within the branches themselves don't even have the same requirements across the board, do they? SpecOps units are expected to struggle to an insane degree to qualify, right? Much higher than normal troops? Then, if we go by the logic that lowering standards to accommodate female soldiers to specialised combat roles is favoritism, do SpecOps units consider army troops to enjoy favoritism as well?
13151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:

1. ....I'm a feminist, and I've heard of neither of Sarkeesian nor NOW. Most of the feminists I know of are regular women who fund small, local organisations that seek to raise awareness against rising violence against women, rape, etc...They are trying to change the world, too, and yet I don't hear them baying for my blood for being male.

You'd be surprised, though. At least where I live, the US is basically a walking stereotype. We hear Republicans, and many here think "bigots and rednecks," while others hear Democrats and they think "Socialists" and "Commies." We hear "gringo" (our slang for American) and we think "jerks" and "gullible." Are these fair? I don't believe so, but we're guided by the visible minority, not the true majority. Thus, I put forth that we are dealing with a similar situation.

2. I thank you for recognising your limitations, and I agree that several cases of misreporting of statistics in the northern hemisphere have been irritating for us down here who do fight for women's rights. Still, I do urge you to research the issue more in-depth in order to figure out which statistics -are- true, and when you do, consider whether even one instance of domestic abuse, rape, etc... is acceptable in what should be a civilised society (I recognise that zero such cases is basically fantasy, but just because that's the case doesn't mean it's not a cause worth fighting for if it's the right thing to do).

3. It really doesn't, though. Patriarchies are the basis of Global South societies -- for goodness' sake, we even have a word for it in Spanish: machismo! The patriarchy is a real thing, mate, even if it doesn't exist in your corner of the world anymore. When we decry the patriarchy, it's not a joke, it's not a lie -- it's institutionalised gender discrimination. The problem, I find, is that all the anti-feminist rhetoric is basically focused on the calls made by privileged women (women with means and/or substantial legal recourse), which are indeed the minority. You may be arguing on behalf of your corner of the world, but the US, UK, and Canada are...what? Less than a seventh of the global population? Even if you throw in Europe there, and even if you were right about the feminist movement in these places (which I'm still not convinced you are), it still doesn't hold a candle against all the women across the globe that do need feminism.


1) As previously stated, I am talking about the climate in the US/Canada/UK.

2) I have done my research and I have used the information gained from that to come to my own conclusion as to the changes that should be made to society to improve the condition of the country in which I live. However, while zero crime is a nice ideal, the only way to achieve it is through totalitarian practices and I do not believe "the end justifies the means" is a valid excuse as a rule. A lot of the steps that feminism is trying to take in my corner of the world are suggestive of authoritarian practices which strip personal freedoms. This is not the path that should be tread for an impossible ideal of eliminating crime.

3). Again, I am speaking about my corner of the world and third wave feminism. It seems that we stand on far too different ground to have a conversation of this nature, but I will gladly defend or explain my beliefs about the way feminism in this corner of the world works. Anti-feminist rhetoric here does nothing to hurt women in your corner of the world, as feminsm here does little to help women in your corner of the world. I think virtually everybody realizes that the there are places around the world where women's rights are needed, we just don't believe that the feminism we see is a solution (and bear in mind that feminism is not the only form of women's rights advocacy).
3710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / Kumamoto, Japan
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

KarenAraragi wrote:

Here some questions here for you guys.
Why does feminists have such a bad stigma?
What exactly when wrong with it?
Why does feminists let the crazies go uncheck? Unchallenged ?
What can be done to fix feminism?
Is there anything you hate about feminism?
Is there anything you like about feminism?


There are extremists when it comes to any sort of group of people. The extremists are the ones who are remembered and usually are plastered as the stereotype for the group. Not to mention, depending on the generation of the individuals who are part of feminism, it can change drastically depending on the point in history.

I don't know exactly where things went wrong or array. I don't know if it's also right to call the extremists "crazies" or to claim that they go unchecked or unchallenged -- within America there is freedom of speech. These individuals are speaking for what they believe is true and for what they believe in. I don't think it's a cult, though I can definitely see why people see it as such.

As a woman, I experience things differently from men. And depending on my level of attractiveness, I'll also experience a different level of interaction, stereotype, etc.

Within my line of work, I have had customers ask me if I could find them a male representative to help them because I am a woman. Because there's "no way a woman would be able to understand what needs to be done." In the same breath, I've had women tell me they were happy to work with me because, as a woman, I can "understand their feelings and totally get them." Both of these bother me.

I am supposed to be flattered when men rudely catcall at me. I'm a bitch, or a slut, if I don't acknowledge their efforts for my attention. There are a large number of men who feel that women shouldn't turn them down when they ask them out (there are women murdered for declining). I'm sure the latter may be true for women asking men out, but the numbers are not nearly the same as violence towards women from men on the matter.

Your questions are very broad, and it would be difficult to answer them all in a forum post because there is so much to say.

I do think that jobs should be given based on ability to do it and that the position should be filled with the right candidate. I don't like the idea of the job going to a woman so that a business can fill a quota on a woman to man ratio. But I've also seen and read many articles where there have been businesses who claim that men are the best candidate for the job (with undercover interviewees who have the same resumes and same responses -- and the company favors the men over the women candidates -- that infuriates me. Not only that, but even the salary/wage they start these people off at differ greatly as well in these same study situations).

I believe sexism is still very alive and well today. Having experienced it myself. Is feminism the answer to that? I don't know -- but simply saying, "Why can't people just be equal! I just view women as another human being!" isn't going to make it go away. It hasn't worked in the past and it won't suddenly work now.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:


I see.

Two questions:

1. Why exactly are they failing? Is it really biology, or is it something else? (I would actually be interested in reading any official report on this, for intellectual purposes)

2. I can understand that perception, even if it does sound odd. After all, not every branch of the military requires the same of their troops -- hell, subdivisions within the branches themselves don't even have the same requirements across the board, do they? SpecOps units are expected to struggle to an insane degree to qualify, right? Much higher than normal troops? Then, if we go by the logic that lowering standards to accommodate female soldiers to specialised combat roles is favoritism, do SpecOps units consider army troops to enjoy favoritism as well?


For the obstacle course they usually fail the time limit or simply give up half way through, then again so do some of the men. The live fire exercises are designed to test the threshold of endurance and physical pain. They are designed to be hard to pass . Most women fail to last the required time.

And yes SpecOp units do think poorly of Regular Army troops, just talk to one they will give you a polite but pointed discussion about the superiority of their training vs that of the Regular Army troops . And for the most part they would be right, The JTF2 for example which is Canada's SpecOps troopers have much higher physical standards then the regular army. And you usually need five years of service and usually a tour or two of combat duty under your belt before you can even think of applying.

Regular Army troops however expect this, they are the baseline for what a soldier is suppose to be capable of. Lowering that baseline for women however would be frankly something of an insult. Not to mention all the currently exiting combat roles require some level of strength, even if you serve in a tank or as an artillery crewman you would still be required do some heavy lifting. You'd have to create some sort of specialized roles that avoid heavy lifting and I for the life of me can't think of any.

Maybe in the Navy but I am no sailor so I can't comment on that.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.