First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Has equality gone too far?
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 6/23/16 , edited 6/23/16

runec wrote:

But muscle volume and strength gain are actually equal. <- lol


You post random sources that say a whole lot of nothing (and was based on like 12 people lol), and you say this (quoted above) which just isn't true. Men have more muscle mass, pound for pound mens muscles are stronger by about 10%, and testosterone does increase gains for men. Stop spending 20 seconds reading a random link thinking you're smart and got the answers. Maybe if you actually went to the gym you'd know this stuff.
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/23/16 , edited 6/25/16

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:
You post random sources that say a whole lot of nothing (and was based on like 12 people lol), and you say this (quoted above) which just isn't true. Men have more muscle mass, pound for pound mens muscles are stronger by about 10%, and testosterone does increase gains for men. Stop spending 20 seconds reading a random link thinking you're smart and got the answers. Maybe if you actually went to the gym you'd know this stuff.


Yes, let us just disregard research presented by the National Center for Biotechnology Information and US Library of Medicine and go with the random internet poster whose methodology consists of "I went to the gym once so I know everything about teh ladiez". Man, we could have saved so much money in research if we just asked a random internet troll. Why didn't we think of that?

Seriously, stop reading and go to the gym? That's your argument? -.-

You're not pulling stuff out of your ass at this point so much as your colon.


17065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 6/23/16 , edited 6/23/16

IshokuOsero wrote:


How is it a weak counter argument? It's pretty easy to carry people, whether they're dead weight or not. Most women I know are at least strong enough to do that much. I know guys that are weaker in the arms than women. My boyfriend is one of those, I can hold him down with one hand without even thinking or trying. Most guys I've dated have been like that. And yet they all had to be registered for the draft when they were younger.

And not to mention this is exactly the argument that you and others have stated in this thread to begin with. Why in the hell is arguing against it weak, maybe it was a weak as shit argument to begin with?


It is a weak counter argument because you simply stated you can carry people. It is basically akin to saying that you can lift trees because you can lift branches.

1)Those in the military often have a far amount of muscle mass, making them heavier than the average person

2)Carrying a comrade away requires one to lift a fellow soldier + any of their equipment which isn't quickly removed, and this is on top of the soldiers own equipment.

3) On top of this, it requires one to run often far distances with this heavy weight-load, all while dodging gunfire.

Which these in mind, it makes your comment about being able to carry people not really comparable.

"Most women I know are at least strong enough to do that," okay, so even if most are able to do so, let me ask you this:

As a wounded soldier, would you want to take a risk by having comrades who are any less than perfect? No.

That is what this topic is about, people are concerned that an 'equality' push, while it sounds fine, would just increase war fatalities.


runec wrote:

Yes, let us just disregard research presented by the National Center for Biotechnology Information and US Library of Medicine and go with the random internet poster whose methodology consists of "I went to the gym once so I know everything about teh ladiez". Man, we could have saved so much money in research if we just asked a random internet troll. Why didn't we think of that?

Seriously, stop reading and go to the gym? That's your argument? -.-

You're not pulling stuff out of your ass at this point so much as your colon.



If I may interject on said research:

All of the articles with the exception of the last one relies on rather small test samples, or mice in one case.

The last one however, with 813 participants states that " Individual results are dependent on a number of factors including age, gender and physique." If you have read the entire article, care to explain what exactly that refers to?

3588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Chicagoland ~
Offline
Posted 6/23/16

KnightOfZero1991 wrote:


IshokuOsero wrote:


How is it a weak counter argument? It's pretty easy to carry people, whether they're dead weight or not. Most women I know are at least strong enough to do that much. I know guys that are weaker in the arms than women. My boyfriend is one of those, I can hold him down with one hand without even thinking or trying. Most guys I've dated have been like that. And yet they all had to be registered for the draft when they were younger.

And not to mention this is exactly the argument that you and others have stated in this thread to begin with. Why in the hell is arguing against it weak, maybe it was a weak as shit argument to begin with?


It is a weak counter argument because you simply stated you can carry people. It is basically akin to saying that you can lift trees because you can lift branches.

1)Those in the military often have a far amount of muscle mass, making them heavier than the average person

2)Carrying a comrade away requires one to lift a fellow soldier + any of their equipment which isn't quickly removed, and this is on top of the soldiers own equipment.

3) On top of this, it requires one to run often far distances with this heavy weight-load, all while dodging gunfire.

Which these in mind, it makes your comment about being able to carry people not really comparable.

"Most women I know are at least strong enough to do that," okay, so even if most are able to do so, let me ask you this:

As a wounded soldier, would you want to take a risk by having comrades who are any less than perfect? No.

That is what this topic is about, people are concerned that an 'equality' push, while it sounds fine, would just increase war fatalities.


There are plenty in the military that are 'less than perfect'. I know that just from all my friends and family that've been in. I know that from a friend that's paralyzed from the waist down because of an accident during Iraq. His buddies were fucking around in a humvee in the middle of war and now he lives life messed up because of it.

And by people I don't just mean kids or small adults. If I were more in shape I could absolutely do what's asked of me. As of right now I'm most definitely not in shape, but even as such I can lift over 300lbs. I've always been like that, my upper body is stronger than my lower body is. I'm more masculine overall than feminine.
1359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Online
Posted 6/23/16
You know women can do other things besides fight right? There are TONS of other jobs in the military.
41521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26
Offline
Posted 6/23/16
That's how equality works being treated as equals in every possible way for the good and not so good. Equality isn't selective, its required of every man and doing the same for women should be no different. It's a birth right that everyone should have and personally I don't see anything wrong with it.

I'm not a "sexually frustrated guys" I'm indifferent regardless I just found the topic interesting.
17065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 6/23/16 , edited 6/23/16

IshokuOsero wrote:

There are plenty in the military that are 'less than perfect'. I know that just from all my friends and family that've been in. I know that from a friend that's paralyzed from the waist down because of an accident during Iraq. His buddies were fucking around in a humvee in the middle of war and now he lives life messed up because of it.

And by people I don't just mean kids or small adults. If I were more in shape I could absolutely do what's asked of me. As of right now I'm most definitely not in shape, but even as such I can lift over 300lbs. I've always been like that, my upper body is stronger than my lower body is. I'm more masculine overall than feminine.


Of course, a compromise needs to be made. If the requirements are too high, you won't get enough soldiers, but if they are too low, quality is at risk.

You keep going on about not being in shape, so here's what I have to say about that: I have this friend, he can lift a hell of a lot more than me, but at the same time has 0 stamina because he is lazy. If he started working on his stamina, it is actually very likely his strength will decrease a great deal.

Well good for you, but the average woman has more lower than upper body strength, so that personally hurts your case that you represent the average woman.

12797 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Kentucky, USA
Offline
Posted 6/23/16 , edited 6/25/16
You see this whole discussion is mute because this is assuming that the women have to be on the front lines. You can be drafted and not have to be in a position to carry someone or anything of that matter. OP has failed to take that into account and thus his argument is full of holes.
Getik 
15703 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 6/23/16


It's not going far. The US Armed Forces does not allow females in certain fields since they will not be able to meet the requirements. For example, Infantry, that field requires a lot of physical strength and stress that the male body structure can do. The United States Marine Corps and the United States Army will not lower the standard requirements for females on that field. I for one wouldn't mind if females were in this field, but if they cannot meet the standards, they will not be selected for the job. They wouldn't be combat ready. Not everyone is able to do it, not just females in general.
6528 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 6/23/16 , edited 6/25/16

TJFLASH65 wrote:

You see this whole discussion is mute because this is assuming that the women have to be on the front lines. You can be drafted and not have to be in a position to carry someone or anything of that matter. OP has failed to take that into account and thus his argument is full of holes.


This.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/23/16 , edited 6/23/16

runec wrote:



How specifically is it easier?

And when you prefix something with an "I'm not expert" argument right before offering your opinion on something developed by experts.. ;p



And? Recruitment has been down across the board for a while. You can thank Harper for that. He's the one that wanted to expand active personnel then cut 5.5 billion out of defense spending and closed recruitment centers. There's no sense in blaming women for Harper's political bullshit.

They can't be underfunded and understaffed but pandering to the HR Commission if they take any action to address it.



Well you've seen both the old minimum physical fitness standard and the new standard it should be glaringly obvious even to a civilian like you mate. The new standard can be completed in ten minutes flat unless you're some fat over fed slob. A soldier's greatest asset is endurance, the new standard does nothing to prove if one has the endurance to be a soldier.

And I am also highly suspicious of the new standard considering under the old standard the failure rate for women was much higher despite them having to live up to a lowered expectation. Now more women then ever are passing the minimum physical fitness standard. More men are as well which only adds to my suspicions. I am not entirely sure what sort of game leadership is playing but I don't like it. And while I am sure the numbers warm the cockles of the Human Rights Commission I am not pleased that I am expected to like the fact the physical standard has in my eyes been lowered across the board. I was under the impression this FORCE evaluation was meant to weed out those unfit for service. Yet it is producing an increased number of recruits and active personal passing the retest. If it was serving it's intended purpose the numbers would be showing a decrease in the number of active personal not this spike in the number of active personal.

And furthermore despite passing this FORCE evaluation a lot of these recruits, especially those of the female persuasion later struggle with the actual more specialised training. The struggle is most clear in those women who do actually apply for front line combat positions. And based on my experience it seems only the officer corp's share of recruits show a marked improvement among it's female members.

And for the record I don't blame women per say, I blame the Human Rights Commission meddling in the affairs of the CAF . Frankly I believe military recruitment polices should be beyond their jurisdiction or mandate . Indeed I rather believe they should remain silent on the whole matter. The training of soldiers is not something that should be part of any political agenda . Political correctness has no place donning a uniform.
9283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 6/23/16

IshokuOsero wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:

Op makes some good points.

Its true, they want equal rights then they should have to fight, however, i wouldn't want females who were unable to carry me to saftey if i were injured in battle around me if my life depended on it, if i were in battle.

At the end of the day the'/re not physically equal to men. And they could cause distraction to male soldiers also, etc.

It's dangerous grounds really.


If a man places tits before his life...............

Yeah, definitely the woman that caused that mental fuckup.



boys will be boys lol
EDIT: not saying the women would cause it intentionally or at their own fault, but just them being there (if they're hot) it's only human nature. Not only for men to be attracted, but also to compete and try to impress and also to want to try to protect.

But as i said, women could not carry a wounded man to saftey.

Plus they cant drive. lol jk


I can carry people easily and I don't even work out. I'm lazy as hell sitting in front of my computer all night when I'm not at work.

Try again.


I garuntee that you could no carry a tall, solid grown man. Not far anyways.
But iam not even trying to insult you or piss you off. Seems a sensitive topic for you? All this equal rights stuff that's going on is clouding peoples perception of nature and reality.
Maybe it's just my opinon but i think you will find that it is reality.
3588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Chicagoland ~
Offline
Posted 6/24/16

MrAnimeSK wrote:


IshokuOsero wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:

Op makes some good points.

Its true, they want equal rights then they should have to fight, however, i wouldn't want females who were unable to carry me to saftey if i were injured in battle around me if my life depended on it, if i were in battle.

At the end of the day the'/re not physically equal to men. And they could cause distraction to male soldiers also, etc.

It's dangerous grounds really.


If a man places tits before his life...............

Yeah, definitely the woman that caused that mental fuckup.



boys will be boys lol
EDIT: not saying the women would cause it intentionally or at their own fault, but just them being there (if they're hot) it's only human nature. Not only for men to be attracted, but also to compete and try to impress and also to want to try to protect.

But as i said, women could not carry a wounded man to saftey.

Plus they cant drive. lol jk


I can carry people easily and I don't even work out. I'm lazy as hell sitting in front of my computer all night when I'm not at work.

Try again.


I garuntee that you could no carry a tall, solid grown man. Not far anyways.
But iam not even trying to insult you or piss you off. Seems a sensitive topic for you? All this equal rights stuff that's going on is clouding peoples perception of nature and reality.
Maybe it's just my opinon but i think you will find that it is reality.



Considering I used to have a couple friends when I was in the local RHPS cast that were decently overweight (putting it mildly for the one) and I had to carry them out of bars and strip clubs when they were passed out drunk multiple times, then yeah I can. So thanks for assuming.

And no it isn't a sensitive topic, I had some free time to argue in threads yesterday so I took it. I couldn't honestly care whether women are in the service or not since I don't know anyone that young at this point in my life to be able to warrant me feeling one way or the other. As it is now I'm busy all weekend so I don't have time to keep running into threads but thanks for your worlds of input.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 6/24/16

sundin13 wrote:

Who said that this was lowering any requirements for front line jobs? I think most people assumed that people who aren't capable of the work would primarily get assigned to non-combat work.




Pretty much.
Posted 6/24/16

MrAnimeSK wrote:

I garuntee that you could no carry a tall, solid grown man. Not far anyways.
But iam not even trying to insult you or piss you off. Seems a sensitive topic for you? All this equal rights stuff that's going on is clouding peoples perception of nature and reality.
Maybe it's just my opinon but i think you will find that it is reality.


Oh yeah, because you could carry a big fat fucker strapped to 35 kilos of equipment, and just about any situation would call for it because you saw it in an action movie.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.