What's the deal with feminist myths?

[Russ2d]

Ikanneg: "I don't believe in restricting individual ability based upon statistics."

But you should when the statistical truth in a life and death situation confirms that one gender will have a greater chance of survival and help others survive over another. Also your reasoning here is flawed. These statistics are not some kind of amorphous theory but the result of actual data of what men and women have done.

The reason for the obsession? Simple, lets suppose a physically challenging survival situation and you have one partner to choose- a fully trained woman which will give you a 22% chance of survival or a fully trained man which will grant you a 79% chance of survival...see my point.. now lets suppose you have a standing army of 150,000 and you have the choice of having it be all men or 50% women. Now let me add that your life directly depends on this army winning...  what would you honestly choose?

Too many Americans don't feel threatened in any real way and relative to other nations we live in affluence so the end result in my opinion is a lack of honesty and seriousness (bordering on delusion) concerning these 'death' occupations.

As for regular jobs I say let the chips fall where they may, no affirmative action, quotas, set asides, or 'special' programs, and with the understanding that men and women will choose different occupations because they have different capacities and different interests.

[lkanneg]

Ikanneg: "I don't believe in restricting individual ability based upon statistics."

But you should when the statistical truth in a life and death situation confirms that one gender will have a greater chance of survival and help others survive over another.

The reason for the obsession? Simple, lets suppose a physically challenging survival situation and you have one partner to choose- a fully trained woman which will give you a 22% chance of survival or a fully trained man which will grant you a 79% chance of survival...see my point.. now lets suppose you have a standing army of 150,000 and you have the choice of having it be all men or 50% women. Now let me add that your life directly depends on this army winning...  what would you honestly choose ?

We see the situation very differently...I see the job of "soldier" as having a set of standards that must be met in order to do the job properly.  I would choose *anyone* who met those standards to be next to me.  Now, I *don't* consider the female APFT standards to be meeting those standards, so I'd way rather have a man next to me, as I could be comfortable knowing that he'd definitely met the *real* standard.  However, if the standards were across the board, I wouldn't care *which* gender of soldier I had at my side. If the military training standard has been met by both, then they are both 100% capable of doing their job.  If they are not, the standard is at fault, not the gender of one of them.  

Same with variations among men themselves...got two soldiers.  One is 5'6", 130 lbs.  The other is 6'0, 180 lbs.  Both fully qualified soldiers, having passed identical training standards.  Given the large weight and height and muscle mass inequity between them ...would you have a preference if they were both  male, though one is obviously going to be stronger and faster than the other?  Or do you only care about stronger and faster if one of them is *also* female?  If the larger, stronger one were female, would you still prefer the man?  If so, why?

[D]

Sorry, but I can't follow this whole 'be a soldier' thing without making this comment.

Having studied war for the better part of my life I can tell you for a fact that if generals could have used women for cannon fodder they would have.

The reason women are not in the military is not arbitray or even men's fault.

[Russ2d]

Last time I am going to try Ikanneg,

The standards had to be lowered for women in the services because only a rare few (likely reversed) would pass a legitimate male standard. Of those who do pass they are still not as capable as their relative male counterpart.

These are very basic facts born out in too numerous tests conducted by many different countries all reaching the same conclusion... in addition because of the action of Testostoerone on male specific cells the division between the sexes increases over time, the gap does not close. So even if for some bizarre reason the male and female were equal at the time of testing over time the male is likely to excel whereas the female is not. This is called efficiency and is vital for such situations where death is a possibility.

Again, setting minimal standards is fine but your deluding yourself if you believe that if each gender passes the minimum it means both are 100% capable.

It is because men outperform women that we have a men's and women's sport's divison, and it's because men outperform women that we should have a men-only military. It's just commonsense

As to whether I have issues with small men vs. large men in the military. I do not if both pass a legitimate standard. If both are normal both will possess the genes needed to excel over the standard whereas the corresponding woman would not.

Honestly Ikanneg you should know all this already, and if you still refuse then I can only conclude that you are simply dishonest about the facts.

[lkanneg]

Last time I am going to try Ikanneg,

As to whether I have issues with small men vs. large men in the military. I do not if both pass a legitimate standard. If both are normal both will possess the genes needed to excel over the standard whereas the corresponding woman would not.

Honestly Ikanneg you should know all this already, and if you still refuse then I can only conclude that you are simply dishonest about the facts.

Well, we are in agreement here about one thing...we're not successfully communicating with each other.  You aren't getting my point and I'm not getting yours.  Which is okay; debates don't necessarily end with both sides acknowledging even *some* legitimacy in the other's stance.  Sometimes they end in a stalemate, which is what this one is probably about to do.  I geniunely feel that if someone meets *legitimate* job standards, then they are qualified for the job, regardless of whether or not they possess a Y chromosome.  You feel otherwise.  C'est la vie.

[Stallywood]

By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally

Oh really?    First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.

My point exactly. Men could step right in and do all these things.  :lol:
And again with the sidestepping, I am referring more to infrastructure support...But anyways. No big deal, your free to believe what ever dream you desire.
Stally

[Russ2d]

I think I understand your view Ikanneg:

If a standard for a job is set at say lifting 100lbs, and both a man and a woman are capable of doing it you would conclude that they are both 100% 'equal' for that job. And if I say realistically that the man can actually lift say 300lbs you would dismiss this as irrelevant and such an increase in performance would never come in handy even in a life or death situation or that it takes a back seat to someone's 'right' to participate...

Have I got this right?  This is essentially what you are saying

[angelssk7]

By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally

Oh really?    First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.

My point exactly. Men could step right in and do all these things.  :lol:
And again with the sidestepping, I am referring more to infrastructure support...But anyways. No big deal, your free to believe what ever dream you desire.
Stally

I agree with Stally on this one. When it comes to things such as nursing, educating very young children, etc. men, and in some cases boys, are able to do it. For example, a number of Boy Scout merit badges require that the scout taking that badge to teach another scout some kind of skill, or to present what he learned to his troop. As a result a good number of them would be able to take the place of such things as education, at least on the elementary-school level. In the same way I know many men who are capable of teaching but aren't simply because they are not needed at this time, though they could move in if and when it is necessary.

In any case, that new show "the week women went" is a prime example that if women left, men could still fend for themselves. We could survive by building a new society with only enough women to serve said society for population reasons, but I have not seen any evidence that the converse would be true.

[Stallywood]

Think about it.... you have two different societys... One with many women and one man, the other with many men and one woman.
The one man, might be the happiest in the first society, but the second society would be the most successful and probably end up annexing the first one. Either via conquest or because they (Society #1) begged to be supported.
Stally

[lkanneg]

Think about it.... you have two different societys... One with many women and one man, the other with many men and one woman.
The one man, might be the happiest in the first society, but the second society would be the most successful and probably end up annexing the first one. Either via conquest or because they (Society #1) begged to be supported.
Stally

People do like to speculate on what would happen in that case...ever heard of a book called The Disappearance by Phillip Wylie?  If you're interested:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0803298412/qid=1125081643/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4921877-9028624?v=glance&s=books

[Double Jeopardy]

By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally

Oh really?    First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.

What a loaded statement, I could go on forever about why that isn't a stat I would be particularly proud of if I were in that group.

There are a lot of issues with how children are being raised and educated these days.

Men could do the job, they aren't usually accepted into the fold unless they're manginas.

[lkanneg]

By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally

Oh really?    First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.

What a loaded statement, I could go on forever about why that isn't a stat I would be particularly proud of if I were in that group.

There are a lot of issues with how children are being raised and educated these days.

Men could do the job, they aren't usually accepted into the fold unless they're manginas.

Men could do the job...while they're doing the jobs they're currently doing as well?  The situation presented was, if women went on strike, not, if women vanished overnight and were replaced with an equal number of men.  

How children are being raised and educated these days..?  A lot more men *are* participating in the raising and education of children these days than ever in the past, aren't they?

[Mr Benn]

How children are being raised and educated these days..?  A lot more men *are* participating in the raising and education of children these days than ever in the past, aren't they?

Therefore you're claiming that there are a higher percentage of male teachers now than in the past? You got a reference for that please?

[lkanneg]

How children are being raised and educated these days..?  A lot more men *are* participating in the raising and education of children these days than ever in the past, aren't they?

Therefore you're claiming that there are a higher percentage of male teachers now than in the past? You got a reference for that please?

Actually, I wasn't claiming anything...I was asking a question.  The clue for that was the question mark at the end of the sentence.    I do think there are a lot more men who are the primary caregiver, ie stay at home dads, of their children now than ever before.

[Mr Benn]

Yes, its phrased as a rhetorical question. Such as:

We are all on a discussion forum, aren't we?

Do you personally beleive that there are a higher percentage of male teachers today than in the past?

"A lot more men *are* participating in the raising and education of children these days than ever in the past, aren't they?"