Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on May 03, 2010, 07:51:34 am
-
2. A chick Spec Ops.
The term is 'woman' and she's a sniper. The Soviet Union alone proves that many of history's best snipers have been women.
-
There are no women in Spec Ops. For a reason. Especially not supermodel looking ones. We've been trough this before.
-
Please, no, can we just not have this conversation and instead go "hot chick with a sniper rifle, oh yeah..."?
-
There are no women in Spec Ops. For a reason. Especially not supermodel looking ones. We've been trough this before.
There are plenty of female snipers. We've been through this before.
There's also no reason an individual woman couldn't qualify for a SpecOps force. We've also been through that before.
Nor does anything in the publicity materials that I've read said that this woman is Spec Ops.
Nor, for that matter, does physical attractiveness have any bearing on physical fitness.
-
Battuta, TrashMan, please take this to PM's as I really don't want a minor flame war starting in this thread, which is supposed to be about us talking about how awesome having a bunch of tough-ass bastards (and a tough-ass *****) go up a whole crapload of predators is.
-
Battuta, TrashMan, please take this to PM's as I really don't want a minor flame war starting in this thread, which is supposed to be about us talking about how awesome having a bunch of tough-ass bastards (and a tough-ass *****) go up a whole crapload of predators is.
Please be quiet and leave the moderating to the moderators.
This discussion should last all of ten seconds since he's jumping at shadows anyway. The movie isn't about a Spec Ops unit. There's no reason to worry about the realism of having a woman in a Spec Ops unit since this isn't one.
-
Please be quiet and leave the moderating to the moderators.
Solves any issues afaic.
Carry on ^_^
-
There seems to be an awful lot of splits recently.
-
Maybe that's reflective of our benevolent overlords' personal lives.
ZING!
And, yes, Batman's right.
-
If we're gonna break reality with "OMG HAWT CHIX WITH SNIPERZ!", can we get few clothes on her please?
-
If we're gonna break reality with "OMG HAWT CHIX WITH SNIPERZ!", can we get few clothes on her please?
That's not exactly breaking reality. Unless your reality is radically different from mine.
The clothes bit, however, is a good point. Somebody break out the ghille suits.
-
Alright.
New Zealand allows women into the SAS, and have been doing so for the last few years. Whilst I hold the belief that the majority of women I know would do poorly in the military, I believe that's due to the fact society says "You shouldn't like guns! You shouldn't play contact sport! You shouldn't be put under severe pressure in a hurt or be hurt environment!" Rather than the fact they're women.
There are no women in Spec Ops. For a reason. Especially not supermodel looking ones. We've been trough this before.
If a special ops unit trained properly, any girls in the unit should basically be 'one of the guys', because if they're thought of as/act like anything else, the survival of your unit is at stake. That girl on sigsop is not a 'girl' anymore, that's your best mate, and if she goes down, you'll be bloody picking her up and giving her first-aid because she'll do the same for you, and every other man and woman in the unit.
Battuta, TrashMan, please take this to PM's as I really don't want a minor flame war starting in this thread, which is supposed to be about us talking about how awesome having a bunch of tough-ass bastards (and a tough-ass *****) go up a whole crapload of predators is.
Please be quiet and leave the moderating to the moderators.
Uncalled for in my opinion, Battuta.
-
The term is 'woman'
Is it wrong if I refer to a man by "guy", "dude", "mate", "brotha", etc. etc. Man, don't be such a carpet.
-
The woman in the trailer did mention she was SpecOps...unless that trailer was put together so that the sentance is out of context.
The physical differences in males and females are evident and documented. Hard facts. World records and performance difference between men and woman are also well documented.
For Spec Ops, you're forming an elite team. The best. Best male soldiers will outperform best female soldiers, just like best male athletes outperform best female athletes.
If there are women in special forces in any country, than that would be due to political meddling and nothing else.
Harsh truth that many don't wish to hear (and will immediately label it as chauvinism), but there you have it.
This discussion should last all of ten seconds since he's jumping at shadows anyway.
There's really nothing to discuss here. Facts are facts. You might as well try to convince me gravity doesn't exist, if you want to go against them so much.
-
Trashman, the concept of a 'barrier test' is foreign to you, is it not? If a woman should be able to exhibit the mental and physical toughness necessary for admission to a Special Forces training program (as well as the other obvious necessaries), then why the hell not?
Fair enough, men may be able to outperform girls, but if that girl can meet the standard, and pass Special Forces training, then by all means, she should be allowed to join. Rather than saying "no, you cannot meet the standard." Opening it up for women to try, is fine and harms no-one.
If you screen every woman on Earth, of course you're going to find that the majority are unsuitable for combat, but you may also find a minority are able to go the hard yards under fire and hack being in a spec ops unit. I'm all for letting that minority at it.
-
Pft..you do know that test restrictions are lower(ed) for women?
You also fail to realise that if you lower the restrictions enough, sure a woman might pass. But by the same time you'll have a thousand males who passed the test.
And you're taking in only 100 people out of a total of 1000 candidates...why would you take that woman in if you have 500 males who STILL outperform her.
It's your life on the line here. If a male candidate outperformed a woman even by a miniscule margin, Id' still choose him over her, since it's my life on the line (if I'm making the team), and even a milisecond could mean the difference between life and death.
Spec Ops are by definition SMALL groups of the best you can find.
For an example, let's compare it to the world of sport. The Williams sisters are top-notch in tennis right? They're big and burly and packed with steroid, they're manly woman.
And when one of then played a match against a male, who was 200 and something on the ATP list and I've never even heard of him, he beat her soundly.
-
For ****'s sake man! WE ARE NOT LOWERING ANY ****ING STANDARDS.
A man or woman will meet the same standard or go home.
I don't care if she's outperformed by a male, if she can hack it in a special ops environment (that includes suppressing the menstrual cycle and making sure her buddies keep it in their pants, which is by far the larger issue), then there's little reason to discriminate against her on a physiological basis.
If you trial a group of men and women, and a woman scores in the top 50 for selection to a special ops program, then it'd be stupid not to take her.
By the way, I'd recommend you all read this. (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/10B34976-75F9-47E0-B376-AED4B09FB3B3/0/women_af_summary.pdf)
-
Nor, for that matter, does physical attractiveness have any bearing on physical fitness.
They certainly have a tendency to correlate. Physical fitness is usually considered attractive for both sexes, which makes perfect sense from evolutionary sense. A healthy person in good physical condition is typically vital and active, which are often also seen as attractive traits.
Typically, however, features that show good physical conditioning and performance are associated to males (physical size, muscle tone), while features that are interpreted as signs of healthyness and good nutritional condition are associated to females (a certain amount of fat in strategic locations [nudge nudge wink wink], healthy skin and hair, symmetrical features).
Causation, however, is not guaranteed - attractiveness does not cause physical fitness. I'll leave it an exercise to reader to figure out what this means.
-
By the way, tell me this woman (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/cyberpioneer/news/2007/March/07mar07_news.html.print.html?Status=1) cannot do her job.
-
For ****'s sake man! WE ARE NOT LOWERING ANY ****ING STANDARDS.
Alas, they do. As shown by some studies, women undergoing the same trails as men (for marine acceptance) have shown to be far more prone to injuries, especially back injuries, since they have to force themselves so much.
You will find out that standard for women are lowered in most, if not all cases.
I don't care if she's outperformed by a male, if she can hack it in a special ops environment, then there's little reason to discriminate against her on a physiological basis.
If you trial a group of men and women, and a woman scores in the top 50 for selection to a special ops program, then it'd be stupid not to take her.
**** psychological basis. I'm talking purely physical. The thing is that she won't score in the top 50, and if she does, you'll be taking in the top 10, so she's still out.
-
For ****'s sake man! WE ARE NOT LOWERING ANY ****ING STANDARDS.
Alas, they do. As shown by some studies, women undergoing the same trails as men (for marine acceptance) have shown to be far more prone to injuries, especially back injuries, since they have to force themselves so much.
You will find out that standard for women are lowered in most, if not all cases.
[/quote]
Please read the first link Dilmah provided. It says, in far more detail than I want to spend, that of all the women serving in the Armed Forces, only 1 % has the physical prerequisites to perform at the same level as a male. It also says that the standards are not lowered; in other words, women can enter the Armed Forces, even the special forces branches provided they meet the entrance criteria, which are the same for males and females.
However, there are other combat roles where women can perform on the same level as men (Air Force pilot corps says hello), without adjusting the entrance criteria.
**** psychological basis. I'm talking purely physical. The thing is that she won't score in the top 50, and if she does, you'll be taking in the top 10, so she's still out.
And if she does score in the top 10? Or if you're looking for the top 50? TrashMan, your lack of argumentation skill is showing again.
-
Maybe that's reflective of our benevolent overlords' personal lives.
ZING!
Oy!
It's called sporadic vigilance.
-
Bullets from women can kill you just as well as bullets from men. Guns are the great equalizer regardless.
-
Bullets from women can kill you just as well as bullets from men. Guns are the great equalizer regardless.
I'm sure Trashman would be much more embaressed to be killed by a woman, except for the fact that the dead have no use for vanity.
-
Don't need to kill him to prove him wrong. Maiming would achieve both goals. :p
-
in other words, women can enter the Armed Forces, even the special forces branches provided they meet the entrance criteria, which are the same for males and females.
Oh, I'm not trying to ban anyone from trying, but regular armed forces and Special Forces are NOT the same. If only a very small subset of all the males can even realisticly think of joining, then that 1% females can only dream.
And if she does score in the top 10? Or if you're looking for the top 50? TrashMan, your lack of argumentation skill is showing again.
Is she does - peachy. But she won't.
What if pigs could fly?
Bullets from women can kill you just as well as bullets from men. Guns are the great equalizer regardless.
True. But to think that eliminates physical prowess from the combat is pure fantasy. Not even for snipers. Let's say you are a sniper and your position is detected. The enemy is sending a artillery barrage your way and is sending troops to catch you. Speed and endurance suddenly because very important.
To be clear on this - physical fitness is not a prequisite from one to fight..or shoot. But it does improve your chances to actually survive.
I'm sure Trashman would be much more embaressed to be killed by a woman, except for the fact that the dead have no use for vanity.
I'm a realist NGTM-1R. Something you fail to grasp.
I don't doubt for a second a woman soldier could easily kill me.
-
Oh, I'm not trying to ban anyone from trying, but regular armed forces and Special Forces are NOT the same. If only a very small subset of all the males can even realisticly think of joining, then that 1% females can only dream.
So why not allow them to try out? It hurts no-one but the egos of a few wankers if they do make it.
Is she does - peachy. But she won't.
What if pigs could fly?
You'll never know unless you let them.
-
There is absolutely zero reason to bar female soldiers from trying out for any position they desire.
There is also absolutely zero reason to give them any kind of lower standards. They should have to meet the same fitness requirements as men.
But don't be fooled - most of today's restrictions against women in combat are based on pure sexism. Same reason the (superior) female Mercury candidates were turned down.
-
Wow, Trashman proves again he doesn't know a damned thing about women in the armed forces.
Batt's right--the main reason women aren't allowed to serve in combat roles is purely sexist...maybe not entirely chauvinistic as much as a misguided sense of chivalry amongst male soldiers, but it's still sexist nonetheless.
And I'm gonna say this for the millionth time--I know plenty of women serving just here at Offutt that can kick the physical fitness eval's ass every year. All us aircrew folks went through SERE, where we all had to carry 85-90 pound rucks through the mountains. We all learned how to hunt, set up shelter, avoid detection, and resist torture...and from what I remember, the last thing on guys' minds out there were our dicks.
It's the same thing with DADT. The military is barring homosexuals/women from serving based on what they think might happen, rather than what actually happens.
-
I dunno why you're all wasting your breath. It's obvious Trash is a misogynist and thats probably not gonna change by offerin' reasonable arguments. Unless your going to go forward in time and bring back a female SAS or SEAL to beat the tar out of him just accept he's backward and move along. Otherwise he'll just keep posting exacerbating drivel that'll make you beat your head against a wall.
-
Yea you guys aren't going to see Trashman post a "oh you're right. I'm so sorry. Women should be able to try". It's just not going to happen.
-
It's the same thing with DADT. The military is barring homosexuals/women from serving based on what they think might will eventually happen, rather than what actually happens.
Fixed. If it's allowed it will happen eventually, humans are human and do stupid stuff. Personally, I think soldiers should take libido suppressors for the duration of service.
-
For once I don't disagree with you Lib.
-
Well I bloody do :p
I know no less than six Females in my Regiment who are on-par with me and one insane woman who is going for her PTI course, that's a Physical Training Instructor (which means she's already a Lance Corporal. If they're fit enough then I believe they should do it. The monthly bleed thing is a minus obviously but to be honest that's not my call.
-
What's with all the physical stuff? Did anyone read Dilmah's link?
There are women who can pass the most rigorous tests that men are ever given, but they should not be put in an intense combat situation with men. Men are generally wired to be attracted to women, which can impair judgment. Fix it with training? Yeah, whatever... maybe. Can you be sure that the training will hold under all possible stressful situations? As that "Women in the Armed Forces" paper said, maybe, but we'd have to get some empirical data, and that means some people will die.
So yeah, it's sexist. But it ought to be, since sex is the fundamental difference here. And it has nothing to do with what women can or cannot do, but how the relationship between a man and a woman is different from that between two men. I suppose you could quantify and actively correct for that, but I suspect that the "correction" would just be pulling women from the front lines.
However, as modern militaries start incorporating more automation and unmanned gizmos, that will open up even more non-front-line positions. Even today, most killing is done from afar, not face-to-face.
EDIT: Where's iamzack?
-
Again, I refer back to my SERE training. Even in a training environment, I noticed very little, if any, of that behavior from guys serving in the same units as women.
For some weird reason, the sense of danger, brutal beatings, despair, and extraordinary stress overwhelmed our male desire to ****.
-
There are women who can pass the most rigorous tests that men are ever given, but they should not be put in an intense combat situation with men. Men are generally wired to be attracted to women, which can impair judgment.
This claim has never really worked for me. Not only do men who are wired to be attracted to men serve alongside other men just fine, but men have served alongside women in intense combat and performed superbly during many of history's most intense battles.
You're also ignoring Nuclear's reports about SERE training.
The biggest problem with a gender integrated military is men raping women. And that's a problem with the men, and not one to be solved by isolating the genders.
-
The biggest problem with a gender integrated military is men raping women. And that's a problem with the men, and not one to be solved by isolating the genders.
Incidentally, on another board I'm active on there's an Israeli woman who was (is? Whatever) in an...I want to say infantry...unit that had a fifty/fifty gender split. And, uh, sexual harassment? Unheard of.
-
Unsurprising, given that they've had a lot more practice with the gender-integrated business.
Just goes to prove that the best way to make it work is to bite the bullet.
-
The US military is making some good strides in the area of preventing sexual harassment too--if I had nickel for every SARC (Sexual Assault Response Coordinator) briefing I've had since I've been in...
-
What's with all the physical stuff? Did anyone read Dilmah's link?
There are women who can pass the most rigorous tests that men are ever given, but they should not be put in an intense combat situation with men. Men are generally wired to be attracted to women, which can impair judgment. Fix it with training? Yeah, whatever... maybe. Can you be sure that the training will hold under all possible stressful situations? As that "Women in the Armed Forces" paper said, maybe, but we'd have to get some empirical data, and that means some people will die.
So yeah, it's sexist. But it ought to be, since sex is the fundamental difference here. And it has nothing to do with what women can or cannot do, but how the relationship between a man and a woman is different from that between two men. I suppose you could quantify and actively correct for that, but I suspect that the "correction" would just be pulling women from the front lines.
However, as modern militaries start incorporating more automation and unmanned gizmos, that will open up even more non-front-line positions. Even today, most killing is done from afar, not face-to-face.
EDIT: Where's iamzack?
I'm BACK. :D
Anyway, I've noticed that people always seem to point out that "OH NOES MEN WILL BE ATTRACTED TO THE WIMMENZ EVERYTHING WILL SUCK."
I mean, come on. Really? We can train dogs to not hump people's legs, but we can't train soldiers not to rape other soldiers just because they have vaginas?
-
Long duration working environment + high pressure + constant proximity + gradual familiarity - (office politics + regular tension release) = mutual consent. :p
-
Yeah, I was going to say something about "women have sexual urges too" but it's kind of pointless because women are trained from an early age that they're supposed to dislike sex, because only whores like sex or whatever.
-
Long duration working environment + high pressure + constant proximity + gradual familiarity - (office politics + regular tension release) = mutual consent. :p
Desert love :p That's about all the bunkers actually get used for these days
-
I'm BACK. :D
WOOT!
They don't actually have to have sex. If they just draw more of one man's attention than their comrades are counting on, someone could get killed. And it could work in the opposite direction too. But of course I'm just speculating and folks here who are actually in the military don't think members of the opposite sex are that distracting.
-
If we can train people to shoot rockets at children, we can train them to not turn into retards because there's somebody with different bits around.
-
Anyway, I've noticed that people always seem to point out that "OH NOES MEN WILL BE ATTRACTED TO THE WIMMENZ EVERYTHING WILL SUCK."
I don't think it's the rape angle that's considered the problem so much as the possiblity of favoritism or the damage to unit cohesion (read that: jealousy) that could result from consensual relationships. Ultimately the existence of the DADT policy and its repeal means this argument isn't going to have a leg to stand on, but that's the claim.
(I wouldn't necessarily hold up the Israelis as a standard either, but that has more to do with the view of most people I've talked to that their regular army is a bit of a ****up these days.)
-
Last time I checked people weren't rutting in the streets or at work like animals. Folks do have the ability to keep it in their pants you know, especially when their ass depends on it. Plus I totally imagine sitting in a muddy fox hole whiling away hours engrossed thinking "I bet she's totally hawt under all that MOPP gear and kevlar" instead of watching my fire lane.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/MOPP_4_high_res.JPEG)
Yeah it's totally like looking at a centerfold.
-
It's the same thing with DADT. The military is barring homosexuals/women from serving based on what they think might will eventually happen, rather than what actually happens.
Fixed. If it's allowed it will happen eventually, humans are human and do stupid stuff. Personally, I think soldiers should take libido suppressors for the duration of service.
Humans, like most other species link their libido with a variety of other factors including aggression (for both males and females). Take away the sexual drive and you'll probably remove those aggressive tendencies and instincts that you want out of your soldiers too. So I don't think that's really a solution... there isn't too much of a solution except that people need to stop making big deals out of things and get on with it.
-
They wouldn't be having sex or gawking like idiots, it's just... they might see a certain set of facts about a situation that's different from what everyone else expects, because they know there's a woman there.
DOESN'T THIS HAPPEN TO ANY OTHER GUY HERE? :shaking:
-
They wouldn't be having sex or gawking like idiots, it's just... they might see a certain set of facts about a situation that's different from what everyone else expects, because they know there's a woman there.
DOESN'T THIS HAPPEN TO ANY OTHER GUY HERE? :shaking:
It's called dual-attitude-component sexism, and it's very common - I'm sure it happens to everyone, women included.
This doesn't mean it's not a problem that needs to be addressed. And, believe it or not, the best way to address it is to break down the frequency-based prototypes that underlie it. And in turn the best way to do that is to put women in situations that disprove the prototypes.
-
Wikipedia fails me. What do those terms mean? Or is this more scientology?
-
Battuta's just showing off.
-
DOESN'T THIS HAPPEN TO ANY OTHER GUY HERE? :shaking:
It does. To my great frustration, it does.
EDIT: Fixed to be less confusing.
-
This article is somewhat out of date, but provides a decent layperson's window into the topic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism)
It's worth noting that our data suggests it works against men as well (men are both strong, decisive and intelligent and violent, crude and stupid.)
It does. To my great frustration, it does.
What does?
-
Someone post that story about that badass lady who was dragging her wounded squad-mates to safety while under fire and stuff.
-
Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hester) you mean?
There's Monica Lin Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lin_Brown) too (who, btw, is one of the few women to actually look good in ACUs).
Or even Shoshana Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Johnson), who on top of being wounded several times, was held captive for three weeks.
-
Worth noting she worked with a male soldier under fire with no apparent problems.
-
This article is somewhat out of date, but provides a decent layperson's window into the topic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism)
It's worth noting that our data suggests it works against men as well (men are both strong, decisive and intelligent and violent, crude and stupid.)
Ah, thank you. A very interesting read. So my fears were that benevolent sexism in combat would lead soldiers to think of each other subconsciously as men or women instead of as fellow soldiers.
But that doesn't explain frequency prototypes. Do I reverse the polarity of my libido?
-
badassery
Yeah yeah, Brown was the one I was thinking of.
-
It's the same thing with DADT. The military is barring homosexuals/women from serving based on what they think might will eventually happen, rather than what actually happens.
Fixed. If it's allowed it will happen eventually, humans are human and do stupid stuff. Personally, I think soldiers should take libido suppressors for the duration of service.
Humans, like most other species link their libido with a variety of other factors including aggression (for both males and females). Take away the sexual drive and you'll probably remove those aggressive tendencies and instincts that you want out of your soldiers too. So I don't think that's really a solution... there isn't too much of a solution except that people need to stop making big deals out of things and get on with it.
Maybe they should go with what the peacekeepers in farscape would do, make birth control mandatory, ban any sort of personal relationship, but still let them **** all they need.
-
Silly people, the only article needed to check is this one (http://www.theonion.com/video/gays-too-precious-to-risk-in-combat-says-general,14158/).
:D
-
Kosh: I'm against fraternization between people in the same unit, period.
On the far more important aspect of integration, the troubles with establishing unit cohesion, I believe that's something training needs to address. A unit needs to train, and operate until there's no colour, or gender divisions. The men and women in your unit are not 'just' men and women, they're your brothers and sisters, and you need to operate as such. I'm not a soldier, but the doco details this as being the key issue.
For the moment though, I think we should try getting women into a normal infantry battalion, before we try spec ops. It'll be hard at first, but so was allowing women into Fast-Jets in America, if I recall. (We've never had any female FJ pilots in Australia... Yet.)
-
I dunno why you're all wasting your breath. It's obvious Trash is a misogynist and thats probably not gonna change by offerin' reasonable arguments.
It's obvious you're a friggin retard, and there's not gonan change. Ever. Maybe a brain transplant might help.
Wow, Trashman proves again he doesn't know a damned thing about women in the armed forces.
But apparently more than you.
At least I'm not trying to denounce reality. Clear data on performance exists. You choose to ignore them.
Also, we are NOT talking about regular armed forces.
-
Zero tolerance.
No play nice.
Take away the toys.
-
It's obvious you're a friggin retard, and there's not gonan change. Ever. Maybe a brain transplant might help.
Says the guy who just stupidly earned himself a perma-ban from Gen Discuss.
EDIT : Since Trashman has been dealt with, this can be unlocked.
-
Somehow, I'm under the impression that women can be fit for Special Ops duties, especially if it involves lots of speed and balance. You know women are good at both, and they can be pretty good thinkers too.
-
It's obvious you're a friggin retard, and there's not gonan change. Ever. Maybe a brain transplant might help.
Says the guy who just stupidly earned himself a perma-ban from Gen Discuss.
Can it really be perma this time?
-
No one is saying that women can't be spec ops. All that's being said is that the percentage that are physically and psychologically capable of not only making it into spec ops, but staying in spec ops, is small enough to be statistically meaningless, and that special rules should not be made for the situation.
The argument on the other hand is that if a woman wants to be in spec ops then she should be allowed in no matter what, at least that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I'll say it again however, since we are talking about a fictitious "wonder woman" from what will likely be another POS, no talent attempt to cash in on what used to be a bankable franchise by moronic, poo-flinging, Hollywood Execs. She can be "Runway model gorgeous with Porn Star ethics" and still be a complete badass. It's a movie, stop *****ing.
-
What?
-
i believe he said this whole argument that stemmed from a female SF soldier in a MOVIE is utterly retarded.
-
What?
NO U
-
Oh, I reported Trash's post, but he already got banned. Disregard...
-
i believe he said this whole argument that stemmed from a female SF soldier in a MOVIE is utterly retarded.
Oh, right. I forgot how this started. Let the veiled misogyny proceed as scheduled.
-
i believe he said this whole argument that stemmed from a female SF soldier in a MOVIE is utterly retarded.
Oh, right. I forgot how this started. Let the veiled misogyny proceed as scheduled.
I think most of it just got permabanned though.
-
Get on-topic now! :p
-
The argument on the other hand is that if a woman wants to be in spec ops then she should be allowed in no matter what, at least that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
So you admit you haven't read a single post in this thread?
For ****'s sake man! WE ARE NOT LOWERING ANY ****ING STANDARDS.
A man or woman will meet the same standard or go home.
Please read the first link Dilmah provided. It says, in far more detail than I want to spend, that of all the women serving in the Armed Forces, only 1 % has the physical prerequisites to perform at the same level as a male. It also says that the standards are not lowered; in other words, women can enter the Armed Forces, even the special forces branches provided they meet the entrance criteria, which are the same for males and females.
[/i].
There is absolutely zero reason to bar female soldiers from trying out for any position they desire.
There is also absolutely zero reason to give them any kind of lower standards. They should have to meet the same fitness requirements as men.
-
If you read all the posts, it's easy to mistake that to be a facet of the other hand of the argument (thanks to Trashman).
Lib, rest assured, that's entirely not the argument. The argument is that women who prove themselves capable should be allowed in. No more, no less, from what I can see.
-
Not a single person argued that there should be lowered requirements for women.
-
You're wrong, Liberator is on record as supporting lower requirements for women.
I mean, Liberator, women's lib, you think that's a coincidence?
-
You're wrong, Liberator is on record as supporting lower requirements for women.
[Citation needed]
-
Funny how that everyone actually agrees - even TrashMan.
Except that they just don't recognize that they're all in agreement. :sigh:
That, and that people are reading other people's posts completely wrong, not implying that I am in any way above this, though.
Let me summarize the accepted points...
- A lower percentage of women are capable of meeting standards required for armed forces, especially for special ops.
- If a hypothetical woman were to meet these standards, they should be allowed in.
- These standards should not be lowered.
Now let me summarize what is in contestation...
- Whether or not there is a statistically relevant number of women that can actually meet the standards.
Here, then, we'll need citations. Otherwise you could just vent whatever hypothetical scenarios you want or spout random statistics. We can't have that, now can we?
-
Alright, first of all, I think you're all being kind of rough on Lib today, undeservingly.
Secondly, the data's all there potentially, it just hasn't been compiled to make an assessment.
Physical standards:
--Annual or semiannual PT eval statistics.
--First-hand accounts from SERE instructors on female trainees' endurance during long rucks.
--Medical records of possibility handicapping conditions
Psychological standards:
--Reports of performance during interrogation/torture resistance training
--Preventative health assessments done on a semiannual basis
Unit Cohesion/Performance:
--Enlisted/Officer Performance Reports (EPR/OPR)
--Historical US military accounts of women in combat.
It's all there, it just never gets compiled.
-
well there IS the whole issue of differing relationships between male and female soldiers in combat scenarios. while not definitely show-stoppers, it IS something to consider and address. the "ignore it and it won't matter" idea doesn't really seem solid to me.
-
It makes sense actually. Treat the woman next to you as just another soldier, and that's what she will be.
EDIT: This won't be useful if she's complaining about her nails and makeup, but if she acts like she has a pair of brass balls hanging down there like a male soldier does, then it won't take long before the males start thinking of her as one of their own rather than a female who happens to be with them.
-
Exactly. On the jet over Afghanistan, the female op sitting next to you is a valuable team asset in intelligence collecting, not a piece of pussy (pardon my bluntness). Same goes for the flight deck and the flight engineers.
Bear in mind, I've flown with some absolutely gorgeous women over Afghanistan, but when it comes down to it, with Coalition soldiers or civilian Afghan lives on the line, our first priority isn't finding a way to join the USAF mile high club.
-
It's kind of sexist the way some people assume men can't be in the presence of a woman without losing his mind. Seems to me like the genitals of the person next to you would be pretty much the last thing on one's mind when under fire.
-
It's not sexist. Because we're guys. :P
-
It's not sexist. Because we're guys. :P
Sexism against guys is sexism too.
Now, I do think that some people are oversensitive in these matters. But sexism is real, and it affects everyone.
-
This article is somewhat out of date, but provides a decent layperson's window into the topic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism)
So apparently my Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/index.php?section=asi&action=takeSurvey) scores are as follows:
Hostile Sexism Score: 1.91
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.36
Higher scores mean more sexist.
EDIT: But giving dishonest answers makes it super easy to get 0's. :doubt:
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.91
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.64
Interesting little test. Then again, I can't help but wonder, is all sexism necessarily bad? (That's an honest question) After all, there are some undeniable differences between male and female.
-
I was about to say exactly the same thing, but Wikipedia says that sexism is the belief that one sex is inferior to the other. So in that sense, yeah.
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.00
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.09
Considering I'm surrounded by women archaeologists if I had a hostile score of even 0.01 I think I'd be bludgeoned to death.
-
those questions were really loaded and hard to answer honestly.
-
The questions are all pretty transparent. Bad test.
And yeah, sexism is bad. Always.
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 1.64
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.55
My score is quite below the average in both cases.
The difference in hostile sexism is notorious though, but considering all the **** I've had to take from feminists in my life (included, but not limited to, physical aggressions, censorship, and denial of rightfully earned positions) just because I was a man, I'm going to cut myself some slack in that one.
I do have to admit I feel more comfortable working with women, especially when receiving and when imparting orders. So I may have some degree of sexism against males too.
( :wtf: WTF @ sexism levels in Cuba).
-
I'm a bit surprised at my hostility score (0.82), as I don't think it reflects my usual behavior on an interpersonal basis. (I would rank my hostility and benevolence as roughly equal, personally.) I think they made an error, or a simple imposed limitation of getting an accurate reading on the general populace, in assuming those taking the test would not be widely read. Sure, women aren't seeking preferential treatment or power over men as a majority, but the Lady Land utopianists do exist (I've read a few books by them) so I can't categorically reject the assertion these things are happening.
The benevolent score was 0.55. Apparently the assertion that I will hit you in the face if you annoy me enough, regardless of gender, is true.
-
The test you're all taking is a self-report measure. It's often helpful to supplement those with an implicit measure. (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/)
Try it out. Maybe I'll start a new thread.
EDIT: why the heck isn't the direct gender one available without registration? Grump.
Take the race one, it's a good demo of how they work.
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 4.55
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.45
Well, looks like I'm a jackass.
-
After all, there are some undeniable differences between male and female.
Name a few biologically rooted behavioral differences. I bet it'll be trickier than you think!
-
I think they made an error, or a simple imposed limitation of getting an accurate reading on the general populace, in assuming those taking the test would not be widely read.
Exactly. I don't consider myself as hostile towards women as individuals, but I do have a really bad opinion on feminism.
But then again, I usually have a bad opinion towards all kinds of radical collectivism in general.
-
I think they made an error, or a simple imposed limitation of getting an accurate reading on the general populace, in assuming those taking the test would not be widely read.
Exactly. I don't consider myself as hostile towards women as individuals, but I do have a really bad opinion on feminism.
But then again, I usually have a bad opinion towards all kinds of radical collectivism in general.
\
Since when is feminism 'radical collectivism'?
Somewhere along the line the PR got out of control. Odds are that you and just about everyone you know are feminists.
-
I think they made an error, or a simple imposed limitation of getting an accurate reading on the general populace, in assuming those taking the test would not be widely read.
Exactly. I don't consider myself as hostile towards women as individuals, but I do have a really bad opinion on feminism.
But then again, I usually have a bad opinion towards all kinds of radical collectivism in general.
\
Since when is feminism 'radical collectivism'?
Somewhere along the line the PR got out of control. Odds are that you and just about everyone you know are feminists.
I'm totally aware feminism has moderate and radical branches, just like any other political or social movement.
And yet still, I've yet to come across at least only one declared feminist who doesn't starts attacking me the very moment they see me.
Once, when I was a child, it went as far as a feminist woman preventing me from taking a bus to my school because I was a male, so I was inferior and didn't deserved it.
Okay. What.. the.. ****... :wtf:
-
When males say hi, they mean it. When females say hi, however, they do a quick scan of the person they are saying hi to. :nervous:
-
I think they made an error, or a simple imposed limitation of getting an accurate reading on the general populace, in assuming those taking the test would not be widely read.
Exactly. I don't consider myself as hostile towards women as individuals, but I do have a really bad opinion on feminism.
But then again, I usually have a bad opinion towards all kinds of radical collectivism in general.
\
Since when is feminism 'radical collectivism'?
Somewhere along the line the PR got out of control. Odds are that you and just about everyone you know are feminists.
I'm totally aware feminism has moderate and radical branches, just like any other political or social movement.
And yet still, I've yet to come across at least only one declared feminist who doesn't starts attacking me the very moment they see me.
Once, when I was a child, it went as far as a feminist woman preventing me from taking a bus to my school because I was a male, so I was inferior and didn't deserved it.
Okay. What.. the.. ****... :wtf:
That's sexism, not feminism.
When males say hi, they mean it. When females say hi, however, they do a quick scan of the person they are saying hi to. :nervous:
What?
Is this an attempt at some coherent point or are you just here to make stupid generalizations about every woman in the world?
Also, don't you mean 'men' and 'women'? Or are you seriously saying this is biological?
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 1.64
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.91
-
My own inventory is hostile .36, benevolent .27.
But the scale is pretty transparent and somewhat confounded by the issue of homosexuality awareness.
-
I'm shocked, it's above zero. :P
-
Apparently, according to that test, being neutral on the subject makes you sexist :/
-
I think they made an error, or a simple imposed limitation of getting an accurate reading on the general populace, in assuming those taking the test would not be widely read.
Exactly. I don't consider myself as hostile towards women as individuals, but I do have a really bad opinion on feminism.
But then again, I usually have a bad opinion towards all kinds of radical collectivism in general.
\
Since when is feminism 'radical collectivism'?
Somewhere along the line the PR got out of control. Odds are that you and just about everyone you know are feminists.
I'm totally aware feminism has moderate and radical branches, just like any other political or social movement.
And yet still, I've yet to come across at least only one declared feminist who doesn't starts attacking me the very moment they see me.
Once, when I was a child, it went as far as a feminist woman preventing me from taking a bus to my school because I was a male, so I was inferior and didn't deserved it.
Okay. What.. the.. ****... :wtf:
That's sexism, not feminism.
Fair enough, then the term, at least in Argentina, is widely used in a wrong way. Maybe self-proclaimed feminist was more accurate in this case. For future discussions, is Misandry the correct word for "sexism against males" in English?
-
I'm shocked, it's above zero. :P
Don't be. As a stereotype researcher I do my best to answer these questions in a manner that reflects the attitudes I think I actually hold, not the attitudes I want to hold.
Most of your beliefs are fed to you by simple exposure, prototype formation, and shaky heuristics. If you're told something often enough, you'll believe it on some level.
And our culture is sopping with attitudes about women that aren't exactly friendly.
This is why people should take the IAT.
Fair enough, then the term, at least in Argentina, is widely used in a wrong way. Maybe self-proclaimed feminist was more accurate in this case. For future discussions, is Misandry the correct word for "sexism against males" in English?
Yes, that is the correct term. The belief that women are superior to men isn't feminism, it's hate.
-
Fair enough, then the term, at least in Argentina, is widely used in a wrong way. Maybe self-proclaimed feminist was more accurate in this case. For future discussions, is Misandry the correct word for "sexism against males" in English?
Yes, that is the correct term. The belief that women are superior to men isn't feminism, it's hate.
OK.
Spanish lacks an equivalent term to misandry, so we use "feminismo" (feminism), which is the opposite to "machismo" (literal translation: maleism), which is in turn used as an informal term for "misogyny". I had read about the term misandry before, but all the translators, dictionaries and spell checkers, that I used to check my post flagged the term as unknown. Hence the confusion.
-
Sounds reasonable to me. :)
-
I redid the test with this new information in mind. However, I'm confused. I wasn't expecting any modifications on the Benevolent sexism indicator. I was probably subconsciously influenced by the previous results.
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.45
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.18
I'm going to arbitrarily settle with a mix of the two results:
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.45
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.55
-
Those IATs are very interesting. I took the sexuality one. I don't know if it works, but it sure makes the self-evaluation look like a joke.
How hard is it to fake IAT results?
-
It does (probably) work - implicit attitude scores predict a number of interesting behavioral components. We as a field are still trying to figure out exactly how powerful the prediction is.
For example, if you give someone an explicit measure of prejudice against Black persons, and an IAT measuring implicit prejudice against Black persons, something interesting happens.
The explicit measure will predict how biased their conversation with a Black person is, as judged by a blind panel - how hostile they seem, for instance.
The implicit IAT measure, however, will predict how far away they sit, how many nervous stumbles they make in their speech, how much eye contact they make...all the subconscious stuff that the conversational partner can pick up.
Faking them is, as far as I know, next to impossible, barring systematic delays on contrastereotypic associations to exaggerate the bias. I don't immediately see any way to cheat in the reduced-bias direction.
-
But the scale is pretty transparent and somewhat confounded by the issue of homosexuality awareness.
Yeah. I noticed that too.
As for the IAT, I'm wondering how much the way it is presented is biasing the results. The test with male and liberal sciences together comes before the one with male and science. Unless the results are being adjusted there are going to be slower, more inaccurate responses the first time round simply because it is the first time we are doing the combined test.
Hopefully they are correcting for that but I do have to wonder if they took two groups and split them up based on which way round the test was presented if there would be a difference.
-
I felt like it could have been the opposite: the first association gets me thinking of those things together, and then I'm still thinking like that in the next round.
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 2.73
Benevolent Sexism Score: 1.45
wow. :shaking:
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.45
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.18
See? You're a feminist. :)
Hostile Sexism Score: 2.73
Benevolent Sexism Score: 1.45
wow.
Wow you suck :p
-
lol go back to the kitchenz ladies :D
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 2.55
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.27
Sitting on the fence is still fun.
/me compares his results to the rest of Singapore.
My score for both is lower than the average male Singaporean. Interesting.
-
But the scale is pretty transparent and somewhat confounded by the issue of homosexuality awareness.
Yeah. I noticed that too.
As for the IAT, I'm wondering how much the way it is presented is biasing the results. The test with male and liberal sciences together comes before the one with male and science. Unless the results are being adjusted there are going to be slower, more inaccurate responses the first time round simply because it is the first time we are doing the combined test.
Hopefully they are correcting for that but I do have to wonder if they took two groups and split them up based on which way round the test was presented if there would be a difference.
That's exactly how it's done in actual experimental runs. The order of presentation is counterbalanced and the results averaged. You still get a significant effect.
-
I wouldn't even take that test to be honest, the first few steps put me off right from the top, the first two questions were enough to make me not be bothered to continue, especially since I have been the victim of sexual discrimination from a female boss in the past, my opinions about them using their gender to 'get ahead' is somewhat tainted. My own personal experience is that there those who are perfectly happy to do that, but my global knowledge is that it is not as common as people think.
-
Yeah, that's one of the big problems with obviously loaded self-report systems like that.
-
Sadly enough, it is one of the aspects of the sex-discrimination act that has woeful coverage, for some reason men are supposed to just 'suck it up', and that usually ends up doing more damage in the long term.
-
If you really believe in equality of the sexes you have to believe that women are just as big a bunch of self-serving, power-hungry twats as men are. :p
-
Well, this was the point I raised, that if I'd walked around the office saying 'All Women are Whores', or 'All Muslims are Terrorists', I'd have been out on my ear, but 'All men are born liars' apparently fell into a different category according to my Coordinator, who was male, and had been friends with my line manager for well over a decade.
Worst part is that no-one wants to touch situations like that, if you get a female member of staff being sexually harassed, at least in the environments I've worked in, there's a whole support and representation framework available to them, whereas a male member of staff in a similar position has considerably less support to hand.
Discrimination is raceless, colourless, genderless and sexualityless (if there's such a word), what confuses me is why some people seem to struggle with such a simple concept.
-
It very much gets on my nerves when I hear anyone make broad generalizations about either sex.
I don't get more offended when those comments come from men and are directed at women, but I do get a bit nervous for the same reason I get nervous if I meet a religious fanatic who dismisses an entire group of people as "evil."
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.82
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.27
Should I be embarrassed?
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.18
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.82
I think that may be bad actually
-
It very much gets on my nerves when I hear anyone make broad generalizations about either sex.
I don't get more offended when those comments come from men and are directed at women, but I do get a bit nervous for the same reason I get nervous if I meet a religious fanatic who dismisses an entire group of people as "evil."
On this note I'd like to declare my newfound understanding of the following:
Pizza Delivery Boys are Evil. As are their dark minions of chaos, Street Sweepers and Pot Hole Fillers. They're deviously good and bad at their jobs simoultaneously. :pimp:
*edit*
Fixed. Don't post 3 min after waking up, it's bad....
-
they're
AAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
-
?
He used it correctly? What's with the "AAARRRGGGHHH!!!"?
-
He may have fixed the error with 'their'.
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.45
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.18
See? You're a feminist. :)
No. That score is distorted. It would be nice to think that my benevolent sexism score is that low, but in reality I know I do act protectively when a woman I'm in love with is in danger.
Regardless, considering the negative connotations that term carries in Spanish, I would still prefer to be called a "non-misogynyst", or something like that.
-
It's not sexist if the person in question is a lover/relative/friend that happens to be female... well, unless you wouldn't do the same for a male you were close to.
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.45
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.18
See? You're a feminist. :)
No. That score is distorted. It would be nice to think that my benevolent sexism score is that low, but in reality I know I do act protectively when a woman I'm in love with is in danger.
Regardless, considering the negative connotations that term carries in Spanish, I would still prefer to be called a "non-misogynyst", or something like that.
Acting protectively towards someone you love isn't a problem. It's the accompanying sense that women are weak and fragile (more so than a guy of the same size and fitness) that that's sort of tricky.
-
It's not sexist if the person in question is a lover/relative/friend that happens to be female... well, unless you wouldn't do the same for a male you were close to.
Generally, I act protectively when anything I consider important to me is in danger. That includes male friends. But it's somewhat... different. The threshold of what I consider dangerous is slightly different. So there's a slight sexist component.
Well, maybe that's because I've never been in love with a guy. :lol:
-
Well if it was a male child, you'd probably react just as strongly as if it were a woman. That's pretty much the reason "benevolent" sexism sucks so hard. It reduces women to children in the mind of society.
-
Well if it was a male child, you'd probably react just as strongly as if it were a woman. That's pretty much the reason "benevolent" sexism sucks so hard. It reduces women to children in the mind of society.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure. I know a child probably can't harm me. The same doesn't holds true for a woman.
But even then, I have this strong attraction to women who I know are strong, or have a strong mindset or character. i don't know exactly why.
-
The problem with gallantry is that many men are raised in the real belief that they are being genuinely respectful with attitudes like 'women and children first!', rather than a little condescending, as though, if there were a disaster, only men would be capable of dealing with it. But you need to be careful with passive sexism, I agree that it is a problem, but not every male who displays it is doing it to offend you, some do it purely because it's been coded into them through layer upon layer of social pressure. For some men, it's a method of showing attraction, to be overly attentive to their intended mate, kind of like how a male pigeon will constantly herd his chosen partner and be incredibly over-protective around other males, it's a mixture of social pressure and genetic coding, think of it as part of the amazingly complex human mating ritual, one that, just like with the pigeon, doesn't always impress the intended mate ;)
-
I don't get offended unless I'm sure the behavior is on purpose. However, I do think less of a guy who doesn't think that kind of thing through. On a sinking ship, if some guy decides my vagina (and by this I mean he isn't giving up his seat out of the kindness of his heart, but purely because I'm female) makes me worth more than him, I'm not going to debate him on it. I'm going to take his seat and be glad there are fewer morons in the world.
Well if it was a male child, you'd probably react just as strongly as if it were a woman. That's pretty much the reason "benevolent" sexism sucks so hard. It reduces women to children in the mind of society.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure. I know a child probably can't harm me. The same doesn't holds true for a woman.
I meant protecting behaviors. You'd protect a woman much like you'd protect a child.
-
Well if it was a male child, you'd probably react just as strongly as if it were a woman. That's pretty much the reason "benevolent" sexism sucks so hard. It reduces women to children in the mind of society.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure. I know a child probably can't harm me. The same doesn't holds true for a woman.
I meant protecting behaviors. You'd protect a woman much like you'd protect a child.
I was actually addressing your post as a whole.
To be more clear, no, I would not protect a woman in the same way I would protect a child. And if I had to choose between protecting a random woman and a random child if their lives where in danger, then I'm sorry, but I would expect an adult person to be able to protect herself.
Not that that says much though, since I rarely protect strangers (yes, I'm a **** of a person).
-
Well if it was a male child, you'd probably react just as strongly as if it were a woman. That's pretty much the reason "benevolent" sexism sucks so hard. It reduces women to children in the mind of society.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure. I know a child probably can't harm me. The same doesn't holds true for a woman.
But even then, I have this strong attraction to women who I know are strong, or have a strong mindset or character. i don't know exactly why.
Some children most certainly could if they get hold of a weapon. :P
-
Well if it was a male child, you'd probably react just as strongly as if it were a woman. That's pretty much the reason "benevolent" sexism sucks so hard. It reduces women to children in the mind of society.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure. I know a child probably can't harm me. The same doesn't holds true for a woman.
But even then, I have this strong attraction to women who I know are strong, or have a strong mindset or character. i don't know exactly why.
Some children most certainly could if they get hold of a weapon. :P
That's why I said probably. Children are commonly used for criminal acts in Argentina because they theoretically can't be held accountable for their acts, and so they can't be judged under the current law.
What I was trying to say is that children actually need some extra protection. Women don't. Otherwise, they would not be able to be police officers or military personnel. Which brings us back to the original topic.
Damn, that "brings us back to the original topic" twist was really funny to say. :lol:
-
This is THE weekend which will define my military career. It's literally life changing, groundbreaking and history making. (Copyright)
Wish I could say more but I can't. Big wheels are in motion, and i'm duct taped to one of the largest.
-
This is THE weekend which will define my military career. It's literally life changing, groundbreaking and history making. (Copyright)
Wish I could say more but I can't. Big wheels are in motion, and i'm duct taped to one of the largest.
/me stands to attention.
or military personnel.
Which now brings us back to the original topic, because well, women can't be frontline infantry at the moment. Though the US has no problem with them being Fast-Jet pilots (and makes it easier than the rest of the world to get people into fast-jet squadrons). And I mean, girls have to be so 'guy-like' to fit into the world of fighters, I don't see how fitting into infantry units would be exponentially harder.
It's not as if suddenly breaking down the gender barrier is going to make all the 'girly-girls' who have issues skipping their daily shower and would miserably eat **** in the military want to join anyway.
-
Girly girls are a product of society, imo.
-
Yeah, agreed with that.
-
And I mean, girls have to be so 'guy-like' to fit into the world of fighters, I don't see how fitting into infantry units would be exponentially harder.
I would disagree. Honestly, if you knew half the female pilots and navs I do, you'd be hard-pressed to find more than one or two that aren't girly-girls. Bear in mind most pilots/navs are either Academy or university grads, so other than hitting the gym more, there's not much to differentiate them from ordinary girly-girls.
Apart from them being off-limits to some of us... :p
It's not as if suddenly breaking down the gender barrier is going to make all the 'girly-girls' who have issues skipping their daily shower and would miserably eat **** in the military want to join anyway.
Eh, even for enlisted folk, once the screaming and stress of Basic is over, it's back to hair, shoes, and clubs. Seriously, this place is less Offutt AFB then it is Offutt University sometimes.
-
or military personnel.
Which now brings us back to the original topic
See? You just have to say it. :lol:
-
/me reads above posts and spots his one.
Onoz.
That was meant to in WHIYL.
:nervous:
-
Really? Well we have no female FJ pilots here (even though it's open to females) and there are only a few women on each pilots course anyway, so I guess it creates a "Deal with the constant swearing, drinking, and smoking, or get the **** out." environment. :P The only woman whose character I know of to some extent who made it through selection as a Navy pilot candidate was a bit of a girly-girl as well, or at least she came off a little that way. But being a predominantly male career field, dealing with that is probably part of the job description for girls anyway. ;)
-
Yeah, agreed with that.
So if you were to have a daughter, how do you realisticly make sure she wont turn into that?
-
Yeah, agreed with that.
So if you were to have a daughter, how do you realisticly make sure she wont turn into that?
Raise her like a male child.
-
Yeah, agreed with that.
So if you were to have a daughter, how do you realisticly make sure she wont turn into that?
Raise her like a male child.
What about raising her like any other human being, motivating her spirit to reach her full potential, and promoting her independence and independent thought, regardless of gender.
Oh, wait... that would be reasonable. :p
-
Yeah, agreed with that.
So if you were to have a daughter, how do you realisticly make sure she wont turn into that?
Raise her like a male child.
What about raising her like any other human being, motivating her spirit to reach her full potential, and promoting her independence and independent thought, regardless of gender.
Oh, wait... that would be reasonable. :p
Personal identity is, apparently, hardwired; having girl parts usually means you'll identify as a girl, having boy parts usually means you'll identify as a boy. For example, raising a boy in a dress with pretty shoes and Barbie dolls is more likely to produce a confused, suicidal boy than a raised transsexual.
-
Yeah, agreed with that.
So if you were to have a daughter, how do you realisticly make sure she wont turn into that?
Raise her like a male child.
What about raising her like any other human being, motivating her spirit to reach her full potential, and promoting her independence and independent thought, regardless of gender.
Oh, wait... that would be reasonable. :p
Personal identity is, apparently, hardwired; having girl parts usually means you'll identify as a girl, having boy parts usually means you'll identify as a boy. For example, raising a boy in a dress with pretty shoes and Barbie dolls is more likely to produce a confused, suicidal boy than a raised transsexual.
Hmmm... no, you didn't get what I was trying to say. Maybe I wasn't clear. But I can't rewrite it or elaborate upon it now, since I'm a bit busy at the moment. So I'll do it later.
-
Children don't know the difference that young. Little girls AND boys mimic their parents. That means little boys stealing mommy's lipstick and little girls stealing daddy's hammer, to make the situation as stereotypical as possible. Kids don't give a **** about the difference between "boy" and "girl" until adults start telling them "no, you can't wear a dress because you're a boy" or "no, you can't play in the mud because you're a girl."
-
Yeah, agreed with that.
So if you were to have a daughter, how do you realisticly make sure she wont turn into that?
Raise her like a male child.
What about raising her like any other human being, motivating her spirit to reach her full potential, and promoting her independence and independent thought, regardless of gender.
Oh, wait... that would be reasonable. :p
Personal identity is, apparently, hardwired; having girl parts usually means you'll identify as a girl, having boy parts usually means you'll identify as a boy. For example, raising a boy in a dress with pretty shoes and Barbie dolls is more likely to produce a confused, suicidal boy than a raised transsexual.
This isn't evidence that it's hardwired. Only evidence that they are picking up other social cues which confuse them.
-
Hostile Sexism Score: 1.36
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.09
Erm... wow?