Sexism?

Remove all ads!

You know people, this isn't much of a debate as most of you people (dare I say all ) seem to have the same opinion

 

Actually sprite women arnt allowed to fight on the front line, or go into the royal marines, and quite a few divisions of the army.

 

Women are permitted into the infrantry in Canada (ie, front-line units). And also, I believe, in the RCAF as well.

 

Take heart ladies! Once cloning is perfected, men are unnecessary.

 

Uh, Jack when cloning is perfected women are unnecesary too.

 

Only when you can gestate a human outside of the womb. That is not possible yet and is not necessary to perfect cloning.

 

Oh, Jack -- don't be sad. There is one thing you guys can do that will always be necessary.

*Besides* take out the trash.

 

"The policy which allows women two more minutes than men on the mile run required during basic training in the Army/Navy/Air Force in the US is sexist."

Yeah. I used to think the same thing. Until I really sat down (actually, I think I was working) and thought about it.

There aren't any female Seals. It just doesn't work like that. Evolution drew the line on that one. Deal with it.

But, that's not to say they aren't in shape. Those standards were proposed by MD's, who took a look at a woman who was 'in-shape' and a man who was 'in-shape'. The median became policy. That means, specifically, men and women will always have different 'standards'. It needs be that way.

I still think women combat pilots are the answer. Men on the ground, and women in the air. Women put on pressure suits, and breathe Lox, just a well as men. They can flip 30mm rounds at tanks, and guide AGM-65's just as well as the next fool. Muscle isn't the key; concentration is. And they are just as cocky, and sexually agressive, as all the other concentrating fly-boys.

 

Hell, if being cocky and sexually aggressive is all it takes to be a pilot, I can think of several SPers who should sign up.

Actually, it takes a lot more. Physical stamina, extreme hand-eye coordination, etc. And, like it or not, women on average are less likely to possess these qualities. Studies have been done by "them," but I'm not going to bother to look 'em up.

This isn't the reason that women shouldn't be allowed into the cockpit, as it refers to an average and there will be exceptions to that rule.

There's a whole other basket of reasons women in combat is a bad idea. And they have more to do with men than women.

 

Shralp, I agree with you about women in combat. (And bite me, by the way!) Though I started a thread on sexism, I don't necessarily agree with everything so-called feminists would put in that category, and that is one. Women in combat is a bad idea.

I don't believe that the the legitimate differences in body and mind -- and dare I say it, social roles -- should be countermanded by some fiat. For example, I am a biologist and a mother. I am as good a biologist as a guy with my experience, but a better *mother* than he could be. That is, in fact, the most important job I do. Not that curing cancer is unimportant, but no one but me could raise my children to be assets to humanity as well, and being a biologist does not impair my ability to do that job (much ). Being in combat, even aside from the likelihood of dying, *would.*

The reason men are bigger and stronger is to protect women. Duh, biological fact. Why it would benefit women to compete for *that* role is beyond me.

Here in Los Angeles, there are no female firefighters. Ah ha! Discrimination! Well, no. To pass the firefighter practical exam, you have to carry about 50 kilos up a ladder, and no woman has yet been able to do that for the test. Unfair? No! It is a legitimate requirement of the job. Little weak guys are also barred.

People *will* muddy a discussion of sexism (bad) with legitimate differences between the sexes (good).

 

"Physical stamina, extreme hand-eye coordination, etc. And, like it or not, women on average are less likely to possess these qualities"

(insert some really maniacal laugh, here)

Schrapler, if I hadn't read your other posts in other threads, I would think you were new.

News Flash: Piloting an F-18 (the new E's and F's can break mach 2!!) does not take "qualities" outside the average female's abilities. Get this...

You've seen pilots in combat. Guess who trained them?

Chicks.

T-38's. T-46's. F/A-18's. Probably not A's and B's, but definately C's through F's. Bombing missions, air-to-air. There's a chick shooting them down and teaching them how to actually land the craft. And, no; they don't cave in the gear when they land. No, they aren't using ACLS everytime either, but they're trained to use it. Yes, they've made 100's of night carrier landings too. Yes, they have the little star on their cuffs signifying a "line officer", too.

Oh, yeah. Whilist we are perusing the job description section, anyone ever been to see a female surgeon (or physician, for that matter; Medical *or* Osteopathic)?

MethV:
I understand your position. It's not meant to be fun. I'm just saying that sexism exists, and will continue to exist, until women want to change it. There's a lot of girls who just want the benefits, without the resposibility or risks. I'm not trying to justify anything to you, here. I'm just making the call as I continue to see it happening...

 

Umm.. OK, ejsmith. Your last paragraph to me was kind of a non-sequiter. I'm not sure if you agree with me or with Shralp or neither or *what.* Clarify, won't you?

"I'm just saying that sexism exists, and will continue to exist, until women want to change it. There's a lot of girls who just want the benefits, without the resposibility or risks."

Of *what*? Common civility? Sexism? Being a guy?

 

Methyl, I was the one that said this, and I still stand by it.

Of course. It's instinctive as it is needed for the survival and prosperity of our species. However, does that mean that you won't be nice to someone if you don't want to sleep with them? I doubt it.

Tal is correct. I've had women smack me for offering to help them out or even just having me be kind to them. Are some women so prejudiced that they are offended by the idea that a man is just trying to be nice and not having an ulterior motive?

Doesn't this kind of fit the definition of prejudice, which is what we are discussing here? It's obviously a stereotype, forming opinions about a whole group on opinions of a few.

Slim Shogun, men actually can take maternity leave now. I know it doesn't make any sense, but I'm paying men that went on this.

Because some women carry the view that nature is sexist and that all the sexes should be the same. Wouldn't that make us all hermaphrodites who reproduce using asexual reproduction? You're a biologist, perhaps you can tell us the advantages of our form of reproduction as opposed to an amoeba's, other than producing more variety, which is obviously what these feminists are trying to remove.

I'm not sure I understand this either. What benefits are you referring to ejsmith?

I agree. I never did understand the reasoning behind the concept of affirmative action and never will. All people have the potential to be superior to another in some area. Why they are not willing to at least try to be is beyond me.

 

"Are some women so prejudiced that they are offended by the idea that a man is just trying to be nice and not having an ulterior motive?"

Well, sure. Some women are just jerks. Did you think only guys are qualified to be jerks, you SEXIST PIG?

Methylviolet, while I agree with almost everything else you've said in this thread, I think you are on thin ice with the idea that because men are "bigger or stronger" because of a biological imperative to protect the mothers of their children, that women should never compete for roles involving being big or strong (please correct me if I've just misinterpreted your intention here). Once upon a time that was almost the identical argument used against educating women- men are smarter so they can take care of women, how dare women compete for that role?

A rare few women are significantly stronger than the average man. You can say that from a genetic perspective these women are failures (if you don't mind me running to the bathroom to sob ) but it doesn't change the fact that they can often do a "man's job" better than many men. Do you think they should be barred from doing so, if they really want to? I served in an infantry unit and did better on the exact same physical tests than 2/3 of the men. If I had wanted to continue pursuing that as a career, do you really believe that I should not have had the right to? If so, I'd be interested to hear your justification of that position.

 

I am really sorry, Rastor -- and sorry, Ragusa, if you read this! Few small things are as irritating as people getting your name wrong.

But! Leave from work at the time you have or adopt a child is "parental" leave, and it is absolutely appropriate for both the mother and the father. Babies are important, more important than anything you hired that guy to do. So pfft.

Sprite: "because men are "bigger or stronger" because of a biological imperative to protect the mothers of their children, that women should never compete for roles involving being big or strong (please correct me if I've just misinterpreted your intention here). Once upon a time that was almost the identical argument used against educating women- men are smarter so they can take care of women, how dare women compete for that role? "

Well, no, of course I did not take it that far, Sprite. In my firefighter example, it was a case where no woman had (yet) been big and strong *enough* to do the job, and there were those who thought the job requirements should be lowered so that more women could meet them. I cannot support that. Objective standards that play to one sex's characteristics, if they *are* objective, cannot be discriminatory because everyone is free to compete. Which is all we ask, right?

But! Where *I* would be discriminatory, if it were up to me, would be in barring women from direct fire combat positions and ensuring that they are never drafted. I think the continuance of the species is important, and women must be left alive to ensure that continuance. And I think that men's biological role is not some now-discredited thing that needs eliminating from our modern sensibilities. Biology is not always destiny -- and individuals can and have been every conceivable way, with every combination of interests and abilities -- but on a societal scale, having women fight wars and men take care of babies seems like... the long way around.

Perhaps even there I go further than you would,
Sprite -- I admit it sounds almost (gasp) conservative. I worry, though, that in our search for personal growth, there is a common sense about men and women that is lost. We are about preserving diversity, right? Not, in Shralp's phrase -- homogenizing the genders.

 

Unfortunately, Methyl, there are many women out there that want to eliminate the diversity between the genders, and yes, homogenzize them. Although, I don't understand how Shralp was saying that. I was saying it as almost sarcasm in a way to defend my position that the genders should enjoy the differences between themselves.

No! I didn't mean to say that at all. I'm a man, I was giving the male point of view. Of course women can be jerks, just as males can. Emotionally, both are actually pretty similar (although somebody is probably going to disagree with me here). Actually, I've met more jerk women than men. What I don't understand is why some people snap at you for trying to be nice to them.

So must men, Methyl. Or did all your cloning and such remove that factor from the human form of reproduction.

Yes, well, if only men fight wars and most get killed, won't that leave only a few men left with a large number of women? Sounds like either the population will go down well before it climbs again, or leave each man to impregnate several women, which although it may be appealing to some, doesn't sit quite right in the eyes of this guy.

 

Well, Rastor -- we all must do our duty. I hope you would not shirk it if the time came.

But seriously folks, I would have thought it obvious that the *necessary* male contribution to reproduction is ten minutes or so of his time. The necessary female contribution is much longer, right? If she is killed at any point during her pregnancy -- nine looong months -- or, arguably, in the first year of the child's life -- there goes her contribution. We have seen, again and again throughout history, wars decimate the male population and the society rebound just fine.

 

We probably agree Methyl, just making sure others don't misunderstand

Rebound in numbers, yes we do... If men can have sex/reproduce and go to war and die that is just fine. genetically. If they die before reproduction it is just as bad as if a woman died, right?
You are a fellow molecular biologist. I dunno how far, but I am sure you are confident with the term genetic drift. Which is not good when only (lets exaggerate to understand) 100 or so men, American men, survived to reproduce next to millions of men.

[ August 12, 2002, 00:42: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Excellent point, Nobleman -- you are so right. Though all these men are not strictly speaking necessary, there is a good reason to keep them around. Expecially if it were true that convicts, mental patients, the ill, and those otherwise unfit to fight comprised that group of 100 men!

Interesting drift, we would have. An odd reverse selection in warlike societies, would it be.

You seem however to have run away with an idea that I advocate war for thinning the male herd, or that I am philosophical about the decimation of the male half of the population because of their superfluity for breeding purposes.

No. Not so. I like men and I hate war. I was attempting to support my views on women in combat, which I offered in support of an idea that the recognition of real sexual differences did not constitute sexism.

No, no. (shudder) More men is better.

Edited spelling

[ August 12, 2002, 11:16: Message edited by: Methylviolet ]

 

I am sorry if it seemed like I was trying to advocate anything on your behalf. I was merely making sure we agree on the genetics