Sexism, Misandry, and Other Big Words

[Securitas]

and try to protect and get the women and children out.

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

[Grim]

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

Its our culture. People aren't equal. Deal with it.

[Matos]

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

You think there are more fat man then woman then? I would attribute that to a perception bias on your side

[Brooks Puuntai]

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

Its not necessarily a modern or ancient society type ideology. Its for most a (heterosexual)ideology of defending those of the opposite sex, call it a natural instinct. Also like Grath said that even today in society people still do have the mindset that people aren't equal, especially when it comes to men and women, that its a mans job to protect or that females are in a sense weaker.

Edit: To put a example of the above, its the same way that fathers are generally more protective of their daughters, and mothers are generally more protective of their sons.

[Manfred Hideous]

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

Fat men have more mass to absorb the bullet? Just because you're gay you don't have to look down on guys old fashioned enough to put women and children first. It's a matter of being a responsible man.

For the record, I'd help the guys who need help, too. Gay guys even. and I would put special effort into saving a pair of lipstick lesbians... Just in case they might make an exception for their savior.

[Securitas]

Its our culture. People aren't equal. Deal with it.

That is undeniable but also regrettable. Unfortunately 'dealing with' or ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

Seriously what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

v0v it doesn't have anything to do with me being gay. I just think treating women in a special sort of way has its dark sides as well.

This would need to be split off into its own thread, but in my personal life I've just seen too many women affected by this special treatment. It happens both in positive and negative ways: they refuse to do things they perhaps should out of a sense of entitlement OR they don't do things they want to because it's not their 'role.' Now obviously they could say 'fuck society' and act the way they want to but I don't think there's a question that this sort of unequal treatment is ultimately harmful.

[Securitas]

You think there are more fat man then woman then? I would attribute that to a perception bias on your side

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/...htm#overweight

[Grim]

Western Civilazation supposedly has everyone being equal. This is obviously not the case. Men are expected to take extra care of women, hold doors for them, etc. Women are not elegible for the draft, and make less, and complain about glass ceilings.

Biologically we are different, no denying that.

This is the thread to discuss anything related to equality and unfairness with respect to gender and other shit.

[Grim]

Also, I fail at moving posts around.

[Agathor]

Mix apes from vast distances. Get Angela Jonsson.

[Manfred Hideous]

Personally I'm all for complete equality but I want equal standards as well. For example, Women in the military would have to do real pushups and meet the same physical standards (except perhaps BMI) for lifting, running, etc. If they can keep up with the boys, they should be allowed to fight in combat.

That being said, I would like to think I'm take a bullet for my girl in a theater if I had to. I was raised to show respect for broads and I do my best in that regard.

[Securitas]

It's always different if you're personally attached to someone. I'd take a bullet for my boyfriend too. I'm gonna be honest and say outside of family and friends, I don't know if I'd do it for anyone else (children excepted), whether it's a hot guy or not.

[Manfred Hideous]

What the fuck is misondry?

[Night]

An inability to spell.

[Rer]

Gee I do so very much wonder why this thread decided to show up.

[Phineas Freak]

What the fuck is misondry?

i am so totally doen for. their is no chance we can change there admins opinion, right?

[Venetian Tar]

I've always been under the impression that we'd need women more than men if something were to happen. Women and children first is just one of those things.

Keep the young and the people capable of birthing safe, that way we secure the future.

[Securitas]

I've always been under the impression that we'd need women more than men if something were to happen. Women and children first is just one of those things.

Keep the young and the people capable of birthing safe, that way we secure the future.

We have overpopulation issues already to be honest. I'd consider that threat a lot more likely than some sort of "if some apocalyptic event were to occur."

[Manfred Hideous]

We have overpopulation issues already to be honest. I'd consider that threat a lot more likely than some sort of "if some apocalyptic event were to occur."

Holy fuck, you really seem to hate women....

OMG Vinata!

[Don Peyote]

We have overpopulation issues already to be honest. I'd consider that threat a lot more likely than some sort of "if some apocalyptic event were to occur."

However unlikely it may be, an Armageddon event is still more likely to happen in our lifetimes than overpopulation. People are short sighted, and don't want to focus on long term threats like "oh hey our oil supply isn't sustainable at this rate of usage" or "there are too many people on this planet already, and more by the second" or "we're going to run out room for crops if we're not careful".

If you want to be really cynical, overpopulation is an issue that solves itself. When there are too many people, the food supply dwindles - people starve, and survivors fight over what's left. The population dies down and we're back to square one, until the cycle repeats itself.

[somedude76]

Women and children first because it's the women that take care of the children. The fact that you would take issue with this at all is curious. One has to wonder if there is a connection between your sexual preference and the fact that you would question the natural order of things.

[Securitas]

Women and children first because it's the women that take care of the children. The fact that you would take issue with this at all is curious. One has to wonder if there is a connection between your sexual preference and the fact that you would question the natural order of things.

This is decreasingly true, and why you would attempt to tie in my sexuality and the way I approach philosophy/equal rights/whatever is baffling. I do question the "natural order of things" because we live in a very un-natural society where what is "natural" is usually not the best thing for us, natural being such a vague and meaningless word in this context anyway.

Also saying "women are equal in both positive and negative ways" is hardly hating women. I just believe they deserve exactly the same protection as everyone else; no more and no less. I'm an egalitarian in that respect.

[somedude76]

While it may or may not be true that more men are becoming the primary stewards of children, the fact that anybody would question unique ability of women to care for children is just a sign of how twisted our brains have become.

When a kid falls down and gets a booboo, who does he/she look to? That's right, mommy. It's the natural order of things. It should be encouraged, embraced, and cherished. Not marginalized, challenged, and diminished.

[Manfred Hideous]

This is decreasingly true, and why you would attempt to tie in my sexuality and the way I approach philosophy/equal rights/whatever is baffling. I do question the "natural order of things" because we live in a very un-natural society where what is "natural" is usually not the best thing for us, natural being such a vague and meaningless word in this context anyway.

Also saying "women are equal in both positive and negative ways" is hardly hating women. I just believe they deserve exactly the same protection as everyone else; no more and no less. I'm an egalitarian in that respect.

What is baffling to me is the fact that you completely dismiss the value of women. There are women (often lesbians) who feel the same about men. It's not really all that difficult to make the leap to thinking you (as a gay) would see women in a less valuable light since you prefer the company of men.

Frankly, I wish the ratio of gay men was higher so there would be a much larger population of desperate women.

Women and children first because it's the women that take care of the children. The fact that you would take issue with this at all is curious. One has to wonder if there is a connection between your sexual preference and the fact that you would question the natural order of things.

I have to disagree with you on the women taking care of children. I was divorced a few months ago (YAY) and I got the house and kids. I'm part of a growing number of dads who win custody. It's not a significant minority (yet) but it's growing.

[Sean Alenko]

You just have to admire the irony in this equality campaign.

http://science-girl-thing.eu/

[Securitas]

What is baffling to me is the fact that you completely dismiss the value of women. There are women (often lesbians) who feel the same about men. It's not really all that difficult to make the leap to thinking you (as a gay) would see women in a less valuable light since you prefer the company of men.

I'm not dismissing the value of women at all; I think they have just as much to offer society as men. But not more, and not less. I believe in total equality; not equality when it's convenient. For example I believe women should be drafted (soldiering nowadays doesn't rely as much on brute strength as it did 2000 years ago or even 200 years ago). I believe it would be a disservice not to have full equality in every way, regardless of whether or not it is convenient or enjoyable on a personal basis.

Equality is always a double-edged sword. I want to get gay married, but that means I have to be ready for the possibility of getting gay divorced too.

[Grim]

soldiering nowadays doesn't rely as much on brute strength as it did 2000 years ago or even 200 years ago).

I don't think you know what you are talking about...

[Securitas]

I don't think you know what you are talking about...

I was unaware pulling a trigger required a great deal of muscle. At the very least shoving a spear through somebody's armor seems a bit more strenuous. Perhaps you can explain instead of making an unhelpful comment? Or addressing the entire post instead of a tiny snippet?

Regardless, there's no real reason that I can see that women can't be eligible for a draft as long as they meet some basic physical standards. My brother is entering the Army this upcoming January and let's just say most of the women I know are stronger and tougher than he is.

[Grim]

I was unaware pulling a trigger required a great deal of muscle. At the very least shoving a spear through somebody's armor seems a bit more strenuous. Perhaps you can explain instead of making an unhelpful comment? Or addressing the entire post instead of a tiny snippet?

Sadly soldiers in the field have to do a little more than pull a trigger. They have to carry heavy loads, drag wounded comrades, and do a fair amount of physical exertion. I could search for the numbers, but Guys in the field might have to carry upwards of 100 pounds, including armor, weapons, ammo, food, etc. Not all of this is carried in combat, but a good amount of it is.

Its simple fact that women are usually of slighter build then men.

Does that mean women should not serve in combat units? I think they can, but the standards should be the same for everyone. This would probably result in the continued predominance of men in combat arms for purely physical reasons.

[Manfred Hideous]

I was unaware pulling a trigger required a great deal of muscle. At the very least shoving a spear through somebody's armor seems a bit more strenuous. Perhaps you can explain instead of making an unhelpful comment? Or addressing the entire post instead of a tiny snippet?

Regardless, there's no real reason that I can see that women can't be eligible for a draft as long as they meet some basic physical standards. My brother is entering the Army this upcoming January and let's just say most of the women I know are stronger and tougher than he is.

That might just be the most ignorant thing I've read today. Let me tell you that is saying something because Whitehound posts nonstop shit.

I lived on ships for eight years. Many of the women couldn't lift a block, haul on an anchor chain, properly heave lines, or fight fires (sorta important when your home is on fire and 3000 miles from any escape).

There were a few who could. One who stood out was a total amazon and could beat my ass if she wanted. She easily would have passed the male fitness tests (didn't you know there were two standards?). Her I would go into a war with and never question her ability to get the job done.

I didn't pound ground but IIRC the infantry have to carry something like fifty pounds on their backs and (the men) are required to be able to drag a hundred fifty pounds to safety. Women should be allowed to serve in combat only if they will not reduce the readiness of their units.

That goes for men, too. But they already get kicked out for repeatedly failing fitness standards.

[Don Peyote]

I was unaware pulling a trigger required a great deal of muscle. At the very least shoving a spear through somebody's armor seems a bit more strenuous. Perhaps you can explain instead of making an unhelpful comment? Or addressing the entire post instead of a tiny snippet?

Regardless, there's no real reason that I can see that women can't be eligible for a draft as long as they meet some basic physical standards. My brother is entering the Army this upcoming January and let's just say most of the women I know are stronger and tougher than he is.

Is your brother planning on being frontline Inf. or filling some rear echelon role?

[Manfred Hideous]

Is your brother planning on being frontline Inf. or filling some rear echelon role?

LOL. I read that as rear echelon hole and thought you might have meant sec himself.

[Grim]

LOL. I read that as rear echelon hole and thought you might have meant sec himself.

That would have been infractable under the new rules

[Don Peyote]

LOL. I read that as rear echelon hole and thought you might have meant sec himself.

Good god man are you sick?

That would have been infractable under the new rules

Incest should be infractable under any rules :stare:

[Night]

I was unaware pulling a trigger required a great deal of muscle.

Simply to go out the front gate of the forward operating base or be in the open inside one for long periods of time you're probably carrying 40 pounds of gear; body armor, a weapon and ammo, probably a camelbak for water. Only exceptions are some vehicle crews.

Infantry carry between 80 and 120 pounds of weapons, armor, gear, water, and other stuff on patrol.

[Don Peyote]

In fairness to Sec he said "As much", which is true in some ways. As outlined in the posts above, physical and mental endurance is more important than sheer physical strength nowadays

[Securitas]

Point is I know a great deal of men who cannot perform the above and plenty of women who can. Perhaps there are other tasks in the military they do though v0v. I'm pretty sure not everyone carries that much weight or that they train into it or something.

I'll be honest I weigh only like 30 pounds more than they apparently carry (150~ ish pounds) and I would still probably be drafted.

[Grim]

Point is I know a great deal of men who cannot perform the above and plenty of women who can. Perhaps there are other tasks in the military they do though v0v. I'm pretty sure not everyone carries that much weight or that they train into it or something.

I'll be honest I weigh only like 30 pounds more than they apparently carry (150~ ish pounds) and I would still probably be drafted.

And you would be beaton on (and enjoy it) until you either met the standards or washed out.

[Securitas]

I didn't know they'd let you 'wash out' if you got drafted.

[Bill Schwartzski]

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

Because man, "bitches be crazy." (<--And a woman offered me this explanation.)

Here is the thing; it doesn't matter how many bras burn or how many times they take hyphenated last names or how often they get to go shopping - they're carrying around an organ that can incubate another person. Their psyche is naturally aligned to any and all behavior that compliments that. Do you think humanity would survive if the incubators were a bunch of laid back vulcans? Fuck no.

So women aren't equal in the sense they have other problems to deal with. But they are equal in that we can't categorize those issues as something that makes them less than human.

Other than that, the only failure I see on the part of feminism is not requiring women to sign up for selective service to get government benefits / not go to jail. That really needs to be addressed because that is probably the single most sexist rule we have in a society that spurges girl power.

[Bill Schwartzski]

also #1: comment re: muscles to pull a trigger. I think you all got trolled on that one? Not sure if trolled. the amount of gear our soldiers carry scares the shit out of me. respect.

also #2: Brienne of Tarth unavailable for comment, this thread

[Securitas]

We're not living in the same age that we evolved in, and thus in my opinion biology should have little impact on the equality of human rights and responsibilities. This whole thing about "would humanity survive if XXX" is really irrelevant because we'll survive regardless (unless an apocalypse reverts us to some super primitive level of technology) of whether or not women are kicking ass and taking names in Afghanistan. We are currently (in my opinion for the better) in a more idealistic, intellectual, and egalitarian age than the primordial mess we dragged ourselves out of, and our legislation should reflect that.

[Brooks Puuntai]

We're not living in the same age that we evolved in, and thus in my opinion biology should have little impact on the equality of human rights and responsibilities. This whole thing about "would humanity survive if XXX" is really irrelevant because we'll survive regardless (unless an apocalypse reverts us to some super primitive level of technology) of whether or not women are kicking ass and taking names in Afghanistan. We are currently (in my opinion for the better) in a more idealistic, intellectual, and egalitarian age than the primordial mess we dragged ourselves out of, and our legislation should reflect that.

Wait why was legislation brought into this? I thought this was just a discussion about guys natural reaction and thinking with their dicks when it comes to defending women.

Edit: Nvm I forgot this topic branched off.

[Malaclypse]

We have overpopulation issues already to be honest. I'd consider that threat a lot more likely than some sort of "if some apocalyptic event were to occur."

The giant magma chamber below Yellowstone seems to constantly building up over the past decades, which could be a sign of it errupting in a future not too far away. If that happens, all lights go out for mankind. Statistically we're both way overdue for another ice age or a meteor impact akin to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Not to forget that mankind has both actively (lab breeding) and passively (antibiotic resistance) created viruses and bacteria that, if ever released, would inflict a lot more damage than 200 years before simply due to the globalised traffic. And let's not forget all those nukes in existance and those to be created.

[Securitas]

The giant magma chamber below Yellowstone seems to constantly building up over the past decades, which could be a sign of it errupting in a future not too far away. If that happens, all lights go out for mankind. Statistically we're both way overdue for another ice age or a meteor impact akin to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Not to forget that mankind has both actively (lab breeding) and passively (antibiotic resistance) created viruses and bacteria that, if ever released, would inflict a lot more damage than 200 years before simply due to the globalised traffic. And let's not forget all those nukes in existance and those to be created.

I think it's a lot more rational to say "we'll cross that bridge when we get there" than to have unequal rights in the anticipation of the end of the world as we know it.

[Grath]

For example I believe women should be drafted (soldiering nowadays doesn't rely as much on brute strength as it did 2000 years ago or even 200 years ago).

FYI Women don't serve in combat situations and are generally treated differently in the military for more than just sexist reasons:

http://www.free-researchpapers.com/dbs/b10/sxr282.shtml

Figured I'd start with a source, you can look up more pretty easy if you want.


The US military is a volunteer body for the most part except under dire circumstances. As such all volunteers are evaluated for service, be they man or woman. No fit individual will be turned away, and for the longest time women were relegated to logistical roles, that kept them out of fire, modern day practices are starting to slowly move away from that but outside of the obvious boys club, there is a deeper reason why they've been kept where they are kept-

Men.

In a combat situation studies have shown that men act irrationally when a woman is placed in a dangerous situation. Its ingrained instinct, and it reduces the combat effectiveness of the unit in question. Now, that could be made up bullshit to keep the boys club alive, it could be actual fact, I tend to lean toward fact, men tend to whiteknight women compulsively, even to the detriment of their own well being.

[Grim]

The UK did a study with applying the same physcial standards to males and females in the military. After a few years it was observed that females had a much higher rate of injury, resulting in higher medical costs and less duty time.