Jump to content
Skypool

Sexism

Recommended Posts

Separate showers, separate barracks, separate housing when on field missions to prevent sexual harassment suits, changing the training program (example is the marines, fit test for men and a fit test for women. they would have to adjust.) There's SO much that goes into it that would have to happen all over the US and around the world that it's just not worth it. Obviously, or they would've caved to the growing feminist movement.

 

Can I just point out that they've already done it in multiple countries? It's actually not that big of a deal. It's just that the US is behind the curveball again. What do you think they do in Afghanistan when they meet Israeli female troops and share camps?

Share this post


Link to post

In this case, that's something that can be cured by 1. not putting in suits that have no basis in fact, and 2. not sexually harassing one another.  I feel that it is perfectly possible for even US military persons to behave themselves.

 

 

 

Why?  No need to alter the standards, people who do not pass the test do not continue with the program, simple as that.  That goes for men and women.

 

 

 

It seems that a lot of the world's militaries do not have this problem, so I don't see why you say "all over the world".

 

 

 

That it hasn't been done yet is not self-evidence that it cannot be done with minimum hassle.

 

Separate showers is something I can see a need for, but it is also not something I think is so very hard to do that it stands in the way.  Separate barracks seems to be something that is also not such a logistical nightmare that it can't be rectified.

Regardless of the authenticity of the suit, they will happen. Also, you seem to have a very good view of men, because I suppose you don't think that in close quarters for long amount of times that the tensions will reach a point that inappropriate conduct WILL happen that would NOT happen had women not been present. It WILL happen, it doesn't matter if you say "Well they should just behave themselves!" because some people can't. Why make the situation even more likely than it already is??

 

They altered the standards for women in the marines, so my feeling is if they let women be in combat situations there's going to be so much whining from feminists that the requirements aren't "fair" towards women that there will be separate brackets.

 

By all over the world I meant at US spec ops bases all over the world, temporary or permanent.

 

Like I said, the very VERY few number of women who would be able to complete the requirements (barely any men can.) simply makes the huge cost of showers and housing and reworking the ENTIRE system to include a few women not worth it. Obviously the military agrees with me.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

Regardless of the authenticity of the suit, they will happen.

 

They happen now. Should we therefore stop having a military?

 

ecause I suppose you don't think that in close quarters for long amount of times that the tensions will reach a point that inappropriate conduct WILL happen that would NOT happen had women not been present.

 

It depends on the people. The fact that you seem to think it doesn't happen when only men are present is worrying, however.

 

Why make the situation even more likely than it already is??

 

Why not let women serve since all of this is happening anyway, regardless of gender?

 

They altered the standards for women in the marines, so my feeling is if they let women be in combat situations there's going to be so much whining from feminists that the requirements aren't "fair" towards women that there will be separate brackets.

 

Let me point out that they altered the standards for the marines DESPITE what the women wanted. I don't agree with that either.

 

By all over the world I meant at US spec ops bases all over the world, temporary or permanent.

 

And again, what happens when US special ops has a mission with Israel or the Ukraine? Do you think they shout "get those women into a nunnery?"

 

Like I said, the very VERY few number of women who would be able to complete the requirements (barely any men can.) simply makes the huge cost of showers and housing and reworking the ENTIRE system to include a few women not worth it. Obviously the military agrees with me.

 

The reworking wouldn't need to be that extensive, actually. Again, it's more of an excuse. But then, the US idea of women is always skewed. :/ The US military makes this a big deal, when they were fighting over in Iraq men shared camps with Canadian women with no problems like you seem to suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Regardless of the authenticity of the suit, they will happen. Also, you seem to have a very good view of men, because I suppose you don't think that in close quarters for long amount of times that the tensions will reach a point that inappropriate conduct WILL happen that would NOT happen had women not been present. It WILL happen, it doesn't matter if you say "Well they should just behave themselves!" because some people can't. Why make the situation even more likely than it already is??

People who can't exercise a modicum of self-control are unlikely to be good soldiers.

 

Suggesting that something ought not be done ever because the poor men will not be able to control themselves demonstrates a very poor view of men indeed.

 

That said, I know the US military is full of people with sucktastic attitudes, which is why, practically, slower methods of making them get over themselves is probably better.

 

They altered the standards for women in the marines, so my feeling is if they let women be in combat situations there's going to be so much whining from feminists that the requirements aren't "fair" towards women that there will be separate brackets.

 

I don't think changing the standards is necessary. There are women capable of meeting them now. Let them in.

 

Like I said, the very VERY few number of women who would be able to complete the requirements (barely any men can.) simply makes the huge cost of showers and housing and reworking the ENTIRE system to include a few women not worth it. Obviously the military agrees with me.

 

Are the costs of installing curtains in showers really that huge? A bit of retro-fitting is not as big of an expense as it's made out to be.

 

Appealing to the authority of a sexist military to bolster your argument is not effective.

Share this post


Link to post
People who can't exercise a modicum of self-control are unlikely to be good soldiers.

 

Suggesting that something ought not be done ever because the poor men will not be able to control themselves demonstrates a very poor view of men indeed.

 

And suggesting that something that happens on a regular basis is purely the fault of a man with limited self control? When the situation could be altogether avoided in the first place by keeping things how they are and not having to worry about it? Obviously we are just going to disagree on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
And suggesting that something that happens on a regular basis is purely the fault of a man with limited self control? When the situation could be altogether avoided in the first place by keeping things how they are and not having to worry about it?

Wasn't this the argument used for keeping women from wearing shorter skirts and/or trousers and/or making them keep their hair covered all the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Wasn't this the argument used for keeping women from wearing shorter skirts and/or trousers and/or making them keep their hair covered all the time?

Outfits are considerably different than placing women and men close together for extended periods of time.

Share this post


Link to post
And suggesting that something that happens on a regular basis is purely the fault of a man with limited self control? When the situation could be altogether avoided in the first place by keeping things how they are and not having to worry about it? Obviously we are just going to disagree on this issue.

When people behave abominably, I do not suggest that the victims be removed from their presence so that the poor behavior no longer occurs. I suggest the person who cannot behave be removed so that the poor behavior no longer occurs.

 

I don't think that people incapable of respecting their fellow soldiers ought drive tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
When people behave abominably, I do not suggest that the victims be removed from their presence so that the poor behavior no longer occurs. I suggest the person who cannot behave be removed so that the poor behavior no longer occurs.

 

I don't think that people incapable of respecting their fellow soldiers ought drive tanks.

This isn't a situation of "taking the victim out." It's not putting a potential victim into a situation like that. I'm a martial artist and I carry a weapon, but I don't walk down a back alley in the dark because that's asking for trouble regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Outfits are considerably different than placing women and men close together for extended periods of time.

Not really, as they used the same sort of arguments to keep men and women segregated in church as well. Your reasoning is faulty, especially as it seems to come down to 'men can't be expected to ahve full control of their sex drives'.

 

And if you're talking about consensual relationships, rather than men forcing themselves on their female companions, then why on earth *shouldn't* they happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Not really, as they used the same sort of arguments to keep men and women segregated in church as well. Your reasoning is faulty, especially as it seems to come down to 'men can't be expected to ahve full control of their sex drives'.

 

And if you're talking about consensual relationships, rather than men forcing themselves on their female companions, then why on earth *shouldn't* they happen?

First, church is different than MONTHS of deployment. Second, because sexual relationships have no place in combat situations! It would be a distraction. It's the same reason DADT stood as long as it did, and why it needed to go at the same time. Your sexual orientation shouldn't matter in the military, because SEX has no place in the military within the unit. Especially when you are a deployed in a combat situation.

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion on women in the military is to put them under the same tests as the men. If they fulfill the same physical and mental requirements, they can fight if they want to.

 

You can't just say "men can't control themselves, so we won't give them a chance to prove it". This type of logic has been used for centuries to limit social change. When inter-racial marriage was introduced people argued that the children would be teased, so it shouldn't be allowed. But you shouldn't have to change policy to fit the discrimination, but change discrimination to fit the policy.

 

As for the difference in what males and females like- yes, there are difference. But the majority of psychologists agree that people believe the differences are more exaggerated than they are. On the whole, women and men have different aptitudes in things like logic, empathy, etc, but there is actually a great deal of overlap. So there's nothing wrong with having a girl who acts like a guy 'should' or vice versa.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

This isn't a situation of "taking the victim out." It's not putting a potential victim into a situation like that. I'm a martial artist and I carry a weapon, but I don't walk down a back alley in the dark because that's asking for trouble regardless.

By this argument, desegregation in most venues shouldn't have happened because it mixed a lot of "potential victims" in with "potential victimizers".

 

Comparing the SEALs to a dangerous dark alley isn't very fair to the SEALs.

 

The solution is not to let fear of badly behaved people dictate how something as big as the US military is run. Not sure what the solution is, but fear of poor behavior just gives power to the poorly behaved. I'd think the US military has enough strong-willed people in it to stand up to the poorly behaved and punish them if they can't shape up.

 

ETA:

Your sexual orientation shouldn't matter in the military, because SEX has no place in the military within the unit. Especially when you are a deployed in a combat situation.

 

Indeed. If one has inner or outer plumbing ought not matter either. I don't see why having women in a combat situation would automatically introduce sex into it, anymore than having gay men in a combat situation with straight men would.

Edited by Princess Artemis

Share this post


Link to post

This isn't a situation of "taking the victim out." It's not putting a potential victim into a situation like that.

 

Everyone is a potential victim, not just women. By that logic, no one should be in the military in active combat.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess we'll just wait until women get placed in combat MOS's, which they inevitably will be, and see what the results are.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess we'll just wait until women get placed in combat MOS's, which they inevitably will be, and see what the results are.

Already has happened. The Israelis, Canadians, and Ukranians seem to be doing just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Already has happened. The Israelis, Canadians, and Ukranians seem to be doing just fine.

I meant US. Not talking world. I'm just saying, we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
1. Try this on for size: I'm biologically female and I grew up on a farm. In a single working day I could singlehandedly buck twelve tons of hay onto the tractor's trailer, unload it, and stack it, the guys on the crew gave up at ten. Should I be getting paid the same or less because I've got the wrong plumbing?

 

 

 

2. Many of those girls have good reason. I've lost count of how many "committed" relationships I was in that fell apart soon as I opened my legs. I was even engaged to two of them.

 

 

To point 1...

 

I do believe philpot123 stated that if you are capable of doing the job then you should be paid the same. The main problem that needs to be corrected with most companies is the idea that a woman is less productive because there is a chance that she may get pregnant and require maternity leave. That is why woman are undervalued in the work place. It is pretty much common thought that a man will work like a dog every day of the year but a woman has monthly issues that pop that could cause her to lose time at work. If she becomes pregnant then her cost to the company increases because they are still required to pay her when they are not benefiting from her labor. The man doesn't require maternity leave, even though it would be nice if that was offered to men as well so they could help with getting the family settled into a routine before both parents return to work, and he will only miss work once he is over worked/stressed and has a heart attack. While I don't agree with the corporate mind set, I can understand it.

 

Point 2...

 

Too many girls react like that for no good reason and if you honestly think about it and look around you will see that. Not every guy who does a nice thing for a girl is out for what he can get. When a friend of mine was at college he saw a girl trying to get through a door with a stack of books so he opened the door for her. Instead of just a nod and "thank you" she stared at him like he was dirt and then made a rude remark to him which then caused him to become a little rude himself in explaining to her why he wasn't interested in having sex with her. That shouldn't even come up in that sort of scenario. A gentleman (which is a dirty word these days) holds a door for a lady. He will also hold a door for a man, especially if the man has his hands full. It's call common courtesy which is starting to become less and less common in part due to the feminist movement that doesn't allow for a man to be courteous and that is pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Comparing the SEALs to a dangerous dark alley isn't very fair to the SEALs.

Speaking of the SEALs and related...

 

I think if females can pass the same tests as men they should be allowed to serve in combat, but at the same time I want to point out the training the SEALs go through. SEAL Team Six by Howard Wasdin is a firsthand account of training and other SEAL activities and a great resource. I would recommend reading it because a post doesn't do it justice, but the gist of it is that the SEALs go through an absolutely brutal training regimen and there is an enormous fail rate for the top men in their peak of fitness in the military. Just to make it to "selection" is a huge accomplishment. I have nothing against women serving, but statistically very, very, very few women would be able to serve as military elite, like the SEALs or Delta. BUD/S training is no walk in the park. On the same token there are many more women who would be perfectly well suited for combat with regular units in the military. One step at a time should be taken if anything is to be changed, but things do need to change.

Share this post


Link to post
I meant US. Not talking world. I'm just saying, we'll see.

Are you actually saying that other countries don't count as valid test examples? blink.gif

 

Or are you instead saying that Americans are so "special" that their experience/behaviour will be vastly different from that of the Canadians or the Israelis who have women in their combat units?

Share this post


Link to post

Or are you instead saying that Americans are so "special" that their experience/behaviour will be vastly different from that of the Canadians or the Israelis who have women in their combat units?

 

It sounds like it's saying we're less civilized.

Share this post


Link to post
Don't put words in my mouth. I said what I meant, we'll see what happens. Each situation is unique.

But not so unique that it's apples and oranges.

 

If we say: "Look at these countries who have had no problem in women in combat."

 

And then you say:

 

"But these problems will pop up."

 

And we saay: "it hasn't happened in these countries."

 

"And you say that's not the US, it's different."

 

How else are we to take that other than we're less civilized than the countries with zero problems?

Share this post


Link to post

I do believe philpot123 stated that if you are capable of doing the job then you should be paid the same.

 

Random aside...

 

For me, the problem with this is just the way it was stated. Why is it always "if a girl can do the same job, then she should be paid equally, but if not..." rather than "if a person can't do the same job, why should they receive the same pay?" or along those lines. =X

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.