Feminists - A question.

[miokomioko]

you're just trying to use it to attempt to legitimize and reinforce your misogyny

your a idiot

[Stumblingdrunk]

your a idiot

Joft's statement is not entirely inaccurate, this has zero to do with feminism, yet its being thrown under the bus here. As I said before, there is anger in this thread directed at women about a decision made by men.

[joft]

your a idiot

plz resume crying about male oppression

you gotta work so hard to pay all those property taxes on the 98% of the world's land that you own

btw "you're" "an"

[miokomioko]

I think the idea coming from the first page is that feminists promoting "EQUALITY" should either fight for the draft including women (which is never going to happen as it is intricately tied in with making the military as a whole recognize women as equals, an ongoing and uphill battle) or make an active stance against the draft existing at all (this is all regardless of the draft's improbable future reinstatement). In its current state, the Selective Service System does not look at both genders equally and you would imagine that would be something that requires some amending. Is that really that absurd?

[miokomioko]

plz resume crying about male oppression

you gotta work so hard to pay all those property taxes on the 98% of the world's land that you own

btw "you're" "an"

No shit. Wheeeewsh.

Also, I don't own any property. You might as well be black and accusing me of being racist because my ancestors enslaved your ancestors.

[Chun Liroy]

No shit. Wheeeewsh.

Also, I don't own any property. You might as well be black and accusing me because my ancestors enslaved your ancestors.

She's mad because the men wouldn't let her out of the kitchen to learn how to properly type in English.

[nervous]

\
The real solution would be to have women-only units that are trained and qualified to deploy into combat situations. The reason that this won't be done is because the military is the last bastion of boys' clubs, and they are resistant to all kinds of change. Clearly you all have not been paying attention, as recently the commandant of the Marine Corps has even had reservations about repealing "don't ask, don't tell," because he is concerned about bunking gays together with straights. I think that most of you are failing to grasp the reality of the military, both what is in place policy-wise and what the actual feelings are of current military personnel. The opinions and prejudices of those people matter, especially when it comes to why you're going to assign them to a particular job and who they're going to be working with in a situation where lives are at stake. You cannot simply shake shit up without proper consideration.

I think you have your reasons wrong, and I'm pretty sure i grasp the reality of the military. After spending six years in the army, i can tell you from personal experience that women are generally ill-suited as soldiers, and i'm the last person who would join any sort of "boy's club." Women aren't excluded from combat roles in the military on the basis of sexism, outmoded opinions, or some male conspiracy.

The truth is that military life requires heavy lifting on a semi-daily basis in the form of motor pool, conex loading, and general "hey-you" details. Incidentally, the people picked to do these things are usually males, which fosters resentment, but that's beside the point. Military units do a workout routine including calisthenics and aerobics 4-5 days a week. As your wiki link pointed out, women simply aren't as strong as men, meaning that males get picked to do the unpleasant stuff, but females get the same pay. When women do have to do physical-strength-related stuff, they generally aren't very effective. The problem is underlined in the double standards for male and female pt tests. From your posts, i think you may be a military spouse, so you are likely aware of all this.

Anyway, the strength disparity is easily solved. Raise the physical fitness standards for women to match the standards of men. That just underlines the real problem, though. Women Break. A lot. I've seen some females(the top 2-3%) who are just as physically and mentally strong as the top 30% of their male counterpoints. The problem is, their bones, ligaments, and immune systems can't keep up with their muscles and their willpower. Over six years I've seen female after female have their bodies fail them in an airborne unit, even though they were up there in every other respect. Ivve, your wiki link mentions that the female skeleton is weaker, and while i never really knew exactly why, it makes sense to me now why a disproportionate number of women ended up in physical therapy. Thing is, physical therapy is expensive. So is the sick call that women utilize at over twice the rate of males. I'm sorry. I know it's not politically correct to say, but women in military combat roles simply isn't an economically viable option. Even if they are in great muscular and aerobic shape, their skeletons and ligaments break, and they are very expensive to fix. If they have to be permanently discharged, you just threw out 50-500k worth of training and education. If acknowledging this makes me a sexist, sign me up. I don't consider it any knock on women, though, just an unfortunate reality as far as the way they are put together.

Also, the general consensus that "there will never ever be another war ever again requiring a draft and we are all way too civilized for all that now" unnerves me. You could have interviewed an average guy in 1910, 1923, and 1959, and they would have probably gladly told you that they saw nothing but peace on the horizon. The pan-slavic movement, assassination of franz ferdinand, and pearl harbor are all things no one saw coming at all. War isn't someting you generally see coming 10 years out. There is a ligntning-fast chain of events, and, bam! draft time! The "not in our modern, civilized time" mantra has been chanted probably since the beginning of time, and wars have dragged happily on regardless.

[Chun Liroy]

You wrote 4 paragraphs for something about WOMEN on the INTERNET?

[Stumblingdrunk]

I think the idea coming from the first page is that feminists promoting "EQUALITY" should either fight for the draft including women (which is never going to happen as it is intricately tied in with making the military as a whole recognize women as equals, an ongoing and uphill battle) or make an active stance against the draft existing at all (this is all regardless of the draft's improbable future reinstatement). In its current state, the Selective Service System does not look at both genders equally and you would imagine that would be something that requires some amending. Is that really that absurd?

I understand what the argument from the first page is, but that doesn't change the fact that asking for equality in this regard would just be stupid. No, women are not treated equally when it comes to the draft. It does not benefit them to be treated equally in this regard, so again i ask you why anyone would fight for it? If the time came when women could be drafted and they fought against it, then you would be correct in your critique of feminism, that is not the case here however. Instead what we have here is a decision was made by males(not to allow women to be drafted) and males are somehow finding a way to blame women for it or to use it to discredit feminism, which has nothing to do with this.

[Norellicus]

sometimes i forget how difficult it is getting paid more, promoted more, having 90+% of all leadership positions including 488 of the Fortune 500 CEOs and 43 out of the last 43 presidents and 80% of professors, owning 70%+ of all businesses, owning 97%+ of all the land in the world, etcccccc

And yet you're still missing the part where equality is not the same thing as entitlement, nor does one bestow the other

[Darus Grey]

All rights women have were GIVEN to them by men.

JUST SAYIN

[Zoolander]

I really wish I could just experience the equivalent in discomfort of what women bitch about so I could really know if yall are full of shit or all the whining is really warranted. I just can't see it being much worse than dealing with my type 1 diabetes, and that shit doesnt seem like an excuse for me to be miserable. I know it differs from woman to woman (or so I hear) but I mean...damn. Just deal.

Isn't the bit about women making .70 of what men make bull shit too? I've never seen a legit source for that info.

[Darus Grey]

Isn't the bit about women making .70 of what men make bull shit too? I've never seen a legit source for that info.

It's more or less true. The hidden truth is they're comparing a metric that's very favorable to them.

Now if you compare male vs female productivity numbers compared to earned income...

Well let's just say that paints a clearer picture. Equal pay for equal work is not in their favor.

(I'm implying they make less, because the reality is they DO less on average, the WHY varies by profession, with more cerebral jobs having nearly equal pay scales on average, but reality is the majority of jobs are labor jobs).

And from there you can even break it down further by profession, in many fields women make 98%-105% of male income, the more labor intensive the job, the less this number becomes, the correlation being pretty strong all the way to the top end where things like female special education teachers make more than males on average.

It's worth noting that the productivity/pay scale is not a 1:1 ratio, females are still payed less than men per "unit of productivity", but this gap is around 3-7% as opposed to the 30% that wage earned on average would imply, and I would argue that the mere existence of the productivity gap is what leads to the over-compensation for the wage gap.


Some sources to read on the subject

Spoiler: show

Pay and Productivity Differences between Male and Female Veterinarians
David M. Smith
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Apr., 2002), pp. 493-511


Harry J. Paarsch & Bruce S. Shearer, 2004.
"Male-Female Productivity Differentials: the Role of Ability and Incentives (revised),"
Cahiers de recherche 0410, CIRPEE.

The hypothesis here being an existing education gap is a large contributor:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-.../6036-eng.html

[Mytiwar]

Wonder if OP intended this to turn into that?

[Stumblingdrunk]

The first post was nothing more than a bitch about feminism for the sake of bitching about feminism, this is in the same vein.

[Kuya]

I still don't understand why men cry about feminists not caring about the rights of men. It seems self evident to me that a pro-woman movement wouldn't give a shit about whether it's fair for men or not.

[aduidarnenye]

I think the idea coming from the first page is that feminists promoting "EQUALITY" should either fight for the draft including women (which is never going to happen as it is intricately tied in with making the military as a whole recognize women as equals, an ongoing and uphill battle) or make an active stance against the draft existing at all (this is all regardless of the draft's improbable future reinstatement). In its current state, the Selective Service System does not look at both genders equally and you would imagine that would be something that requires some amending. Is that really that absurd?

Why not turn all this rage in another direction and fight against conscription for men? Wouldn't it be better to state that men aren't equal to women because women get the opportunity to not be conscripted and men don't? And fight for that instead of blaming women that they're not really seeking equality.

I think, in fact, most feminists do support the idea that war is bad for both genders and that conscription is a terrible idea for both genders. I've yet to see, after all, a real feminist claim that men should be conscripted to fight in wars.


Also, I don't really buy that thing about all men being stronger/better suited than all women for military service. I agree that the strongest human beings in the world, physically at least, are men but I've seen some pretty weeny small ass men in uniform in the US. Women serve in armed forces all over the world, and many countries have them in combat roles. Even countries we would generally consider "backwards" like some middle eastern countries have women's sections of their militaries that train women in combat with machine guns.

I still don't understand why men cry about feminists not caring about the rights of men. It seems self evident to me that a pro-woman movement wouldn't give a shit about whether it's fair for men or not.

I agree. PETA doesn't support labour unions, MADD doesn't sponsor bridge clubs, and the PTA doesn't have bake sales for the local gentlemen's hockey league. We should be angry about that.

[miokomioko]

Feminist seem to like flying a flag of equality over their pro-woman movement. It's just mostly bullshit when they do. In my oh so humble, but masculine, opinion.

[Stumblingdrunk]

I still don't understand why men cry about feminists not caring about the rights of men. It seems self evident to me that a pro-woman movement wouldn't give a shit about whether it's fair for men or not.

the men are too busy being more productive to be bothered with realizing this. Or it could just be that they want to bitch about feminism for any reason someone can make up, relevant or not

[Darus Grey]

I still don't understand why men cry about feminists not caring about the rights of men. It seems self evident to me that a pro-woman movement wouldn't give a shit about whether it's fair for men or not.

It's because the pro-woman movement has successfully stamped out the pro-male movement, thus leaving them in the unenviable position of having the monopoly of the only "pro-equality"(as it relates to gender) game in town.

Which has led to the absolutely bizarre situation you describe, men feel the feminist movement should protect them too.

Men who actually try to protect male rights are ostracized by both women AND men(who ascribe to above faulty train of thought) because of it.

tl;dr It's hard being right. But a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do.