Moderator: Community Team
2dimes wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:Where the f*ck did they come from?
They were made from man's rib.
thegreekdog wrote:Do you think there will be a lot of people against this?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Nobunaga wrote:Allow me to be the first to be against it... well, partially and conditionally against it.
The day women are made to meet the same requirements, many of them physical, is the day I'm all for it. So when you've been shot in the gut and need to be carried a mile by your buddy, you'd know the woman in your foxhole can pull the job off.
At present, they need not meet those requirements.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Nobunaga wrote:Allow me to be the first to be against it... well, partially and conditionally against it.
The day women are made to meet the same requirements, many of them physical, is the day I'm all for it. So when you've been shot in the gut and need to be carried a mile by your buddy, you'd know the woman in your foxhole can pull the job off.
At present, they need not meet those requirements.
Actually, women are often better able to stand up to long term stress, including things like long forced marches and such, than men.
The benefit of male strength is often very overrated. I cannot even count the number of arrogant strong young guys I worked to the ground -- I am not particularly big or particulary muscular, but I used what I had more effectively than they. Also, I have more flexibility, so was prone to some injuries less than men.
The issue is not that men are women or women men, the issue is mostly that both can do the jobs effectively, and even when the approach has to differ for women, many times rethinking how things are done to make it easier for men is very beneficial to all involved.
Or, to put it another way.. foxholes don't provide much protection against either IEDs on the roadway, (or directed drones, for that matter)
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:The fun thing is that this doesn't really change much except acknowledge that women are actually serving in combat areas and face the same hazards their male counterparts do. And morale doesn't suffer.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... omen-fight
Read this a while ago, made a really good argument for why this is a no-brainer.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Government-Managed Businesses: Decades Behind the Times
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Government-Managed Businesses: Decades Behind the Times
I missed the part where private enterprises had a stellar record of hiring women to do jobs that were traditionally male-oriented roles.
BigBallinStalin wrote:spurgistan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Government-Managed Businesses: Decades Behind the Times
I missed the part where private enterprises had a stellar record of hiring women to do jobs that were traditionally male-oriented roles.
Oh, the standard for corporations is bumped up to "stellar," yet hear them rejoice when the military finally stops blatantly violating anti-discrimination laws--decades behind corporations. Just sayin'.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:It must be part of the shock and awe.
The muslim whatever we call them to avoid war crime laws will be so surprised that a woman is shooting them it will be like a flash bang. On the other hand, when they catch and rape the crap out of them and send us videos, we might have a change of heart about equality in the forces.
yeah, but who cares? we have progressive equality on our side!
and everyone knows that the most effective way to win a war is by being moral and fair.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:I agree. This is progressiveness gone mad!
We need to keep the women out of the front-lines cause they, like children and small animals, are incapable of assuming the same risks we men assume.
God bless their pretty little heads for thinking they could ever die in a trench like a man can.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:I agree. This is progressiveness gone mad!
We need to keep the women out of the front-lines cause they, like children and small animals, are incapable of assuming the same risks we men assume.
God bless their pretty little heads for thinking they could ever die in a trench like a man can.
by "same risks" do you mean "lower standards"?
john9blue wrote:by "same risks" do you mean "lower standards"?
probably because it was obvious to BBS that the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.
Stanford University professor Shelley Correll and colleagues (2007) sent out more than 1,200 fictitious résumés to employers in a large Northeastern city, and found that female applicants with children were significantly less likely to get hired and if hired would be paid a lower salary than male applicants with children. This despite the fact that the qualification, workplace performances and other relevant characteristics of the fictitious job applicants were held constant and only their parental status varied. Mothers were penalized on a host of measures, including perceived competence and recommended starting salary. Men were not penalized for, and sometimes benefited from, being a parent. In a subsequent audit study, Correll et al. found that actual employers discriminate against mothers when making evaluations that affect hiring, promotion, and salary decisions, but not against fathers.[98][99][100][101][102][103] The researchers review results from other studies and argue that the motherhood role exists in tension with the cultural understandings of the "ideal worker" role and this leads evaluators to expect mothers to be less competent and less committed to their job.[104][105] Fathers do not experience these types of workplace disadvantages as understandings of what it means to be a good father are not seen as incompatible with understandings of what it means to be a good worker.[106]
spurgistan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:spurgistan wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Government-Managed Businesses: Decades Behind the Times
I missed the part where private enterprises had a stellar record of hiring women to do jobs that were traditionally male-oriented roles.
Oh, the standard for corporations is bumped up to "stellar," yet hear them rejoice when the military finally stops blatantly violating anti-discrimination laws--decades behind corporations. Just sayin'.
Fine, I'll rephrase. Corporations today are still doing a stellar job of separating traditionally male-oriented (and, on average, better-paying) jobs from female oriented jobs. Hopefully, this will be a repeat of the military fully racially integrating combat units, which was a big step towards a less racially segregated America.
john9blue wrote:BBS failed to notice that spurg was actually sarcastically condemning corporations
probably because it was obvious to BBS that the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:[probably because it was obvious to BBS that the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.
Really now? This coming from the fuckin' proverbial agnostic.
I assume this wikipedia page is the result of some massive hidden conspiracy then, right?
I mean it says things like:Stanford University professor Shelley Correll and colleagues (2007) sent out more than 1,200 fictitious résumés to employers in a large Northeastern city, and found that female applicants with children were significantly less likely to get hired and if hired would be paid a lower salary than male applicants with children. This despite the fact that the qualification, workplace performances and other relevant characteristics of the fictitious job applicants were held constant and only their parental status varied. Mothers were penalized on a host of measures, including perceived competence and recommended starting salary. Men were not penalized for, and sometimes benefited from, being a parent. In a subsequent audit study, Correll et al. found that actual employers discriminate against mothers when making evaluations that affect hiring, promotion, and salary decisions, but not against fathers.[98][99][100][101][102][103] The researchers review results from other studies and argue that the motherhood role exists in tension with the cultural understandings of the "ideal worker" role and this leads evaluators to expect mothers to be less competent and less committed to their job.[104][105] Fathers do not experience these types of workplace disadvantages as understandings of what it means to be a good father are not seen as incompatible with understandings of what it means to be a good worker.[106]
BigBallinStalin wrote:Suppose I send out 1200 fictitious resumes to employers in mining companies. The fictitious applicants are 60 years old. If they get hired, do you think the older entrants will receive a higher, equal, or lower wage than the younger ones?
Haggis_McMutton wrote:john9blue wrote:by "same risks" do you mean "lower standards"?
stop moving the goal posts.
I'm 100% in favour of the same standard being demanded regardless of sex, but this point has nothing to do with the garbage you and sabotage were bathing in in those quotes.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Oh, and another thing:probably because it was obvious to BBS that the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.
Really now? This coming from the fuckin' proverbial agnostic.
I assume this wikipedia page is the result of some massive hidden conspiracy then, right?
I mean it says things like:Stanford University professor Shelley Correll and colleagues (2007) sent out more than 1,200 fictitious résumés to employers in a large Northeastern city, and found that female applicants with children were significantly less likely to get hired and if hired would be paid a lower salary than male applicants with children. This despite the fact that the qualification, workplace performances and other relevant characteristics of the fictitious job applicants were held constant and only their parental status varied. Mothers were penalized on a host of measures, including perceived competence and recommended starting salary. Men were not penalized for, and sometimes benefited from, being a parent. In a subsequent audit study, Correll et al. found that actual employers discriminate against mothers when making evaluations that affect hiring, promotion, and salary decisions, but not against fathers.[98][99][100][101][102][103] The researchers review results from other studies and argue that the motherhood role exists in tension with the cultural understandings of the "ideal worker" role and this leads evaluators to expect mothers to be less competent and less committed to their job.[104][105] Fathers do not experience these types of workplace disadvantages as understandings of what it means to be a good father are not seen as incompatible with understandings of what it means to be a good worker.[106]
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl, mookiemcgee