|
Frosted Flake posted:As someone who has worked with women in the armed forces, that's not necessarily true. What I mean, is any woman should be able to try, but that doesn't always mean they'll be able. The attempt to integrate women into the Marine Corps has been a hilarious failure so far and almost none of them have made the cut.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Japan lost WW2 because SJWism led them to have women work as stevedores, where they all died from trying to unload 50-lb bags of rice. What exactly are you arguing here? Women should be allowed to do any job in the military. Any job period, actually. Not all people are suited for all jobs, women are no exception. Many jobs in the military are still physically demanding, and not all people are up to it. Women are often physically smaller and weaker than men and that makes doing those jobs difficult. Because, as you pointed out exceptional women can do a great job, there's no point having rules forbidding them from trying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
In the land of the cyclopes, the two-eyed man is an oppressor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
OP is right but is also a dumbass. This argument bothers me so I thought I'd put together a little info. Let's talk about a specific sport that has had men and women training together for a long time: swimming. Swimming is skill based, but also has a major strength component. If an Olympic God of a man who is an inexperienced swimmer races an elite swimmer woman, the man will lose every time. However, the woman will have a difficult time at a major international competition because of the gap between her and the top male swimmers. The Olympics, Olympic Trials, World Championships, Pan Pacific Games, European Championships, World Cup Series, etc. all have men and women competing at the same venue. They compete in separate races, but swim the same events (with one exception). The NCAA D1 championships are the only major competition that has men and women swim at different facilities, but this is mostly for tradition and logistical reasons. The D2 and D3 Championships have men and women compete at the same facility to save money. Opportunities for men and women in swimming are roughly equal. Watch the video below and you can see men and women training together in the 1960s. Men and women train together in every club team in the United States from the earliest ages. Some college teams train separately, some train together. A good example of a program with more emphasis on the women would be the University of Georgia. They have the same coaching staff for men and women and have won six NCAA titles on the women's side. They have not won a single title on the men's side. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlGKXj8OE9M There are more girls swimming than boys on club teams and on high school teams. There are more scholarships available for women at the NCAA level in swimming. Women's Swimming scholarships are used to help offset football scholarships to keep Universities in line with Title IX. Despite this equality, the men's world records are still all faster than the women's world records. For a recent example of the gap, Katie Ledecky is a star in the swimming world. She is by far the most dominant active swimmer of either gender in the world in her races. In the 1500 m freestyle, she has crushed the previous world record by about 18 seconds. When she races, there is noone that can challenge her. She is only the second swimmer in history to win the 200, 400, 800, and 1500 m freestyles at the same world championships (the first was accomplished at a time when swimming was undergoing a lot of changes). If Katie Ledecky raced with the men, her time in the 1500 freestyle would have ranked her 96th in the world this year. That is by far her highest ranking, with her getting nowhere close to the top 100 in the 200 and 400 m freestyles. For a swimmer, that would mean no endorsements or opportunity to swim as a professional. With integrated competition, the most dominant swimmer in the world would not have anywhere near the level of opportunity she currently has. I believe that Track & Field has a similar gap, but I can't provide solid examples there. If you want for most women's sports to increase their popularity, the road is through increased participation by girls and building excitement about female athletic accomplishments. I am all for women's sports getting more popular, but we have to work with some realities to achieve those goals. You can look up more rankings at this website below, it actually lets you look at men and women together, but it might be hard to find the women in the full list unless you know their names already. http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=805
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
That's a whole lot of words to say you are a cishet shitlord.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:52
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What exactly are you arguing here? See, the problem here is that you're begging the question. You're presuming that the lack of women in the military is solely due to physical strength, and this in turn is leading you to say some very silly things, such as assuming that any woman who does succeed in the military is unusually strong, perhaps a genetic freak. There's a whole host of issues that surround the matter of women being in the military, and from talking with NCOs who've served in integrated militaries and reading the literature, there's actually plenty of room to rig physical examinations and the like to exclude women unnecessarily, without getting into the messy issues of culture. And with that said, your argument is ridiculous because it leads to women having absurd levels of physical weakness that are trivially disprovable. Like, a 155 artillery shell weighs about a hundred pounds. Your contention is thus that the majority of women are incapable of ever lifting their own body weight without steroid abuse, by implication. Even adding a less silly qualifier about this applying to women just out of civilian life only, which goes directly against your statements, you're still in a realm where no women work in physically demanding jobs and where endurance is apparently less important than raw upper-body strength to physical labor. Like, historically, your statements are basically horseshit.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:And with that said, your argument is ridiculous because it leads to women having absurd levels of physical weakness that are trivially disprovable. Like, a 155 artillery shell weighs about a hundred pounds. Your contention is thus that the majority of women are incapable of ever lifting their own body weight without steroid abuse, by implication. Even adding a less silly qualifier about this applying to women just out of civilian life only, which goes directly against your statements, you're still in a realm where no women work in physically demanding jobs and where endurance is apparently less important than raw upper-body strength to physical labor. Like, historically, your statements are basically horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Like, historically, your statements are basically horseshit. I spent 5 years lifting 155 shells, but please - tell me how easy it is to lift them. It's not just lifting one, and it's not just lifting them for a short while. It's physical labour, in body armour (so add some weight and awkwardness) and exposed to the sun/wind/rain/snow, with little food and no sleep. That would be hard for anyone male or female. I have worked with and under female troops who are much better at their jobs than I am. Troop commanders, signalers, surveyors, drivers, and yes gunners. Clearly being female didn't impact their ability to do their jobs. The average Canadian woman is 161.0 cm. Based on the Robinson formula (1983), her ideal weight is 54.8 kgs Based on the Miller formula (1983), her ideal weight is 57.7 kgs Based on the Devine formula (1974), her ideal weight is 53.3 kgs Based on the Hamwi formula (1964), her ideal weight is 52.9 kgs Based on the healthy BMI recommendation, her recommended weight is 48.0 kgs - 64.8 kgs So - you expect her to be able to lift most of her bodyweight, all day, for days on end, with lovely food and little sleep. I'm not saying it can't be done, but to say that it ought to be more common than it is is kinda absurd. A Buttery Pastry posted:Not questioning your overall point necessarily, but isn't there more to it than just the question of whether you can lift a shell? You'd also have to be able to do it in a safe and controlled manner, and probably pretty fast too. This hits the nail on the head. It's even a lovely job for the gym-rat juice monkey grunts. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not questioning your overall point necessarily, but isn't there more to it than just the question of whether you can lift a shell? You'd also have to be able to do it in a safe and controlled manner, and probably pretty fast too. Actually, most people focus on women being weak, rather than women all being clumsy and slow, so they ignore that. But, again, think about this rationally for a second. This is saying that women are incapable of lifting less than their own body weight (in practical terms) safely, in a controlled manner, and quickly enough to be useful. Now, you could provide data suggesting that weightlifting women are just barely able to lift their body weight, but that doesn't exist. Frosted Flake posted:I spent 5 years lifting 155 shells, but please - tell me how easy it is to lift them. So you're taking the position that most military work involves a great deal of training and conditioning, and endurance is more important than raw strength, but you're still coming down on "women are just too frail to lift heavy weights without drugs". Well, it sure seems like you're open-minded.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Actually, most people focus on women being weak, rather than women all being clumsy and slow, so they ignore that. But, again, think about this rationally for a second. This is saying that women are incapable of lifting less than their own body weight (in practical terms) safely, in a controlled manner, and quickly enough to be useful. Now, you could provide data suggesting that weightlifting women are just barely able to lift their body weight, but that doesn't exist. Weightlifters =/= the average military recruit. Weightlifting conditions/nutrition/training =/= a military environment. I don't think it's unfair to say most women are "incapable of lifting less than their own body weight (in practical terms) safely, in a controlled manner, and quickly enough to be useful." but that's not a justification to have rules preventing them from entering training to see if they are able to maximize their potential. Effectronica posted:So you're taking the position that most military work involves a great deal of training and conditioning, and endurance is more important than raw strength, but you're still coming down on "women are just too frail to lift heavy weights without drugs". Well, it sure seems like you're open-minded. It is definitely about training and conditioning. Some women can take that training and excel, many cannot. Take Ranger School or USMC SOI for example. Many men fail, and so have many women. It's just that proportionately more men pass, and they weren't all hand-picked to be the poster children with the best shot at success. There's no shame in not being up to snuff. I failed out of Special Forces selection, as did 95% guys I did it with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
I enjoy the vision of history people had where peasant women didn't work in the fields but I guess ate chocolate all day or whatever. Frosted Flake posted:Weightlifters =/= the average military recruit. Okay, mi amigo, the point of that comparison was that if weightlifters were just barely capable of lifting that, then the average woman would be for sure incapable. Try to exercise the ol' grey matter a little. I think it's not a question of being "unfair", it's a question of fact. If you want to believe that only genetic sports are capable of being able to lift their own body weight, as far as women go, then you can believe that, and close your eyes to the issue that our society does not encourage women to be physically fit. But that's not relevant. I do enjoy comparing special forces to the artillery though, and so unconsciously too.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
i'm sure any woman with the intelligence and ambition to get into the combat branches despite sexist adversity is going to end up with a better job than the equivalent of hauling sacks of rice to and fro
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I do enjoy comparing special forces to the artillery though, and so unconsciously too. Chalk that one down to Regimental Pride. I'm down with society encouraging women to work out and join the military. It's really the only way to be sure. You can talk about how suited they are all day, but until there are a fair chunk of women on the guns, it's all academic. e: Women's sports are great! Take hockey for example, Canadian Men's and Women's are consistently the best in the world. The women just can't play on the same level as the men though. That doesn't take anything away from their accomplishments, it's just how it is. They're both amazing teams and a joy to watch. It wouldn't be fair to roll them into one national team because there might be one woman who would make the cut. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Mixed sex sports are great if your goal is to eliminate most professional female athletes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Mariya Oktyabrskaya was a genetic mutant, I guess. Notice she was a tank driver, not a tank loader. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 23:01
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Also notice she was a tank driver, not a tank loader. She was a mechanic, initially, and died while changing a tread. Now go and vote this thread 1 and run out of here crying again.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
You never hear about all the men that lived after successfully changing a tread. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 23:06
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:You never hear about all the men that lived after successfully changing a tread. I thought you were in artillery, not a sniper.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Whats with all the MRA poo poo lately? Too many damned 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Whats with all the MRA poo poo lately? Too many damned How is this a MRA issue? Women's sports are awesome, Men's sports are awesome. It's unfair for the two to play against each other. Women provide valuable military service, Men provide valuable military service.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Whats with all the MRA poo poo lately? Too many damned I'm not sure if it counts as if it's talking about basic biology. Women generally don't build muscle the same way men do. Women tend to be less muscular overall than men are. That may be heavily socialised but I was under the impression it's also physiological. is like, if you take that and say "so you shouldn't be allowed to vote" or some stupid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure if it counts as There is a difference in the muscle composition between men and women. There are always outliers, but on average the population of men is stronger than women. I don't think this has any effect on what women can accomplish outside of athletics (only when compared to the best men) or fringe cases where a job requires immense strength. If a woman can still do the job, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. As for socialization, we already have sports where men and women are treated basically the same. I posted about swimming earlier, it's still a fact that men and women do the same training and get the same treatment at competitions in the United States. Same for European countries and Australia, I'm not sure about Asia or South America. USA shows how it works well because we're dominant in the sport. There is a period from ages 10-12 where a lot of the fastest girls are faster than the fastest boys on their team. Once puberty kicks in, the boys start to equalize then surpass. Of course, there are plenty of girls who will regularly beat the boys on their team throughout high school. But if you raced them with the boys, they wouldn't get nearly as much attention. Any solutions for making women's athletics more popular by integrating with men are out of touch with reality and would hurt women's athletics. OP is still dumb though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 00:25
|
|