|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 18, @10:32PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The show was great. Joe is making great inroads and I will be observing how the trial progresses. However, during the show it became apparent that men have a serious problem.
When explaining differences in gender behavior, we are using terminology that makes men sound sexist. In fact we sound like far right extremist when explaining gender differences.
What we need is an excellent social science doctor to help us come up with a new method of communicating the differences between men and women. Yes, we may even have to use spin doctoring to develop a better sounding theory.
For example, if we use the nature vs. nurture argument to claim that men are better fire fighters, we sound very sexist. While the facts may support such a claim, the explanation is now rejected as sexist by most of the public. I cannot sit down with my intelligent coworkers and explain gender differences with current theory. They simply reject it as sexist.
Does anybody know of a better theory we can use to explain gender differences? Or does any body have a more politically correct method of explaining gender differences?
We cannot go against the feminists with the current outdated theories. We will simply get creamed. Therefore, we need a more developed theory that supplants their current theory of the patriarchy and male dominance.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LAst time that started, I had one of the men in the room - a real Joe Average, hoist a large man over his shoulder and carry him out of the room.
Then I asked two of the buff aerobicized women to do the same to the same man. They couldn't even - together- get him off the stage.
Imagine. A pack a day, untrained, slightly overweight near middle age guy outmuscled two female workout nuts.
If my house catches fire I know who I want pulling me out of the window.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine. A pack a day, untrained, slightly overweight near middle age guy out muscled two female workout nuts.
Perhaps you failed to approach the problem in a manner that is compatible with female physiology.
To illustrate, I've been checking out some of the studies to learn about brain differences, and I found they claim that women are better at decoding facial expressions and relating them to emotion. To quote:
==========================================
Our main finding from this study in men and women so far is that it's a lot less work for women," said Professor Ruben Gurs with the University of Pennsylvania. "It's not such a big deal for them to tell how a person is feeling, whereas the male brains are sweating a lot more in trying to figure it out."
Source - Sex Based Brain Differences
===========================================
Then the same study points out that men won't spend a great deal of time analyzing feelings. To quote:
===========================================
"Most men if you ask them to talk about their feelings they will say, what is there to talk about?"
===========================================
But of course there is a difference in how men will organize to solve a problem. For example, men tend to form a hierarchy more readily to solve a problem like rescue or exiting a maze. Women on the other will tend to organize as a group without any clear leader. To quote:
===========================================
“Some of the more important differences can be illustrated by observing groups of young teenage boys and groups of young teenage girls when they attempt to find their way out of a maze. A group of boys generally establish a hierarchy or chain of command with a leader who emerges on his own or through demonstrations of ability and power. Boys explore the maze using scouts while remaining in distant proximity to each other. Groups of girls tend to explore the maze together as a group without establishing a clear or dominant leader. Relationships tends to be co-equal. Girls tend to elicit discussion and employ "collective intelligence" to the task of discovering a way out. Girls tend to work their way through the maze as a group. Boys tend to search and explore using structured links and a chain of command.”
differences
============================================
So, where there is a fire, I suppose the females will tend to check facial expressions to see who feels the worst in addition to other factors. Then they will tend to organize a co-equal committee with no clear leader to perform the rescue.
Men on the other hand will most likely ignore the facial expressions, form a hierarchy, and complete the rescue after sending out scouts to assess the situation. After the assessment, they will most likely make judgments on who to rescue first
Personally, I really don’t care which way the rescue takes place as long as it is effective and saves my life. If the female approach is ineffective then so be it. Currently, the evidence is that both groups will achieve an equal outcome. That should be all that matters.
I am however; open to physical evidence that proves the outcomes are inherently unequal. So, far I don’t know of any. If a person claims that one method of rescue is superior without supporting proof, I would suggest that they might be sexist, and so would the feminist. In that case you will loose the debate.
What we cannot do is run around saying that men have superior strength, and claim that women are the physically weaker sex. Making those kinds of statements is a guarantee to failure for the men's movement. It just sounds too sexist, and how something sounds is everything in winning this war. Remember, when dealing with women, how something sounds is everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, I think you're ignoring the importance of physical performance in certain kinds of jobs (both civilian and military). Yes, men do have superior strength and women are physically weaker when it comes to muscular strength and yes, aerobic capacity.
In certain jobs those differences give men a definite performance advantage. That's not a moral indictment of women. Your example seems to involve an intellectual, analytical exercise that simply doesn't take into account the importance of physical performance -- power, speed, endurance, etc. Those things are definitely important for firefighters, military personnel, and law enforcement officers in physically demanding (and dangerous) situations. Other realities come into play, too, such as female soldiers' greater likelihood of suffering from stress injuries that can put them out of action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 19, @02:05AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Your example seems to involve an intellectual, analytical exercise that simply doesn't take into account the importance of physical performance -- power, speed, endurance, etc. Those things are definitely important for firefighters, military personnel, and law enforcement officers in physically demanding (and dangerous) situations.
You guys are missing the point. Woman like MacKinnon are highly educated and using intellectual arguments to kick our asses. We cannot resort to these older arguments without sounding like complete sexist jerks. We will never win taking that approach. It has been tried and it has failed.
I had a philosophy professor that explained what it means to be stupid. If you have a child, and the child sticks a screwdriver into a socket, they will get shocked. Only the stupid child will do the same thing repeatedly. Further, if you have such a child, you can deduce that you are going to have a hard life for the next eighteen years.
Likewise, if men keep using theories and explanations where they have had their asses kicked they are just plain stupid. We have been burned with the physical strength arguments big time. Only stupid men will keep using the physical superiority argument. Come on men. Get a clue. We are getting our asses kicked. We need a new approach. I have already had a hard twenty years from stupid male theories that fail. We need something that works. Otherwise, we are going to have another 20 years of having our asses kicked.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, I disagree that the physical strength and performance argument has no validity. Anyone (of either sex) who chooses to disregard the importance of strength, power and aerobic capacity in various jobs, especially military and firefighting, is putting their head in the sand.
Many feminists like to minimize or downplay the importance of physical performance differences between men and women in the aforementioned jobs. Their "women can do whatever men can do physically and even if they can't it's not important" argument is currently being rejected by the national administration and others in the military-civilian bureacracy. It's also being rejected in other countries like Britain. The fact that physical differences matter in relation to performance and job capability is the reason that we see such a small percentage of female firefighters. (I get the feeling that feminists would love to have accelerated affirmative action in hiring and promoting of female firefighters, with lower physical standards for women.)
The argument about the importance of physical performance differences may not play well among many in the media and academia, but the folks who actually do the work in these physically demanding occupations might have a different take, especially if they're honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, I think you're ignoring the importance of physical performance in certain kinds of jobs (both civilian and military). Yes, men do have superior strength and women are physically weaker when it comes to muscular strength and yes, aerobic capacity.
Okay. Here is what this argument fails. This is they same sort of strategy that feminist use. What we will do here is apply the acid test.
Instead of comparing men and women in roles that require physical labor, lets substitute a race. Let’s compare Caucasian men against Asian men. Some, would argue that on the whole Asian men have less of a physical stature. So, they should not be allowed into the military because Asian men cannot meet the physical requirements.
Others might argue that there are tribes in Africa that have on average a larger physical stature then Caucasian men. So, using the physical strength argument, we should recruit primarily African males to serve in positions that require a superior physical strength.
This is how men are getting their butts kicked with the physical stature argument. You can only win such an argument in a conservative male forum. All other groups like the moderate and liberals have long left such arguments behind as foolishness and outright bigotry.
Obviously, there are some men that are quite stupid. I expect that they will fail to learn from these concrete and well-documented examples. They will continue to make life miserable for other men that are more enlightened. I guess that we will just have to deal with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble:
I forget if it was here or on Mensnewsdaily, but not one month ago I read a study that said that women also form heirarchal groups. They just take longer to do so.
The researchers invited men and women into the study ostensibly to study differences in parenting style between men & women. The sexes were segregated into exclusive single sex groups, and encouraged to discuss various parenting issues. The researchers watched what happened through one way glass. While the men immediately established a hierarchy as to who dominated time, spoke first, etc, the females took longer. But by the third meeting a definite female hierarchy had emerged.
I say this not to quibble. I don't deny obvious differences between the sexes. However some things that seem obvious might not be so. And I want us to have the best information possible, because we need all the good information we can get!
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forget if it was here or on Mensnewsdaily, but not one month ago I read a study that said that women also form heirarchal groups. They just take longer to do so.
I remember that article, Remo. It pointed out that men and women are more similar in the way we form groups than we think, and that men were simply more efficient at forming the hierarchal structure than were women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forget if it was here or on Mensnewsdaily, but not one month ago I read a study that said that women also form heirarchal groups. They just take longer to do so.
Yea. I saw that study also. We need more research that confirms and support this study. After obtaining confirmation studies, we can credibly argue that males have a tendency to form hierarchal groups more efficiently. However, that will leave room open for a debate on the effectiveness of the groups. I.E. which group is more effective? Female or male, or is the outcome essentially equal? Perhaps such studies will demonstrate that a certain mixture of males and females is the most effective and efficient hierarchal group. Closing our minds to this possibility will only make men appear bigoted.
I would really like to have the answer to these questions. If it turns out that men form hierarchical groups that are both more effective and efficient, then we have something solid that work with. This will allow us to argue from a different perspective and to take feminist by surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"if we use the nature vs. nurture argument to claim that men are better fire fighters, we sound very sexist. While the facts may support such a claim, the explanation is now rejected as sexist by most of the public. I cannot sit down with my intelligent coworkers and explain gender differences with current theory. They simply reject it as sexist."
I think the focus on issues like the number of female firefighters being overwhelmingly male should be on DESIRE. Women don't want these jobs and simply requiring them to hold the positions for uninterested women is unwarranted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DanCurry, yes I agree that the appeal among women for the firefighter job is very low. Feminists are demanding that the government spend money on programs to encourage and recruit women into these tradional male jobs, regardless of interest level. Same with computer science and engineering. The idea is that if you get the female participation up a little bit that will encourage more and more women to enter those jobs over time.
I'm assuming they want affirmative action policies applied to those areas. Cut women some slack on entry requirements and qualifications. Give them special incentives and inducements. After a while you'll have a steady flow, like we've seen with women entering law, medicine and business. So goes the thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 19, @03:30AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are demanding that the government spend money on programs to encourage and recruit women into these tradional male jobs, regardless of interest level.
The reason why women want the funding is to socialize females to take those positions. They believe the interest level is a result of the socialization of the patriarchy. The deal is, the data is mounting to support such claims. Males have not produced studies that credibly dispute those claims. The same is true with the females taking the positions of police officers, firemen, and etc. Deal.
Men simply cannot argue against this trend without new social theories. For this reason, I believe that Dan may be on to something. For example, there is a lack of interest by women in jobs for firefighters. Therefore, quotas are not being filled. Golly. That means that if there is a real fire, that the “best interest of the children will not be served.” Horrors of horrors!
This is the opportunity to create a major crisis. What we need to watch for is a major fire where there is a loss of life due to feminist quotas not being filled. Then we can escalate this into a National crisis. We will have to supplement the facts using a study or two from a credible source.
There will be a need to demonstrate a scientific theory/reason why the crisis is developing. I.E. Females tend to form co-equal groups and for this reason, they are unable to efficiently fight a fire (just an idea – could be something else) whereas men more naturally form a hierarchy and therefore are able to more efficiently save the lives of children. Therefore, it is in the best interest of children that we hire more men to be firefighters. Forget the superior strength arguments because they are old, dead, and viewed as sexist.
Of course, feminist will argue that women are more/equally suited to serve the best interest of the children because they have sufficient strength. They won't care about the men that will die because men are now expendable.
So, it has to be an inability to organize due to brain function and not strength. We need a study that supports such a theory or something similar. We may even need the social scientist to redefine terms (like the rape/DV studies) to inflate statistics like the feminist. Then we can use the same strategy that feminist use to fill the openings by proposing a male oriented resolution to the crisis.
The idea that we will be able to just make an appeal to common sense is out-the-window. Those days are gone. We must have the proper studies, a real crisis that is inflatable, the legislation, and the solution all lined up to make this work.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As long as we have mandated safety nets that allow women to fail, and require men to pull their asses out of the fire when then do, then hand over the credit to the women it will continue. Men have to quit their impulses to help women out, and they have to start calling women on it. And we as men have to listen to our brothers when they do, and stop saying "Shhhh! Massa Missy be POW'ful upset iffen yous keep talkin'..."
Nuts.
I've got no women on my dock. Why? They can't do the work, and when I insist on equal performance, they quit. I don't allow my men to help out "the girls" and I write women up when they fail to perform. I don't tolerate emotional outbursts. I don't accept "PMS" as an excuse. I don't accept "single motherhood" as an excuse to get out of work and miss mandatory overtime. I had two women as bench techs, now I have one. The other quit because she got caught and called on playing queen bee.
I do it by the law, and by the book, and in ten years I've never paid a single unemployment claim by any of these women.
I have a female "administrative assistant," (Secretary to translate from politicallycorrectspeak) and I have made it clear that her job is solely to make my job easier, and that includes steppin' and fetchin'. And that my office is not a tea shop. She doesn't conduct gabfests on my time. She doesn't "pretty up" the place. And if junior is sick, she can jolly well decide and choose whther to be my secretary or mommy - just like men have had to do for years upon years.
I know better than to make it about gender at work. I don't have to - I am the iron-pants sonouvabitch, who suffers no fools, and takes no prisoners, and will schedule the first meeting if and when the department becomes a democracy. Until then, send me a memo, and I'll get with you if I care.
My "Patriarchal" method of doing my job - works. I have the lowest rate of absenteeism, turnover, and overtime in the company. It is a model of such efficiency that it survived three waves of layoffs back in 98, absolutely intact.
So what's they key? Stop accepting the bullshit. Stop accepting the excuses. Stop the one-sided chivalry. Stop negotiating with terrorists. Harden your heart against the crocodile tears. Pheminists know better than to screw with me, because I throw them a travel bottle of Midol, and tell them to get a real job. If you stop giving these clowns an audience for the garbage, they will go back to their henhouses, and leave the rest of us alone.
Stop dating them. Stop fathering children with them. Call them on bad service, withdraw business, withdraw patronage, and let them know WHY. Make it cost something to be a pheminist, real money.
These "wimmyn" get away with it because we let them, Warb. Stop arguing, there's the key - put them out front in war, and let them get shot. Put them on the streets fighting crime, and let THEM die in the line of duty. Yes, let them be firefighters, and let people die because they can't hack it. AND. STOP. RIDING. TO. THEIR. RESCUE. Let them go down the tubes, stamp their file "Failure" and move on, in the future able to justify sending a man to do a man's job.
It's cold blooded as hell, and it's hard. Very hard. You have to overcome social and genetic programming. You have to fight the impulse to work a little harder to pick up the slack, you have to deliberately turn away when the tears flow. Don't think about it. First time I did it was when I was a parts supervisor. Jeannette was whimpering lugging 30 pound boxes. But I thought of the guys chucking 75 pound boxes at twice the rate, and ignored it, and made her stick it out - and after 3 days of no "white knight" riding to her rescue, she quit. She quit because when I sent the guys over to bail her out, I gave them the credit for the job.
Warb, you're losing these arguments because you can't win. Logic and facts are patriarchal - they deck is stacked, you can't win, you can't break even, and once you pull up a chair, man, you can't get out of the game. Don't sit down at the table, mate. There's your solution.
They have reached their conclusion, mis ami, so why debate them? They aren't looking for your point of view, they aren't open to being persuaded, they aren't looking for facts, they are seeking out rationalizations to support their degenerate preconcieved and long discredited notions.
Screw 'em. Figuratively speaking, of course. And if they get the pouty look, and get their panties twisted in a knot, and stamp their little feet, BFHD. A bullheaded, blinkered policy of appeasement didn't work with the Nazis, and it's not going to work with the Pheminazis.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These "wimmyn" get away with it because we let them, Warb. Stop arguing, there's the key - put them out front in war, and let them get shot. Put them on the streets fighting crime, and let THEM die in the line of duty. Yes, let them be firefighters, and let people die because they can't hack it. AND. STOP. RIDING. TO. THEIR. RESCUE. Let them go down the tubes, stamp their file "Failure" and move on, in the future able to justify sending a man to do a man's job.
Gonzo. LOL. We agree on quite a bit here. This is exactly what I want men to do. However, I am arguing that we need to change our tactics and become more tactful in how we present our arguments. We cannot come across like a bunch of low I.Q. testosterone touting men and win in the public arena.
My goal is to appeal to a wider audience. If we use old arguments that sound sexist, we will loose the debate. It has already happened and the pattern is being repeated.
However, we can change our tactics and sound more intelligent, friendly, and appeal to a larger audience. I am not saying that we need to sound wimpy or feminist. But we cannot go on sounding sexist either.
These superior strength arguments have been branded as sexist. Nobody can credibly question that fact in except in an all male forum of conservatives that have failed to update their perspectives.
I'll show how easy it is to blow away the superior strength argument in another post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
previous anon post is mine.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I say you establish minimum baselines of performance, and look astonished and troubled when they talk about gender norming and you ask them, "Are you saying women are incapable of performing solely on the basis of their gender?" and keep pressing that tack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, how good are you at spotting symbolism?
"Then I ran across this little anecdote about the poet Gershom Gorenberg whose poetry submissions to "Tikkun" magazine had been censored by the editor who said; "I am not fond of how you write about women."
Gorenberg searched his poetry for whatever it was that was offensive to the editor and then realized "…the inquisitor is succeeding admirably: the very vagueness of the charge has driven me to search for my sins, incriminate myself, confess."
http://www.vix.com/menmag/dpinet.htm
Men, Women and "The Net"
See what I mean here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 19, @02:23PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I am currently a student at a liberal arts college in the northwest (portland oregeon to be specific) and frequently attempt to educated people about men's issues. The area of male and female sex differences is one of those I have brought up from time to time. your absolutely right in your assessment that it is difficult to disscuss the issue without the "sexist" arguements coming up. My way of dealing with this is to start of the issue by mentioning that male and female sex differences for the most part at very subtle. Men are very capable of nurturing children, women are very capable of lifting heavy objects. The only time these sex differences become very obvious are when a particular situation is bias toward a particular sex based ability. By introducing this idea you inoculate the listener against the idea that you might be sexist. You allow yourself room to manuver when confronted with women that can lift a 180 lbs man or carry a 80 lbs sack for 20 miles or swim the English Channel. They key to approaching these issues seems to be avoiding painting a black and white picture of the sexes, men and women.
Here are a few arguements to head off a few rebuttals that feminist rhetoric will raise when attempting to discuss sex differences and work.
The fireman issue (yes I am aware I used "man" and not person) Men tend to have 50% greater strength in their upper body and 20% more in their lower body for the same body mass. (ie the same physical weight) In addition men tend to have a greater aerobic and anerobic capacity than women. When it comes to a job that these attribute are a main focus point of the work men will naturally be more capable of accomplishing the work.
There are two main rebuttals here. The first is that not all men are of equal strength some are smaller than others and can not lift as much so women should not be excluded because they are smaller than men or weaker than a predetermined average.
The rebuttal to agree with them and just say that if women are equally capable of accomplishing the day to day duties of the job then they should be allowed to work at that job.
The second step to this arguement for feminists is to challenge the standards themselves.
My reply to this is to acknowledge that this is a valid question. What is the purpose of the requirement? Is its purpose to ensure good physical condition of the individuals (such as the physical fitness tests in the military) or to ensure that the person is physicallly capable of accomplishing day to day tasks such as in fire and police departmental tests. This is the area where trouble occurs and the claims of "sexism" arises.
The first step to this is to get the person to acknowledge that there should be a some basic physical standards. After this then you lead the argument down the path to who people deal with. Since the fire and police departments deal with men and women in their daily lives they should beable to deal with the average person. (what ever that is I think its 150 lbs for a male) You lead the arguement back to the initial fact that on average men are stronger than women so the average man is more likely to be able to complete the task when compared to the average woman.
This does not mean that women cann't just that they are generally less likely to beable too.
The counter to this is that the need for that amount of physical strength is infrequent so women could do other jobs that require less physical strength. The problem with this is that the police and fire departments are emergency crews and incapable of planning the requirements of a particular situation so plan for the average and hope for the best. (Emergency services are different from daily services since the individuals have more freedom and time to ask for help from others. Think of working at a warehouse, if you need to lift something abnormally heavy you get the "big" guy in the place to do it. YOu do not have this freedom when the situation is life and death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You allow yourself room to manuver when confronted with women that can lift a 180 lbs man or carry a 80 lbs sack for 20 miles or swim the English Channel. They key to approaching these issues seems to be avoiding painting a black and white picture of the sexes, men and women. Here are a few arguements to head off a few rebuttals that feminist rhetoric will raise when attempting to discuss sex differences and work. The fireman issue (yes I am aware I used "man" and not person) Men tend to have 50% greater strength in their upper body and 20% more in their lower body for the same body mass.
On the surface I agree that this argument is initially quite good. It is the one that conservatives like Sean Hannity use. However, when examined a little deeper this pattern falls apart.
The test is to substitute men from other cultures with different physical statures. In this case, try substituting Asian males and then the larger African males.
When this test is applied it decimates the physical attribute argument. It is clearly little more than sexist. We cannot credibly argue that male Asian firefighters are less effective than Caucasian firefighters. To do so is clearly racist.
For those who would try to support such arguments, I am certain that there is a local chapter of the K.K.K. . They would be happy to add new members.
B.T.W. I am not a liberal. There are liberal arguments that I will just as readily reject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, though, we don't live in an Asian community. Notwithstanding scattered Asian neighborhoods, firefighters and rescue workers in the U.S. are dealing with the American body type, faulted as it may be. But faulted as it may be, it is still larger than the typical Asian body type, so the whole spectrum of physical strength requirements modulates upward. Note that the differences between men and women in the Asian communities still exists: Asian women as a group are the same fraction smaller than Asian men as American women are than American men.
Without being racist about it, the characteristics of the local population need to be considered when determining the physical strength requirements of a given job, especially firefighters and other emergency workers, and in the U.S. the average body is larger.
I have no objection to women as emergency workers, and I think few of us here do. What I disagree with is the deliberate reduction of physical strength standards solely for the purpose of allowing smaller, weaker women in under the wire for the purposes of "career advancement." This endangers the rest of the team. FYI, there was an article recently published by Col. David Hackworth where he cites the quiet protests by men in infantry units when smaller men are selected. Their complaint is quite clear: they want for everyone to be within the physical standards that allow any of them to be rescued by any other member of the team, should the need arise in combat. So this is not just a gender issue for the military, and I suspect you'd hear similar comments from FDNY guys, too, but you'd have to elicit those comments in private.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without being racist about it, the characteristics of the local population need to be considered when determining the physical strength requirements of a given job, especially firefighters and other emergency workers, and in the U.S. the average body is larger.
Frank....frank....frank.... Warble shakes his head and laughs. That is a nice try. However, I live in CA. Caucasians are in the minority. One had better not be using those old arguments to justify he multiethnic hiring standards. I will fail in court as a racist argument.
What this strategy does it apply ethnocentrism and then tries to justify the sexism. Nice try though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, warble, I'm not a lawyer nor do I try to argue like one, so as a matter of how to deal with this in the courts, you may well have the advantage. As for California, I keep hoping for the entire state to break off and float into the Pacific (just kidding, mostly). But the reality is this: when all citizens of the US are taken into account, body weight is higher than most other nations. This is not necessarily a good thing, though, because Americans have MUCH higher rate of obesity. It's not a "white male" versus "Chinese female" thing, just a consideration of the average dimensions and mass of the populace. And in fact, I believe it can be presented in court successfully as a matter of considering the WHOLE populace. What needs to happen first is that the courts need to be brought up short on the notion that "it's all about the individual." It's not. Certain occupations are NOT about the individual, but are about the best interest of the citizenry. Emergency workers fit this group, and the courts ought to recognize this fact, and they never will as along as we allow the liberals to appoint activist judges to the federal courts, as long as we allow the kind of crap that just took place with Pickering.
The feminists can demand that the whole job be redesigned to fit the smaller female body type, and this will be successful to some degree. We CAN redesign equipment to be carried by three people instead of two, we CAN change the size and shape of fire trucks and weapons to accommodate women. If we want to encourage women to seek engineering careers then we CAN redefine how engineering gets done. But we have two problems:
1) These things have developed naturally based on the capabilities of the people who sought these jobs over the past few centuries. If we re-create them artificially, then we'll have a preponderance of false starts, and the ensuing chaos will ruin the lives of many people and the economies of most industrialized nations. When we finally get it right, we'll be worse-off than when we started because of the ground we will have lost in the interim.
2) We STILL have to deal with the simple fact that for one person to rescue one other person, the rescuer has to be able to lift the average victim up and carrying him/her away from danger. One body weighing in at 98 lbs will not be very successful at carrying another at 180 lbs. In order to make this successful, we'd need to lower the average body weight of the populace, and THAT, my friend, is a business wherein billions of dollars are being spent every year. With NEGATIVE results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, I'd be very interested to know if there are non-partisan scientific studies that have been done that conclusively show that the average Caucasian female can match or excel the average Hispanic or Asian male in physical tests such as the kind that are conducted in the military and in firefighter trainee school. Do you know of any?
You seem to be arguing that the general public treats criticism by feminists as being beyond reproach. I don't doubt that the academic, gov't bureacracy, and media communities are biased in favor of victim feminism. But they don't speak for everyone -- or even most people. It doesn't appear to me that articulate and well-reasoned arguments about the importance of physical performance differences between the sexes are automatically dismissed as retrograde and chauvinistic. In a women's studies class, yes. In a gathering of average people representing the general public, I think there would be a lot of folks who would agree that physical performance differences are real and practically important in a number of occupations.
When feminists and their allies can't come up with logical and realistic (fact-based) counter arguments, they fall back on name calling, like "male chauvinist" or "neanderthal" or "reactionary". Instead of dealing with the substance they attack the author. That just demonstrates the bankruptcy of their position.
Warble, what about *women* who assert that women's lesser strength and aerobic capacity is a hinderance to the efficient and effective performance of a team in the military or in firefighting? How about women who have served or are serving in the military who say that most women can't match the males in strength and endurance, that women are more likely to suffer stress injuries and take sick leave -- which puts them out of action and affects readiness, AND puts the guys at greater risk? Not to mention the military mission.
Are you saying those women will be dismissed as a bunch of ignorant silly people who've been brainwashed by the patriarchy? Isn't that feminist attitude sort of condescending to those women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the article all the way up until the guy started whining about how men have testosterone. At first they guy was having some sort of anxiety attack because he didn’t get a direct response from a female. Then he found an indirect response that he was uncomfortable with. What a whiner.
Then he goes off on some ridiculous tangent about how men have testosterone. For crying out loud! We have many more chemicals in our bodies than just "T" that define our masculinity. The article sounded like a mixture of unleashed anger and incessant whining.
Okay. So, men have testosterone. DEAL! So do women. We are most certainly defined by more than a single chemical in our body. This singling out of a single chemical is little more than stupidity. Don’t let the feminist get away with this by buying into this nonsense. Find alternative more developed theories to explain male-female behavior. Then counter the arguments with well documented facts.
He also stated the following:
I'm angry that the Men's Movement hasn't mobilized in any way over the issue of men being actively targeted in this society as the problem. I'm angry that we, that's me and every man who has passively let this go on without doing a single, active, concrete thing about it, have allowed the media, from the 10 o'clock News to national TV talk show comedians, get away with making men look like assholes for daring to do the work of becoming authentic human beings.
And I'm angry that the "official" feminist movement, the one that seems to have the ear of the universities and the feds, the harpies who follow the party line as laid out by the MackDworkins, have, by lies and manipulation, enthralled this country.
Well he is right. That is presumably why mensactivism.org exists. However, if we allow outdated conservative naturalistic arguments to define our strategies for the men’s movement, we will fail. It has already failed.
It is like Bush coming up with a new strategy to fight a new kind of war on terrorism. We must do the same and stop whining about that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is what the Nazi's thought about women in the work place:
"Kinder , kriche , kuche" ("Kids , kirk ,Kitchen") This was a common slogan adopted by the Nazis to promote inequality between the sexes , in other words "A woman's place is in the home !" . Nazi thinking has always been in favor , that a woman's place is always below the status of the male.
Nazi Women
So far, all of these physical capability arguments sound to me like a justification for having "a woman's place ... below the status of the male." I am not alone in this view. By definition this physical superiority argument is bigoted. All attempts to present arguments supporting this view will fail. They are simply sexist.
Further, the vast majority of Americans have this view. It cuts across moderate and liberal lines. It even reaches into some conservative circles. The majority of the American public accepts that these physical superiority arguments are sexist and to be discarded as obsolete. They are from another time. As men we will have to deal with that fact.
To further illustrate, here is some KKK sexist hate speech:
"Some women may resent being reminded of their capabilities to be a mother. The feminist movement has encouraged women to feel ashamed of this wonderful gift. Women have many talents and in no way is inferior to men, but perhaps brute strength."
Rachel Pendergraft, Grand Council
(Emphasis added by me)
KKK - The Physical Inferiority of Women
So, what are you guys? Are you a bunch of secret KKK members posing as men interested in equal rights? You sure as hell sound like it with these physical superiority arguments. I suggest that we better think twice about these arguments. I have credibly decimated every one of them. The feminist can easily do the same thing, and they have successfully done so for decades.
A key to moving the men’s movement forward will be to admit failure, to embrace change, to adapt, and seek out new male only issues.
We must seek out issues where we can win. For example, the Anti-Paternity Fraud Bill in GA. If we keep sticking to these tired old sexist arguments, the men’s movement will stagnate and fail. It will be seen as nothing more than a backlash of bitter and sexist males. Do not think for an instant that feminist won't successfully paint us as sexist if we continue to embrace these old invalid arguments.
Crap….I guess the feminist would be proud. Dang! Well…. whatever it takes to get men to embrace issues that are winnable and drop these tired old sexist ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble:
Chill!
Your 'racist','sexist', argument would apply if proudman or Frank or anyone for that matter was arguing that NO woman should ever be a firefighter, no black should ever be 'this' or 'that', etc.
Your problem is you are confusing decisions made in order to accomplish specific tasks ( soldiers have to be able to carry this much equipment, firefighters need to be able to carry a 200 lb weight down a flight of stairs etc) with some sort of statment of "merit" about the members of your groups.
So long as she can meet the physical standards (which so far have passed the 'reality' check test), I don't care if I have an asian female firefighter rescuing ME from my burning house.
Pointing out, however , that if you took a group of one thousand females from the largest natural 'race' and pitted them against a thousand male pygmies they would still lose out in most physical contests isn't sexist, racist, or anything. It's just reality. Saying that men are considerably stronger than women on average is a fact that cannot and should not be denied. And once in a while, as with certain occupations, it does have public policy implications. C.F.I. the recent report on women's injuries in the British Army when they tried to bring them up to male standards.
Without tremendous lowering of physical standards and/or automation of all the hard tasks there will never be as many women firefighters as men. And those who can't deal with that fact are those that have the problem.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
