~ archived since 2018 ~

"Equality": Few female Marines step forward for infantry officer training

secaa23

November 26, 2012

29 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/25/few-female-marines-step-forward-for-infantry/

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	"Equality": Few female Marines step forward for infantry officer training
Author	secaa23
Upvotes	29
Comments	254
Date	November 26, 2012 5:20 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/13tjbe/equality_few_female_marines_step_forward_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/equality-few-female-marines-step-forward-for.1008272 https://theredarchive.com/post/1008272

Comments

[–]RightsActivist 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (164 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RightsActivist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RightsActivist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuickBASIC 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]notanothercirclejerk -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (139 children) | Copy Link

[–]RunfromtheHRST 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Son of a bitch, the Marine Corps has been doing mixed gender Marine Combat Training platoons for over a decade. This is the course non-infantry Marines go to in order to learn how to be basic riflemen. "Every Marine is a rifleman" and all that good shit.

Talk to any Marine who ever went through MCT with WMs. They will tell you, WMs are weak. They fall out of humps all the time. They shoot like shit. You can't expect them to share the load on crew served weapons during humps. They're basically not equivalent to their male counterparts. Look at their PFT standards. Look at their obstacle course. Everything about their physical training is changed because if they were held to the same standard as the men, they wouldn't make it.

All of this is to say nothing of the annoyances that come with having to lead female Marines. Having to tell Lance Criminals and other Sergeants to fuck off out of your work section if all they're going to do is steal time from your people. Secure the fucking happiness and get back to work. Constant pregnancies and appointments (which kind of suck but are kind of awesome when you get to be there for delivery). Petty female infighting. "Oh, you're nice to LCpl ___ and don't give her shit jobs because she's cute and flirts with you." Negative there, Opha Mae Johnson. When I issue orders to you on important tasks, I cannot count on you to accomplish them. So after establishing a long track record of incompetence, I tell you to buff the decks while LCpl ___ sits on her ass in the office writing reports because that is about the only job I can expect you to competently perform. She doesn't flirt with me, she says "Aye, Sergeant" and then accomplishes my fucking orders. Something you're evidently incapable of doing.

It is a pain in the ass, and introduces many what we liked to call "leadership challenges." I'd love it if WMs were held to the same standard as men and were permitted to do the same work. I had one WM that worked for me, she was like the other half of my brain. If she wasn't there, my own performance was degraded. Senior Lance Corporal taking charge, oohrah. But dammit, most of the rest of them were worthless and undependable. Do not force this situation on the ground combat element. Don't fucking do it, not if you're going to reduce requirements for physical fitness and physical performance. If you're going to do that, it isn't worth it. Us in the air combat element and combat service support group can handle these additional challenges, because we exist only to support the GCE. We're REMFs. We'll put up with the leadership challenges. But do not put these additional challenges on the GCE for no reason other than to score political points.

[–]RightsActivist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RunfromtheHRST 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RunfromtheHRST 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago* (122 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (119 children) | Copy Link

[+]osmondheart 13 years ago [recovered] (118 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe this is true, but the varying physiological aspects of both the male and female body are closer than you might think.

Too many people think it is a fair comparison to put a 110lb model up against a 250lb MMA fighter. Such is an obvious attempt to belittle women who want to join the front lines.

To say any test in the military is too much for any woman to accomplish is absurd and a shallow argument. The key is motivating women who could but won't try because they don't feel women can do it.

The beauty of evolution is that we adapt to our surroundings. The more women join the military, the more their great, great, great, great granddaughters will thank them when they're doing just as good or better than the average man in combat readiness.

In order for evolution to work, we have to challenge our current status. Lower standards and lack of military training for those who would want it hurts women in the future.

[–]RightsActivist 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[+]osmondheart 13 years ago* [recovered] (31 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't saying that you said that. It was out of context and maybe I shouldn't have brought it up but I was saying that the belief behind lower standards for women is the idea that:

"a woman is unable to pass a male exam", or that

"too few women would enter."

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[–]RightsActivist 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

I'm equally sorry for misunderstanding you.

However, what I would like to point out that all of these biological differences are merely averages and that these requirements are still very much attainable for most physically fit women. By no means is a woman unable to pass a male exam, it will simply be on average harder for females than for their male counterparts assuming all other things equal (age, amount and length of training, etc.).

Also, I disagree with the entire concept of "too few women". Should male students in social sciences, pharmacy, and nursing degrees be given higher marks because there's too few men entering? Shoudl female students in natural science, engineering, math, and tech programs be given higher marks because there's too few women entering?

Obviously no. Now consider the military, where unqualified people being given the green light could quickly lead to death for them and everyone around them. Requirements are there for a reason.

[+]osmondheart 13 years ago [recovered] (29 children) | Copy Link

Definitely. I wouldn't want anyone unqualified on the field. I'd rather have 100 well qualified women fighting than 1000 who couldn't work as well.

I have never liked unnecessary affirmative action myself, either :)

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nah, see.. a movement can be defined by it's people. Feminism was always seen as an egalitarian concept, despite what corruption and misleading information has been attributed to the name. As long as I believe that women should have equal rights to men, the rest is really up for grabs. Myself, and feminists I associate myself with, do not want men to be driven into submission and bullied like people seem to want to think. There is no reason to deny that we are feminist while we actively support the sole cause of feminism. If we want to pick up men's rights too, then it's our choice to do so. Nobody can say what I believe. Only the group itself can offer an accurate definition.

Not all feminists have to follow everything said by WHO or think other feminists to be right. Not all republicans have to vote for a republican candidate. Similar premises.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A movement is defined by it's leaders and accomplished goals, NOT by the average member. Feminism is currently not seen as an egalitarian concept, because it isn't. I also think that women should have equal rights AND responsibility's, and that belief puts me at odds with feminism, and if you believe the same, then it puts you at odds with feminism.

It's misleading if you call yourself a feminist when you don't support it's main goals.

I cannot say what you believe, but I can class you as something other than a feminist and I can do it accurately. You may believe you are a feminist, but you aren't. No, only third party's can give an accurate description of a group, and even then it's tricky. Asking a feminism to describe feminism is like asking a KKK member to describe their movement and goals.

True, but if you say you are a republican but are at odds with all of their principals, then you aren't a republican.

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A movement is defined by it's leaders and accomplished goals, NOT by the average member. Feminism is currently not seen as an egalitarian concept, because it isn't. I also think that women should have equal rights AND responsibility's, and that belief puts me at odds with feminism, and if you believe the same, then it puts you at odds with feminism.

Not a feminist one has disagreed with me that women should have equal rights and responsibilities.

It's misleading if you call yourself a feminist when you don't support it's main goals.

How is the main group deviating from it's original goal my responsibility. I believe in it's core textbook values. If what you say is so I can't call you a MRA activist because you have your own personal beliefs. What are you then?

True, but if you say you are a republican but are at odds with all of their principals, then you aren't a republican.

I really have to disagree with you on this. If someone is a republican and their republican leader is being an asshat, that person doesn't have to agree with it. The leader is just a face that is supposed to represent the movement, not the movement itself. I can't believe that if say, Barack Obama were to call war on China, that anyone who didn't support him was nolonger a democratic supporter. No.. It's the group itself that defines something.

Take a self-made group for instance. If I start a group of two hundred people and we call ourselves the fuck squad, then we have to be the fuck squad. the leader, members, anyone can defect, but as long as the remaining group calls themselves fuck squad, they're fuck squad.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nobody disagrees that women should have equal rights, but next time you are talking with these people explain how equality would mean child support is a crime and women would be jailed for 60% more time (relative to now). Everyone supports equality when they think it will benefit them.

My core beliefs coincide with the goals of the MRM, so yeah that would be fine. But my goals of enforcing gender equality and non-discrimination laws by non violent means is at I said, at odds with feminism, you could not call me a feminist accurately.

Fair enough, but if you were to disagree with every act and goal of the republican party for more than a decade then I think it would be a bit different.

Exactly. And even if the fuck squad goes from supporting anal sex to celebracy then they would still be called the fuck squad, but that means that someone who actively supports anal sex is NOT part of the fuck squad. Just as you might call yourself a feminist, because of how you see them, but when their actions are the opposite of their words, it gets somewhat complicated and controversial.

[–]osmondheart2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But you're saying leadership can change that. That means if a defined leader is misogynistic, you are no longer a men's rights activist.

MRA probably wouldn't fit me. An MRA group supports men and care's about men's rights I have never EVER seen a MRA group stand up for women's rights or even mention women's rights in a way that isn't derogatory. I have only seen support for males I'm not saying this is bad. This is the focus, but they can't speak for women. The basis of the group is to care about men's rights only.

In my world, this doesn't mean every MRA group is like this. I have seen members of MRA groups stand up for women's rights, but the group as a whole, as you define it, does not.

This is defined in the name even more than feminism is defined in female rights. Feminism is for femininity which can be anything, however it is largely considered a female centered group.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, what if I call it something cool like "NuFeminism-X" I can't relate to the MRA tag. it doesn't represent me. The general view of MRA is that of men/women who loathe feminists and their "Hatred of men" even though most other feminists I know are very kind individuals and ALL of the biggest feminist groups have male members. MRA blames feminism for things that have nothing to do with feminists and spew hate filled messages about feminism that I resent.

I feel strongly that the two genders should be treated equally on both a social and legal level and I passionately admire the works of feminism in the past, but MRA groups as a whole have very angry messages and lie about feminists. The fact that you are so vehemently against the title baffles me. If I want to be a feminist that supports men's rights, what horrible consequent is there to me doing so? My activist group doesn't feel men should be treated unfairly at all. What if I changed the face of feminism? Doesn't it make sense to change a powerful group into a good one even if that was the truth about feminism?

It's easier to set an example for a large group than to form a new one.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Go for it, but make sure to call yourself a "nufeminist" and to make the distinction, and then hope the group doesn't get taken over. Why can't you relate to the MRA tag? just wondering. We also have female mebers, some great ones, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a mainly male group, just as feminist is a mainly female group, the odd woman doesn't make any difference, same goes for the odd decent person who isn't a man hater.

"I feel strongly that the two genders should be treated equally on both a social and legal level" So does the entire MRM.

"and I passionately admire the works of feminism in the past" And this is where I I start to loose respect for you...what works? as far as I am aware the last good-ish thing they did was gain attention for legitimate groups who wanted women to have the right to vote, but since then all the group has done is discriminate.

"but MRA groups as a whole have very angry messages and lie about feminists." We don't have an angry message and we don't lie about feminists, we are just frustated as people (at least that's the vibe, there are of course exceptions or I could be wrong) and it has been our experiences with feminists that have led to our views on them, the only two notable experiences I have had with a feminist have involved her lying to the police to get me kicked out of a library and one attacking me in a book store, both in which went nowhere because the police where I live aren't retarded.

"The fact that you are so vehemently against the title baffles me." why is that?...

"If I want to be a feminist that supports men's rights, what horrible consequent is there to me doing so?" well there's two or three that I can think of off the top of my head. 1) you being a decent person hide the "real" feminists who are batshit crazy and evil, if people like you left the group then they would be seen clearly as a radical fascist group. 2) it gets you shit from people like me who despise feminists, you may as well call yourself a national socialist in Germany. 3) I'll think of a third reason soon...I had one, but I forgot.

"My activist group doesn't feel men should be treated unfairly at all." then those clearly are not feminists groups, or what you would describe as "unfairly" is WAY off base with reality, the latter is the more likely (sorry, but it is).

"What if I changed the face of feminism?" Then I nor most any other MRA would have "beef" with feminism.

"Doesn't it make sense to change a powerful group into a good one even if that was the truth about feminism?" I have no idea what this is meant to imply.

True, but when the large group uses you as a PR shield, you are helping the bad guys, even if it is unintentional.

PS: Sorry for the text wall.

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nah, text walls are fine and I'll likely come with a better reply.. but I gotta sleep too. lol

And this is where I I start to loose respect for you...what works? as far as I am aware the last good-ish thing they did was gain attention for legitimate groups who wanted women to have the right to vote, but since then all the group has done is discriminate.

That is right. Feminism in the past has done well to disrupt the idea that gender roles are necessary, allowed women to work in the same fields as men, allowed women to vote, and helped to define rape as something that can happen to males too. There are other things but as I said... sleep.

My activist group doesn't feel men should be treated unfairly at all." then those clearly are not feminists groups, or what you would describe as "unfairly" is WAY off base with reality, the latter is the more likely (sorry, but it is)

I have expressed my views with you and you have agreed with them. custody, equal drafting, honest pay for honest work, etc. We have agreed in what should change and what is wrong. what we disagree on is how feminists feel about it.

Then I nor most any other MRA would have "beef" with feminism.

Then I got a lot of work to do. I will also not be used as a shield and have openly disputed extremists in feminism. Mainly that of SRS. /r/feminism and /r/womens_rights are the two subreddits I consider feminst. /r/womensrights is actually not for women's rights as it's owned by SRS mods.

the only two notable experiences I have had with a feminist have involved her lying to the police to get me kicked out of a library and one attacking me in a book store, both in which went nowhere because the police where I live aren't retarded.

Why would she do that, was she a big name in feminism or someone who used the name to get her way?

Go for it, but make sure to call yourself a "nufeminist" and to make the distinction, and then hope the group doesn't get taken over. Why can't you relate to the MRA tag? just wondering. We also have female mebers, some great ones, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a mainly male group, just as feminist is a mainly female group, the odd woman doesn't make any difference, same goes for the odd decent person who isn't a man hater.

Nah. I have been debating on this board for a few days now. It's safe to say that most people here feel very bitter towards women's rights groups period. Now, not saying everyone. I have actually found some pretty cool dudes and a cool woman too. As well, a lot of extremism is downvoted, just like in /r/feminism. As a matter of fact, though it's seen as off topic, two posts for men's rights have made it to the top with good responses since I have been there.

I'm not saying they're all saints, but it's not just me. There are others. It's not my goal to "Take the woman down!" it's my goal to see both genders treated fairly. I don't fault men or women, I fault a faulty system. This is why I can never call myself MRA, because I'm not fighting in the name of men's rights, I'm fighting in the name of all rights equal. Even if feminist never fits this tag, it would be egalitarian or "NuFeminst" since there is way too much bitterness driving MRA for me to want to be associated with them. Feminism has bitterness too, but I stay away from those groups. My group is for kindness and understanding, not anger and frustration.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"That is right. Feminism in the past has done well to disrupt the idea that gender roles are necessary, allowed women to work in the same fields as men, allowed women to vote, and helped to define rape as something that can happen to males too. There are other things but as I said... sleep."

Feminism has tried (in vein) to destroy gender roles, even when most of them are 100% natural in origin and beneficial on every level. women have been allowed to work in most places men could work for a long time before feminism pooped up, they just didn't want to, and this is easily observed today where even the "most equal" nations like Norway where over 96% of their engineers are male, it's nature. women were also allowed to vote long before most people know, there was only a 10 year gap between men and women getting to vote and "feminism" was only a miniscule part of the movement for "equal" voting rights, interesting to note that the "feminists" (suffergettes?) actually only wanted women to be able to vote, while many other groups of the time (most of which are forgotten) wanted truly equal voting rights. And last I checked feminists were the ones opposing the idea that a woman could rape a man, go over to /r/feminism to find out their opinions on that one.

"I have expressed my views with you and you have agreed with them. custody, equal drafting, honest pay for honest work, etc. We have agreed in what should change and what is wrong. what we disagree on is how feminists feel about it."

As I said, go over to /r/feminism and VERY carefully word a question regarding REAL equality (equal opportunity, not equal outcome) to see what they think.

"Then I got a lot of work to do. I will also not be used as a shield and have openly disputed extremists in feminism. Mainly that of SRS. /r/feminism and /r/womens_rights are the two subreddits I consider feminst. /r/womensrights is actually not for women's rights as it's owned by SRS mods."

Good to hear. r/feminism is also owned by SRS mods, welcome to Reddit, where SRS = the typical feminist.

"Why would she do that, was she a big name in feminism or someone who used the name to get her way?"

Well the first one lied to the police because I would not give up my seat at the local library, the police came over (the whole 100ft from the station...) and saw me sitting there, and told her to leave. The other indecent is when I was in a second hand bookshop looking for the "SCUM manifesto", I read books like that how I read the bible, simply to gain perspective, she saw me pick it up and said it was a great book so I suggested that she also read "Mein Kampf" as they are quite similar. Probably brought this one on myself a little bit, but funny as all hell. both identified as feminists, the first did so when she told me how I should get up for a lady, then I said she is equal to me and that I have no reason to get up, then she said she was a feminists and started rambling. The second one said she was a fan of feminist books, but come to think of it she didn't actually say "I'm a feminist", but considering her acts and what else she said I think it's a safe bet.

"Nah. I have been debating on this board for a few days now. It's safe to say that most people here feel very bitter towards women's rights groups period. Now, not saying everyone. I have actually found some pretty cool dudes and a cool woman too. As well, a lot of extremism is downvoted, just like in /r/feminism. As a matter of fact, though it's seen as off topic, two posts for men's rights have made it to the top with good responses since I have been there."

Because for the past 40 odd years "women's rights groups" have done nothing but discriminate against men. If you ask whether women should be allowed to vote or free from discrimination then nobody will disagree (maybe the odd bitter person, but considering the sad stories I don't think you can blame the odd guy to much). We oppose women's rights groups because of their actions, but we do not oppose equal rights. I was only in /r/feminism for a day before I got banned, but what I saw was just blatant man hating.

Then I would suggest simply calling yourself a egalitarian, something which isn't really a group but which nobody will have a problem understanding.

Can you really blame many of the men in here who have been stolen, attacked, lied to and had their lives destroyed by women and a broken system which puts them over men? I don't support woman bashing, but at the same time I can't really blame these people. Same goes for the 1% of feminists which have a legitimate reason to hate men (or as "legitimate" of a reason as you can get to hate half the worlds population).

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminism has tried (in vein) to destroy gender roles, even when most of them are 100% natural in origin and beneficial on every level. women have been allowed to work in most places men could work for a long time before feminism pooped up, they just didn't want to, and this is easily observed today where even the "most equal" nations like Norway where over 96% of their engineers are male, it's nature. women were also allowed to vote long before most people know, there was only a 10 year gap between men and women getting to vote and "feminism" was only a miniscule part of the movement for "equal" voting rights, interesting to note that the "feminists" (suffergettes?) actually only wanted women to be able to vote, while many other groups of the time (most of which are forgotten) wanted truly equal voting rights. And last I checked feminists were the ones opposing the idea that a woman could rape a man, go over to /r/feminism to find out their opinions on that one.

1)Not sure where you are getting that from but I have never heard of feminism being opposed to males voting, or that there was a 10 year gap. Such would truly shock the feminist culture. 2)Feminism, even today supports gender roles. Feminism just doesn't support forced gender roles. That being, if a woman so chooses, she can change her path from homemaker. 3)As far as engineering, I'd say give it a few years longer, but yes. Being a society that has always seen men in these roles, it will be harder for women to adapt to such or even want to go through changing her defined path. 4) No, it's long been known that feminism supports the notion of men being able to be raped that and this was taken from Project Unbreakable run by Grace Brown, a well known feminist, as with a few other feminsts. Nobody in /r/feminism who is sane speaks against rape being something that can be done to men.

As I said, go over to /r/feminism and VERY carefully word a question regarding REAL equality (equal opportunity, not equal outcome) to see what they think.

I've been on there and discussed a few things. I can't say I haven't gotten some backlash with equal support, just like when I say anything supportive of feminsm on /r/mensrights. The support is from those who don't see it as an attack - IE: I got more support than someone who says "So, question...Why are you feminists opposed to true equality yet spout shit about equal income?" Men who ask that usually get downvoted into oblivion, as opposed to someone saying similar to "Do you think affirmative action support harms the image of a working class woman, or do you see it as a necessary gateway?"

Well. . .

Neither of them feminists. Feminism is the opposition to traditional belittlement A feminist opens her own doors, finds her own seat, buys her own meals etc. Any differently and she's just a hypocrite. I'm not sure where you see these nasty examples of feminism being mainstream but if you can find mainstream feminism saying "And it's only right men should still open doors and buy me dinner" I'll be amazed. I feel your image is a bit biased on the negative side. The other one is just a stuck up POS. lol You can't take the most negative implications and extremist views and say "Yep, that's feminism." then excuse the most radical of men's rights supporters. I don't count Jeffrey Dahmer as a gay rights activist. XD

Good to hear. r/feminism is also owned by SRS mods

It's actually against the rules to post off topic subjects like "men's rights" yet two of the top posts in /r/feminism was about men's rights. This has not been disputed by but one person or taken down there is also an AntiSRS link on the sidebar. Also! Womens_rights actively supports men's rights: "I believe it is possible to strive for rights for women without bashing men. There is nothing to be gained by being disrespectful to any gender, as we are all in this mess together." with a link to LadyMRA Again, not saying they're perfect, but not the cesspools of hate you might think.

Then I would suggest simply calling yourself a egalitarian, something which isn't really a group but which nobody will have a problem understanding.

Been thinking about that term. Maybe I will.

I was only in /r/feminism for a day before I got banned, but what I saw was just blatant man hating.

I find that odd. I was never banned, even when making statements that seemed downright offensive to someone who went overboard. Maybe because I had already stated my position as a feminist and the mods liked that? There has been some vicious attacks from an unassociated group called ManhoodAcademy which I do NOT pin on MRA groups because I'm sure no MRA group wants them around. I thought it was a joke at first but they take it seriously They delete their accounts when confronted XD

Can you really blame many of the men in here. . .

The problem is that it becomes a breeding ground for negativity toward feminism, and women as a whole. you see impassioned stories by broken men and it enrages you naturally. The problem though is that it eventually creates an atmosphere of women generally just being evil because you only see the worst of the worst. This same thing happens in feminist groups. Both in men's rights and women's rights, however, it should be stopped and not to intertwine with the actual movement. As soon as we demonize a gender, we can no longer be trusted to be in power of a fair and balanced system. It's fact that EVERY single minorities group has gone way too far at some point. this is not a belief, it's a fact. race, religion, gender. It's just cold hard fact. If MRA dominates feminism, there is going to be some bills pushed that don't ever need to be active.

There are also false implications on some bills now like the controversial Violence against women act. This is brought up with a lot of MRA groups to say it ONLY supports women. The truth being that VAWA not only has NO gender specification(aside from Indian tribes), but forces the STOP act to refuse to service groups not eligible for men. Every MRA group I have seen, however, says that it only supports women even though I have read the entire bill itself and it actually opens support for men.

(Sorry for all the text)

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"1)Not sure where you are getting that from but I have never heard of feminism being opposed to males voting, or that there was a 10 year gap. Such would truly shock the feminist culture. 2)Feminism, even today supports gender roles. Feminism just doesn't support forced gender roles. That being, if a woman so chooses, she can change her path from homemaker. 3)As far as engineering, I'd say give it a few years longer, but yes. Being a society that has always seen men in these roles, it will be harder for women to adapt to such or even want to go through changing her defined path. 4) No, it's long been known that feminism supports the notion of men being able to be raped that and this was taken from Project Unbreakable run by Grace Brown, a well known feminist, as with a few other feminsts. Nobody in /r/feminism who is sane speaks against rape being something that can be done to men."

1) Yeah, that's because that little part of history doesn't reflect well on them, and men only got the right to vote in 1910 while women got to vote in 1920, the only difference is that men still had to pay for their right to vote. It isn't a shock, many feminists know this, what IS a shock however is when others call them on it in debate. 2) Yes and no, I have noticed that feminists tend to support gender roles which benefit them or which they think will benefit them in the extreme short term, such as men paying child support or providing for their wives, but then they attack the ones such as women taking care of their husbands and being a full time mother, despite the irony that the first two are generally by force while the latter two are generally by choice. 3) Nope, they had more engineers in the 70's and part of the 80's when they were openly discrimination to get more and more women into those roles, but the instant you stop fucking with the system nature takes over and people do what they want, the ONLY nation on earth with a remotely equal number of female to male engineers is (drumroll....) Iran!, because they force them to be engineers and force the men to do other things, but short of being Iran there will always be a minimum 10/1 ratio for male to female engineers, and it's entirely by choice. 4) Maybe so, but that would imply that virtually nobody in r/feminism is sane. go and suggest a punishment for female on male rape, and give a real world example or maybe that movie clip which was floating around in the "new" section for a while.

"I've been on there and discussed a few things. I can't say I haven't gotten some backlash with equal support, just like when I say anything supportive of feminsm on /r/mensrights. The support is from those who don't see it as an attack - IE: I got more support than someone who says "So, question...Why are you feminists opposed to true equality yet spout shit about equal income?" Men who ask that usually get downvoted into oblivion, as opposed to someone saying similar to "Do you think affirmative action support harms the image of a working class woman, or do you see it as a necessary gateway?""

No shit, in r/mensrights we do not distinguish between r/feminism and r/againstmensrights, they are the same people. But if you were to mention something to do with equal rights then I'm sure nobody or at least not many people would disagree, but a bunch would probably ask you to move over to r/womenrights or a more related subReddit. Either one is a legitimate question so long as the former is backed up with some examples of feminist hypocrisy. But even then, it goes to show how threatened they can feel when called on their bullshit, if you were to do the same here then I'm sure you would also get downvoted but for a different reason as there isn't a 40 year old and 40ft high pile of steaming horseshit built under mensrights as is the case with feminism.

"Neither of them feminists. Feminism is the opposition to traditional belittlement A feminist opens her own doors, finds her own seat, buys her own meals etc. Any differently and she's just a hypocrite. I'm not sure where you see these nasty examples of feminism being mainstream but if you can find mainstream feminism saying "And it's only right men should still open doors and buy me dinner" I'll be amazed. I feel your image is a bit biased on the negative side. The other one is just a stuck up POS. lol You can't take the most negative implications and extremist views and say "Yep, that's feminism." then excuse the most radical of men's rights supporters. I don't count Jeffrey Dahmer as a gay rights activist. XD"

I have not seen this to be the case, I have noticed feminists either complain about men not opening doors or complain about men opening doors for them, and it's not rare to see both, but if this conflicts with your view of feminism then I guess most "feminists" are extreme hypocrites. Simply google "hypocrite" and "feminist" in the same sentence. And I do understand that I have a bit of a negative bias, but at the same time my "negative bias" is from negative experiences with feminists, on that note I wouldn't say I am any more bias towards feminists as I am towards wasps. Fair enough, but I do feel that I can use the top 20% of feminists as an example for the group while ignoring the bottom 1% of MRA's who are dipshits.

"It's actually against the rules to post off topic subjects like "men's rights" yet two of the top posts in /r/feminism was about men's rights. This has not been disputed by but one person or taken down there is also an AntiSRS link on the sidebar. Also! Womens_rights actively supports men's rights: "I believe it is possible to strive for rights for women without bashing men. There is nothing to be gained by being disrespectful to any gender, as we are all in this mess together." with a link to LadyMRA Again, not saying they're perfect, but not the cesspools of hate you might think."

So...Why is it against the rules to being up issues regarding gender equality or inequality in r/feminism?...Perhaps r/feminism has changed in the last month or so, but I doubt it, sorry to say but I think it si far more likely that you are simply deluded.

"Been thinking about that term. Maybe I will."

Look at it this way, it will keep us MRA's off your ass.

"I find that odd. I was never banned, even when making statements that seemed downright offensive to someone who went overboard. Maybe because I had already stated my position as a feminist and the mods liked that? There has been some vicious attacks from an unassociated group called ManhoodAcademy which I do NOT pin on MRA groups because I'm sure no MRA group wants them around. I thought it was a joke at first but they take it seriously They delete their accounts when confronted XD"

Probably, and I wouldn't doubt that as a false flag attack, depends who the mods are trying to blame but we have a crap ton of those in r/mensrights. It's well known that if your not a feminism, you get banned from r/feminism simply for disagreeing, unlike r/mensrights where as far as I am aware the only way to get banned is to promote violence or to...well actually that's the only way I have seen anyone banned.

"The problem is that it becomes a breeding ground for negativity toward feminism, and women as a whole. you see impassioned stories by broken men and it enrages you naturally. The problem though is that it eventually creates an atmosphere of women generally just being evil because you only see the worst of the worst. This same thing happens in feminist groups. Both in men's rights and women's rights, however, it should be stopped and not to intertwine with the actual movement. As soon as we demonize a gender, we can no longer be trusted to be in power of a fair and balanced system. It's fact that EVERY single minorities group has gone way too far at some point. this is not a belief, it's a fact. race, religion, gender. It's just cold hard fact. If MRA dominates feminism, there is going to be some bills pushed that don't ever need to be active."

I disagree, we are negative towards feminism but not women as a whole, not unless you group women and feminists in the same basket, which unfortunately a few people do. Most of us do put effort into distinguishing females from feminists, one is a gender which is not to be inherently blamed for anything really while the other is a hate group, something you voluntarily join. "As soon as we demonize a gender, we can no longer be trusted to be in power of a fair and balanced system." to bad feminists have been in government offices and positions of power for decades...

Your probably right about the bills, but hopefully that won't happen, and anyways that's not our goal, our only goal in regards to the law is to make things gender neutral and remove sexist bills which feminists have supported, the kind which actively discriminate against men or which give women free stuff or exempt women from punishment of a crime.

Interpretation is more important than what's written, the fact of the matter is that act has protected women from punishment of crimes and fucked over men, go ask in r/mensrights how many people have been attacked by a woman and then subsequently arrested on a lie.

How the fuck do you quote things properly in here? I haven't been able to find out how and it's pissing me off.

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How the fuck do you quote things properly in here? I haven't been able to find out how and it's pissing me off.

put a > symbol before it and it will quote that block of text. Fir more info on what you can do, click the "Formatting help" option to the bottom right of your text box while you're typing.

1, 2, 3, 4:

for number one, I'd love to find a document for. If I can verify it, I might even have to show some people on /r/feminism to see what they think. Most likely, however, it will just be a point of "That was then, this is now" which honestly holds up if they feel so. It would impact my personal thoughts on the movement itself. Not saying I'd be waling around town with a flag that has a crossed out feminism symbol on it, but I would have to review history once more.

As far as 2, 3, and 4: I think you've met much different feminists than I have. Maybe I am somehow blind or naive, but I haven't sen this evil, toxic mass of creatures you call feminists. I have never had a problem with the belief that all gender specific responsibilities should be null and void. A woman pays her way, a man pays his. My idea is, that women won't be genuinely dominating these fields as soon as they get the rights. Social programming take a long time to undo and we are still in the dark ages when it comes to society, even if law is much more up-to-date. No- I'm not saying that something has to be done to speed it up. I'm just saying that it's going to be slow but confidence has an amazing and substantial effect on actual ability. Something must have changed in /r/feminism because it has been twice that the issue of female rape against males has been front page in /r/feminism since I started getting into Reddit's gender issues about 4 days ago. They have shown strong support of the notion that it exists and should be dealt with.

No shit, in r/mensrights we do not distinguish between r/feminism and r/againstmensrights, they are the same people. But if you were to mention something to do with equal rights then I'm sure nobody or at least not many people would disagree, but a bunch would probably ask you to move over to r/womenrights or a more related subReddit. Either one is a legitimate question so long as the former is backed up with some examples of feminist hypocrisy. But even then, it goes to show how threatened they can feel when called on their bullshit, if you were to do the same here then I'm sure you would also get downvoted but for a different reason as there isn't a 40 year old and 40ft high pile of steaming horseshit built under mensrights as is the case with feminism.

If you go in anyone's subreddit with the obvious intention of offending them, there is no reason they should tolerate you. Debate is okay, but arguing with an asshole is like arguing with a brick wall except shittier.

I have not seen this to be the case, I have noticed feminists either complain about men not opening doors or complain about men opening doors for them, and it's not rare to see both, but if this conflicts with your view of feminism then I guess most "feminists" are extreme hypocrites. Simply google "hypocrite" and "feminist" in the same sentence. And I do understand that I have a bit of a negative bias, but at the same time my "negative bias" is from negative experiences with feminists, on that note I wouldn't say I am any more bias towards feminists as I am towards wasps. Fair enough, but I do feel that I can use the top 20% of feminists as an example for the group while ignoring the bottom 1% of MRA's who are dipshits.

I have heard of women complaining about doors being opened for them, but they're more or less petty and ignorant. The most agitating group I have run into is traditionalists. A good example of that is the time a story hit front page where a woman refused to pay for a cab because a man was in the car. That's traditionalist bullshit. Maybe you are mixing the two in your mind? Maybe they are touting the name abusively? I dunno. Traditionalism obviously came before feminism and has deep roots in society.

So...Why is it against the rules to being up issues regarding gender equality or inequality in r/feminism?...Perhaps r/feminism has changed in the last month or so, but I doubt it, sorry to say but I think it si far more likely that you are simply deluded.

Meh. I might just be. Who knows. Maybe it's bias that I am a feminist which takes my penis out of the equation so I am treated nicer? O_o I highly doubt that though.

I disagree, we are negative towards feminism but not women as a whole, not unless you group women and feminists in the same basket, which unfortunately a few people do. Most of us do put effort into distinguishing females from feminists, one is a gender which is not to be inherently blamed for anything really while the other is a hate group, something you voluntarily join. "As soon as we demonize a gender, we can no longer be trusted to be in power of a fair and balanced system." to bad feminists have been in government offices and positions of power for decades... Your probably right about the bills, but hopefully that won't happen, and anyways that's not our goal, our only goal in regards to the law is to make things gender neutral and remove sexist bills which feminists have supported, the kind which actively discriminate against men or which give women free stuff or exempt women from punishment of a crime.

Feminism wasn't made to fight men, it was made to fight patriarchy in society and law. I don't deny that there have been some biased laws that were suggested and even a few enacted at once, but you have to know that men's rights will do the same. Anyone who presents themselves as the minority victim will inevitably fight for minority rights and forgiveness based on minority status. We just have to make sure there's something strong enough to fight such over-zealous hate driven crap. Everyone appears sane until they have power. then you see the fanatics raise their voices. This always happens. This is why I feel feminism will always be necessary to regulate rising currents instead of continuing our flip-flop politics.

Interpretation is more important than what's written, the fact of the matter is that act has protected women from punishment of crimes and fucked over men, go ask in r/mensrights how many people have been attacked by a woman and then subsequently arrested on a lie.

This situation is made my traditional values. Feminism never claimed that women are "Weak and unable to fight" which is the main claim against fair treatment of domestic violence. Back before feminism was even heard of, there was no such thing as laws against women abusing men. I support aggressiveness being judged by intent. That means, even if a woman was unable to harm her spouse much, if her intention was to break his/her legs, or she meant to gouge out his/her eye sockets, then she should be charged for those attempted crimes. Like so, a man should be charged for his attempted crimes.

Another thing is this "Crime of passion" I would abolish the fuck outta that. If you kill someone because you believe they cheated on you, whether that person did or not, there will be NO forgiveness AT ALL. Fuck, I'd have to restrain myself from giving someone a double sentence for claiming that shit.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

put a > symbol before it and it will quote that block of text. Fir more info on what you can do, click the "Formatting help" option to the bottom right of your text box while you're typing.

testing, testing, 1 2 3.

I will try to find it, but the only source I have found was a single youtube video (Angry Harry I think) and some old books.

Weird...

If you go in anyone's subreddit with the obvious intention of offending them, there is no reason they should tolerate you. Debate is okay, but arguing with an asshole is like arguing with a brick wall except shittier. "Arguing with a feminist is like playing chess with a pigeon, it will shit all over the board, knock over all the pieces and then strut away like it's won."

Not relevant but I thought you might find it funny. And just becaude you feel offended does not mean someone is trying to offend you, or even that someone is saying something offensive, that's the feminists main problem, they perceive anything even mildly offensive (to them personally) as an attack.

I have heard of women complaining about doors being opened for them, but they're more or less petty and ignorant. The most agitating group I have run into is traditionalists. A good example of that is the time a story hit front page where a woman refused to pay for a cab because a man was in the car. That's traditionalist bullshit. Maybe you are mixing the two in your mind? Maybe they are touting the name abusively? I dunno. Traditionalism obviously came before feminism and has deep roots in society. Most of "traditionalism" is actually just nature being misidentified, though that is a pretty fucked up example, but typical of the crap I deal with. I once got attacked for not giving up my seat on the bus to a woman, not a single shit was given.

Meh. I might just be. Who knows. Maybe it's bias that I am a feminist which takes my penis out of the equation so I am treated nicer? O_o I highly doubt that though. I have observed the group to be rather, primitive, if you aren't perceived as a threat then that very well may be it. I can say for certain that I would be treated differently.

Feminism wasn't made to fight men, it was made to fight patriarchy in society and law. I don't deny that there have been some biased laws that were suggested and even a few enacted at once, but you have to know that men's rights will do the same. Anyone who presents themselves as the minority victim will inevitably fight for minority rights and forgiveness based on minority status. We just have to make sure there's something strong enough to fight such over-zealous hate driven crap. Everyone appears sane until they have power. then you see the fanatics raise their voices. This always happens. This is why I feel feminism will always be necessary to regulate rising currents instead of continuing our flip-flop politics. But there isn't and never has been any patriarchy in law, or anywhere else for that matter. We absolutely do not fight for rights or privilages, simply equality, and by different means. Rather than having special laws enacted to get equal pay, our goal is to get rid of the ones which pretty much guarantie women superior pay. And the feminists fought against those laws, look up their act in England when those laws were being discussed.

Your means become your goals, the means for feminism have always been lying, violence and discrimination, us MRA's are well aware of this, as such we choose the somewhat less efficient means of logical debate and fairness.

This situation is made my traditional values. Feminism never claimed that women are "Weak and unable to fight" which is the main claim against fair treatment of domestic violence. Back before feminism was even heard of, there was no such thing as laws against women abusing men. I support aggressiveness being judged by intent. That means, even if a woman was unable to harm her spouse much, if her intention was to break his/her legs, or she meant to gouge out his/her eye sockets, then she should be charged for those attempted crimes. Like so, a man should be charged for his attempted crimes. Yes they have, not in that was but they will often dismiss female on male violence by saying women are smaller or weaker or just don't hit as hard. anacdotal, look up and check what feminists REALLY did when the British were putting in laws so that men could be victims of domestic abuse, they had fucking riots. Men ahve been charged (officially) for abusing their wives since 1680 when King George made it illegal to hit hurt them (might have the wrong king...)

Another thing is this "Crime of passion" I would abolish the fuck outta that. If you kill someone because you believe they cheated on you, whether that person did or not, there will be NO forgiveness AT ALL. Fuck, I'd have to restrain myself from giving someone a double sentence for claiming that shit. I have the same feelings, but I lack your restraint.

But at the same time, can you say it is truly fair for a man to be put to death for lets say murder, even if the circumstances are to protect his loved ones, while the state kills directly for proxy revenge?

PS: sorry if this message is a bit messed up, I'm tired and lazy. (the formed playing more of a role)

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have the same feelings, but I lack your restraint.

But at the same time, can you say it is truly fair for a man to be put to death for lets say murder, even if the circumstances are to protect his loved ones, while the state kills directly for proxy revenge?

Firstly, Crimes of passion sometimes protect nobody. Someone can claim crime of passion when he thinks his wife cheated on him. Other times, crimes of passion cause immense trauma to those who watch it unfold. They are often more brutal than regular murder and I believe should have harsher sentences than regular murder. I, however would be a hypocrite since I don't believe revenge should be the focus of the judicial system.

But this whole half sentence shit needs to stop. If you kill someone who isn't physically trying to kill you, you deserve the same sentence as anyone else who does so. (Well, you deserve so much more if you do it in a brutal and uncaring way, but we'll go with that.)

Death penalty and me don't get along very well. See, the American judicial system loves to treat prison as revenge. That's great and all for people to watch and feel all warm and fuzzy about, but the fact that we have such a high amount of repeat offenders vs countries that treat it as rehabilitation seems to suggest that it's not very effective.

Regardless, I can't argue that the taxpayer on average would rather see people die then spend money on a criminal. Another argument for another time.

Yes they have, not in that was but they will often dismiss female on male violence by saying women are smaller or weaker or just don't hit as hard. anacdotal, look up and check what feminists REALLY did when the British were putting in laws so that men could be victims of domestic abuse, they had fucking riots. Men ahve been charged (officially) for abusing their wives since 1680 when King George made it illegal to hit hurt them (might have the wrong king...)

I honestly couldn't look that up by keywords so I might need a little time to find it(Unless you have links to save me that time >.<). I tried "British feminists stop males from domestic violence claims" "British feminist hypocrisy" and "British men domestic violence feminist riot" nothing good came up.

But there isn't and never has been any patriarchy in law, or anywhere else for that matter. We absolutely do not fight for rights or privilages, simply equality, and by different means. Rather than having special laws enacted to get equal pay, our goal is to get rid of the ones which pretty much guarantie women superior pay. And the feminists fought against those laws, look up their act in England when those laws were being discussed. Your means become your goals, the means for feminism have always been lying, violence and discrimination, us MRA's are well aware of this, as such we choose the somewhat less efficient means of logical debate and fairness.

You say that but I never see this radical hate that feminism is based on. I go into /r/feminism and /r/Womrns_Rights and I see links to /r/masculism, LadyMRA and other male things, reminders not to hate, kindness toward men, posts about male inequalities getting positive reviews for the most part, even in the worst cases I see friendly reminders to keep it "generally on topic". I don't look in there and see what you see. It's almost if you look in there and see things like "how to kill all men off the planet" voted to the top every day and I have never seen such.

As far as the roots go, the roots are the same I'm sure. If you're trying to say that men and women always had equal rights everywhere, then I have to disagree. Tradition has always chosen a way of life and all movements are made to disrupt that. Not totally, but at least offer an alternative.

I cannot see how MRA is any more righteous than Feminism. I cannot agree that if MRA groups destroyed feminism, there would not be some serious "unspecific" laws that greatly favored men. Racial equality is a wonderful movement in my eyes, but there has been history of severely prejudice movements that marred the name of racial and ethnic equality groups. The intent however, was good and made sense.

I once got attacked for not giving up my seat on the bus to a woman, not a single shit was given.

You have to make shit happen. Nobody gave a shit about blacks sitting in the back until an individual stood up for her rights. You don't make changes by saying that the world is against you. You raise a stink and get some press in the deal.

Not relevant but I thought you might find it funny. And just becaude you feel offended does not mean someone is trying to offend you, or even that someone is saying something offensive, that's the feminists main problem, they perceive anything even mildly offensive (to them personally) as an attack.

Nah. I admit that it can be a bit word sensitive, but with a good temperament, I think you're good.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Firstly, Crimes of passion sometimes protect nobody. Someone can claim crime of passion when he thinks his wife cheated on him. Other times, crimes of passion cause immense trauma to those who watch it unfold. They are often more brutal than regular murder and I believe should have harsher sentences than regular murder. I, however would be a hypocrite since I don't believe revenge should be the focus of the judicial system.

I just think it should be the same, intentions shouldn't have much effect on sentencing.

But this whole half sentence shit needs to stop. If you kill someone who isn't physically trying to kill you, you deserve the same sentence as anyone else who does so. (Well, you deserve so much more if you do it in a brutal and uncaring way, but we'll go with that.)

Agreed.

Regardless, I can't argue that the taxpayer on average would rather see people die then spend money on a criminal.

You clearly haven't been to /r/politics...

I honestly couldn't look that up by keywords so I might need a little time to find it(Unless you have links to save me that time >.<). I tried "British feminists stop males from domestic violence claims" "British feminist hypocrisy" and "British men domestic violence feminist riot" nothing good came up.

Weird, by the way it was king James the 1st, (I think...)

You say that but I never see this radical hate that feminism is based on. I go into /r/feminism and /r/Womrns_Rights and I see links to /r/masculism, LadyMRA and other male things, reminders not to hate, kindness toward men, posts about male inequalities getting positive reviews for the most part, even in the worst cases I see friendly reminders to keep it "generally on topic". I don't look in there and see what you see. It's almost if you look in there and see things like "how to kill all men off the planet" voted to the top every day and I have never seen such.

I actually did see something along those lines in /r/againstmensrights...fact is though that there is absolutely zero evidence to patriarchy, that's why it is still referred to as patriarchy theory, but crazy feminists can be seen easily enough.

As far as the roots go, the roots are the same I'm sure. If you're trying to say that men and women always had equal rights everywhere, then I have to disagree. Tradition has always chosen a way of life and all movements are made to disrupt that. Not totally, but at least offer an alternative.

I won't say that men and women have ever had equal rights anywhere, that includes anywhere on the planet right now, but that the majority of "gender roles" are simply natural roles which became the norm, women looking after children, men taking care of women, ladies first, blah blah blah. You wouldn't call bald eagles traditional would you? well they are, they raise their young in a very similar way to humans.

I cannot see how MRA is any more righteous than Feminism. I cannot agree that if MRA groups destroyed feminism, there would not be some serious "unspecific" laws that greatly favored men. Racial equality is a wonderful movement in my eyes, but there has been history of severely prejudice movements that marred the name of racial and ethnic equality groups. The intent however, was good and made sense.

No MRA's promote violence or genocide, and very few have any real malice against women. I have never heard of MRA's rallying and starting shit outside of a Warren Farrel speech regarding women's rights, I have never had a bad experience with an MRA. That is the main difference though, we aren't dumbshits like the feminists in the 70's, we understand the phrase/quote "your means to your goals eventually become your goals", meaning that any group which uses lies and violence to get something will eventually be about nothing more than lies and violence (the modern feminist movement), that's why we do not support so much as the idea of violence or making new laws to favor men, simply to get rid of the already existing laws which favor women.

You have to make shit happen. Nobody gave a shit about blacks sitting in the back until an individual stood up for her rights. You don't make changes by saying that the world is against you. You raise a stink and get some press in the deal.

Nobody gave a shit because they sat at the back, if they were sitting anywhere else and someone told them to get up then that itself would have caused some thought. and it's hard to get the press in when the press is invested in your failure. Reminds me, something like this was talked about earlier, next time this happens I'm totally going to say "I wasn't aware that being a woman was a disability?" and laugh my ass off.

Nah. I admit that it can be a bit word sensitive, but with a good temperament, I think you're good.

Already conformed otherwise.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RightsActivist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know why I have to keep saying this fucking shit to you fucking retards.

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces

Wikipedia link about it as well as a link to the published version by Brassey's

"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."

Fucking LOOOOOOL.

Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

Fucking LOOOOOOOL.

Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Fuck off.

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HeadingTooNFL 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[+]osmondheart 13 years ago* [recovered] (40 children) | Copy Link

Oh but I do. Women who are able to lead militaristic lives will pass on genes that are likely more suited for strength and combat.

Basically, we evolved into our roles because the stronger survived and bred on good genetic traits and gradual mutations which were good or bad. The good survived, the bad did not. Am I right or not?

We just have to replace "Survived" with "Were motivated to lead successful lives"

[–]Pecanpig 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[+]osmondheart 13 years ago* [recovered] (38 children) | Copy Link

Good, let's get it started. Do you only care for the future in which you are alive?

We are how we are because of how we have mutated and what has made it though evolution so far. We are in no way perfect, and evolution is anything but perfect. it's blind shots in the dark that is just enough to survive. Aside from that, we are more intelligent now than ever and it's time we take control of the future.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

By the time we have that future, millions of women will have had to die in combat for the sake of a science experiment, and a SMALL FEW who are capable of handling the rigors of infantry tasks.

At that point, why not just say "fuck it" and genetically engineer female super-soldiers, if you want them so bad? There's no point doing it through your methods because you're trying to use evolution to cause changes in humanities ability to fight wars we are completely OBLIVIOUS to the actual means or motives of. In just the last 100 years we went from trench warfare, to MAD, to the Leviathon force, to Guerilla counter-insurgency. We could be fighting wars of the future with armed robots that shoot acid at each other, or through some sort of electronic software environment, or by a game of Risk. We literally haven't the faintest idea.

The modern COIN tactics have jobs that would be perfect for women; Female Engagement Teams are great for engaging local female populations, and searching females suspected of terrorist activities. Of the few female POWs that have been taken in the recent wars, at least one got back because a good Samaritan thought it was wrong to capture females. This is a good wartime advantage.

Training women for a future that is impossible to accurately predict is just a fools game. It is an investment in the absurd in the way you are describing it. It will lead to a weaker overall force, and probably lots of needless deaths. Equality isn't as important as human life.

Also, human intelligence peaked somewhere between 2000 and 20,000 years ago, we only feel smarter now because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

[–]osmondheart2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

By the time we have that future, millions of women will have had to die in combat for the sake of a science experiment, and a SMALL FEW who are capable of handling the rigors of infantry tasks.

Who said to make millions of women die? I just said to let the ones who are willing and able join. Nature will take it's course from there. You're talking about something entirely different, although I might not have been as clear as I wanted to be.

The modern COIN tactics have jobs that would be perfect for women; Female Engagement Teams are great for engaging local female populations, and searching females suspected of terrorist activities. Of the few female POWs that have been taken in the recent wars, at least one got back because a good Samaritan thought it was wrong to capture females. This is a good wartime advantage.

We absolutely cannot depend on our opponents to be kind to women. That is a tactic that will surely get women killed. In an era where the average male soldier is trained and conditioned to be able to kill a woman as quick as any man, the dependence of female prowess or a "Good samaritan" law will be ineffective. We also can't depend on the idea that a female will be more effective at being trusted than a male.

Training women for a future that is impossible to accurately predict is just a fools game. It is an investment in the absurd in the way you are describing it. It will lead to a weaker overall force, and probably lots of needless deaths. Equality isn't as important as human life.

See first post.

Also, human intelligence peaked somewhere between 2000 and 20,000 years ago, we only feel smarter now because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

Okay, basically saying that we have outgrown the need for hunter-gatherer instincts. Even without technology, we still don't need it. We have built a foundation that lets us decide how we want to end up.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

By the time we have that future, millions of women will have had to die in combat for the sake of a science experiment, and a SMALL FEW who are capable of handling the rigors of infantry tasks.

Who said to make millions of women die? I just said to let the ones who are willing and able join. Nature will take it's course from there. You're talking about something entirely different, although I might not have been as clear as I wanted to be.

Why not? Because you don't send people out to do a job that they can't do, especially when they could die. Their lives are valuable, and the simple fact of the matter is THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO DIE if they were in the infantry, and their deaths could lead to the deaths of others.

The modern COIN tactics have jobs that would be perfect for women; Female Engagement Teams are great for engaging local female populations, and searching females suspected of terrorist activities. Of the few female POWs that have been taken in the recent wars, at least one got back because a good Samaritan thought it was wrong to capture females. This is a good wartime advantage.

We absolutely cannot depend on our opponents to be kind to women. That is a tactic that will surely get women killed. In an era where the average male soldier is trained and conditioned to be able to kill a woman as quick as any man, the dependence of female prowess or a "Good samaritan" law will be ineffective. We also can't depend on the idea that a female will be more effective at being trusted than a male.

We can absolutely trust that a woman is a better candidate for questioning women. That's the culture. Fatwahs are issued for male soldiers who talk to the women.

Training women for a future that is impossible to accurately predict is just a fools game. It is an investment in the absurd in the way you are describing it. It will lead to a weaker overall force, and probably lots of needless deaths. Equality isn't as important as human life.

See first post.

Also, human intelligence peaked somewhere between 2000 and 20,000 years ago, we only feel smarter now because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

Okay, basically saying that we have outgrown the need for hunter-gatherer instincts. Even without technology, we still don't need it. We have built a foundation that lets us decide how we want to end up.

Join the army. Do it. I want you to. I've been in for almost 5 years now, I know what the job requires, I am a god-damned expert in all my motherfucking warrior tasks and drills. You want OTHER WOMEN to join and die needlessly because they were put in a position where they were going to fail. You want OTHER PEOPLE to suffer because of that. We never leave fallen comrades. Every body needs to be taken back. That is dangerous in and of itself. Carrying a casualty in a stretcher was a 2 person task until women joined the army. Now it is 4. That means, in a 5 man fire-team, if one is down, there is NO security element to support troops when they are carrying their dying comrade. They will have to shoot 1 handed in order to have any security.

We need every soldier to be on their A-game, because more than just one life depends on it.

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Please cite your resources. Please prove to me that women are genetically incapable of military combat.

If women are absolutely limited in physical strength to a point that every single man in the military is superior, then I will shut up about it. I want to find the absolute maximum weight a woman's muscles are able to life, the absolute time in which a woman ceases to function in battle, and all the limits that say women are completely incapable soldiers. Give me that and I will have no problem being quiet about the subject.

The fact that They have opened the infantry course for women leads me to believe that these absolute values have not been found. The only thing found is a lack of volunteers.

If this is a case of "Damn women in the military are lowering our standards" then it's a completely invalid argument with no base or facts.

We can absolutely trust that a woman is a better candidate for questioning women. That's the culture. Fatwahs are issued for male soldiers who talk to the women.

No, you're just wrong. You're equating the way men on average treat females with battle tactics and that doesn't work. Real life isn't a James Bond movie and a woman that thinks she can sexy her way into the enemy's hearts or that a woman will trust her with information is likely to get her head blown off. Maybe back in the 50s someone would think twice about harming a woman in war, but people are different. We need women to be trained and ready for combat.

It's more often that opponents are being desensitized to the thought of a woman getting killed. I don't want to send a bunch of unguarded talkers do get mutilated. We have to expect that the enemy will be just as violent and untrusting toward a woman as they will a man.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Please cite your resources. Please prove to me that women are genetically incapable of military combat.

If women are absolutely limited in physical strength to a point that every single man in the military is superior, then I will shut up about it. I want to find the absolute maximum weight a woman's muscles are able to life, the absolute time in which a woman ceases to function in battle, and all the limits that say women are completely incapable soldiers. Give me that and I will have no problem being quiet about the subject.

Most MEN can't do the job. Some random female SSG who is salty as they come and has a 350 pt score on the male scale is one thing, it's actually trying to find that through a pile of women who can't. That's why we don't let certain men join, even if they can, it's not worth the time and money to even give them a chance.

The fact that They have opened the infantry course for women leads me to believe that these absolute values have not been found. The only thing found is a lack of volunteers.

They did that to appease women who by all means never intended to join the infantry in the first place.

If this is a case of "Damn women in the military are lowering our standards" then it's a completely invalid argument that doesn't affect all women.

The standards need to be HIGHER, not lower. It's a perfectly valid argument.

We can absolutely trust that a woman is a better candidate for questioning women. That's the culture. Fatwahs are issued for male soldiers who talk to the women.

No, you're just wrong. You're equating the way men on average treat females with battle tactics and that doesn't work. Real life isn't a James Bond movie and a woman that thinks she can sexy her way into the enemy's hearts or that a woman will trust her with information is likely to get her head blown off. Maybe back in the 50s someone would think twice about harming a woman in war, but people are different.

Don't lecture me on real life, you idealist ignoramous. You don't know the first thing about combat.

In case you didn't know: I'm a fucking infantryman! I live this shit.

It;s more often that opponents are being desensitized to the thought of a woman getting killed. I don't want to send a bunch of unguarded talkers do get mutilated. We have to expect that the enemy will be just as violent and untrusting toward a woman as they will a man.

Pull some more shit out of your ass, why don't you?

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Pull some more shit out of your ass, why don't you?

You're one to talk. Were are your resources? What makes you think that women are reliably covered in a safety bubble of chivalry?

The standards need to be HIGHER, not lower. It's a perfectly valid argument.

So they do, and if a woman meets them, should she be turned down?

They did that to appease women who by all means never intended to join the infantry in the first place.

What's the harm of letting someone try it rather than losing possible soldiers?

Most MEN can't do the job. Some random female SSG who is salty as they come and has a 350 pt score on the male scale is one thing, it's actually trying to find that through a pile of women who can't. That's why we don't let certain men join, even if they can, it's not worth the time and money to even give them a chance.

If they see the results and they still want to join, I think they're pretty confident. I'm not saying they're going to be dainty or look like a model, but if they can do what the men do, then by all means I don't see what's wrong.

I'm not debating that they can or can't pass the tests and preform in combat. That's up to result and reality to prove right or wrong. I'm saying that there should be nothing stopping a woman who qualifies for the position from doing so based on superstition.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, I think we'll probably agree to disagree because if we ever need more soldiers than we have and half of our population is immediately unqualified and told not to train for any kind of combat, then we are weakened as a nation.

It's great in small wars but I want more people ready for combat should the need arise. encouraging women to be military ready is a way to keep us strong. Telling women that they shouldn't even hope for it is a way to ensure the majority of women become completely defenseless should the need arise.

As far as standards go: I can agree to that as far as Ranger training and similar sorts, but I doubt that the average infantryman has such a rigorous time. I have never been in the military but they recruit often from Job Corps and I have been in the Job Corps program. I have seen plenty of men go to the Army, Airforce, and Marines that aren't nearly at top physical fitness. They need numbers as well as power per person.

I'm sure you have seen Job Corps recruits too. If you see the same people I have seen get in, then I know for sure those standards aren't nearly that high.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not a fan of gendercide. There's a point when the value of life itself is at stake. I admit, if I knew it was coming to that, I wouldn't really care about the future at all. As a matter of fact, I think that's why I am so passionately supportive of feminism. Honestly, there's nothing more beautiful to me than the ability of a human to want to protect another human. Behind that is human life itself.

Once we start rationalizing that, making super-soldiers instead of people... I think it'll be about time to start over. Call me a horrible person all you want, but that is something I'm very passionate about. I want to know that life can be unique and frail in a natural and beautiful way for years to come. I don't want to ever come to a point to where we go "Are women/men/light skinned/dark skinned etc. really worth keeping?" The very thought sickens me.

Men, women.. if anything, I would think that if such a thing arises, we should have an indisputable part of the world for male, female, whatever mix has been created at the time, and everyone altogether. I would hope that we always have room for life of different distinctions.

I imagine that we would reach a point of excess at that time so that people could not only co-exist, but be who they want. If you want to be a man, woman, something in-between, it'd all be up to you.

The frail nature of life is what makes it beautiful. I can only assume a constant need for power and efficiency would rule out compassion and love beyond necessary means. In that case, begone with it.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In which the female and male brain have negligible differences. This is not simple hearsay. this is fact. All studies that give the male and female brain a vast distinction have been highly contested and are unproven. acquire this book and fact check. it's solid.

Eventually the brain has nothing but an identity of the body it wants to wear and the gender it feels it represents. Also, chromosomes are often mixed by birth and there is no way to tell what chromosomes you bear in what part of your body.

In that case there is no body and the male/female difference is completely negligible. What do we do when our bodies are replaced? Die in a fight with superior versions? At this point life itself is almost pointless.

Here's the biggest thing for me though: The fact that life is frail gives it meaning. I'm sure someone void of any desire but to gratify themselves temporarily will enjoy such a life. I won't. I wouldn't even save us all from a catastrophic disaster at that point. I like to amuse myself with the idea that life is something precious and meaningful. Our desire to love and protect inspires art and beauty, beauty of which is nothing nearly as beautiful as life itself. When life turns into a giant grinder that we all walk into when we're no longer necessary, I will see no reason for it to exist in the first place.

I hope that we never reach such a point. i hope that we can choose beauty over power. The absence of anything but power seems like a very negative and self-defeating process.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[+]osmondheart 13 years ago* [recovered] (36 children) | Copy Link

So refuting myths is discrimination now? Interesting. Or do we have to add in irrelevant fluff to tell men that they are able to preform under male standards because you personally don't think it's fair?

I'm assuming that when an uninformed girl tells me. "I'd love to join the marines but I don't want to get someone killed because of being a woman and all" I should be able to tell her "No, if you are dedicated to it, you can do it" without it being a discriminatory statement.

[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+]osmondheart 13 years ago [recovered] (31 children) | Copy Link

With proper training, there is no doubt in my mind that any woman can pass these tests, just as any man can. It's a matter of perseverance and knowing that you're not going to look like a barbie doll when it happens.

If she's a child I wouldn't want her to start training because that's just not a biologically sound thing to do. When she gets older though, if she isn't suffering from a congenital illness, there should be no reason why she couldn't pass the male version of the tests. It's not even men in top physical condition that pass. They just have to be above average and pretty strong.

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's dumb. pull ups, pushups, situps etc. are all based on your own body weight. I do fifty pushups and situps a night. I do about 20 pull ups every two days (I'm a lazy bastard) A fit female can easily best me by double. She's lighter.

And I find that hard to believe that statistic since pound for pound of lean muscle, men are but around 5% stronger. Most women won't bulk up so much but some do. It's not to say all women should do it... but if she can get as big as him, she could probably preform the same as him given the same amount of endurance training. (theoretically, as this is rare. Most women don't for the sake of image. Others can't bulk up to a certain extent without extreme amounts of training.)

Edit: I'd provide a better link but the study in question is a PDF and I don't like linking those directly >.<

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]osmondheart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RightsActivist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RightsActivist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RightsActivist 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Weaker in the sense that they are on average physically weaker and physically smaller than men. This means that, on average, they have not only less strength but also smaller lung capacity (smaller lungs), and so they will tire quicker and due to shorter legs, will not be able to run as fast. This is biological, scientific fact, there's really nothing you can dispute. And pain tolerance? (Men tend to have a higher pain threshold too.) [http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51160]

tl,dr; Men are, on average, more physically capable than their female counterparts in most ways.

The advantages women have is that, on average, they are more flexible than men. This means they are both, on average, less prone to injury and they can fit into smaller spaces as well as being a smaller target to shoot at.

But this is all beside the point, I'm merely naming well known biologically-based differences between the average man and the average woman. The point is, these differences should not be compensated for by different requirements for females. All soldiers need to have the same physical capability if they are to properly execute the job, and if this means that less women pass the physical requirements to be in the army then there's really nothing that can be done. Police officers should be and are treated the same way, at least where I'm from. Women need to meet the same requirements as men, even though on average it's harder for them, because those requirements are there to ensure they can perform their job effectively and safely. It's not sexist, it's simply an inconvenient fact.

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RightsActivist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]salami_inferno 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tacobacalao 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fifi1234 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuickBASIC 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuickBASIC 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

PT standards were a point of contention for me my entire career. It's ridiculous.

A 17-21 year old male needs to do 42 push-ups to pass with a 60%. A 17-21 year old female needs to do 19 push-ups to pass with a 60%.

They are completely incomparable.

We're not allowed to say it in the military (because it's sexist), but I strongly feel that female soldier should be held to the exact same standards as a male soldier period. There should not be a lowering of standards across the board.

There should be a baseline upperbody strength requirement, cardiovascular endurance requirement, etc, that is the absolute bare minimum to perform in combat (they DO say we're soldiers first, not mechanics/computer techs, etc) and if female soldiers don't meet it, then they shouldn't be in service. It's that simple.

Urgh, sorry about the soapbox, but thinking about what it was like in the Army is what got me started.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Screw that. I said it all the time. Many women suddenly were like "no its harder for women to meet that". I just responded "it's harder for skinny guys to do it too, should they get different standards?".

I'm a slim guy and was skinnier in boot camp and before my injury I met the initial minimums for SEAL school. Of course I had already signed for the nuclear route so I wasn't allowed and my injury would have done me in anyways, but frankly I tire of people with that kind of attitude. Women complaining to me about how hard it is to run a mile and half in 15 minutes, and I just pointed out that I had to lap them twice to pass, and on a half healed leg as well.

The military coddles women in so many ways. Don't get wrong there are some hard working, capable, intelligent women in the military I've worked with several, but they are few and far between as the combination of low standards and spineless commanders who don't hold them responsible leads many to be shiftless and entitled.

[–]QuickBASIC 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Always_Doubtful 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]secaa23[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On average women are physically weaker, have less lung capacity, fewer red blood cells per unit volume of blood, fewer platelets, more pain receptors, thinner/less dense bones, and a number of their joints are not as optimal for load bearing. They are not as strong or fast, are more prone to injury and slower to recover from most types(their mucosal membrane healing is faster).

Being a soldier is not about prancing through the posies or just being a field reporter. It's about results. Every soldier must be part of a cohesive, fungible force as well, so it's not as simple as just having special standards for certain jobs. There's a minimum standard every one must meet should they need to be called into combat, and if women want to be part of it they need to be able meet that standard.

That isn't even the whole story though. There are some women who can meet it, but that doesn't mean those women are going to be in the military. That kind of fitness level for a woman is likely high enough to be a professional athlete assuming it's sex segregated sport, so most of those women probably won't bother. When you then consider that logistical complications from integrating the handful of women who do, that then requires bringing along female medics and OB/GYNs because they're required to provide a same sex medical practitioner should one request it, and those women would also have to meet those fitness standards.

I'm not against women in combat. I'm against sending substandard soldiers regardless of sex into combat to the detriment of themselves and their squadmates. If a cost-benefit analysis shows that reworking an entire system so there can be a handful of women among 10,000 men would not be cost-effective, then so be it.

The military doesn't exist so people can play soldier, it exists to get the mission done as best it can with the limited resources its given.

[–]ls1z28chris 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]actanonverba8 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I did 10 years in the Corps. I saw a few decent female Marines, but most were bad news.

In general women, which of course female Marines are, HATE HATE HATE following a chain of command. They instead try to flirt (sometimes bed) and kiss up to people 3 or 4 notches up in their chain of command in order to try to gain lenience or immunity from following their immediate first and second level of supervisors, to get themselves sheltered from routine authority. I blame the higher ranking men that play their part in this just as much as the manipulative women. Many female Marines I saw also implicitly (occasionally explicitly) used the fear of accusations to try to get special treatment.

As a rule, they were bad news and always seemed to be causing some kind of drama or sneaking around to get out of responsibilities.

[–]secaa23[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]actanonverba8 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (97 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]americangoyblogger 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[+]osmondheart 13 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

I have always wanted the same reqs for women in the armed forces.

Lowering the standards HURTS equality and feminism actually. A woman should not be told "Oh, you made it because your standards are lower" this is not what an equal rights supporter needs. I would rather 100 women pass every man's test than 1000 pass a lower test. It just pushes the others to work harder...which is a good thing.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]americangoyblogger 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]americangoyblogger 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RightsActivist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]americangoyblogger 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]americangoyblogger 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Pecanpig 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RightsActivist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RightsActivist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RightsActivist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoktorTeufel 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago* (45 children) | Copy Link

Guns aren't designed "for men," they're designed to operate properly while putting a certain caliber of bullet downrange at a certain rate of fire. Do you really think the engineers added on extra weight to make the guns seem more manly?

Likewise, a 200-pound casualty simulates a typical male soldier. That test isn't designed "for men." It's 200 pounds because you need to be strong enough to evacuate a wide range of people that includes men.

As for the rucksack, I've been in the military, I've been hiking and camping, and I can tell you that the vast majority of gear is, much like the gun, designed simply to work, not "for men" or "for women." Do you even know what's in those rucksacks?

"Equality" is included in the title of the article because there's this idea that if the mean ol' patriarchy weren't stopping women from achieving whatever they desired, we'd see far more female firefighters, female infantry, female construction workers, female deep sea fishermen, and so on.

But the truth is that women as a gender tend to greatly prefer the physically easier, safer jobs, even when given total freedom of choice. It's also worth noting that physically difficult, dangerous jobs tend to pay significantly more on average than easier, safer jobs. For example, coal miners in southwestern Virginia routinely earn $100,000 or so per year, and their job is relatively menial.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DoktorTeufel 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Apparently the average solider in 1984 was 166 pounds.. not 200.

Do soldiers go out into the field naked? Is it still 1984? I'm 5'9" and I weigh 160 pounds naked, which is normal. These days, 5'9" is a tad on the short side. Tall people also need to be evacuated. Wearing fatigues, a helmet, a flak jacket and carrying some gear, I guarantee you I'll weigh 200 pounds or more.

I'm a scientist

Yeah, sure you are. You didn't even account for the weight of fatigues and carried gear in the average weight of a solider. I hope you're not working in the hard sciences.

I don't completely disagree with you in that equipment weight for women can be reduced somehow. But the reduction will be at most 10-15%. Perhaps you can get a 71-pound pack down to 61 pounds, but no further. And the thing is, the military is ALWAYS trying to reduce weight for ALL soldiers, for reasons that should be fairly obvious.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]dharmaticate 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dharmaticate 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoktorTeufel 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RightsActivist 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RightsActivist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]salami_inferno 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

What standard?...they make the guns as well as they can, if they could make the gun lighter, they would add a better barrel and the weight would be back where it started. Their objective isn't to make the soldiers life easier, the objective of weapon designers is to make better guns.

Then the side with the superior albeit heavier weapons will shitkick the lighter side with all round lower standards.

These standards are constantly looked at, they are fine.

Japan and China also have smaller women.

So not a mechanic, or engineer, or any position where you would know shit all about weapons or the military. best of luck with the career, hope you cure cancer.

Oh really? So tell me, how many small framed Marines have you seen? And special forces is separate entirely, they are insanely tough though, like you need to have something wrong with you to be that tough.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RightsActivist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RightsActivist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]forzion_no_mouse 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]forzion_no_mouse 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]salami_inferno 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]salami_inferno 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Well you can adjust for the differences in body weight. if you are a smaller person your equipment is going to be smaller and weight less. but the average Infantryman will carry about 70ish pounds with a full load.

I agree the tests are ruff however, they have to be. that is the equipment that we have at this time so anybody in the infantry should have to be able to pass the test. the infantry lives off of what it can carry. So if you can't carry your gear you are useless and ineffective for that job.

as for your comment below asking if the 71 pound ruck sack is necessary and if the next generation of equipment can be lighter. Well, Equipment is always coming out that is smaller and lighter and more effective however, if you have a new shovel that is 2lbs lighter the military will have you carry 2 more pounds of ammo or they will have a new gadget for you to carry. If I remember correctly, The average pack weight has been roughly the same since the Napoleonic period. (When I get home I will go though my chest of old PME books and find the source of this)

I should also say that you bring up a good point. We should look at why the standards are the way they are and if they are necessary. I do know that the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned is something the Corps uses to do just that as well as many other things. I will close on this it is really important to know that the school of infantry is actually designed to get as many people to pass as possible. it's not like special forces which is designed to weed people out.

[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pauldustllah 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]salami_inferno 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]salami_inferno 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dascuff1 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RightsActivist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dascuff1 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Dascuff1 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

After the physical training that applicants go through which includes plenty of lifting, carrying, moving large amounts of weight I am fairly certain that it is fairly easily done to move a comrade who is injured and in full combat gear adding to more than 200lbs. Also it is generally safer to move someone who is injured than to simply leave them there, this is because after moving them to a safer spot on the field it is much easier to address the wound and it removes both the medic as well as the injured person from the firefight. How is such a scenario so unlikely to happen that you keep saying that it is a scene from predator? It is actually quite common to move injured personal so that they may be treated and it is highly unlikely that dragging them will exacerbate an injury from being shot. Also if the standards were changed so that applicants would be required to move a 250lb dummy it would not lower the quality of applicants simply the number, quantity does not equal- is not the same as- quality.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Dascuff1 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You forgot an "s" in explosives. In a firefight it is highly unlikely to be hindered or under fire form or by explosives. It is almost always top priority for any injured personal to be evacuated or moved out of harms way to be treated for any wounds while those who are are not rescuing the injured person give cover fire and alert of any impending dangers such as a threat coming close to the area of the injured. I have in no way mentioned such imagery and have actually said that the person would either be carried or dragged to cover or safety not thrown over a shoulder while the carrier still fires his/her weapon as such a thing would be ridiculous and highly improbable as well as unsafe for the carrier by exposing both the injured person as well as themselves. As far as further injuring someone who has been shot by dragging them unless the bullet has struck the spine it is highly unlikely that moving them would further any wound. As far as almost everything following a bell cure this is correct in some situations as far as quality of workers or in this case armed personnel it is true. If you were to put in place a set standard in this scenario such as being able to move lets say a 250lb dummy then the quality of people accepted will improve as the standard has been set higher than the previous 200lbs even though the quantity may have declined. The same can be said to most modern workforces say for instance in the medical field, as I am to assume by your own personal involvement in it this is a field you should be able to relate to, the previous standard for intelligence was that one must maintain a 3.5 standard college GPA to apply for study in a medical field and it was raised so that one must maintain a GPA of 3.8 though the amount of people available to apply or begin study in this field would decrease the quality of available people would increase. As far as the arbitrary weight of 200lbs being a set standard in my own opinion this is fairly easy and is not a very challenging test to determine whether one is physically fit to be in active duty and involved in field operations. As far as re-evaluating what is necessary to be deemed physically fit enough to begin training or begin field operations I would agree though not on the same principle as you have but in the hope that they might come upon a set standard that all applicants must be able to pass so that a set quality of soldier may be found as fit for duty rather than lowering the standard for others based on sex in this case women would be the people the standard has been lowered for. But one of the reasons for this is because the government has made it near mandatory for women to be able to be employed in both any workforce or field of operation due to this expectations have been lowered for women trying to enter into workforces or fields of operation so that it does not appear that it does not appear that any workforce or field of operations is either sexist, barring women or male only. Unfortunately it has raised debate on such topics as this and others involving women in physically demanding areas of work or operation. Part of the debate has been on the effects of Affirmative action which deems that any workforce that the government oversees or has any part in must hire a set amount of minorities or women to achieve a set "balance" in the workplace. Many work places or areas of operations have had to make it easier for women to apply for and enter such fields so that this quota can be more easily attained or met.

[–]RightsActivist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link