cmdrjones wrote:What does being a “metro-dude” or not have to do with being in the military or not? Or are you under the delusion that every man in the military is some ballsy over-muscled he-man? What does any of that have to do with the ability to shoot or not?
It's an attitude thing. perhaps we don't mean the same thing. When i use that phrase I am picturing amore extreme example than you are I suppose. And no, not every man in the military is over-muscled, though it is an essential element of the soldier and his/her training and evaluated constantly. Physicality has to do with all aspects of military culture, not just shooting, though it IS en essential element of shooting. Holding a7 pound rifle in the proper firing postitions for an extended period of time is a heck of an isometric workout.
I'm sure it is, but honestly, this is starting to sound like dick-measuring. I could counter that back when I did roofing work I was hauling 80 lbs 30 feet up a ladder multiple times per work day, which is also a hell of a workout, but that proves nothing, eithr.
Got news for you – a normal adult woman is perfectly capable of holding a 7 pound rifle the proper firing position for an extended period of time. She may have to work up to the exercise, but then so would a lot of men. That is nowhere near beyond the capability of a physically normal adult human of either sex.
Ah yes, but we're talking about women in dangerous situations remember? But, point taken. In general making sure babies survive is more likely to come up than shooting something at 100 meters, but when it comes up BOY is it important!
Quick – a baby's life depends on the answers:
- what are the signs of medically seriously dehydration in an infant?
- at what point is a fever serious enough to take a baby to the ER?
- what are the signs of life-threatening allergic reaction?
When these question come up BOY are they important!
And, by the way, they come up more commonly in life than the need to shoot people.
You say we can't consctruct rules for outliers? Good. That's what I'm saying... the argument begins at how far down the bell curve we go to GET our female cops and firefighters etc. I say if the top 1% (You may argue 5% or whatever) WANT to be there and will DO the work and don't care about the opportunity costs, then fine, let them. My personal opinion is that we (as a society) shouldn't be encouraging the most physcially capable women to spend their best years getting beat up by life etc. But that's just me.
Yes, and it's rapidly being established you're an asshat.
You don't think giving birth to multiple children doesn't “beat up” a woman? You've probably never heard of the old rule of thumb that a woman loses a tooth for every child, but it's not entirely an old wives' tail. Women who have given birth are several times more likely to suffer incontinence than women who haven't. On average, women who have never given birth live longer than women who have given birth. Look up the terms “uterine prolapse” and “vaginal fistula”.
While I don't agree with much of what the ancient Aztecs represented, they did respect the dangers of pregnancy and birth to the extent that a woman who died giving birth was accorded the same reward in the afterlife as a man who died in battle. Not a squeamish or soft culture, those Aztecs, you might want to think about that.
Second point – it's NOT a matter of either/or. A woman CAN engage in dangerous pursuits AND have children. Granted, dangerous pursuits
while pregnant might not be a good idea for a number of reasons, but that represents only a small fraction of a woman's lifespan these days.
Third point –
there are too many people in the world. We do NOT need every adult human being to reproduce. We aren't some small population teetering on the brink of extinction, we've just about choked our planet with our number. It's not a matter of “encouraging” but rather
stop DIScouraging them from certain pursuits. If a woman CHOOSES a “dangerous” occupation so fucking what?
You should like a martinent insisting everyone fill a predetermined role. Civilian life isn't like that. Civilians aren't assigned a life path and told to march.
We live on a planet that arguably holds 2-4 times as many people as it can sustain long-term. It would do both our species and the planet's ecosystem considerable long-term good to NOT maintain a replacement rate of reproduction for a couple generations. Sure, there will be issues with that, but there would also be some butt-ugly issues with breeding to the point either starvation, war, disease, famine, or some combination knocks down our numbers.
See the above quote about tough choices....
So, if there are arguably too many of us
why the fuck do you care that some people are
volunteering to skip reproduction? Isn't that a GOOD thing for the world overall?
The Above problems are not all about childbearing, but 2nd and 3rd order effects of the system we have REPLACED traditional childbearing WITH.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm sorry – did we suddenly go to producing 99% of our children via artificial wombs in the past few years when I wasn't looking?
Newsflash – the majority of babies, 2/3 to 3/4, are produced by “traditional” vaginal childbirth. As for the rest – I'm OK with saving the lives of women and babies who in past ages would have died or been crippled by the experience.
I don't think society beats it into their heads, in fact, quite the opposite.
OK, asshat, if YOUR life experience counts then so does mine.
YES, SOCIETY DOES BEAT “HAVE BABIES” INTO WOMEN'S HEADS. I know this from
direct personal experience over half a century. I don't want to turn this into an autobiographical screed but I will do so if necessary.
Agreed motherhood isn't the ONLY option, but IMHO its the most selfless.
As for women's increased lifespans, I say let them do whatever they want, THAT is the best time to do it! AFTER childbearing years! I'd rather a young woman have the facts at 18 and decide wisely whether to struggle with trying to "have it all" or stick to wife and mother role or simply go for a career, rather than the situation we currently have where feminists push women into the "have it all" role and damn the torpedoes.
Are you fucking 12 or something?
You have NO clue how much more difficult it is to start a new career in one's 40's than in one's 20's. Possible? Yes. But also very likely to fail. Are you even aware that even for people with established careers getting a new job after the age of 40 is difficult due to bias against older workers? Now try that with NO work experience outside the home.
Women who DO have “the facts” at 18 DO make the choices they feel are best for them and their present or future families. They wait to find a good mate – or do you suggest they simply fuck the first man who shows interest to hurry things along? They try to either get married or, failing that, get a work situation that allows them to provide for a family... which generally takes a few years. There's really no reason NOT to put off childbirth to the mid-20's or even early 30's if that results in more security and resources for the children. Popping kids out at 18 is almost guaranteed to ensure poverty and lack, barring said woman landing a rich husband – and having babies makes you much less desirable as dating material whether you're male or female.
If women who had male support left voluntarily, then wages would necessarily rise.
The hell they would – we currently have more workers than jobs.
Tens of millions would have to leave the current workforce before it would trigger a sufficient labor shortage to significantly raise wages.
I can dream can I?
Of what? A world where the primary role of women would be to be your fuckbuddy and squirt your progency out of her crotch?
They work less overtime, they work indoors, they take time off to have kids and thus have less overall experience, they don't generally do dangerous and dirty work when they don't have to and so on.
Right. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE BABIES.
THAT is why childcare is necessary.
Women who DON'T have children
don't take time off to have kids,
do tend to have work experience comparable with men's,
are more likely to work overtime, and so on. Why?
Because they don't have to rush home to the kids.
MEN who are single fathers ALSO take time off for their kids, ALSO lose work experience, ALSO are less likely to work overtime, and so on. Why?
Because they don't have to rush home to the kids.
Why are you so fucking stupid you can't see that?
The rationale behind paying women less for the same work was to drive them out of the workforce so that a man with a family could take the position. Is that wrong?
Yes it's goddamned wrong – is it OK to pay a black person half as much as a white person? No? Then why is it OK to pay a woman half as much as a man
for the exact same work?
Do you have ANY idea of the impact that has on female-headed households? Or do you suggest a widow be “assigned” a new husband immediately like ISIL does? Or that women should remain with men who beat them bloody or drink away the rent money rather than starve to death? Or have their kids taken away because, due to being paid half as much for the same work, they can't afford to work AND hire a sitter to watch the kids?
If men aren't encouraged to strive and compete they become man-boobs and basement dwellers that no woman wants anyway, right?
So you're thinking that shitting on the female half of the population is somehow going to motivate the male half to be good providers? What the fuck are you on?
Valued by whom? Feminists? I'm all about valuing motherhood and all the work that goes into it. Much of "women's work" will ALWAYS be unpaid, hence why it is selfless.
Complete and utter bullshit.
If motherhood was actually valued
it would be paid. As it stands, a woman can spend her life birthing and raising fine, upstanding children but when it comes time to retire she gets jackshit because
society does not value parenthood If it did, she would get some sort of actual credit for all those years of work.
Our society only values that which has been assigned a monetary value. As motherhood is “priceless” and thus has no assigned number it is proved valueless.
And what's this bullshit about “women's work” always being upaid? Again, what the fuck? Cooking is women's work – but don't male celebrity chefs get paid for doing just that? Sewing is women's work – have you looked into how much a tailor costs these days? Taking care of the sick is women's work – look into wages for nurses and doctors these days. Cleaning is women's work – last time I looked into it a professional cleaning service started around $20/hour in this area.
Funny – women's work is unpaid when it's the
women doing it. As soon as a man starts doing it, it suddenly DOES have a dollar value.
now we're arguing about whether it's more efficient for society to lower taxes and let people make their own choices or utilize a large bureaucracy to enforce these types of things on businesses and so on.
Low taxes don't fucking matter
when you don't have any money! In which case any choices you have a very limited. Why don't you get that? You're advocating a world where women are paid less, if they're permitted to work at all, then saying it's up to them to make “choices”.
DO YOU WANT AN EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT? Yes?
Then you will have taxes. Deal with it.
See above... people have always been starving somewhere. All that Aid to africa had major unintended consequences... so does the welfare state.
The difference is that the welfare state has fewer emaciated corpses lying on the sidewalk.
This is why we think you have no clue about history – you seem to have zero awareness of what actual starvation is, and its effect on people. Not just death, but stunted growth, deformed bones, neurological damage in babies... Go and actually
learn about these things because at this point you are painfully ignorant.
Let me clarify: I'll hold women to the same professional standards as men.
And when they meet those standards they should be PAID THE SAME as those men.
And, by the way – where are the FATHERS in your dream world? You take about how women should do this and women should do that or NOT do that but what about the damn men? All those babies are going to require fathers, and being a father should be more than simply being a sperm donor.
cmdrjones wrote:So if someone else gets crippled or sent to the emergency room due to their own choices my taxes will never have anything to do with it? Sweet!
If you're OK with the notion that if YOU wind up in the ER you'll only get care until your savings run out, what with being unable to work and not being allowed to “impose” on others. As soon as your bank account hits zero they'll wheel you out to the curb and toss you in the gutter.
My parents remember what life was life before health insurance or health coverage. If you couldn't find a way to pay for care you suffered, all the while knowing there was something that could alleviate that suffering but being unable to get it, or maybe you just died.
I don't want to go back to that. Only a young, healthy, able-bodied person who has never been seriously ill or injured, or even known anyone in that condition, could possibly think that's a good idea.
madd0ct0r wrote:What does interest me is the threads defination of dangerous roles. Being a roofer is a dangerous role. Being a pilot of small aircraft is a dangerous role
And, oddly enough, I've also done
both of those.
Also worked with horses, which is dangerous, and a few other “dangerous” pursuits. Rather glad I did all of them, actually.
salm wrote:Does it really matter if he´s a soldier or not? Even if he was a soldier he´d have to prove his point with facts and good arguments.
It matters if he's lying and/or misrepresenting himself. If he had never claimed to be a soldier then no, it wouldn't matter, but he has so now it does matter.
I think at this point we're pretty much done here - at least until "Commander Jones" or whoever he is substantiates his claims to military service.
