On Women in Dangerous Roles

[cmdrjones]

I like the idea in principle, but don't really have any confidence that it would be executed well (if they actually follow through with this). It would seem to me that odds are it becomes another terrible Melissa McCarthy vehicle.

What i find interesting is that it would make MORE sense as a Melissa McCarthy vehicle. Instinctively, we don't want to put women in dangerous situations because eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap etc. Now, if Ghostbusting is supposed to be intrinsically dangerous (which is how it was protrayed in the originals, albeit in a lighthearted way) then sending attractive women like Jessica Alba, Demi Lovato, Taylor Swift and Ryan seacrea- I mean Julianne Hough into danger MAY threaten the viewers suspension of disbelief, but, if you make it a straight up comedy... well, who DOESN'T want to see melissa Mcarthy slimed, or possessed/drunk and spewing pornographic and sacreligious filth? (i.e. her average saturday night)

[The Romulan Republic]

I like the idea in principle, but don't really have any confidence that it would be executed well (if they actually follow through with this). It would seem to me that odds are it becomes another terrible Melissa McCarthy vehicle.

What i find interesting is that it would make MORE sense as a Melissa McCarthy vehicle. Instinctively, we don't want to put women in dangerous situations because eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap etc. Now, if Ghostbusting is supposed to be intrinsically dangerous (which is how it was protrayed in the originals, albeit in a lighthearted way) then sending attractive women like Jessica Alba, Demi Lovato, Taylor Swift and Ryan seacrea- I mean Julianne Hough into danger MAY threaten the viewers suspension of disbelief, but, if you make it a straight up comedy... well, who DOESN'T want to see melissa Mcarthy slimed, or possessed/drunk and spewing pornographic and sacreligious filth? (i.e. her average saturday night)

God you're messed up.

I don't find having attractive women do dangerous things hard to believe. And your idea that everyone enjoys seeing a woman in danger/humiliated as long as she's not hot (by whatever largely arbitrary standard you use to measure hotness) is sickening.

Maybe I'm just not a sexist retard like you.

[Joun_Lord]

I like the idea in principle, but don't really have any confidence that it would be executed well (if they actually follow through with this). It would seem to me that odds are it becomes another terrible Melissa McCarthy vehicle.

What i find interesting is that it would make MORE sense as a Melissa McCarthy vehicle. Instinctively, we don't want to put women in dangerous situations because eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap etc. Now, if Ghostbusting is supposed to be intrinsically dangerous (which is how it was protrayed in the originals, albeit in a lighthearted way) then sending attractive women like Jessica Alba, Demi Lovato, Taylor Swift and Ryan seacrea- I mean Julianne Hough into danger MAY threaten the viewers suspension of disbelief, but, if you make it a straight up comedy... well, who DOESN'T want to see melissa Mcarthy slimed, or possessed/drunk and spewing pornographic and sacreligious filth? (i.e. her average saturday night)

God you're messed up.

I don't find having attractive women do dangerous things hard to believe. And your idea that everyone enjoys seeing a woman in danger/humiliated as long as she's not hot (by whatever largely arbitrary standard you use to measure hotness) is sickening.

Maybe I'm just not a sexist retard like you.

Its the old line of thought that only ugly women would do something dangerous. Only ugly or fat women or "nasty dirty" lesbians (who are only lesbians because they are too fat or ugly to get a man, which I guess means gay guys are too pretty to get a woman) would become cops, soldiers, or anything else dangerous because apparently without beauty a woman has nothing to live for.

Its unthinkable a pretty woman (walking down the street and the kind I'd like to meet) would dare blemish her god given looks in something dangerous because thats all she has going for her. Women's personality, intelligence, physical attributes, none of that stuff matter, only looks.

Also, and not to defend CmdrJones, I would mind seeing Melissa McCarthy slimed or whatever (nothing real though, only in movies which I'm told aren't real) either but not because she is a woman or ugly (which I don't think she really is, not that it matters either way) but because I find her to be really annoying and unfunny. I find Sarah Silverman attractive but wish the same upon her because she is annoying. I think of them like Neelix (who is definitely not attractive, meaning I'm probably sexist towards Talaxians, Talaxist), just really annoying and not funny.

Of course comedy is subjective.

On topic, I don't really see the need for a Ghostbusters reboot but if they are going to do one I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an all female one. Preferably I would want them to not care about sex and go with whoever fits the parts the best. Having a mixed sex cast could open up plenty more opportunities to get a great cast that would work as well as the original did.

[cmdrjones]

I like the idea in principle, but don't really have any confidence that it would be executed well (if they actually follow through with this). It would seem to me that odds are it becomes another terrible Melissa McCarthy vehicle.

What i find interesting is that it would make MORE sense as a Melissa McCarthy vehicle. Instinctively, we don't want to put women in dangerous situations because eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap etc. Now, if Ghostbusting is supposed to be intrinsically dangerous (which is how it was protrayed in the originals, albeit in a lighthearted way) then sending attractive women like Jessica Alba, Demi Lovato, Taylor Swift and Ryan seacrea- I mean Julianne Hough into danger MAY threaten the viewers suspension of disbelief, but, if you make it a straight up comedy... well, who DOESN'T want to see melissa Mcarthy slimed, or possessed/drunk and spewing pornographic and sacreligious filth? (i.e. her average saturday night)

God you're messed up.

I don't find having attractive women do dangerous things hard to believe. And your idea that everyone enjoys seeing a woman in danger/humiliated as long as she's not hot (by whatever largely arbitrary standard you use to measure hotness) is sickening.

Maybe I'm just not a sexist retard like you.

Note: I didn't say it was hard to believe. I said it threatens the suspension of DIS-belief. I.e. it would appear irrational TO THE VIEWER. For example: When we see the avengers movie and blackwidow kicks the crap out of several large men while happy hogan dukes it out with one over the same period, the sequence is played largely for laughs, with us cutting from black widow kicking ass, to happy struggling, then back etc. Why? because it juxtaposes an UN-natural thing (waif fu) with something we used to see in movies all the time (two guys squaring off and engaging in Iron-Jaw Kata; which was spoofed so eloquently in Orgazmo). The point I was making is that our INSTINCT is to reject what we see blackwidow doing, because any man that's traded punches with a woman or, for example, a 12 year old boy, will tell you is that women are laughably outclassed in physcial combat with men, UNLESS they have insane levels of training (black widow) or superpowers (wonder woman, buffy, etc), or both (river tam). hence, the ability to SUSTAIN suspension of DIS-belief and enjoy. the. show.
In real life, would you seriously encourage women to try things like the above characters? no? then thank you.
AS for your second wild assumption that I want to see bad things happen to unattractive women.... no, I specifically mentioned MELISSA MCCARTHY because that is her RAISON D'ETRE... do you see? She Does that sort of thing in her other comedies and IT WORKS.
Did I say anything about Roseanne Barr for instance?
Point made.

PS "DAT Bee SEXISSSSS!!!" hasn't had much of a bite as a comeback for about, oh, ten years.
Try again.


PPS "largely arbitrary standard you use to measure hotness" LOL So, the NYT, and dailymail and Evolution themselves are SEXISS? So, what's the line at the top of the page about mockery of stupid people?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... l?ITO=1490

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/magaz ... .html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/fashi ... ref=slogin

http://www.ehbonline.org/

[The Romulan Republic]

I might reply immediately to your idiocy if I didn't have to go to sleep, partly because you look like a type of poster who will get banned before long. As it is, a more thorough reply will have to wait. That doesn't really bother me. Any reply beyond obscenities is more courtesy and recognition than you deserve.

[cmdrjones]

I might reply immediately to your idiocy if I didn't have to go to sleep, partly because you look like a type of poster who will get banned before long. As it is, a more thorough reply will have to wait. That doesn't really bother me. Any reply beyond obscenities is more courtesy and recognition than you deserve.

Oh that may very well happen. This board belongs to Mr Wong after all and he and his mods can ban at will, but your tirades are like sweet music to my ears. If obscenities are what you resort to when someone has uttered Wrongthought and badthink, then I've half the battle won already. Don't take this the wrong way, but i care about you and i'm trying to help.

[Raw Shark]

[snip] The point I was making is that our INSTINCT is to reject what we see blackwidow doing, because any man that's traded punches with a woman or, for example, a 12 year old boy, will tell you is that women are laughably outclassed in physcial combat with men, UNLESS they have insane levels of training (black widow) or superpowers (wonder woman, buffy, etc), or both (river tam). hence, the ability to SUSTAIN suspension of DIS-belief and enjoy. the. show.
In real life, would you seriously encourage women to try things like the above characters? no? then thank you. [snip]

It is fiction. Speaking anecdotally as someone who has taken a really good punch from a 90# woman who completely put her back into it like a pro, however, it's not entirely in the realm of fantasy.

AS for your second wild assumption that I want to see bad things happen to unattractive women.... no, I specifically mentioned MELISSA MCCARTHY because that is her RAISON D'ETRE... do you see? She Does that sort of thing in her other comedies and IT WORKS.
Did I say anything about Roseanne Barr for instance?
Point made.

I think she'd probably do well in an action-comedy.

[cmdrjones]

[snip] The point I was making is that our INSTINCT is to reject what we see blackwidow doing, because any man that's traded punches with a woman or, for example, a 12 year old boy, will tell you is that women are laughably outclassed in physcial combat with men, UNLESS they have insane levels of training (black widow) or superpowers (wonder woman, buffy, etc), or both (river tam). hence, the ability to SUSTAIN suspension of DIS-belief and enjoy. the. show.
In real life, would you seriously encourage women to try things like the above characters? no? then thank you. [snip]

It is fiction. Speaking anecdotally as someone who has taken a really good punch from a 90# woman who completely put her back into it like a pro, however, it's not entirely in the realm of fantasy.

AS for your second wild assumption that I want to see bad things happen to unattractive women.... no, I specifically mentioned MELISSA MCCARTHY because that is her RAISON D'ETRE... do you see? She Does that sort of thing in her other comedies and IT WORKS.
Did I say anything about Roseanne Barr for instance?
Point made.

I think she'd probably do well in an action-comedy.

I'll note that you were able to TAKE the punch, and Like I said: training.

Two anecdotes: I Used to train 14-16 year old girls in martial arts (Hap Ki Do) as an assistant instructor and while we could take a completely green female who i outweighed by at least 50 lbs and train her so that in 3 months she went from Insta-pin in ground fighting to being able to hold her own/force me to work, HARD, for several minutes to pin her, we NEVER were under the illusion that I was in danger from them, The entire objective was to train them to be able to hold off an attacker long enough to get away or scream for help or make it so painful that 99% of attackers who are looking for easy prey will back off.
in any case: apologies for derailing the threat about female ghostbusters with an argument about sexism and sexual dimorphism... it's tangential to the subject at best.

PS Roseanne COULD do well... I suppose I should have used a non-comedienne as my example.... how about Janet Yellen?

[Lagmonster]

I might reply immediately to your idiocy if I didn't have to go to sleep, partly because you look like a type of poster who will get banned before long. As it is, a more thorough reply will have to wait. That doesn't really bother me. Any reply beyond obscenities is more courtesy and recognition than you deserve.

Oh that may very well happen. This board belongs to Mr Wong after all and he and his mods can ban at will, but your tirades are like sweet music to my ears. If obscenities are what you resort to when someone has uttered Wrongthought and badthink, then I've half the battle won already. Don't take this the wrong way, but i care about you and i'm trying to help.

Romulan, if you aren't ready to debate, don't. Dick-waving contests aren't for this forum. Jones, you aren't going to get banned for having a controversial opinion. You can get banned for using hateful slurs, as outlined in the forum rules, but not just because of your taste or distaste in movie tropes. Also, try to stay on target. If you want to talk about the cultural impact of sexual dimorphism in humans, there's a forum for that.

[cmdrjones]

I might reply immediately to your idiocy if I didn't have to go to sleep, partly because you look like a type of poster who will get banned before long. As it is, a more thorough reply will have to wait. That doesn't really bother me. Any reply beyond obscenities is more courtesy and recognition than you deserve.

Oh that may very well happen. This board belongs to Mr Wong after all and he and his mods can ban at will, but your tirades are like sweet music to my ears. If obscenities are what you resort to when someone has uttered Wrongthought and badthink, then I've half the battle won already. Don't take this the wrong way, but i care about you and i'm trying to help.

Romulan, if you aren't ready to debate, don't. Dick-waving contests aren't for this forum. Jones, you aren't going to get banned for having a controversial opinion. You can get banned for using hateful slurs, as outlined in the forum rules, but not just because of your taste or distaste in movie tropes. Also, try to stay on target. If you want to talk about the cultural impact of sexual dimorphism in humans, there's a forum for that.

That's good to know. As for dimorphism, yeah I admitted that was going way OT. IMHO, I rather think a discussion of the supernatural itself; the soul, religion etc is FAR more relevant to a thread about the Ghostbusters than who plays what character, but the OP did specify the gender of the actors was the subject.

[The Romulan Republic]

Note: I didn't say it was hard to believe. I said it threatens the suspension of DIS-belief. I.e. it would appear irrational TO THE VIEWER.

I don't think there's much of a difference. It seems to me that either way you're saying it wouldn't make sense to the viewers. Which is only true if the viewers lack respect for the capabilities of women.

For example: When we see the avengers movie and blackwidow kicks the crap out of several large men while happy hogan dukes it out with one over the same period, the sequence is played largely for laughs, with us cutting from black widow kicking ass, to happy struggling, then back etc. Why? because it juxtaposes an UN-natural thing (waif fu) with something we used to see in movies all the time (two guys squaring off and engaging in Iron-Jaw Kata; which was spoofed so eloquently in Orgazmo). The point I was making is that our INSTINCT is to reject what we see blackwidow doing, because any man that's traded punches with a woman or, for example, a 12 year old boy, will tell you is that women are laughably outclassed in physcial combat with men, UNLESS they have insane levels of training (black widow) or superpowers (wonder woman, buffy, etc), or both (river tam). hence, the ability to SUSTAIN suspension of DIS-belief and enjoy. the. show.

Women are physically weaker than men on average, but not all women are physically weaker than all men and the widespread presence of female soldiers and cops proves that some women are quite capable of holding their own in dangerous situations including combat.

In real life, would you seriously encourage women to try things like the above characters? no?

As much as I would encourage men to.

then thank you.

You're welcome.

AS for your second wild assumption that I want to see bad things happen to unattractive women.... no, I specifically mentioned MELISSA MCCARTHY because that is her RAISON D'ETRE... do you see? She Does that sort of thing in her other comedies and IT WORKS.
Did I say anything about Roseanne Barr for instance?
Point made.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. The way you said it gave the impression that you were saying something highly offensive.

PS "DAT Bee SEXISSSSS!!!" hasn't had much of a bite as a comeback for about, oh, ten years.
Try again.

I call it like I see it.

If its lost its bite, that means that our society has come to disregard/accept sexism, but I don't believe that's entirely the case.

PPS "largely arbitrary standard you use to measure hotness" LOL So, the NYT, and dailymail and Evolution themselves are SEXISS? So, what's the line at the top of the page about mockery of stupid people?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... l?ITO=1490

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/magaz ... .html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/fashi ... ref=slogin

http://www.ehbonline.org/

There are some widely agreed upon standards of attractiveness, but what is attractive varies from person to person as well. This isn't something I feel a need to defend, as it is a self-evident fact.

Edit: fixed quotes.

[cmdrjones]

I don't think there's much of a difference. It seems to me that either way you're saying it wouldn't make sense to the viewers. Which is only true if the viewers lack respect for the capabilities of women.

It's not a lack of respect to recognize the obvious. The subsequent part of the quote about female characters having superpowers addresses this. Writers often give them such powers as a 'dodge' against reality. Being that we're discussing sci-fi... that's understandable.

Women are physically weaker than men on average, but not all women are physically weaker than all men and the widespread presence of female soldiers and cops proves that some women are quite capable of holding their own in dangerous situations including combat.

Their presence proves that we have a political viewpoint vested in pushing that narrative.
indeed SOME women are capable of 'holding thier own' and they are the exception that proves the rule. In the last time I participated in army combatives, we put the best female E5 up against an average male and she had to struggle with ALL that she had to not get choked out in under 3 minutes and we could tell he was going at 50%. If you are on the firing line, who do you want next to you, a person who MAY be one of the few who can 'hold their own' or somebody who can and will completely dominate the enemy?

As much as I would encourage men to.

Well, at least you stick to your guns.


I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. The way you said it gave the impression that you were saying something highly offensive.

I get that a lot.

I call it like I see it.

If its lost its bite, that means that our society has come to disregard/accept sexism, but I don't believe that's entirely the case.

it's not, but being that feminism has latched onto some of the most inane causes recently and has had 3 waves in 30 years shows that it's not only self destructive, but internally logically incoherent.


There are some widely agreed upon standards of attractiveness, but what is attractive varies from person to person as well. This isn't something I feel a need to defend, as it is a self-evident fact.

yes they do vary, but within a specific biological framework, we debate about who is hotter, shakira or jessica biel, not shakira or the female version of patrick ewing.

[Battlegrinder]

It's not a lack of respect to recognize the obvious. The subsequent part of the quote about female characters having superpowers addresses this. Writers often give them such powers as a 'dodge' against reality. Being that we're discussing sci-fi... that's understandable.

I'd heavily debate that point. I'm fairly mediocre fencer, but I'm pretty sure I could handily outfight someone who's knowledge of the sport consisted of "this end of the foil is the bit you poke people with". I suspect that the same would hold for hand to hand combat as well. You don't need to be orders of magnitude better than your opponent, you just need to be better. Given that a lot of the time, the protagonists are trained and their opponents either aren't or are barely trained, I find the idea that they can win those fights perfectly reasonable.

Their presence proves that we have a political viewpoint vested in pushing that narrative.
indeed SOME women are capable of 'holding thier own' and they are the exception that proves the rule. In the last time I participated in army combatives, we put the best female E5 up against an average male and she had to struggle with ALL that she had to not get choked out in under 3 minutes and we could tell he was going at 50%. If you are on the firing line, who do you want next to you, a person who MAY be one of the few who can 'hold their own' or somebody who can and will completely dominate the enemy?

I have my doubts as to how relevant someone's hand to hand combat skill is the context of modern warfare, and however questionable that skill may be for the people on my side, I'm reasonably certain that the people we'd be fighting would be even worse, given the past 15 years.

And IIRC, women are actually more dextrous than men, on average, so I think I'd prefer having someone who was probably a good shot on my side.

I get that a lot.

If you're routinely accused of saying sexist things, then maybe you should consider the possibility that you're actually being sexist.

it's not, but being that feminism has latched onto some of the most inane causes recently and has had 3 waves in 30 years shows that it's not only self destructive, but internally logically incoherent.

Most political movements have their fair share of missteps and infighting. I consider myself a conservative-ish person (though I lean much more towards the RINO end of the spectrum), and I've watched people who I generally agree with do spectacularly stupid things. Feminism is no different, and while it does have its fair share of issues, I'd hardly call say it's self destructive.

[cmdrjones]

It's not a lack of respect to recognize the obvious. The subsequent part of the quote about female characters having superpowers addresses this. Writers often give them such powers as a 'dodge' against reality. Being that we're discussing sci-fi... that's understandable.

I'd heavily debate that point. I'm fairly mediocre fencer, but I'm pretty sure I could handily outfight someone who's knowledge of the sport consisted of "this end of the foil is the bit you poke people with". I suspect that the same would hold for hand to hand combat as well. You don't need to be orders of magnitude better than your opponent, you just need to be better. Given that a lot of the time, the protagonists are trained and their opponents either aren't or are barely trained, I find the idea that they can win those fights perfectly reasonable.

Their presence proves that we have a political viewpoint vested in pushing that narrative.
indeed SOME women are capable of 'holding thier own' and they are the exception that proves the rule. In the last time I participated in army combatives, we put the best female E5 up against an average male and she had to struggle with ALL that she had to not get choked out in under 3 minutes and we could tell he was going at 50%. If you are on the firing line, who do you want next to you, a person who MAY be one of the few who can 'hold their own' or somebody who can and will completely dominate the enemy?

I have my doubts as to how relevant someone's hand to hand combat skill is the context of modern warfare, and however questionable that skill may be for the people on my side, I'm reasonably certain that the people we'd be fighting would be even worse, given the past 15 years.

And IIRC, women are actually more dextrous than men, on average, so I think I'd prefer having someone who was probably a good shot on my side.

I get that a lot.

If you're routinely accused of saying sexist things, then maybe you should consider the possibility that you're actually being sexist.

it's not, but being that feminism has latched onto some of the most inane causes recently and has had 3 waves in 30 years shows that it's not only self destructive, but internally logically incoherent.

Most political movements have their fair share of missteps and infighting. I consider myself a conservative-ish person (though I lean much more towards the RINO end of the spectrum), and I've watched people who I generally agree with do spectacularly stupid things. Feminism is no different, and while it does have its fair share of issues, I'd hardly call say it's self destructive.

#1 Fighting with a foil is about dexterity not brute strength, so women would be only at half the disadvantage they normally have, i'll give you that.
#2 yes, a trained woman vs an untrained man is ALMOST fair. Hence why I advocate training woman (also because women are usually targeted by scumbags for being smaller, slower, less aggressive etc)
#3 Good point, hand to hand is NOT terribly indicative of skill at modern warfare, so why does the army focus on it so heavily? It's to demonstrate aggression and a warrior culture, NOT to test how good someone is at say, calling in an airstrike. That being said, the enemies are usually tactically worse than US elite troops (Marines, Rangers etc) and that is why the generals try their damndest to keep REMFs AWAY (far away) from the enemy. Hence "force protection" all day all the time. AS for your last point, yes, women are more dextrous than men, yet most of them are terrible shots. Why? Because despite their higher dextrousness they have worse SPATIAL awareness and less "physicality" or physical awareness (of the proper shooting forms and so on) and are less likely to put the necessary TIME in to become the great shots they could be, again for several reasons: less aggression, aversion to being out in the sun, rain, wind, cold etc on ranges and because there are always sympathetic males who will take pity on them and husband them through the rifle ranges. Now, this applies to I estimate about Half of female soldiers (anectodal evidence so YMMV), but if half of MALE soldiers acted like that the army would cease to function immediately.

#4 considering..... Yeah, Sorry not sorry.
#5 Feminism for all its ups and downs has one major flaw: If women are allowed reproductive choice (especially ABSOLUTE reproductive choice) they will choose to delay, avoid or terminate pregnancies. being that we need 2.1 babies per woman just to Maintain the population.... where do you think this leads? Especially with an economic system DESIGNED around population growth?
Oh yeah, self destruction.
In any case, I tried to turn this back to the Ghostbusters above... sigh, oh well. I'm sure this is all done to death as far as feminism goes. People are going to take offence at what they are going to take offence at, not much I can do about it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/arc ... ism/56084/

[Simon_Jester]

#3 considering..... Yeah, Sorry not sorry.

So, people point out that you're being bigoted, and to you this is not a concern. Do I understand you rightly?

#4 Feminism for all its ups and downs has one major flaw: If women are allowed reproductive choice (especially ABSOLUTE reproductive choice) they will choose to delay, avoid or terminate pregnancies. being that we need 2.1 babies per woman just to Maintain the population.... where do you think this leads? Especially with an economic system DESIGNED around population growth?
Oh yeah, self destruction.

Oh, bullshit. Do you know anything?

One, we still have major population growth in large sectors of the world; if all else fails we just start letting in more than 0.1% of our population in as immigrants each year.

Two, if as you say women will systematically select to have children at less than replacement rate, it takes very few generations of that

Three, our social model is no longer designed around population growth, it's designed around automation. Popping out babies en masse to toil in the fields and factories is so nineteenth century, and nowadays having more kids than you can afford college educations for is a surefire recipe for poverty among all your kids. Humans are k-strategy organisms, not r-strategy organisms, and that strategy has only gotten more viable in the past fifty years.

Four, the long term 'problem' here solves itself, because Darwinian pressures are going to ruthlessly be selecting for women with a strong desire to become pregnant. If, as you say, that's going to be the main reason women have less than two babies, then very predictably, within five or six generations, any gene that makes women freely want numerous babies more is going to have taken over the bulk of the population.

Five and final, what exactly do you propose as an alternative? Forcing women to become nonconsensual brood mares? Because that's the only real alternative to making pregnancy a woman's choice. It's enough that I have a hard time believing that you really think of women as people. You seem to consider them as a sort of pseudosentient baby factory that is the rightful property of 'society.'

[cmdrjones]

#3 considering..... Yeah, Sorry not sorry.

So, people point out that you're being bigoted, and to you this is not a concern. Do I understand you rightly?

#4 Feminism for all its ups and downs has one major flaw: If women are allowed reproductive choice (especially ABSOLUTE reproductive choice) they will choose to delay, avoid or terminate pregnancies. being that we need 2.1 babies per woman just to Maintain the population.... where do you think this leads? Especially with an economic system DESIGNED around population growth?
Oh yeah, self destruction.

Oh, bullshit. Do you know anything?

One, we still have major population growth in large sectors of the world; if all else fails we just start letting in more than 0.1% of our population in as immigrants each year.

Two, if as you say women will systematically select to have children at less than replacement rate, it takes very few generations of that

Three, our social model is no longer designed around population growth, it's designed around automation. Popping out babies en masse to toil in the fields and factories is so nineteenth century, and nowadays having more kids than you can afford college educations for is a surefire recipe for poverty among all your kids. Humans are k-strategy organisms, not r-strategy organisms, and that strategy has only gotten more viable in the past fifty years.

Four, the long term 'problem' here solves itself, because Darwinian pressures are going to ruthlessly be selecting for women with a strong desire to become pregnant. If, as you say, that's going to be the main reason women have less than two babies, then very predictably, within five or six generations, any gene that makes women freely want numerous babies more is going to have taken over the bulk of the population.

Five and final, what exactly do you propose as an alternative? Forcing women to become nonconsensual brood mares? Because that's the only real alternative to making pregnancy a woman's choice. It's enough that I have a hard time believing that you really think of women as people. You seem to consider them as a sort of pseudosentient baby factory that is the rightful property of 'society.'

#1 If simple critcism of feminism is bigoted and wrong... wow just wow. Who are you to hate on my culture?
#2 is immigration a problem where you come from?
#3 I said economic model not social model. where do the funds for Social security come from? Also, really? ALL humans are K selected? Can you think of a situation where humans might have 5, 6, or 7 kids as quickly as possible?
as to you point #4, is genetics ALL that drives the numbers of children have on average? If so, which is the feminism gene? the economics gene?

#5 excellent question! I am a rabid constitutionalist and believe in human freedom. google the essay "Not yours to Give" by Davy Crockett. If women want to have 50 kids, fine. If women want to have 0 kids, fine. Just don't go digging in my pocket to pay for it either way.
My problem with feminists (aside from the obvious) is that they are invariably leftists who go on about what WE should do about X Y and Z. and when they say WE they mean WE and the use of state power to compel everybody almost always comes in to play.
If we stick to a limited government of ennumerated powers (or more accurately if we could return to such) then I would agree with your self correcting problem argument. But, in a day when Sandra Fluke can actually stand before congress and argue that other people need to pay for her birth control and get attention without being laughed at is a day when that's not coming close to ever happening.... of course people will be upset anyway. Too much badthought....

[Simon_Jester]

#1 If simple critcism of feminism is bigoted and wrong... wow just wow. Who are you to hate on my culture?

It's not your culture, it's that you're talking like a fool. A smug fool. If you don't drop the smugness you're going to get increasingly irrelevant and foolish-looking as the decades roll on. Don't say you weren't warned.

#2 is immigration a problem where you come from?

What, people willing to work their asses off for low wages? Isn't that exactly what the doctor ordered if you're worried about population shrinkage?

#3 I said economic model not social model. where do the funds for Social security come from? Also, really? ALL humans are K selected? Can you think of a situation where humans might have 5, 6, or 7 kids as quickly as possible?

We're still k-selected relative to basically any other species on Earth. R-selection is when you neglect your offspring, which even the mothers of seven or eight child families do not do. Human babies would fucking die if someone tried to pursue an r-strategy with them, because they can't take care of themselves for a decade or more after birth even in the ancestral environment.

as to you point #4, is genetics ALL that drives the numbers of children have on average? If so, which is the feminism gene? the economics gene?

You didn't actually use any neurons for that answer, did you?

Any decision to have children is going to be heavily influenced by a combination of factors, among them whether or not a woman feels positive or negative about pregnancies.

#5 excellent question! I am a rabid constitutionalist and believe in human freedom. google the essay "Not yours to Give" by Davy Crockett. If women want to have 50 kids, fine. If women want to have 0 kids, fine. Just don't go digging in my pocket to pay for it either way.

Fine, mountain man, you can go live alone in a log cabin you built yourself with your hatchet and your coonskin cap.

The rest of us have a civilization to maintain. Which means civil society, laws, and systematic state initiatives designed to make things actually work, rather than just assuming the invisible hand has our best interests at heart.

My problem with feminists (aside from the obvious) is that they are invariably leftists who go on about what WE should do about X Y and Z. and when they say WE they mean WE and the use of state power to compel everybody almost always comes in to play.

Actually by far the bulk of the feminists I've ever spoken to are trying to convince individual men to cooperate in actually creating a society that is genuinely committed to extending actual, meaningful individual freedom to women rather than trying to force them into a pigeonhole.

Government action is seen as a necessary substitute since most men turn out to be a lot less committed to the cause of individual liberty when the liberty in question doesn't belong to them. I've never understood that attitude but you certainly manage to exemplify it.

If we stick to a limited government of ennumerated powers (or more accurately if we could return to such) then I would agree with your self correcting problem argument. But, in a day when Sandra Fluke can actually stand before congress and argue that other people need to pay for her birth control and get attention without being laughed at is a day when that's not coming close to ever happening.... of course people will be upset anyway. Too much badthought....

This isn't about thoughtcrime. I can explain in great detail every individual part of why I have a problem with your position. It's not censorship, it's that you are about as far from reality as the moon landing hoaxers.

But since I can't count on you to actually listen when I contradict your core axioms, this means nothing.

[cmdrjones]

#1 If simple critcism of feminism is bigoted and wrong... wow just wow. Who are you to hate on my culture?

It's not your culture, it's that you're talking like a fool. A smug fool. If you don't drop the smugness you're going to get increasingly irrelevant and foolish-looking as the decades roll on. Don't say you weren't warned.

#2 is immigration a problem where you come from?

What, people willing to work their asses off for low wages? Isn't that exactly what the doctor ordered if you're worried about population shrinkage?

#3 I said economic model not social model. where do the funds for Social security come from? Also, really? ALL humans are K selected? Can you think of a situation where humans might have 5, 6, or 7 kids as quickly as possible?

We're still k-selected relative to basically any other species on Earth. R-selection is when you neglect your offspring, which even the mothers of seven or eight child families do not do. Human babies would fucking die if someone tried to pursue an r-strategy with them, because they can't take care of themselves for a decade or more after birth even in the ancestral environment.

as to you point #4, is genetics ALL that drives the numbers of children have on average? If so, which is the feminism gene? the economics gene?

You didn't actually use any neurons for that answer, did you?

Any decision to have children is going to be heavily influenced by a combination of factors, among them whether or not a woman feels positive or negative about pregnancies.

#5 excellent question! I am a rabid constitutionalist and believe in human freedom. google the essay "Not yours to Give" by Davy Crockett. If women want to have 50 kids, fine. If women want to have 0 kids, fine. Just don't go digging in my pocket to pay for it either way.

Fine, mountain man, you can go live alone in a log cabin you built yourself with your hatchet and your coonskin cap.

The rest of us have a civilization to maintain. Which means civil society, laws, and systematic state initiatives designed to make things actually work, rather than just assuming the invisible hand has our best interests at heart.

My problem with feminists (aside from the obvious) is that they are invariably leftists who go on about what WE should do about X Y and Z. and when they say WE they mean WE and the use of state power to compel everybody almost always comes in to play.

Actually by far the bulk of the feminists I've ever spoken to are trying to convince individual men to cooperate in actually creating a society that is genuinely committed to extending actual, meaningful individual freedom to women rather than trying to force them into a pigeonhole.

Government action is seen as a necessary substitute since most men turn out to be a lot less committed to the cause of individual liberty when the liberty in question doesn't belong to them. I've never understood that attitude but you certainly manage to exemplify it.

If we stick to a limited government of ennumerated powers (or more accurately if we could return to such) then I would agree with your self correcting problem argument. But, in a day when Sandra Fluke can actually stand before congress and argue that other people need to pay for her birth control and get attention without being laughed at is a day when that's not coming close to ever happening.... of course people will be upset anyway. Too much badthought....

This isn't about thoughtcrime. I can explain in great detail every individual part of why I have a problem with your position. It's not censorship, it's that you are about as far from reality as the moon landing hoaxers.

But since I can't count on you to actually listen when I contradict your core axioms, this means nothing.

#1 Not about my culture? Do you know what my culture is? as for irrelevance... well, We shall see
#2 When does immigration become colonization?
#3 relative to basically any other species on Earth Got it, thanks. So, do some humans pursue a RELATIVE R selected strategy? Why or why not?
#4 Conceded
#5 Good Luck with that.... BTW did you READ the essay? Go ahead, it's like 5 pages at most... I'll wait.
#6 so men wont cooperate to give women what they want, so they use force or the threat of force from government? Got it thanks... That's freedom for you. BTW how is NOT wanting to be robbed at gunpoint to support something being oppressive?
#7 I AM far from "reality" and I Thank God for it, everyday. Sort of like those crazy idiots who thought standing up to the British Empire over a tax on tea was a good idea....

[Simon_Jester]

I would appreciate it if in future you would respond to each point separately, rather than quoting my post in its entirety and putting everything at the bottom in an itemized list.

I am sure you are literate enough to figure out the quote tags.

#1 Not about my culture? Do you know what my culture is? as for irrelevance... well, We shall see

The reason it is not about your culture is that it is not about anyone's culture. There is no way for 'this is my culture' to justify reducing half the human race to second-class citizens because they're the ones with the uteruses. So it genuinely does not matter what your culture, or my culture, or anyone's culture is. Either your culture is compatible with the freedom and dignity of all humans (not just the ones with penises), or your culture can go to hell. I'm pretty sure your culture isn't one of the go-to-hell kind.

Your problem is that you personally hold views incompatible with the freedom and dignity of all humans.

#2 When does immigration become colonization?

Well gee. I'm sure it doesn't happen when you admit 1 immigrant per thousand citizens per year legally, which is what the US does. Actually more like 1 per 1200 these days. Now, the rate of illegal immigration is rather higher... for exactly the same reason the rate of illegal drug sales is high. Creating an arbitrary restriction on a product that is in demand (cheap labor) creates a black market to supply that demand (coyotes smuggling Salvadoreans across the US border).

And to put it bluntly, why is it a problem if a significant percentage of Americans turn out to be 'imported' Hispanics? If you have a problem with bringing in immigrants, you need to start by beating on all the Irish, Germans, Poles, Swedes and so on in your neighborhood.

At least 170 years ago, you'd have been explicitly identifying yourself as a know-nothing on the strength of all the nativist nonsense.

#3 relative to basically any other species on Earth Got it, thanks. So, do some humans pursue a RELATIVE R selected strategy? Why or why not?

They don't. Not in terms that mean anything.

You will also note that when given a choice humans R-strategize harder, not less. This includes impoverished people in rural and developing areas, who usually have big families because they know they will need swarms of low-productivity low-wage labor to support even a handful of elders and sick family members. Give the individual members of that family state-subsidized access to education, meaningful access to viable jobs, and so on... and within a generation or two they are committing far more resources to one or two children than they ever could.

If there is anyone out there who produces a large number of children in hopes that some of them will succeed... frankly, that's the fault of the system that makes it so that any given child has like a 20-30% chance of success or whatever.

#5 Good Luck with that.... BTW did you READ the essay? Go ahead, it's like 5 pages at most... I'll wait.

Gracious of you to not post a link to something you apparently consider an essential part of your argument.

How about you find a document that is correctly attributed? There's no evidence that Crockett even wrote the thing; it turned up mysterious in the second edition of a rather cheesy biography written by a man who specialized in the creation of dime novels, about forty or fifty years after Crockett's death.

I mean, if you want me to read a random anti-welfare screed fine- write your own. Don't slander the name of a respectable American by falsely attributing it to him.

#7 I AM far from "reality" and I Thank God for it, everyday. Sort of like those crazy idiots who thought standing up to the British Empire over a tax on tea was a good idea....

And now you further slander Sam Adams and friends by comparing yourself to them. They understood that they were taking real risks to provide a better life and greater liberty for everyone.

You have never come out in favor of more liberty for anyone but yourself. You're not Sam Adams or Davy Crockett. You are, at best, Jeff Davis- a person calling for the federal government to leave him alone so he could enjoy his "right" to perfect freedom and comfort supported by subjugating many other people and depriving them of even basic liberties.

[Lagmonster]

I've split this out from the Ghostbusters thread on the grounds that it's drifting into its own topic. I'll admit my choice of title wasn't perfect, but try to ignore that.

[jwl]

Wait what is this?

[Broomstick]

In real life, would you seriously encourage women to try things like the above characters? no? then thank you.

This is sort of contradicted by the fact that in real life women DO engage in dangerous activities.

Outside of things that require a lot of brute force that can't be finessed by extensive training, women do and have done throughout history all the dangerous things that men do. The percentage of women doing such things is smaller than the percentage of men, but they still exist even if you don't believe in them.

[Broomstick]

Their presence proves that we have a political viewpoint vested in pushing that narrative.
indeed SOME women are capable of 'holding thier own' and they are the exception that proves the rule. In the last time I participated in army combatives, we put the best female E5 up against an average male and she had to struggle with ALL that she had to not get choked out in under 3 minutes and we could tell he was going at 50%. If you are on the firing line, who do you want next to you, a person who MAY be one of the few who can 'hold their own' or somebody who can and will completely dominate the enemy?

I have my doubts as to how relevant someone's hand to hand combat skill is the context of modern warfare, and however questionable that skill may be for the people on my side, I'm reasonably certain that the people we'd be fighting would be even worse, given the past 15 years.

And IIRC, women are actually more dextrous than men, on average, so I think I'd prefer having someone who was probably a good shot on my side.

Not to diss hand-to-hand combat, which still has a role, modern combat is about more than physical strength. Women are able to shoot just as well as a man and function quite well in sniping roles. It's a level playing field in aviation, and women combat pilots have proven every bit as capable as their male counterparts.

You're focusing solely on one attribute: raw physical strength. There's a lot more to handling danger and hazards than that.

[Broomstick]

AS for your last point, yes, women are more dextrous than men, yet most of them are terrible shots. Why? Because despite their higher dextrousness they have worse SPATIAL awareness and less "physicality" or physical awareness (of the proper shooting forms and so on) and are less likely to put the necessary TIME in to become the great shots they could be, again for several reasons: less aggression, aversion to being out in the sun, rain, wind, cold etc on ranges and because there are always sympathetic males who will take pity on them and husband them through the rifle ranges. Now, this applies to I estimate about Half of female soldiers (anectodal evidence so YMMV), but if half of MALE soldiers acted like that the army would cease to function immediately.

You forget to add cultural factors. Until very recently it was "unfeminine" to have any skill in shooting in a woman, only hillbillys, hicks, and hardscrabble rural types had shooting women. Until recently, and still the case in some places, women are actively discouraged from physical pursuits.

Men who grew up without any experience of target games and discouraged from physical activity are lousy shots, too.

Also, a considerable jump in spatial awareness and skills can be had through training.

Finally, you're talking about women on average - plenty of women at both ends of the bell curve.

#5 Feminism for all its ups and downs has one major flaw: If women are allowed reproductive choice (especially ABSOLUTE reproductive choice) they will choose to delay, avoid or terminate pregnancies. being that we need 2.1 babies per woman just to Maintain the population.... where do you think this leads? Especially with an economic system DESIGNED around population growth?
Oh yeah, self destruction.

So, what are you saying? Women shouldn't be allowed near birth control? Their only proper role in society is walking wombs and baby machines?

This is fun, but since I'm in retail I have to work today. I expect I'll be back later.

[cmdrjones]

You forget to add cultural factors. Until very recently it was "unfeminine" to have any skill in shooting in a woman, only hillbillys, hicks, and hardscrabble rural types had shooting women. Until recently, and still the case in some places, women are actively discouraged from physical pursuits.

Men who grew up without any experience of target games and discouraged from physical activity are lousy shots, too.

Also, a considerable jump in spatial awareness and skills can be had through training.

Finally, you're talking about women on average - plenty of women at both ends of the bell curve.

Where do you come from dude? Women USED to shoot all the time, especially in more rural areas, I'll grant. I'd argue that shooting skills are undergoing a renaissance amongst women and that once (pre-1960s) they were common in the general population, waned and are now becoming fashionable again for women.
Your other points are noted, but i'll caveat them by bringing in large numbers. yes tehre are lots of metro-dudes nowadays I wouldn't trust with a gun, but we're talking about the military, so it's mandatory. And yes women CAN get a jump in spatial skills through training, but many of them choose to skate by. and yes there are plenty of women on either end of the bell curve, but there are far MORE men on either end of the bell curve

So, what are you saying? Women shouldn't be allowed near birth control? Their only proper role in society is walking wombs and baby machines?

This is fun, but since I'm in retail I have to work today. I expect I'll be back later.

No, as I said above, i'm for freedom, if women want to have 0 or 50, doesn't matter to me, i'd just rather not be forced to pay for it either way.
Now, what do I think is IDEAL for society? Well, well, that's another question. I'd rather the role of motherhood was honored for its absolute vital position that it is, and that women in general recognize the cost-benefit and opportunity costs involved with the "modern" lifestyle. We have many accounts, even in the mainstream feminist media, of women decrying childlessness, spinsterhood, man-boys, delayed or broken marriage, lack of respect for women (the end of chivalry etc.), the rise of pornography, being left with a Sexual marketplace that leave them very few choices besides serial monogamy, outright sluttery, or complete abstinence, the difficulties of being a single mom, all without even acknowledging the role that feminism writ large had in helping to create and/or exacerbate these same problems. Many of these are NOT all feminisms fault, but the law of unintended consequences being what it is.... many here treat ANY criticism of feminism, or its related political analogues, as being hateful and the moral equivalent of nazism and cannibalism combined.
I vacillate betweed finding it funny and/or sad.