"Respect for Women"

[Absentglare]

Re: "Respect for Women"

"Basic critical reasoning" dictates that if the women are going to be "above average" specimens, the men would be as well.

I didn't say "above average" i said that it's not a random sample so the statistics will not be governed by the population distributions. Did you ever take a statistics course ?

Barring the possibility of one of those women being extremely exceptional, that means - given all we know concerning the normal differences between the sexes - the men will still, generally speaking, outperform the women.

Remember how you said you cite studies and data ? There is no data on this. You're just assuming your own conclusion.

You're talking to a guy who's been in and out of Army schools for the last ten years, almost. I know what I'm talking about here, and I still have as of yet to see a woman who can outperform the men.

At best, they'll either do as well, or a tad better, than the bottom male performers. The top male performers, meanwhile, will be at the tip-top of the class. The absolute lowest performers will generally be low scoring females (assuming there's not some guy who weighs like 300 lbs, and clearly needs to be kicked out of the military, hanging around, that is).

I'm sure you have lots of irrelevant anecdotes to strain justification for your assumptions.

 

[Henrin]

Re: "Respect for Women"

? You think a lot of 70 year olds apply for the infantry ? Lol...

Did I say somewhere they do? What does that comment have to do with anything?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Why not?

Going by your logic, only individual ability matters, not such "trivial" matters as one's age or sex.

Oh, now i get it.

You think age is the same as gender. Lol...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Let's take an example of yours from your first post: the topic of being pro-choice is a good example. It may seem dumb and erroneous to you, but what gives you the right to ridicule a women based on her beliefs just because they don't jive with yours?

Perhaps that should be flipped around a bit - why should being female exempt one from having their beliefs ridiculed?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Did I say somewhere they do? What does that comment have to do with anything?

Did you forget already ? Perhaps you should review the thread.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Perhaps that should be flipped around a bit - why should being female exempt one from having their beliefs ridiculed?

It shouldn't make it exempt, but it shouldn't make it under a category labeled, "what respect for women is not".

 

[Henrin]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Did you forget already ? Perhaps you should review the thread.

I never said they did. lol. I was suggesting that if it is down to the factors you think are important then age should not be considered a factor at all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: "Respect for Women"

It shouldn't make it exempt, but it shouldn't make it under a category labeled, "what respect for women is not".

That depends - if you have no problem with ridiculing a males beliefs (i.e. think that is not showing disrespect) then you should also have no problem with ridiculing a females beliefs either. To do so would be to show a lack of respect for the ability of women to handle criticism of their beliefs as you would expect men to.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: "Respect for Women"

That depends - if you have no problem with ridiculing a males beliefs (i.e. think that is not showing disrespect) then you should also have no problem with ridiculing a females beliefs either. To do so would be to show a lack of respect for the ability of women to handle criticism of their beliefs as you would expect men to.

Ridiculing and disagreeing are two different things regardless of gender.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Ridiculing and disagreeing are two different things regardless of gender.

Agreed - but still not reason to violate the "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" idiom.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Agreed - but still not reason to violate the "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" idiom.

The OP made it clear that certain points of view should be ridiculed as he sees fit. Who made him a god?

Here is his quote to be fair:

It should be expected that dumb, or otherwise erroneous, positions and beliefs will attract a certain amount of criticism and ridicule, regardless of the gender of the person who happens to hold them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: "Respect for Women"

The OP made it clear that certain points of view should be ridiculed as he sees fit. Who made him a god?

Here is his quote to be fair:

OK, then explain why one's gender has any bearing on how one's point of view should (or should not be) criticized or ridiculed.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: "Respect for Women"

OK, then explain why one's gender has any bearing on how one's point of view should (or should not be) criticized or ridiculed.

Never did I say it should.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Never did I say it should.

OK, then why disagree with one (like the OP) that also said that gender should not matter?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: "Respect for Women"

OK, then why disagree with one (like the OP) that also said that gender should not matter?

The OP stated

Why on Earth wouldn't I get to define the limits of my own beliefs and conduct?

Well why shouldn't anyone be allowed to do the same? He goes a step further to say some deserve ridicule. Now that is all fine and dandy if he wants to approach debate in such a manner but he shouldn't be surprised when people call him out for such nonsense. The bottom line is he shows little respect when he goes around with this attitude. Respect is the title of his thread and he decided to throw the word "woman" in there which is beyond my understanding.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Re: "Respect for Women"

The choice to go to the gym is yours and yours alone.

Same with makeup with internal debate over appropriate outfit

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: "Respect for Women"

The OP stated

Well why shouldn't anyone be allowed to do the same? He goes a step further to say some deserve ridicule. Now that is all fine and dandy if he wants to approach debate in such a manner but he shouldn't be surprised when people call him out for such nonsense. The bottom line is he shows little respect when he goes around with this attitude. Respect is the title of his thread and he decided to throw the word "woman" in there which is beyond my understanding.

It shouldn't be beyond understanding when disrespect for women among the politically correct is as damning these days as racism or kicking puppies.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: "Respect for Women"

It shouldn't be beyond understanding when disrespect for women among the politically correct is as damning these days as racism or kicking puppies.

It is possible for people to have different perspectives based on gender, race, religion, experiences, etc...that is reality. To disrespect/ridicule someone based on someone else's feelings of superiority is the issue here. Gath made that pretty clear in several of his responses back to me.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Re: "Respect for Women"

The best females can outperform a lot of males. You just admitted there was overlap, and now you're claiming there's none.

Gender is not simply a valid reason to consider all women as inferior to men. It isn't. That's the logic of domination, and that's precisely what feminism seeks to undo.

It is fine to acknowledge that there are general differences between different groups. What is not fine is using those differences to evaluate individuals. That's prejudice.

The top tier of females can beat the very bottom tier of males, the overlap is not large.

so a female body builder can deadlift more then a male amputee, not really making your case. There is absolutely zero dispute, that your average male is leaps and bounds stronger then your average female.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: "Respect for Women"

It is possible for people to have different perspectives based on gender, race, religion, experiences, etc...that is reality. To disrespect/ridicule someone based on someone else's feelings of superiority is the issue here. Gath made that pretty clear in several of his responses back to me.

It is not ridicule to understand that a guy is usually going to have superior physical ability in numerous circumstances. It is not ridicule to understand that women are more likely to have empathy more than guys in numerous circumstances. And it is not ridicule to use good natured hyperbole or teasing in numerous circumstances.

The whole point of this thread, as I see it, is to expose the ridiculous emphasis that we women are far too fragile and vulnerable to be treated like everybody else. My argument is that if we women expect to be treated as equals in those areas that we are equal, we should not expect to be protected in areas that are simply words, etc. All unauthorized touching is not sexual assault. All comments about a woman's appearance or attributes are not sexual harrassment. And if we women want to use gender specific words to criticize or describe you guys, we should be able to accept gender specific words to criticize or describe us.

It is all a matter of perspective, and the willingness to resist silly and excessive politically correct weapons used to control or destroy people in our society.

 

[Henrin]

Re: "Respect for Women"

The top tier of females can beat the very bottom tier of males, the overlap is not large.

so a female body builder can deadlift more then a male amputee, not really making your case. There is absolutely zero dispute, that your average male is leaps and bounds stronger then your average female.

The thing is though does the Military really want the bottom tier of men? If the answer to that question is no then why exactly why would they want the top tier of females? I mean, it's one thing to accept them if that is the best you can get I suppose, but in general terms it doesn't make much sense.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Re: "Respect for Women"

The thing is though does the Military really want the bottom tier of men? If the answer to that question is no then why exactly why would they want the top tier of females? I mean, it's one thing to accept them if that is the best you can get I suppose, but in general terms it doesn't make much sense.

Many military jobs do not require physical strength in the same way as combat arms/special forces.

while men have a verifiable statistical strength advantage, that is almost non existent on judgement and intelligence. there are many roles where women are better than or equal to men, just not on physical strength,

 

[Henrin]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Many military jobs do not require physical strength in the same way as combat arms/special forces.

while men have a verifiable statistical strength advantage, that is almost non existent on judgement and intelligence. there are many roles where women are better than or equal to men, just not on physical strength,

True, but we are talking about a policy to put them women in the jobs that require physical strength. The days of the military putting women in jobs that make sense for them to do only is over thanks to Obama and his idiotic idea that studies by the military saying it was a dumb idea weren't worth paying any mind to.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: "Respect for Women"

The top tier of females can beat the very bottom tier of males, the overlap is not large.

so a female body builder can deadlift more then a male amputee, not really making your case. There is absolutely zero dispute, that your average male is leaps and bounds stronger then your average female.

Which is precisely why there are women divisions and men divisions in sports, etc. Yes the strongest, fastest woman can consistently beat the slowest, weakest guys. That is a given. But the best of the best men are almost always going to exceed the physical ability of the best of the best women when it comes to strength, speed, etc. That's why the rule makers are struggling with this new political correctness driven mandate that people should be able to choose their gender. Should a transgender male who decides he is actually a woman be allowed to compete in women's sports? That sort of thing.

 

[Henrin]

Re: "Respect for Women"

Which is precisely why there are women divisions and men divisions in sports, etc. Yes the strongest, fastest woman can consistently beat the slowest, weakest guys. That is a given. But the best of the best men are almost always going to exceed the physical ability of the best of the best women when it comes to strength, speed, etc. That's why the rule makers are struggling with this new political correctness driven mandate that people should be able to choose their gender. Should a transgender male who decides he is actually a woman be allowed to compete in women's sports? That sort of thing.

That whole policy is even more challenging because these individuals have to take hormones like testosterone, which is against the rules for anyone else to use. How do you declare the rules are fair when FTM's are allowed to take testosterone, while born men are not? Testosterone is a performance enhancer, so the idea that some of the competition can take it, while others can not is simply not fair. It even gets messier when you realize that taking testosterone bypasses the natural flow of hormones making workouts/training more effective.

That's not even counting the estrogen blockers they are on, which is of course also against the rules for the male competition to use. For the male competition taking the blockers can boost their testosterone by 200% percent in some cases, so it's against the rules.