• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Broken Skull Challenge.

Well, but if you are talking strength and physical ability, then....black men should get those jobs, right? Because they are superior physically to white males. Right? They are physically superior in every way I can think of: strength, agility, speed.

So our military should consist of only black men, and the firefighters should be only black men. As should other jobs that are declared as requiring maximum brute strength.

Should we also stop allowing white men in sports, since black men are the ones who excel at most sports?

I mean, if you need someone who can run up or walk up to a basket and just basically put the ball thru the basket, after pushing others out of the way, there's no need to allow white guys on the court, when we have the superior tall, strong, and very fast black men (and that one Asian guy).

39552515.jpg


A) You realize that's wildly racist, right?

B) Would you care to objectively demonstrate that any of that is actually true?
 
I googled the last claim, but the results said that men were more creative. Do you have a link that says women are more creative? I'm just curious.

You are really showing your disdain for women by asking one to substantiate her claim. :lol:

No need for evidence here, emotional claims will suffice.
 
...
I didn't deny a difference exists. I denied your sexist assertion that the male body standard is the superior one for judging ability, for no reason other than that it is the stronger one. That is nonsense.
...'K?



Actually, when comparing male and female athletes at the same level of training/conditioning, most of the men routinely outperform most of the women in not only strength, but also speed, endurance, and agility.

Can dig up the stats if need be, but it's fact.

Just sayin', it is more than just raw strength.
 
Well, but if you are talking strength and physical ability, then....black men should get those jobs, right? Because they are superior physically to white males. Right? They are physically superior in every way I can think of: strength, agility, speed.

So our military should consist of only black men, and the firefighters should be only black men. As should other jobs that are declared as requiring maximum brute strength.

Should we also stop allowing white men in sports, since black men are the ones who excel at most sports?

I mean, if you need someone who can run up or walk up to a basket and just basically put the ball thru the basket, after pushing others out of the way, there's no need to allow white guys on the court, when we have the superior tall, strong, and very fast black men (and that one Asian guy).



It's a question of who is able to meet the required standard, and not lowering the standard for the sake of PCness to the detriment of performance.
 
39552515.jpg


A) You realize that's wildly racist, right?

B) Would you care to objectively demonstrate that any of that is actually true?

Did you ask for "objective demonstrations" for the statement that men are physically stronger than women?

(This should get you thinking as to how the male mind works. If it's about US, the men, it is good and right and true. It is self-evident that women are inferior in all ways that count, to me, the male. And what I think counts is, by definition, what counts. If it involves a claim against US, the men, then objective evidence is required, and I will argue over that evidence.)

Why would you charge the statement as racist, but not sexist when a similar statement is made about women?
 
You are really showing your disdain for women by asking one to substantiate her claim. :lol:

No need for evidence here, emotional claims will suffice.

Yeah, I know. The ****ty part is that I have to be really careful when asking women for evidence of their claims and I still end up being called sexist most of the time. :/

I can't find one source that supports her claim and plenty that support the opposite, so unless she has something it's looking like her claim is crap.
 
What's wrong with crying? I propose that, like other men since the beginning of time, if it's something that MEN don't do or don't do well, it's denigrated or given lower status. Anything that men do is, by definition, BETTER than what women do. Or so they have thought.

There's nothing wrong with showing emotion. Men are browbeat and teased into not doing that. But that's your issue. Having said that, I've seen men cry:

My ex
Several officers and investigators on those true crime shows (when confronted with certain crimes, particularly with children or people that reminded them of their loved ones)
Pic of doctor outside after losing a patient on the operating table
My big, burly brute of a brother (over 6' tall, gun lubber, Harley & pickup truck owner)

My question to you is, why DON'T you cry? There's something wrong with that. Maybe that's why women are better off mental health wise.

And remember: Just because women do it does not mean it's not a good thing to do.

I dont cry at work because I dont feel the need to, and its unprofessional. Its not that I wouldn't cry, its that the need has never arisen in 15 years as a Paramedic, and Ive seen some very bad things.

You have made the erroneous claim yet again that women have less mental health issues. After you read these over, I expect you to admit your assertions were incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorders_and_gender
WHO | Gender and women's mental health
It’s Not Just Sexism, Women Do Suffer More From Mental Illness | TIME.com
Women 40% more likely than men to develop mental illness, study finds | Society | The Guardian
Serious Mental Health Issues More Common In Women Than Men, Regardless Of Age
 
Ah so its a conspiracy! Fire engines and fishing boats would be filled with women if those pesky (and white) men hadn't cheated!

I posted a link. It explains a lot...like how those fat, out of shape firemen got those jobs in the town I'm from. No way those guys (who had been drug users back in the day) could have ever passed either a physical or mental exam, unless they were really easy tests or they cheated.

Yes, the link showed that's what an investigation into the L.A. FD found. They weren't even looking for it. They happened across it, while doing something else. It's apparently a tradition that goes back aways....so firemen's relatives could get hired. There is an unusually high percentage of sons of firemen in the FD.

But you know this. This is how it's been done for many years.

The physical tests for the NY FD were started when? When the FD started being pushed to hire women, just a couple of years ago. Before then, for at least 15 years, applicants were not required to pass a physical test.

You getting the picture? A very different picture from the headline "FD Lowers Standards to Hire Female Applicant!" (never mind that none of the male firemen employees had EVER been required to pass a physical test.)
 
Did you ask for "objective demonstrations" for the statement that men are physically stronger than women?

(This should get you thinking as to how the male mind works. If it's about US, the men, it is good and right and true. It is self-evident that women are inferior in all ways that count, to me, the male. And what I think counts is, by definition, what counts. If it involves a claim against US, the men, then objective evidence is required, and I will argue over that evidence.)

You're joking, right? It is self-evidently true that men are - almost on a universal basis - stronger, faster, larger, and more aggressive than women. The statistics back up that reality, as well as a number of other disparities between the sexes.

Studies show that the male and female brains, on average, process information differently, for example. Men tend to favor analytical thought, where women tend to favor emotion. Studies have also shown that, in basically every circumstance other than childbirth (where women are essentially swimming in naturally occurring painkilling hormones) women tend to feel pain more strongly than men as well.

I'm sorry, but in terms of basic fact, men are simply better than women where it comes to most physically oriented tasks. They are substantially better at that. This isn't to say that women do not have their own strengths. They simply happen to lie in different areas.

No such obvious disparity exists between black and white men, either in my personal experience, or in scientific literature, so your comparison here is completely bunk.
 
Last edited:
Well, but if you are talking strength and physical ability, then....black men should get those jobs, right? Because they are superior physically to white males. Right? They are physically superior in every way I can think of: strength, agility, speed.

So our military should consist of only black men, and the firefighters should be only black men. As should other jobs that are declared as requiring maximum brute strength.

Should we also stop allowing white men in sports, since black men are the ones who excel at most sports?

I mean, if you need someone who can run up or walk up to a basket and just basically put the ball thru the basket, after pushing others out of the way, there's no need to allow white guys on the court, when we have the superior tall, strong, and very fast black men (and that one Asian guy).

Somehow in just a few short posts you have covered the spectrum from anti-male comments, to personal attacks, to racist comments.

Its totally helping you make your case.
 
Yes, the tests (including the mental tests) were allowed to be cheated on so that WHITE MEN could get the jobs.

I saw no where in your links below that indicate that the tests that were compromised were a result of making it to where "WHITE MEN" could get the jobs. From the way your article was it sounded more like the tests were compromised in order to get family members onto the force. In fact the article expressly stated that they didn't know the demographics of who was being affected.

Here you go:

After the hearing, Nigro said passing the skills tests had only been required of the two most recent classes — and not for any of the 15 years before.

Re: the tests being dropped, yes I saw that previously. It says that the tests that were being used had not been in effect for 15 years. Two questions about that, what about the years before those 15? And were NO tests required in those 15 years? I would find that kind of hard to believe. It does not give a complete picture of what exactly was going on. The way that it is stated it suggests that no physical tests were required at all during those 15 years but frankly I don't see how that is possible at all. A fire department hiring people without proving that they can even get through the door without huffing and puffing? Much less pull the hose, lift ladders and carry 200lbs of person? Does that sound right to you?

And if it was just those tests that were not in use for 15 years but were previously, I'd have to ask why they were originally changed to, apparently something easier? After all, if they're complaining about the current tests as being too hard for women then I would have to assume that during those 15 years that the tests were easier than before those 15 years. As I said, it makes no sense for a fire department to have NO physical requirements so obviously it wasn't that they had no tests, its just that the tests that were used during those 15 years were different. So, why were they different during those 15 years?
 
Last edited:
Actually, when comparing male and female athletes at the same level of training/conditioning, most of the men routinely outperform most of the women in not only strength, but also speed, endurance, and agility.

Can dig up the stats if need be, but it's fact.

Just sayin', it is more than just raw strength.

Just look at the times for the fastest female Olympian runners, they are routinely beaten by male high school track runners.

Theres a reason women have their own competitions in athletic events, and thats because generally they would be badly beaten by men.
 
I posted a link. It explains a lot...like how those fat, out of shape firemen got those jobs in the town I'm from. No way those guys (who had been drug users back in the day) could have ever passed either a physical or mental exam, unless they were really easy tests or they cheated.

Yes, the link showed that's what an investigation into the L.A. FD found. They weren't even looking for it. They happened across it, while doing something else. It's apparently a tradition that goes back aways....so firemen's relatives could get hired. There is an unusually high percentage of sons of firemen in the FD.

But you know this. This is how it's been done for many years.

The physical tests for the NY FD were started when? When the FD started being pushed to hire women, just a couple of years ago. Before then, for at least 15 years, applicants were not required to pass a physical test.

You getting the picture? A very different picture from the headline "FD Lowers Standards to Hire Female Applicant!" (never mind that none of the male firemen employees had EVER been required to pass a physical test.)

Im very familiar with the LA scandal. But those hired still had to attend a fire academy, many had to become paramedics, and they still had to pass the physical tests. Even after that its a very competitive profession, which is where the family issue came into play which was still wrong.
 
Actually, when comparing male and female athletes at the same level of training/conditioning, most of the men routinely outperform most of the women in not only strength, but also speed, endurance, and agility.

Can dig up the stats if need be, but it's fact.

Just sayin', it is more than just raw strength.

There's dozens of metrics of fitness and performance, and it's no coincidence that our society cherry-picks which ones are supposedly useful. It's convenient that you ignore everything I talked about my in post about female fitness.

We have a society that writes off all female skills are being useless and not relevant to performance, simply because women aren't allowed to perform well on their own terms. For some reason they have to perform well on male terms or not at all.

Also, I find it kind of ridiculous to claim women don't have good endurance. Women use drastically fewer resources than men doing the exact same work, and spent thousands of years running around basically the entire day. Women are also varifiably better hunters in many circumstances -- most of which involve endurance.

Agility also varies by range; women perform very differently based on that.
 
Last edited:
There's dozens of metrics of fitness and performance, and it's no coincidence that our society cherry-picks which ones are supposedly useful. It's convenient that you ignore everything I talked about my in post about female fitness.

I was addressing the assertion that it was only about strength; which is not the case. If there is some specific metric you wish you discuss, by all means lets' discuss it.


We have a society that writes off all female skills are being useless and not relevant to performance, simply because women aren't allowed to perform well on their own terms. For some reason they have to perform well on male terms or not at all.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.

One can lift so much, run so fast, jump so far, carry a certain load, surmount an obstacle of such height, and so on. What terms are you proposing as a different standard? And in terms of firefighters and soldiers who have specific tasks which require certain standards, how do you get around that? For instance, combat infantry often carries a load out nearly equal to their own body weight across varied terrain over considerable distances afoot. While technology may one day reduce that load through various means, for the time being it is simply an unavoidable factor. How you get around that I don't know.




Also, I find it kind of ridiculous to claim women don't have good endurance. Women use drastically fewer resources than men doing the exact same work, and spent thousands of years running around basically the entire day. Women are also varifiably better hunters in many circumstances -- most of which involve endurance.

Every athletic event involving endurance that I've examined has men (of the same level of conditioning) outperforming woman who have trained to the same level. Not by as much as in raw strength, but by a significant margin. It is what it is.


Agility also varies by range; women perform very differently based on that.

Not sure what you mean exactly.
 
There's dozens of metrics of fitness and performance, and it's no coincidence that our society cherry-picks which ones are supposedly useful. It's convenient that you ignore everything I talked about my in post about female fitness.

We have a society that writes off all female skills are being useless and not relevant to performance, simply because women aren't allowed to perform well on their own terms. For some reason they have to perform well on male terms or not at all.

Also, I find it kind of ridiculous to claim women don't have good endurance. Women use drastically fewer resources than men doing the exact same work, and spent thousands of years running around basically the entire day. Women are also varifiably better hunters in many circumstances -- most of which involve endurance.

Agility also varies by range; women perform very differently based on that.

You are simply repeating a failed lefty speech. Reality does not care.
 
You are simply repeating a failed lefty speech. Reality does not care.

It is factually true women use fewer resources doing the same work, often spend all day running around, and depending on method, are sometimes preferable and more effective hunters. :shrug:

But apparently none of those things count because women perform well at them?
 
It is factually true women use fewer resources doing the same work, often spend all day running around, and depending on method, are sometimes preferable and more effective hunters. :shrug:

But apparently none of those things count because women perform well at them?

You are desperate to obfuscate and address anything but the central premise of this thread, that women simply do not possess the required strength to perform some jobs.

Men and women are different, and are intended to complement each other.
 
It is factually true women use fewer resources doing the same work, often spend all day running around, and depending on method, are sometimes preferable and more effective hunters. :shrug:

But apparently none of those things count because women perform well at them?


Can you cite some more specific examples? I am particularly curious as to what method of hunting there is, at which women are consistently more capable than men using the same method.
 
There's dozens of metrics of fitness and performance, and it's no coincidence that our society cherry-picks which ones are supposedly useful. It's convenient that you ignore everything I talked about my in post about female fitness.

We have a society that writes off all female skills are being useless and not relevant to performance, simply because women aren't allowed to perform well on their own terms. For some reason they have to perform well on male terms or not at all.

Also, I find it kind of ridiculous to claim women don't have good endurance. Women use drastically fewer resources than men doing the exact same work, and spent thousands of years running around basically the entire day. Women are also varifiably better hunters in many circumstances -- most of which involve endurance.

Agility also varies by range; women perform very differently based on that.

Smoke, even if you're looking at Marathons, the fastest male runners tend to beat the fastest female runners by a good twenty minutes or more every time.

The simple fact of the matter is that men can, on average, go substantially farther and faster on foot, carry more weight on the way there, fight, train, or otherwise perform more effectively once they arrive, and do it all with substantially lower risk of causing a debilitating injury to themselves in the process. They also tend to recover more quickly afterwards.

What "other standard" would you suggest we use, exactly?
 
Last edited:
What fire department was lowering necessary physical strength tests? Please name it.

(NY FD doesn't count; it didn't require physical strength tests for 15 years and started them up on after they were pressured to hire women. So those tests aren't necessary, to begin with.)

Beats hell out of me. I'd call up my redheaded friend and ask her, but I don't see much of her these days. I think it's common knowledge, though, that a great many municipal fire and police departments all over the country have diluted their physical requirements so they can hire more women. Such common knowledge, in fact, that it's interesting anyone would seriously question it. There was a widely publicized case a few years ago, for example, where a prisoner being guarded by a very petite female officer wrested her gun away from her and used it to escape. It was widely discussed at the time that the prisoner very likely could not have succeeded in getting the gun away from a large man.
 
I'd like to point out that my participation here, and my assertions about men's tendency to outperform women physically by most metrics, is not in any way intended to denigrate or disparage women or their contributions to our society. On the contrary, I hold women in very high regard, in many ways. I would find a society where women did not noticeably participate to be a very bland and disheartening thing.

Women have many strengths. Women typically have a higher EQ and are better at creating and maintaining personal relationships and ties in society. They are often better at noticing small details that frequently escape men's attention. I suspect they have better memory recall as well. Women often view problems that arise from a different angle than most men and that perspective can be extremely useful in many cases; there are many matters upon which I wish to consult with a trusted female before making a decision. Women are commonly better at fine manipulation tasks than men. They tend to have more patience especially in dealing with issues that involve many complicated details.

However, when it comes to major physical tasks, I think it is just plain fact, well established by existing stats, that men tend to have a substantial advantage in any venue where strength, speed, agility or endurance are primary required attributes. It just is what it is.


Now there are exceptions. Interestingly enough I have two close female relatives who are outside the norm; I will refer to them as M. and D.

M. is a big woman, 5'9 and over 200 lbs. She is astonishingly strong, and I think easily comparable to the average man in upper body strength, if not superior. When she was younger she used to lift me off my feet in a bear hug, even though I weighed in at about 215 lbs myself, and when she hugged me hard I felt my ribs creak. ;) While her agility is limited and her endurance moderate, she has more of both than someone might expect to look at her. Still, when she was in her 20s and I was in my 30s, she challenged me to various tests of strength and found that, while not far apart in rough size, I was still quite a bit stronger. Even so, I have personal knowledge of her whuppin' the snot out of an average-sized man who wouldn't take "leave me the hell alone" for an answer. :D

D. has always been a remarkable athlete. She's about 5'7 and a trim 140 in her late 30s, hard-muscled. She lettered in three sports and went to college on a scholarship. I've personally seen her perform some rather remarkable feats of athletic prowess that left me quite impressed. Even so, she did not compete with males in sports, and is still at a deficit in upper body strength and endurance compared to similarly conditioned males of the same age. She has a deep understanding of her own body mechanics, however, and is well versed in how to use what she has to greatest effect. Frankly if she'd chosen to be a firefighter I think she would probably have passed all physical tests required without need for a handicap.... but my caveat here is that she is exceptional, I've rarely met any women so athletically gifted, and her father supported and coached her in athletic skills from infancy. She has a daughter who just graduated HS who equaled her athletic exploits; she's also tall and sturdy (5-9 and about 145 or so), partakes of the same genes (D married an athlete as well) and had the same degree of training-from-infancy.


There are some women who can roughly match men in some area of physicality, but they are not average women; those who can roughly match men in general physicality do exist but are rather rare.


The "division of labor" that tends to exist in most societies, from the primitive to the present, where men usually do most of the most physically demanding jobs, is not merely a social construct, but a result of biological facts. :shrug:


Even among men, those who can qualify for and make the standard for some of the more grueling jobs (ie front line combat units, elite spec forces, top rank boxers, etc) are typically exceptional in physicality, and the average man often cannot meet the requirements no matter how hard he trains.
 
Back
Top Bottom