Feminism

How comes there aren't any women in special forces
like in the Navy seals or the SAS ?

Because the Navy Seals and the SAS arbitrarily discriminate against women--and until that stops, no one can say that the government or the military is not sexist.

 

Now that women can do any job available, they are financially secure themselves, they aren't dependant on men, they have huge anounts of disposable income, they make their own choices, avoid marriage and even commitment until at least their 30's and can avoid having children. It's all good.

Then when they hit their mid thirties, they complain about the lack of men that aren't taken or gay, they complain that they haven't had children, society doesn't support them in their quest for child care, men are afraid of commitment, their biological clock is ticking, single life is suddenly the pits, blah blah blah.

Will women ever be happy?

 

no.

Funny, I am happy with a can of beer, a couch, and comedy central.

 

In all fairness, we women need to stop pretending we are incapable of changing tires and spark plugs

In all honesty, it's not always because of conscious feigned helplessness...I don't know how to change a tire only because there's never been a reason for me to learn, because up until now, I've never had a driver's license. And there was never a real need for me to learn how to know more than the basics of fixing a computer, because I never had one of my own. But I've had a nice learning curve in the last six months on that last part.

And, I did use to help my father change the spark plugs when he worked on the Le Mans back in the day, so I've done some of what you mentioned...hey, it beat staying inside with Mummet watching soaps. *shrugs*

I wonder though--with the types of combat and self-defense available where you don't have to have big muscles to fight, where did the stereotype "the weaker sex" come from?

I think the most likely source for this stereotype lies in the general physical structure of a woman's body. Because let's be honest, this stupid construction CAN be weak. Like when you're trying to lift something heavy, and the lack of upper arm strength gets in the way. That either leaves you with not lifting the thing at all, finding something to move it (like a cart, but you still need to lift it on the cart, which makes that option useless in the end), or...hope someone with more upper arm strength will help you lift it. Ugh, ugh, and ugh on that last one, because that would mean having to pull money out of your pocket to comepensate them for their help. Or having to play the role of the bimbo-whore who gets all breathy and giddy that some nice strong guy helped poor widdle her (which means my mother's idea of there being some strange guy who would come along and help me was met with a lot of anger...and she's assuming that ANYONE, male, female, palm tree, would be around to help at all!!!!! Stupid, stupid...and this coming from a woman who raised me to trust no one...she's losing her consistency).

 

Now that women can do any job available

Except for certain combat jobs and playing in the NFL.

Will women ever be happy?

Not until we are really and truly created equally instead of continually being thrown a bone by the male ruling class.

 

Will women ever be happy?

I seriously doubt that the feminists will ever be happy. It's sort of like the NAACP. There hasn't been segregation for decades but they still complain about evil ol' "whitie". Neither group will ever be happy.

BTW, many women don't complain about the natural differences between men and women or feel dominated in life because of those difference. I think you shouldn't ever believe that the feminists speak for all women nor that the NAACP speaks for all Blacks.

 

BTW, many women don't complain about the natural differences between men and women or feel dominated in life because of those difference

Five or ten of us do...and I would like to think MORE women who identify as feminists would complain and/or feel dominated if they could understand the connection between those physical differences and the historical prejudice against women because of those differences. Because what else can account for the consistent, cross-cultural impetus to treat women like third class citizens? The human mind works on very simple terms in some ways, and one of those ways is physical differences. The fact that a woman is cursed (and yes, it is a curse, don't think otherwise) to have a body that is physically weaker than a male body, and also has the capacity to be rendered helpless during extended periods of childbearing, meant that from the earliest years of human existence, she was going to be automatically looked down upon as nothing more than a vessel for offspring. That view has never really changed, and it never will, because the primal human instinct to view something "smaller" as "weaker" is still very much alive and active, no matter how many social constructs and psychological acts of self-deception might occur.

It's strange, humans are supposed to be at the top of the evolutionary chain, but are far more primitive than many in the "animal" (even though humans can be classed as animals, too) world. It makes more sense from an evolutionary and biological standpoint to seperate the sexes after the act of procreation. What happened in the human brain to turn off this instinct, and start such constructs as pair-bonds and families? This could have worked if humans were more like wolves, and could function within the framework of a pack mentality...but the only similarity between humans and wolves is that some people are really, really hairy.

 

I posted this in another thread, and it really applies here...

Don't mistake me for some woman hating, arrogant, pig, but I do have my gripes about the feminist movement. I TOTALLY believe in equal rights for ALL people no matter what race, color, gender, etc. So don't get me wrong.

However, I ask you a question: why is it that the feminist movement has not address the obvious sexist issue that is the Draft in America. When a guy turns 18 in this country he is REQUIRED by law to register in the selective service. For women it is optional. Why is that?

 

And those women piss me off. I'm sick of women playing the victim and wanting people to feel sorry for them because a guy...*gasp*...wants to get laid and has a dumb way of showing it. If a guy wolf-whistles at you, the thing to do is assume he needs a life and then get on with your own, not sue him.

I agree. But I also think that it is wrong for people to use such frivolous lawsuits as a reason to dismiss the entire concept of sexual harassment.

I despise it when people make false claims of victimhood, but I also despise it when people use the false claims as an excuse to continue with discrimination.

I don't care whether a woman stays home or works a paid job. That's her business. And yes, some radical feminists pooh-pooh the idea of women staying home -- but no more than anti-feminists condemn mothers who work outside the home as selfish and neglectful, claiming that their kids are invariably damaged by lack of a full-time parent. My mother worked while I was growing up. I was a latchkey kid from third grade on. (Prior to that I stayed with a neighbor after school.) Not only that, she was single (that is, divorced). And far from the idea, tacitly if not actively promoted by the media, that kids of working mothers invariably turn out horribly, she managed to raise two kids who, if I may say so myself, turned out well. Certainly we've turned out better than some of the children of stay-at-home moms that I've met.

 

I knew you were going to say that Ankin_girl

 

To quote my friend's webcomic.

"What are manly and womanly, anyway? It's totally, totally subjective, you know. It can vary from culture to culture, family to family, person to person--whatever the heck. And... even ignoring that... how can anything be normal? All-- everything in this world is different from everything else. Nothing-- absolutely nothing-- is normal."
-Li.

 

DerthNader:

Vezner:

BTW, many women don't complain about the natural differences between men and women or feel dominated in life because of those difference.

A lot of blacks didn't complain about the "separate but equal" BS or slavery either.

Let's not forget that a lot of women have been indoctrinated to accept sexism and the dominance of the male in society as her "duty". Just because some of us refuse to accept that doesn't make us bad people.

I'm not saying you did this, I'm making a general point--have you ever noticed that when a woman stands up for herself and for equality, she is considered "belligerent", "aggressive", or even a ***** because she won't accept her "natural differences" with men?

DarthViper:

However, I ask you a question: why is it that the feminist movement has not address the obvious sexist issue that is the Draft in America. When a guy turns 18 in this country he is REQUIRED by law to register in the selective service. For women it is optional. Why is that?

I did address that in the "Women and the Draft" thread-
I think it's entirely unfair that men are subject to the draft and women aren't. Not only do I think it's unfair, I think the idea that we are "weaker" than men and need "protection" is insulting.

Shelley: As far as I'm concerned, true feminists support the idea of giving women a choice between going to work and staying home, support allowing her to make her own decision about what is best for her and her children.

Being enslaved to a job is just as bad as being enslaved to staying home.

DarthArsenal:

I knew you were going to say that Ankin_girl

So why did you bother asking?

DarthYama: Great quote.

 

just to see what your reply was
I just find it incredible that you had to blame it on genderism on the force.

I don't know about the Navy seals but the SAS had train some women in the past . They said that women were good at covert or stealth mission whatever you may call it but when it comes to physical training they loose out. However women do best and beaten men when it came to swimming.

SAS are looking into other ways of recruiing women and may change their training for women (whether you like that or not its my decision LOL - read it some artical)
not only are they better swimmers than men they also found out, at times women have better stratigical methods than men.

PLus i would like to add its this method that make up a better army and any army is a fool not recruiting women.

 

If they are starting to recruit more women, that's good--but refusing to hire women simply because they are women is nothing but blatant sexism.

 

at times women have better stratigical methods than men.

You mean they found out that women are schemers? No! I'd never have guessed that.

anakin_girl I find arguements against biological differences confusing. Women can't play NFL because they physically could not match men. Saying they are being discriminated against because they can't play NFL is like saying men are being discriminated against because they can't give birth. It's a matter of biology.

 

I think what A_G is getting at is that it's discrimination to ban women from playing NFL prima facie. Now, if they allowed women to compete for those spots and no woman could compete, then that's on them. But at least they got the opportunity to try.

As for myself, I have no problems with having seperate sports by gender. If anything, it gives women a chance to compete and fine-tune their abilities.

 

If women could compete for a position in the NFL, with no discrimination then the rest of sport must do the same. There would be no seperation of sexes in any other event. If this were true, women would never win a medal at the Olympics and they'd have almost no representation in other sports.

 

As for myself, I have no problems with having seperate sports by gender.

I don't either, as long as men's and women's sports are equally funded and equally represented. I have a real problem with the NBA and the WNBA because the NBA gets more coverage and has more money.

I won't argue with the fact that men are generally (not always) physically larger than women. But I will argue that being larger does not necessarily make them stronger, and them being larger should not be an excuse to discriminate against women.

 

But I will argue that being larger does not necessarily make them stronger, and them being larger should not be an excuse to discriminate against women

So what do you think of open races in every event at the Olympics? By open I mean men and women compete together with no distinction between them?

 

I don't really have an opinion on that. By "no discrimination," I meant that, for example, the WNBA should be as well funded and should get just as much media attention as the NBA. Ditto with high school and college sports. The men's sports always get about a hundred times the attention that women's sports do. And please don't say "they make more money". If the media paid more attention to women's sports, maybe the average citizen would.

 

I don't either, as long as men's and women's sports are equally funded and equally represented. I have a real problem with the NBA and the WNBA because the NBA gets more coverage and has more money.

Yeah, and that's a shame, because the WNBA is so much more entertaining. I'm not a big basketball fan anyway, but I'd much rather see the woman in teh NBA playing some real ball than putting on that show they call a "sport" in the NBA.

College women's ball is the most exciting basketball to be found, anywhere.

By "no discrimination," I meant that, for example, the WNBA should be as well funded and should get just as much media attention as the NBA. Ditto with high school and college sports. The men's sports always get about a hundred times the attention that women's sports do.

I agree with you philosophically in general. When it comes to high schools and colleges that receive any state or federal funding that every sport for which there are no separate men's and women's teams must allow both sexes to try out for the team, and that if there are separate teams for the two sexes, the institution should be legally required to make the same financial contribution to each gender's team. It's basic discrimination, otherwise, and no one ought ever to be able to discriminate or support discrimination using tax money.

-Paul

 

I think the Olympics should be played nude, just to preserve historic tradition. But that's just me.

 

I don't either, as long as men's and women's sports are equally funded and equally represented. I have a real problem with the NBA and the WNBA because the NBA gets more coverage and has more money.

The WNBA is financially supported by the NBA.

I think what A_G is getting at is that it's discrimination to ban women from playing NFL prima facie.

As far as I know, they aren't. To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule or statute that bars women from playing in the NFL.

 

If the media paid more attention to women's sports, maybe the average citizen would.

i think you have this backwards. teams in mens sports are offered contracts from the media by how well they do, and more so by how many fans they have. if more people paid more attention, and more people went to more games then he media would be all over it.

the WNBA should be as well funded and should get just as much media attention as the NBA.

once again, most teams make their own money from ticket sales, concessions, and assorted merchandise, if you don't have a larger fanbase then you can't make more money.

 

And how can women's sports get a larger fanbase if the media devotes most of their coverage to men's sports?

I don't think standards should be lowered, for football or other sports, and certainly not for firefighters or elite combat units (i.e., Navy SEALs). If a woman meets the physical requirements, then by all means, allow her in. But if she doesn't, don't lower the requirements to accommodate her, especially when you're talking about saving lives, such as in firefighting. If I was injured in a fire, I would prefer to have someone carry me out than drag me out.

Now that women can do any job available,

You're joking, right?

they are financially secure themselves,

Even if they still make less money than men for the same work, and even if they are passed over in favor of men for promotions.

they aren't dependant on men, they have huge anounts of disposable income,

Which women have huge amounts of disposable income? None of the women I know do.

they make their own choices, avoid marriage and even commitment until at least their 30's and can avoid having children.

While being treated as freaks and pressured nonstop to marry and have children.