Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Could white men do all the work?

Page 3 of 4 [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

30 Oct 2016, 8:07 am

BTDT wrote:
Another possibility is that some were hypocritical--there were offended by the post, but rather than admit that, wanted to argue that it was "too stupid" for an Aspie free speech forum.


What about the one REAL possibility?


The possibility that you are too inarticulate to make any point. And that now you're being a cry baby and are blaming everyone else because they honestly cant figure out WTF you're talking about?

Look:in your OP you were talking about one thing: that women and POC tend to have the low status jobs. And then you imply that if the folks with low status jobs walked off the job, or just disappeared, society would collapse. I am with you, and agree with you that far. But then you go off into a dozen a different directions, and just lost me, and apparently lost most everyone else. What does "having a civil war" have to do with anything? And if you were talking about these other tactics then you should have stated that in the op.

What is this "excercise" you are talking about? Take it from the top. Walk us through your "excercise" again. If you can.

But I know you cant do that, and that you will just whine and cry blame us some more! Lol!



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

30 Oct 2016, 8:11 am

Campin_Cat wrote:
I don't understand the question----why would ANYBODY have to stay at home? I mean, maybe I watch too many movies, but wars are always fought, off in fields, somewhere----people who worked in cities wouldn't have to stay at home----maybe those who worked in the fields would have to stay at home.

Also, I certainly would NOT go on vacation when my country / countrymen were in distress----I agree with CockneyRebel: I would rather be IN the war; and, if the war was at my home, I would most CERTAINLY wanna stand and fight / defend it!


There is more countryside than city in the world. So armies usually clash in the countryside. But there are plenty of examples of "house to house fighting" in cities: Ypres,Stalingrad, Berlin,Manila, Beirut, Hue, as well as in Damascus in the early parts of the current Syrian civil war.



BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,516

30 Oct 2016, 1:05 pm

I think white men are worried about the loss of jobs traditionally reserved for them--combat jobs, for instance.
You had to be a white man. Then they opened it up to non-whites. Then they opened it up to women. Who knows, will the USA have something like the French Foreign Legion, in which undesirables from other countries become citizens just because they were injured on the battlefield?

They are scared that women now expect to be able to participate in combat if they want to.



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

30 Oct 2016, 2:32 pm

I think this thread has become too much work for me, to continue in the discussion.

Thanks, naturalplastic----duly noted!!











_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

30 Oct 2016, 6:37 pm

BTDT wrote:
I think white men are worried about the loss of jobs traditionally reserved for them--combat jobs, for instance.


Which white men and based on what? What jobs in the military (let alone anywhere else) are "reserved" for white men? The problem with your narrative (the incoherence and bizarre hypothetical scenarios aside) is that it follows a typical "progressive" pattern of [manufacture conflict, assign victims and aggressors, side with victims] yet has an illogical inclusion in the 'victim' group.

In short: you're doing social justice wrong.

Quote:
You had to be a white man. Then they opened it up to non-whites. Then they opened it up to women. Who knows, will the USA have something like the French Foreign Legion, in which undesirables from other countries become citizens just because they were injured on the battlefield?


I'm not sure how you've arrived at your hypothesis. More information is needed here.

Quote:
They are scared that women now expect to be able to participate in combat if they want to.


Putting aside our traditional value of keeping women out of harms way, there are many logical reasons given by those who dislike the idea of women performing in combat roles. Some arguments are rendered null due to technology in very specific circumstances (e.g. fighter pilots) but the primary objection seems to revolve around physical and mental competence.

The fear, if anything, seems to be for the welfare of men and women in the armed services. I think that's a rational and legitimate concern.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,971
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

30 Oct 2016, 7:38 pm

adifferentname wrote:
BTDT wrote:
I think white men are worried about the loss of jobs traditionally reserved for them--combat jobs, for instance.


Which white men and based on what? What jobs in the military (let alone anywhere else) are "reserved" for white men? The problem with your narrative (the incoherence and bizarre hypothetical scenarios aside) is that it follows a typical "progressive" pattern of [manufacture conflict, assign victims and aggressors, side with victims] yet has an illogical inclusion in the 'victim' group.

In short: you're doing social justice wrong.

Quote:
You had to be a white man. Then they opened it up to non-whites. Then they opened it up to women. Who knows, will the USA have something like the French Foreign Legion, in which undesirables from other countries become citizens just because they were injured on the battlefield?


I'm not sure how you've arrived at your hypothesis. More information is needed here.

Quote:
They are scared that women now expect to be able to participate in combat if they want to.


Putting aside our traditional value of keeping women out of harms way, there are many logical reasons given by those who dislike the idea of women performing in combat roles. Some arguments are rendered null due to technology in very specific circumstances (e.g. fighter pilots) but the primary objection seems to revolve around physical and mental competence.

The fear, if anything, seems to be for the welfare of men and women in the armed services. I think that's a rational and legitimate concern.


I don't think you understand what the word progressive means...if you think that describes a progressive pattern. Also pretty sure it is false that females have lesser physical and mental competence across the board than males, that said I myself have no desire to be in the U.S military but still that's a rather sexist reason.


_________________
We won't go back.


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

31 Oct 2016, 6:15 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
I don't think you understand what the word progressive means...if you think that describes a progressive pattern.


I don't think you understand which version of the word I was using. If you want to argue semantics, it's best to establish definitions before making asinine assertions.

Quote:
Also pretty sure it is false that females have lesser physical and mental competence across the board than males


The relative physical capabilities of men and women aren't up for debate. Men have larger hearts, much greater lung capacity, massively greater upper body strength, higher red blood cell count, etc. Then there's the various studies that have shown that even an untrained male has a greater grip strength than most trained female athletes. Biology is what it is.

As for mental "competence", that's a mischaracterisation of the argument proffered by female front line objectors. One consideration is that men and women typically cope with stress differently, with men typically defaulting to problem solving solutions and women using emotion-focused coping. The argument is that the former is more useful/less detrimental under fire. Whether it's better in general is entirely up for debate, and may well be a factor in the higher suicide rate of men.

The existence of outliers aside, I don't think it would be appropriate to dismiss such arguments from opponents of women serving on the front lines.

Quote:
that said I myself have no desire to be in the U.S military but still that's a rather sexist reason.


And it'd be downright idiotic to dismiss them as sexist.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

31 Oct 2016, 6:36 am

adifferentname wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Also pretty sure it is false that females have lesser physical and mental competence across the board than males


As for mental "competence", that's a mischaracterisation of the argument proffered by female front line objectors. One consideration is that men and women typically cope with stress differently, with men typically defaulting to problem solving solutions and women using emotion-focused coping. The argument is that the former is more useful/less detrimental under fire. Whether it's better in general is entirely up for debate, and may well be a factor in the higher suicide rate of men.

I've heard that women have better endurance.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

31 Oct 2016, 7:12 am

androbot01 wrote:
I've heard that women have better endurance.


They might have slightly more efficient glycogen burning efficiency, but it isn't significant enough to impact on (e.g.) long distance running times until you factor in ultramarathons. If you added the weight of a soldier's equipment into the equation, it'd take an exceptional outlier to keep up with the men.

Of much more import to endurance is VO2max (or the lactate threshold) - which is identical between professional male and female marathon runners but nowhere near parity outside that niche. Your typical soldier's physiology is nothing like that of a marathon runner. The best case scenario for female physiology vs that of males is pretty much redundant when it comes to combat.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

31 Oct 2016, 7:20 am

adifferentname wrote:
If you added the weight of a soldier's equipment into the equation, it'd take an exceptional outlier to keep up with the men.

True, but this doesn't mean that women are useless in warfare. A man may be better at combat, but a woman might be better at strategy, for example. I think the military is making a mistake if they only want women to perform the same tasks as men. Better to use the strengths of each gender appropriately. Not being able "to keep up with the men" does not mean that one cannot be useful at all.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

31 Oct 2016, 8:29 am

androbot01 wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
If you added the weight of a soldier's equipment into the equation, it'd take an exceptional outlier to keep up with the men.

True, but this doesn't mean that women are useless in warfare. A man may be better at combat, but a woman might be better at strategy, for example. I think the military is making a mistake if they only want women to perform the same tasks as men. Better to use the strengths of each gender appropriately. Not being able "to keep up with the men" does not mean that one cannot be useful at all.


The objection is to front line service, not to women in the military.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

31 Oct 2016, 8:46 am

adifferentname wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
If you added the weight of a soldier's equipment into the equation, it'd take an exceptional outlier to keep up with the men.

True, but this doesn't mean that women are useless in warfare. A man may be better at combat, but a woman might be better at strategy, for example. I think the military is making a mistake if they only want women to perform the same tasks as men. Better to use the strengths of each gender appropriately. Not being able "to keep up with the men" does not mean that one cannot be useful at all.


The objection is to front line service, not to women in the military.

I'm still going to argue that women could be useful. For example, as snipers or communications officers. I get what you are saying about the burden it adds to the other officers when a member is physically weaker, but I'm just saying there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

31 Oct 2016, 8:49 am

androbot01 wrote:
I'm still going to argue that women could be useful. For example, as snipers or communications officers. I get what you are saying about the burden it adds to the other officers when a member is physically weaker, but I'm just saying there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


FWIW my personal stance is that anyone dumb enough to sign up for the military shouldn't be protected from engaging with live fire.

I'm just relaying the logic that exists behind the common objections. I still think what it comes down to, primarily, is that most people don't want to see women getting shot or blown up.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

31 Oct 2016, 8:56 am

adifferentname wrote:
.... still think what it comes down to, primarily, is that most people don't want to see women getting shot or blown up.

I don't like seeing anyone getting shot or blown up.

It is interesting how society has a protective attitude toward women.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

31 Oct 2016, 9:02 am

androbot01 wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
.... still think what it comes down to, primarily, is that most people don't want to see women getting shot or blown up.

I don't like seeing anyone getting shot or blown up.


Indeed.

Quote:
It is interesting how society has a protective attitude toward women.


We've traditionally protected women because human beings are a resource and women make human beings. There's obviously more to it, but it essentially boils down to "think of the children".



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

31 Oct 2016, 10:39 am

adifferentname wrote:
We've traditionally protected women because human beings are a resource and women make human beings. There's obviously more to it, but it essentially boils down to "think of the children".

Right. I think things changed a lot for women in the latter half of the 20th century. Women are no longer automatically child bearers. I think the feeling of protection that men have had to women has decreased as a result of this. From my own life, I have rarely found men to be protective of me, more often they seek to exploit me.