Women in the military

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Oh right, so its ok since companies are profiting from discriminating against sections of society....

That makes sense.

I'm pissed off about this because my car insurance went up so far I couldn't afford to own a car anymore (and no, I didn't cause any accidents.)

While I get in a car with some women drivers that pay roughly a quarter of what I was paying and who have absolutely no control of their car at all. (note the some - I'm not saying all women are bad drivers - just that *a* bad female driver pays less than a *good* male driver - simply because they are female)

[FSPilot 0]

There's also empirical data on women being less physically capable than men.  I thought we were looking for equality though.  If they want to vote, work, and get treated as equals then they should.  They should not only be allowed to fight in the military, they should be forced do (drafting). I've never seen any marches on washington by women for their right to be drafted. Seems they forgot about that little chunk of equality.

[Harnu 0]

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX, I was being somewhat sarcastic in my post...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

The problem is over generalising. On average, women are less physically capable than men. That doesn't mean that a specific woman *cannot* be as capable as a man.

Which is why everyone should do the same physical tests. If they can do it, they can do it, no matter what sex they are.

That doesn't mean that mixed sex units are a good idea, though, for the reasons stated before.

[bn880 5]

The problem is over generalising. On average, women are less physically capable than men. That doesn't mean that a specific woman *cannot* be as capable as a man.

Which is why everyone should do the same physical tests. If they can do it, they can do it, no matter what sex they are.

That doesn't mean that mixed sex units are a good idea, though, for the reasons stated before.

Actually "if they can do it, they can do it" is not quite the case. They might do the training, but it does not mean they will be as capable 3 years from now compared to an average male who did the same training... seriously, it's not as simple as passign the training, and you can't get around human anatomy. Sill, chances are they'll do just fine if they passed the training etc.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

The problem is over generalising. On average, women are less physically capable than men. That doesn't mean that a specific woman *cannot* be as capable as a man.

Which is why everyone should do the same physical tests. If they can do it, they can do it, no matter what sex they are.

That doesn't mean that mixed sex units are a good idea, though, for the reasons stated before.

Actually "if they can do it, they can do it" is not quite the case. They might do the training, but it does not mean they will be as capable 3 years from now compared to an average male who did the same training... seriously, it's not as simple as passign the training, and you can't get around human anatomy. Sill, chances are they'll do just fine if they passed the training etc.

Thats why we have CFTs and the like every year in the military....

[FSPilot 0]

I'd also like to see females taking the same physical test males do. It's absurd, men are recquired to do 40-some pushups in 2 minutes while women are recquired to do 14.

14!!!!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I'd also like to see females taking the same physical test males do.  It's absurd, men are recquired to do 40-some pushups in 2 minutes while women are recquired to do 14.

14!!!!

I have news for you, FS- Air Force PFT requirements are low for a reason- they aren't really part of the military

[FSPilot 0]

BLASPHEMY!

[ralphwiggum 6]

if you are wondering how actualrial insurance rate is caluclated, you look at empirical data of a group. this is not sexism, but a fact reflected by total number of claims(and cost of it) from both groups. unfortunately women get into less costly claims than men.

If they want to vote, work, and get treated as equals then they should.

how about carrying a fetus for 9 months. for total equality, having to sit on toilet everytime. then men and womens are trully equal.

[FSPilot 0]

how about having to pay $4000 in car insurance every year for equality?  i could buy a new car with that money

and dont talk about sitting on the toilet, womens bathrooms are the ritz compared to men's bathrooms.  i had to go into a girls restroom once for work, that place was sweet.  carpets, framed pictures, flowers.  what gives?  in the mens room we had a stained cement floor (with a cute drain in the center) and a dirty mirror.

[ralphwiggum 6]

and why is that? cause we men tend to be less than *classy* in restroom.

[FSPilot 0]

To be honest I couldn't tell you how classy women are in the bathroom. But from the various... uh... documentaries I've seen they're less than couth.

[Consigliere 0]

How can you people be deluded by what the military is, especially you Conglisere, if you are going to fly Tornadoes around you have to accept that the result is death for someone who has agreed to kill you and accepts the risk of death like you should accept the risk of death when in the forces.

The forces are seen as just a footstep to better things but they are a big step as you are risking your life. A British soldier was killed in Iraq yesterday, did he think there was no risk and that the military is not about killing? Get real people.

I shan't be flying Tornados

I'll either be flying Hercs or Chinooks, or if I was to fly a combat aircraft, it'd be the Typhoon

But look, your attitude is that of an anti-military person, and as such, your reasoning and points is/are questionable to say the least, for anybody who is either currently serving, or who has, or who will. As I said before, servicemen do not generally sign up to go kill people/to get killed. They accept that this is part of being in the military, but they don't sign up because of this. The military isn't just about killing/getting killed. It is practically the opposite, as it basically teaches you how to live, how to fend for yourself. My father learnt tons from being in the military. From sewing, to driving an M60, to night vision techniques.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

if you are wondering how actualrial insurance rate is caluclated, you look at empirical data of a group. this is not sexism, but a fact reflected by total number of claims(and cost of it) from both groups. unfortunately women get into less costly claims than men.

And why is that not sexist?

Referring to my earlier example of how only hiring white people since they are on average more educated?

It is sexist. Not hiring women for a physical job is also sexist. That doesn't mean its not a good idea, it means people need to stop tip toeing around and just admit that its sexist.

[FSPilot 0]

Yes, it's sexist as baron is saying, but not unreasonable like ralph is saying.

unreasonable would be to put a "NO GIRLZ ALLOUD" sign up at the DMV.  This is reasonable because they're taking a look at the statistics and making a decision.  Even though I don't agree with it, it's what they're doing.

Likewise, the military should look at the facts about women and decide whether or not they're fit to enter combat.

Frankly I couldn't care less.  If they make it through training they're fine to enter combat like any male.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]As I said before, servicemen do not generally sign up to go kill people/to get killed. They accept that this is part of being in the military, but they don't sign up because of this.]

Hopefully soldiers sign up because of a desire to protect their homes, families and countrymen. By any means necessery. This usually involves killing in the case of a soldier. That is one of the main objectives of a soldier, to destroy the enemy. Another is of course to survive, in order to do even more destruction to the enemy.

Quote[/b] ]The military isn't just about killing/getting killed. It is practically the opposite, as it basically teaches you how to live, how to fend for yourself. My father learnt tons from being in the military. From sewing, to driving an M60, to night vision techniques.

Its about training the soldier to survive so he can destroy the enemy. Its not about survival for the sole reason of survival. Because if that was the case, soldiers wouldnt be armed at all since it makes them a target. And they wouldnt train to kill, since it makes them dangerous.

The point is that soldiers are used for many things, and trained for many tasks. But their purpose is to destroy any enemy that threatens their nation or population.

[ralphwiggum 6]

i guess there is a little confusion between acknowledging difference and discrimination.

in case of driver's info, there are other infos regarding actuarial rate. however, on average it is said that women are safer drivers.

a sexist would say, 'since they are women who are incapable of grand motor skills, they need to pay more'

then why is different rate NOT a sexist? think conversely. should there be no distinction between both genders, women drivers will be subject to higher fees than they would have paid. is that justifiable? women drivers would be paying for something male drivers are doing.

Quote[/b] ]Referring to my earlier example of how only hiring white people since they are on average more educated?  

It is sexist.  Not hiring women for a physical job is also sexist.  That doesn't mean its not a good idea, it means people need to stop tip toeing around and just admit that its sexist.

white people on average are more educated....lol....then i guess Asians should be the only ones taking jobs in scientific field, blacks in entertainment and sports.... (but then again, after seeing Mark Madsen dance during Laker's celebration a few years ago makes me wonder... )

education is also dependent upon parent's wealth and environment. unfortunately, here in US, a black kid grows up on less privieleged neighborhood, and has less access to better secondary education. and when they come out to society, do you think it is going to be a good comparison? if i operate on your legs during a marathon and not with your competitor's, would that be an equal act?

the difference is when you give same process, and yet the results are different depending on other factors. both genders take same driving lessons, same DMV tests. given that process, the arising difference in motor skills can be attributed to difference in biological/hormonal difference.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Mark Madsen dance...

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/danceparty/010619.html

Quote[/b] ]We heard Shaq rapping. We saw more than a half-million Angelenos swaying their arms in celebration on a glorious Southern California day. But all we really noticed was Lakers rookie forward Mark Madsen's dance routine.

Caught up in the euphoria of L.A.'s victory party Monday, Madsen let loose with the worst dancing seen on national television since Elaine Benes of "Seinfeld" cut a rug at a company party in an October 1996 episode entitled "The Little Kicks."

still makes me laugh.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

i guess there is a little confusion between acknowledging difference and discrimination.

in case of driver's info, there are other infos regarding actuarial rate. however, on average it is said that women are safer drivers.

a sexist would say, 'since they are women who are incapable of grand motor skills, they need to pay more'

then why is different rate NOT a sexist? think conversely. should there be no distinction between both genders, women drivers will be subject to higher fees than they would have paid. is that justifiable? women drivers would be paying for something male drivers are doing.

As opposed to male good drivers paying for both male bad drivers and female bad drivers?

In either event, its discrimination based on over generalising. Which is what sexism is about, racism is about... etc. Which is bad.

Quote[/b] ]

white people on average are more educated....lol....then i guess Asians should be the only ones taking jobs in scientific field, blacks in entertainment and sports....

education is also dependent upon parent's wealth and environment. unfortunately, here in US, a black kid grows up on less privieleged neighborhood, and has less access to better secondary education. and when they come out to society, do you think it is going to be a good comparison?

I KNOW all that, thats WHY I posted the comparison.

Its discrimination based on generalising. Its a bad thing. Hiring only white (or asian) people because they have more education is also a bad thing. Is this sinking in at all? Do you understand this point?

Quote[/b] ]

the difference is when you give same process, and yet the results are different depending on other factors. both genders take same driving lessons, same DMV tests. given that process, the arising difference in motor skills can be attributed to difference in biological/hormonal difference.

Nonsense.

Same driving tests? With the same instructors being completely unbiased? Ha! Apart from that, there is the fact (that I mentioned before but you seem to have ignored) that men drive more than women, hence are more likely to have an accident (even one that is not their fault) - and other similar factors. It is by no means only a biological difference, and even if it was, its STILL sexist.

Try not hiring someone because of 'biological/hormonal problems with doing this job.' Try it. What will happen? You'll be sued for sexist hiring procedures.

You could also try it with not hiring someone of a different 'race' (for all that that concept is a myth.)

Discriminating against people, even when all other factors are the same (say adopted brothers, one black one white, same school, university, results, etc) - is illegal. You couldn't say 'I'm not hiring the black guy because he's biologically unsuited to this job' or 'because blacks are more prone to violence' or some other racist nonsense.

You cannot do it, yet this blatant discrimination is fine?

[ralphwiggum 6]

then how about you going through 9 months of pregnancy as prescribed above? it surely isn't something i want to go through.(my beer bellies are good enough )

Quote[/b] ]As opposed to male good drivers paying for both male bad drivers and female bad drivers?

In either event, its discrimination based on over generalising. Which is what sexism is about, racism is about... etc. Which is bad.

since you want to be specific, if you look closely at insurance, sex is not the only detemination factor. there are milage, age, experience, and area of driving, status of driver(fulltime, part time). given all that circumstances, or better yet given same level of parameters for all the circumstances that are measurable, there still exists difference. so i guess it is only fitting that one should pay more to accomodate the others? given same parameters as above, women tend to be lesser of costly policy holder.

Quote[/b] ]Nonsense.

Same driving tests? With the same instructors being completely unbiased? Ha! Apart from that, there is the fact (that I mentioned before but you seem to have ignored) that men drive more than women, hence are more likely to have an accident (even one that is not their fault) - and other similar factors. It is by no means only a biological difference, and even if it was, its STILL sexist.

the instructor is randomly chosen, and DMV has no plan to assign specific exam proctor to certain group of people. i passed with flying colors when i first toook my test, and did not get into any serious accidents since then. did the proctor think i'm a nut behind the wheel? nah. she was very strict, but was also nice to point out a couple of things that i should do to be a safer driver.

and as you said, "men drive more than women, hence are more likely to have an accident" implies that for insuarnce companies, even those with sex-blind policy, would charge more money for men since they are more likely to get into accident.

i really don't get that biological consideration should not be given. in that case, inevitable monthly depression/anger cycle of women caused by her biological function should be ignored and treated as some useless thing? Scientist have concluded that there are some differences between male and female, when it comes to experiment and treatment. are yuo saing that we should ignore all those?

Quote[/b] ]I KNOW all that, thats WHY I posted the comparison.

Its discrimination based on generalising. Its a bad thing. Hiring only white (or asian) people because they have more education is also a bad thing. Is this sinking in at all? Do you understand this point?

your comparison only shows that given same procedure, the difference is not attributed to bias, but rather on external factor, such as difference between male and female.

Quote[/b] ]Hiring only white (or asian) people because they have more education is also a bad thing.

this is the generalization that is problematic. do you want to run a nuclear power plant run by some highschool drop out(Homer Simpson) or someone with background knowledge(Lenny and Carlton)? your generalization was based on ethnicity, not on education. my sentence just before was based on education.

Quote[/b] ]Try not hiring someone because of 'biological/hormonal problems with doing this job.' Try it. What will happen? You'll be sued for sexist hiring procedures.

You could also try it with not hiring someone of a different 'race' (for all that that concept is a myth.)

there is worker' law that prevents something like this happening. Exception can be US military where females are restricted from combat units, which is irrelevant in today's warfare since case of Lynch showed that they will be put in same situation as their male colleauges did.

Quote[/b] ]Discriminating against people, even when all other factors are the same (say adopted brothers, one black one white, same school, university, results, etc) - is illegal. You couldn't say 'I'm not hiring the black guy because he's biologically unsuited to this job' or 'because blacks are more prone to violence' or some other racist nonsense.

here's the problem. the factor that you hold as an example(ethnicity) has nothing to do with ability. i've seen black scholars, white homeless people. it doesn't make sense to be a factor to begin with.

when all other factors are same, yes. but i highly doubt if male == female.

[theavonlady 2]

Just an appropriate but sad piece of relevant reality:

Capt. Kimberley Hampton sits in a OH-58 Kiowa helicopter in

2001 in South Korea (news - web sites). Hampton, 27, died

Friday, Jan. 2, 2004, after her OH-58 Kiowa helicopter went

down in enemy fire near Fallujah, Iraq, family spokesman Ken

Porter said Saturday. The other pilot on the helicopter was

injured in the crash. Hampton was stationed in Iraq with the

82nd Airborne Division. She was based in Fort Bragg, N.C.,

and left for Iraq on Aug. 31.

[Jinef 2]

Quote[/b] ]I shan't be flying Tornados

I'll either be flying Hercs or Chinooks, or if I was to fly a combat aircraft, it'd be the Typhoon

So your applicable for fast-jet, multi-engine or rotary? Talented guy

Quote[/b] ]

But look, your attitude is that of an anti-military person, and as such, your reasoning and points is/are questionable to say the least, for anybody who is either currently serving, or who has, or who will.

No my attitude is my attitude, i am involved in search and rescue so obviously i'm more interested in saving life, not destroying it. I have several friends who fly the combat aircraft and they have a similar attitude, though different methods. People who are actually involved in the military at a professional level do not think the military is basically a place where you go to get your hands on some cool vehicles and play with fire and shoot guns and blow stuff up and bang bang people and then and then do it all again

Quote[/b] ]My father learnt tons from being in the military. From sewing, to driving an M60, to night vision techniques.

Ok, as Longinius said this is more of a means to kill people than general life experience - how many times do you take an SA80 and NVGs in full camo down to Asda to get some apples?

Let's get away from the boys and their toys idea that this forum is cultivating, people chatting about the ballistics of bullets and what they do when they enter the flesh - it is sickening sometimes. We people in the military realise that it's for real and thus don't seem to find the same attraction in it, it would be nice if some people here realise what the world is about.

I find it strange that we can't post pictures of dead bodies, or attrocities of war, yet we all deem it fine to get some nice shiny gun pictures and all look at them ooohing and ahhhing, they are the same thing in my opinion.

The lack of basic grey matter in this forum is getting to me.

Avonlady

About the helicopter pilot, looks like a nice person, however she hasn't got the typical combat helicopter pilot look of skepticism and dreaded anticipation about her, she looks like she feels safe.....

That is all i will say...

[bn880 5]

I find it strange that we can't post pictures of dead bodies, or attrocities of war, yet we all deem it fine to get some nice shiny gun pictures and all look at them ooohing and ahhhing, they are the same thing in my opinion.

Actually I am in agreement with you, and Bals actually got this idea: we should open up an 18+ section somewhere, where we can finally post the links and images that are sometimes very gruesome. If it could be done, we could sign up for Adult Member status which would get us access to those threads.

Maybe we should open a new thread for this?

[EiZei 0]

I find it strange that we can't post pictures of dead bodies, or attrocities of war, yet we all deem it fine to get some nice shiny gun pictures and all look at them ooohing and ahhhing, they are the same thing in my opinion.

Actually I am in agreement with you, and Bals actually got this idea: we should open up an 18+ section somewhere, where we can finally post the links and images that are sometimes very gruesome. If it could be done, we could sign up for Adult Member status which would get us access to those threads.

Maybe we should open a new thread for this?

I dont think people would except to find gory pictures when they see "Adult section"